Evolution=Bad Science Fiction (lack of transitionals)

Well, we do have a pretty smooth record for some species. Moreover, evolution doesn't predict a completely smooth record - at some level, there are discontinuities between generations. For instance you may have physical features that your parents do not - certainly you're not exactly like them. There's a degree of difference between you and your parents.But does the fact that it's not a smooth transition - that is, there's no halfway individual between you and your parents - mean that you're not, in fact, decended from your parents? Of course not. This is true. Keep in mind, however, that disproving evolution and proving creationism (or vice-versa) are two entirely different things.That said, which is the better explanation for the presence of fossils? A mechanism that we observe in the present day, working everywhere (natural selection and random mutation) or a mechanism that nobody has ever seen, anywhere (God creating life fully-formed)?Sorry, JT, but evolution wins this round, by virtue of an explanitory mechanism that can be tested, observed, and confirmed. Essentially, Occam's Razor cuts away creationism as the best explanation.Furthermore, in regards to creationism and the fossil record: does creationism predict a general trend of increasing species complexity? Even if you don't accept the absolute, geologic dating - though there's no reason not to - one has to admit that the geologic colummn represents relative age - that is, no matter how old the entire colummn is, layers on top must be younger than layers on the bottom. How could it be otherwise? It would be like trying to build a cake starting with the frosting and working down. It's impossible.So, regardless of absolute age, there's an observable trend in species complexity in the fossil record, with deeper layers having generally simpler organisms. Particularly in the case of non-motile organisms (like plants or coral) I don't see how creationism predicts that at all. The Noaic flood (if indeed that's a part of your model) would work as a blender, mixing up all the fossils into a homogenous mass.So, the existence of fossils favors evolution, because it's the explanation with the least unobserved mechanisms. And the organization of the fossil record, from simple to complex, favors evolution, because it's exactly what you would expect from evolution, and exactly the opposite of what you would expect from creationism.

Which species? True, I am different than my parents. But difference is extremely minor, mainly differences in size, hair color, eye color, etc. We are not talking about substantial skeletal differences. Of course not, because we already know they are my parents. We know that through eyewitness testimony, hospital records, birth certificate, etc. We have proof. But I didn't claim that the record needs that degree of detail to show that evolution was possible. I said "I am not claiming that we should expect to have such a record, only that we don't." What I meant is that a lack of proof is not, in this case, a disproof. However, the lack of proof means that it is not proven.
(I removed the "are", it was a vestigal trace of a different sentence) What are you saying is true? Before I go on, I want to know what it is you agree with, so I don't make a fool of myself arguing about it.

---

"There are only ten kinds of people: those who know binary, and those who don't."
-somebody

