Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process

Yes, he was so puffed up with "pride" that ... er ... he admitted to himself that for years he'd been wrong and deluded and inadvertently misleading others.Though it does sound awfully like humility. Wait, that is humility. But thanks for the view from Opposite World.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Perhaps you should read the post to which you are ostensibly replying until you are capable of understanding it.Then you could try to think of a rebuttal. Good luck with that.

Not purposing to hijack the thread but: I'm not sure if you were joking but. . .Here's my list:- Intricately involved in youth group in highschool
- Began leading worship at 16, continued through college. Volunteered about 20hrs a week after college to several churches (leading worship for youth groups, college services and main adult services). I've lead worship regularly for Baptist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God and Non-denominational churches. Average church attendance for the week in each of these churches was 3000+.
- Served on 4 mission trips to the Dominican Republic
- Served on 2 mission trips to the BahamasNo, i didn't ever speak in tongues. I personally don't think its that important. There is no record of Jesus doing it so I don't think its a big deal.Yet, I'm a scientist, a modest one, not an expert in any field. But believing that the God I know would not decieve, I've moved slowly over the past 12 years from YEC to OEC to ID to Evolutionist.At times its been hard; fearing rejection from family and friends. But the God that I know and the Jesus that I want to be like would not decieve. So I believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, their interaction with my spirit and this thing called Evolution that built my body.

Hi Kaichos Man, still struggling with reality I see Let's run through an analysis of how all the issues that have been raised actually affect the work done by Parker and Arnold.ecophenotypic - one species has a variety of morphological shapes depending on the ecology they are in.morphospecies - one morphological grouping can have several cryptospecies of daughter species that cannot be distinguished based on morphology.ecoclines - differing ecologies similar to thermoclines in water, can be based on temperature, salinity and pressure in various combinations.clinial morphological change - change within a species as subpopulations evolve and adapt to ecoclines and diverge from the parent population.What Parker and Arnold did was to sort through the fossil record and track various morphological types through time:http://web.archive.org/...57/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html

quote:

---

We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time.

---

Geology Dept article 3

quote:

---

Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."

---

In other words, based on morpology alone the fossils show a nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors, with speciation branches showing parent populations giving rise to daughter populations. We can represent one such speciation event roughly as follows:

a                  |
b                 /
c                |
d                 \
e                  \
f                   |
g                   |
h                  / \
i                 |   |
j                 |   |
k                /     \
l                |      \
m                 \      |
n                  |     |
o                 /      |
p                /        \
q               /          \

Thus we see morphological change from generation to generation, and an overall pattern of descent with modification, and an apparent speciation event at generation "h" -- according to the analysis done by Parker and Arnold.When we look at the concept of morphospecies groups with several cryptic species, what this means for the pattern above is that the speciation event took place earlier, say at generation "f" ...... and when we look at the concept of ecophenotypic variation or ecocline variants, what this means for the pattern above is that the speciation event took place later, say at generation "j" ...... however by the time we get to generation "q" the total change is outside the boundaries of ecophenotypic variation or of ecocline variants, so the classification of lineage is correct at this point.Because the lineages are unbroken in showing morphological change over generations, the issue of when the speciation event actually takes place is of very little impact on the actual hereditary lineages: one could draw a circle around the above lineage to encompass "f" through "j" and label that the speciation event.Thus it can be wrong 15% if the time on when the speciation event/s take place, however the lineage of hereditary descent is unaffected and the overall pattern of multiple speciation events and unbroken hereditary descent is still intact.Enjoy.

---

At least I don't intentionally bear false witness in violation of my own professed religion.Edited by anglagard, : the evidence

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

When you say this, you presuppose that he actually believed what you were saying. He may not have done. I know that I didn't --- nothing that I know about you inspires any great trust in your veracity. And I know your type. To be more precise, he's obviously the sort of guy who says goodbye when the other guy announces that he's leaving. He has said nothing whatsoever, "tough" or otherwise, "after the other guy had left", because you did not, in fact, leave. If this saddens you, you may console yourself with the thought that in the future he is unlikely to take your word for anything. Yes, it was foolish of him, but he seems to have learnt his lesson.