I'll look some up; meanwhile I know Mark has posted a fossil progression that shows a reptilian jawbone becoming the mammalian inner ear; see if you can search for it (I will later tonight and hit you with a link.) Well, I'd call size a substantial skeletal difference. If you had a fossil housecat and a fossil panther, size is about all the difference you would be likely to see.And there have been significant skeletal differences between parents and children, as a result of mutation or simply as a result of chromosome recombination.In other words, sometimes the fossil record shows a jump not because it's incomplete, but because sometimes jumps happen. Moreover, simple genetic testing can confirm heredity without any of those other things, right? That gets into more evidence for evolution - genetic markers of heredity - but that's beyond the scope of our argument right now. Well, if we don't have it, and nobody expects to have it, why bring it up? We don't have a continuous videotape of the history of life on earth, either.Why bring up things we don't have? We could sit around all day and imagine evidence that not only doesn't exist, but couldn't possibly exist. I don't understand why you think that's worth even thinking about. Nothing in science ever is. Hadn't you figured that out by now? Scientific models adhere to a principle of "tentativity", which means each model is provisionally accepted - the provision is, there's always the possibility that we'll observe something that proves the theory wrong.I'm totally willing to admit that evolution is wrong - there's a number of observations that could be made that would prove evolution wrong. Is that something you're willing to admit about creationism? That somebody could make an observation or do an experiment that would prove it wrong?If not, how can you expect creationism to be taken seriously as a science if it fails a major criteria of the scientific model - falsifiability? I'm saying that it's possible to explain any given fossil via creationism. What I'm saying isn't possible via creationism is explaining the pattern of fossils, and their relationships to each other and to strata position. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I found some diagrams of housecat skeletons and panther skeletons, and you are right, size is by far the most distinguishing feature between the two skeletons. I have not researched felines, but what I suspect is that most of them are of the same genesis "kind"(which I'm sure you've heard of). Cats are another debate I'm willing to have after this one. Can you give me some examples? That sounds interesting. Are you talking about hormonal irregularities? I accept(ed) that evolution would predict gaps in the record. Another debate I look forward to. You know, it seems like every post brings up a couple more debates. Sort of like those games where gophers pop up all the time, except a lot more fun I think there is a fundamental miscomunication about transitionals between creationists and evolutionists. Until the last couple of days (and I just fully realized it now), I thought that when an evo said "transitional form" they meant something so similar to both species that it practically proved evolution. I think this comes from creationists listening to less than fully informed evolutionists claiming transitionals as proof of evolution (I have heard evos say things like "This latest find puts the theory of evolution beyond doubt...", etc). I now realize that what you guys(the evos who know what you're talking about) mean when you say "transitional" is a point along the line of descent, not the actual descent.
The reason I kept bringing it up was that I was still thinking "transitional" meant proof. I was trying to show that a "transitional" was not proof. I now realize that I was attacking a strawman, thanks for pointing it out. I know that principle, I just wasn't thinking about it. Thanks for pointing that out. Honestly, I have never thought about what could prove creation wrong. I'm not sure there is anything, because it deals with the supernatural. I will think about it, thought, and see if I can come up with anything.You know, I'm sort of feeling like an idiot right about now. It is cool though, because with how much I've learned in a week, imagine how much I will have learned in a year! Ok, so here is the argument. From your earlier post: You do have a good point. However, the flood geology (which I do believe) would explain it. Have you ever put dirt into a bottle and shaken it up? The dirt gets neatly sorted into layers. The flood would have worked like a blender (I like your terminology), the dead organisms would then be sorted by size, into layers, like dirt in a bottle. Occams razor, from wikipedia, is as follows: Emphasis on "all other things being equal." I think that all other things are not equal, which is where my debate with loudmouth comes in. Are you there, Loudmouth?Anyway, thanks for being patient with me while I'm learning, I apreciate it.

Hrm, pretend I haven't. Pretend further that I have two organisms in front of me who are not part of the same reproductive community. How do I tell if they're two different "kinds", or the same kind but have lost interfertility due to adaptation? A friend of mine has a sunken chest. Neither of his parents do. I don't believe it runs in his family but I don't know for sure.Another friend of mine is of considerably smaller stature than either of his parents. It's not a hormone situation, as far as I know. Both of these individuals represent significant morphological departure from their parents in ways that would be preserved if they were to fossilize. Indeed. If you'd like to open new topics, or find old ones, we can have the discussions simultaneously, you know. I would submit that there are a lot of fundamental miscommunications between evolutionists and creationists in regards to the theory. I further submit that creationists often see little reason to correct their misunderstandings, because they see no reason to learn about a theory that they won't, under any circumstances, believe.You seem different, though. I like that, but we'll see, I guess... There's absolutely no reason why you should. You've displayed a fabulous open mind and a willingness to entertain a concept that you might disagree with. Those are pretty rare in creationists, I have to say. It's like pulling teeth most of the time trying to correct their understanding of the theory because, I imagine, they're deathly afraid that if they listen to our "evilutionist lies", they just might stick. Or like the brazils in a can of mixed nuts. (Maybe that works in a different direction, but the principle is the same.)The problem for that explanation is that the fossil record isn't sorted by size. For instance, among Paleozoic ammonoids - a monovalve sea invertebrate - the evolving trend is one of shell suture complexity, as shown in this abstract:

quote:

---

Paleobiology: Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 301—325.