No. Based on morphology alone, we don't have the faintest idea what we are looking at.Remember Stephen J Gould and his "tape of life", RAZD? The idea that evolution is highly unlikely to follow the same path twice? Get a load of this:

quote:

---

JSTOR: Access Check

​

Cifelli (10) described the two remarkable radiations of planktonic
foraminifera during the Cenozoic. Globigerinid ancestors
in the earliest Paleogene gave rise to a morphologically
diverse clade, which decreased strongly in diversity towards
the end of the Oligocene. Subsequently, another radiation in
the Neogene reproduced nearly the same spectrum of morphologies.

---

Two "remarkable radiations", RAZD, The critter didn't just "evolve" the same way twice; all of its progeny repeated the exact same morphological radiation.Easy to believe if it was simple clinal morphology- information that was already present in the genome, just waiting for the right ecological conditions to activate it. In fact you would expect it to happen.Impossible to the nth degree (according to Stephen J Gould) if it was genuine RM/NS.Plasticity, RAZD. Not evolution.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Based on what you quote this is clearly a gross exaggeration, 'nearly the same spectrum of morphologies' is not 'all of its progeny repeated the exact same morphological radiation'. I hope you can see that. Not really, Gould was specifically talking about the small likelihood of humans evolving if the 'tape of life' were rewound to around the Burgess shale era, the shorter the distance you wind the tape back the less unlikely similar outcomes become. If you look at lab based evolutionary experiments you will often see the same phenotypic outcomes, and even sometimes the same mutations underlying them, arising multiple times.There is a case to be made for 'information that was already present in the genome' playing a part, but it doesn't need to be anything more than the information already accumulated from the common ancestral history of the foraminifera. Evolutionary novelty is naturally constrained by the context in which it arises, so that shared genetic heritage places constraints on the possible solutions to specific evironmental challenges.That the same spectrum of morphologies might arise twice in the framinifera is certainly no more surprising than the similar forms of many mammalian/marsupial pairs or would you contend that that convergent evolution was also the result of 'information already present in the genome' ? You would be well to be cautious since in the case of marsupials and mammals we can actually work to dissect the underlying genetics of the morphologies.TTFN,WK

You can find the whole paper here: Repeatability of taxon longevity in successive foraminifera radiations and a theory of random appearance and extinction. I read the paper through could find no clarification of the statement you quoted, unfortunately.But for creatures as simple as foraminifera the occupation of some specific ecological niche will very likely require a very specific morphology. They identified very similar morphologies, precisely what is predicted by evolution, not identical repetitions of morphological radiation, which would be unlikely in the extreme. A repetition of general patterns of radiation would absolutely be expected when conditions are the same, but the specifics will always differ dramatically. It's like what they say about human history repeating itself, meaning general patterns, not specifics.--Percy

The actual paper the data is in would be 'Radiation of Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera' (1969). Unfortunately that isn't in a journal I have access to.TTFN,WK

Hi again Kaichos Man, you are still not finding what you need to find. The first question to ask whenever you post something is: does the article really say this?The answer is (as usual) no, as noted by Wounded King: What the article says is that two radiations occurred, and that the second "reproduced nearly the same spectrum of morphologies."We can have the same spectrum of morphologies without a single repetition of a former morphology.For instance, following the trail of the article posted, plus the links from Percy and Wounded King, through the journals and looking for other similar articles (ie - looking to see if this is an isolated instance or a common instance) I find:

quote:

---

Iterative evolution of digitate planktonic foraminifera
Helen K. Coxall(1,3), Paul A. Wilson(2,3), Paul N. Pearson(1,3) and Philip F. Sexton(2,3)
Paleobiology; November 2007; v. 33; no. 4; p. 495-516; DOI: 10.1666/06034.1 2007 Paleontological Society
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/abstract/33/4/495

​

Digitate shell morphologies have evolved repeatedly in planktonic foraminifera throughout the Cretaceous and Cenozoic. Digitate species are usually rare in fossil and modern assemblages but show increased abundance and diversity at times during the Cretaceous and middle Eocene. In this paper we discuss the morphology and stratigraphic distribution of digitate planktonic foraminifera and establish the isotopic depth ecology of fossil ones to draw parallels with modern counterparts. δ18O and δ13C values of six extinct and two modern digitate species, from six time slices (Cenomanian, Turonian, Eocene, Miocene, Pleistocene and Holocene) have similar isotopic depth ecologies, consistently registering the most negative δ13C and usually the most positive δ18O compared to coexisting species. These results indicate a similar deep, subthermocline (>150 m) habitat, characterized by lower temperatures, reduced oxygen, and enrichment of dissolved inorganic carbon. This is consistent with water-column plankton studies that provide insight into the depth preferences of the three modern digitate species; in over 70% of observations digitates occurred in nets below 150 m, and down to 2000 m. The correlation between digitate species and subsurface habitats across multiple epochs suggests that elongated chambers were advantageous for survival in a deep mesopelagic habitat, where food is usually scarce. Increased abundance and diversity of digitates in association with some early and mid-Cretaceous oceanic anoxic events, in middle Eocene regions of coastal and equatorial upwelling, and occasionally in some modern upwelling regions, suggests an additional link with episodes of enhanced ocean productivity associated with expansion of the oxygen minimum zone (OMZ). We suggest that the primary function of digitate chambers was as a feeding specialization that increased effective shell size and food gathering efficiency, for survival in a usually food-poor environment, close to the OMZ. Episodes of increased digitate abundance and diversity indicate expansion of the deep-water ecologic opportunity under conditions that were unfavorable to other planktonic species. Our results provide evidence of iterative evolution reflecting common functional constraints on planktonic foraminifera shell morphology within similar subsurface habitats. They also highlight the potential of digitate species to act as indicators of deep watermasses, especially where there was expansion of the OMZ.

---

In other words, foraminifera species in similar ecologies can develop similar features in response to the ecological constraints, because those constraints will be the same whether the species is ancient or modern. The same limitations of oxygen, temperature and food will affect different species in much the same way, producing similar results.This is what Percy predicted when he said: And in the article it says:

quote:

---

The correlation between digitate species and subsurface habitats across multiple epochs suggests that elongated chambers were advantageous for survival in a deep mesopelagic habitat, where food is usually scarce. Increased abundance and diversity of digitates in association with some early and mid-Cretaceous oceanic anoxic events, in middle Eocene regions of coastal and equatorial upwelling, and occasionally in some modern upwelling regions, suggests an additional link with episodes of enhanced ocean productivity associated with expansion of the oxygen minimum zone (OMZ). We suggest that the primary function of digitate chambers was as a feeding specialization that increased effective shell size and food gathering efficiency, for survival in a usually food-poor environment, close to the OMZ.

---

Such digitate structures would, of course, be within the spectrum of similar morphologies, while the particular morphologies can still be distinct and varied with the species , genus and family in question.The second question to ask whenever you post something is: if true would this prove your point?Once again the answer is no.To begin with, Globigerinida is not a species classification, but an Order within the Class foraminifera, and thus the radiation would include the formation of superfamilies, families, genera and then species. These groupings can be broken down by their general morphotypic classifications such that all members of the Rotaliporacea superfamily, for example, have similar morphologies. A second radiation that repeats the same general morphology of a superfamily would still be 'nearly the same spectrum of morphologies' without in any way repeating the specific morphologies of the species in each radiation.The third question to ask is whether there is evidence of something else occurring that explains the data better?The answer is yes.We also see that these radiations occurred after extinction events:

quote:

---

Radiation of Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera
Richard Cifelli
Systematic Zoology 1969 18(2):154-168; doi:10.2307/2412601
Radiation of Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera | Systematic Biology | Oxford Academic

​

The general aspects of planktonic foraminiferal radiation during the Cenozoic are shown by the distributional patterns of several morphotypic groups. There were two major radiations, one occurring during the Paleogene, the other during the Neogene. The radiations followed severe reductions in diversity which occurred at the close of the Cretaceous and again during the mid-Tertiary. Distributional patterns are iterative, and the Neogene radiation is essentially a repetition of what occurred during the Paleogene. According to the present interpretation, the iterative patterns reflect major changes in the dynamic structure of surface waters. By analogy with the distribution of the modern fauna, it is suggested that thermal barriers were degraded during times of reduction and the oceans were uniformly cool. During the radiations thermal gradients were restored and the structure of the surface waters was essentially as it is today.

---

So we see extinction events providing opportunity for diversity of remaining species. As the ecoclines are reestablished following these events, we see species inhabiting these ecoclines evolve to take advantage of the opportunities of their habitat. We see these species adapting incrementaly in an iterative pattern to their prefered ecoclines, and finally, we see that these adaptations produce similar general morphological shapes in a spectrum, from say globular to digitate, due to the ecological constraints of the respective habitats. We see that this does not mean that digitate forms from the Neogene are the same as the digitate forms from the Paleogene, nor do we see that they are necessarily the same species because of their shared general morphology.The fourth and final question to ask is whether this affects the data and conclusions of Parker and Arnold?The answer is, once again, no.Using the same analysis we did in Message 109 and extending it to show a morphologically similar spectrum of morphological development, and repeating this basic pattern, we do not see any way that hereditary lineages could be confused, even if the pattern of morphological radiation were very similar:

a                  |
b                 /
c                |
d                 \
e                  \
f                   |
g                   |
h                  / \
i                 |   |
j                 |   |
k                /     \
l                |      \
m                 \      |
n                  |     |
o                 /      |
p                /        \
q               /          \
a'             |            |
b'            /             |
c'           |               \
d'            \               |
e'             \              |
f'              |              \
g'              |               |
h'             / \               \
i'            |   |               |
j'            |   |               |
k'           /     \              /
l'           |      \            /
m'            \      |           |
n'             |     |           |
o'            /      |           \
p'           /        \           |
q'          /          \          |

Here the pattern from (a) to (q) in gray is repeated in white and attached to the left lineage at (q) resulting in the pattern from (a') to (q'), and an additional pattern of evolution from the right lineage from (q) is shown in orange.The orange lineage cannot be confused with being descendant from the end of the middle branch even though the end result of that branch is similar in form to an ancestral form of the orange lineage.The conclusions from Message 109 remain valid: The continuous nature of the data, sorted layer by sedimentary chronological layer, without breaks, prevents this confusion.This is confirmed by species related to the first radiation that were not involved in the second radiation not being confused with the species related to the second radiation in any of the modern species classifications.Enjoy.

---

quote:

---

one could draw a circle around the above lineage to encompass "f" through "j" and label that the speciation event.

---

Indeed. As one could draw a circle around Lucy and Homo Sapiens and label that the speciation event.Exactly how much of the scientific method are you prepared to jettison for the sake of the Theory of Evolution, RAZD?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

A "gross exaggeration" is a gross exaggeration, WK. However I will plead guilty to overstatement. Sorry. Exactly the point raised by Simon Conway Morris, who believes that the ubiquitous nature of convergence points to "directed" evolution. It is you who should be cautious, WK.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Offtopic- sorry!Sorry Misha, I completely missed your reply. And I completely agree, there is nothing essential about speaking in tongues, although it can be a great way to worship. But no, I'm not joking in anyway; it was all delusion, including the speaking in tongues. It wasn't god deceiving me, it was me For anyone interested in speaking in tongues, just repeat "I'll 'av a shandy" over and over, and you're there Offtopic - sorry!

Because you might pull out an argument from authority on me? Watch as I quail before your fallacious arguments.As far as I can tell all your reply means is that you don't really have a reply.Conway Morris' belief in 'direction' is no more substantiated by the evidence than yours in cryptic 'information already present in the genome', and probably comes from the same source, religious conviction.In the same way that materialistic evolutionary processes are quite capable of providing 'information already present in the genome' which may predispose related populations to follow broadly similar genetic trajectories so can it provide a basis for similar 'direction' for the morphological form through similar environmental constraints.What there is no evidence for is hidden 'information already present in the genome' nor for any supernatural agency providing 'direction'.TTFN,WK