​

Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids

​

W. Bruce Saunders,a and David M. Workb

​

ABSTRACTThe ammonoid order Prolecanitida constitutes a relatively small (43 genera, 250 species) but long-ranging lineage (Lower Carboniferous—Triassic, 108 m.y.), which narrowly survived the P/Tr extinctions and provided the stock from which were derived all later Mesozoic ammonoids. Prolecanitids were a minority among Late Paleozoic ammonoids, which were dominated by the Goniatitida, and showed many features that set them far apart from their contemporaries, including (1) long-term, gradual changes in shell geometry (W-D-S); (2) the most strongly constrained morphospace of any Paleozoic ammonids examined to date; (3) an eight-fold increase in mean suture complexity (three times that of Pennsylvanian goniatitids); (4) high correlations between shell geometry, shell and septal thickness, and suture complexity; (5) short body chambers and, as a consequence, high aperture orientations; (6) indications that cameral liquid may have been used for buoyancy control; and (7) a genus longevity that averaged 14.7 m.y. compared with 5.7 m.y. in Upper Carboniferous goniatitids, and that appears to have been unrelated to suture complexity. Prolecanitids showed a pervasive tendency to increase suture complexity (in the clade as a whole as well as within subclades and in more than 90 percent of ancestor-descendant genera), thus arguing a case for a driven complexity trend. The uniqueness of the prolecanitids calls into question whether they and their Mesozoic descendants, ceratites and ammonites, were strictly analogous to Paleozoic goniatites.

---

Hydrologic sorting may sound like a good explanation on the face of it but under scrutiny, it doesn't hold up. You're telling me that somehow, your magic flood managed to sort Prolecanitids by nothing but the complexity of their shell sutures?Furthermore, even things like footprints and burrows get sorted - i.e. we never find human footprints out of the range of time evolutionary models suggest they lived. How do you sort a footprint?Talkorigins has a number of objections to the idea of the flood being responsible for the geologic record, at: Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd editionSorry, but creationism loses this round, too. Hydrologic sorting just doesn't explain the sorting of the fossil record, because it's sorted by adaptive trends, not by size or buoyancy. Wikipedia is characteristically inaccurate on Occam's Razor, which would be better described as "One should not needlessly multiply entities." I.e. given two models that explain (or attempt to explain) the same observations, the one with the least untestable entities (preferably none) is the preferred one.Moreover, all things are equal - we're trying to explain the same data, right?

Actually, forget I said anything about kinds. Instead, go to message 23 of a topic about "kinds" and reply there, if you would. I have a great question there that no creationist ever seems to be answered.Basically what I'm saying is that yes, I've heard the term "kinds" - but what I've never heard is a functional definition that would allow someone to determine if two organisms were in the same kind or not. But kinds is rather out of the scope of our discussion here.

I'm not sure I have the time for a couple different debates, but it doesn't hurt to try. What else do you want to discuss?I'm reasearching the rest of your post and I'll get back to you soon-ish.{added in edit} It is? Oh. Do you know of any accurate online encyclopedias? Thanks.
{/added in edit}[This message has been edited JT, 05-03-2004]

JT,Sorry for any wait, but I usually take the weekends off from this lovely little forum (as do quite a few other EvC addicts). Anyway, I think we have beat the specifics of hominid evolution into the ground. For the sanity of other posters, and ourselves, I think we should focus more on the bigger picture and use specifics where appropriate.

quote:

---

According to definition of a transitional, the one about a transitional being as little as a species with some characteristics of another species, a banana is transitional between you and an orange. How? All three have SKIN!! (this was very exaggerated, but makes a point.

---

It makes a point that generalizations found in common usage are incapable of describing specific issues within biology. However, we do share a common ancestor with oranges and banana's but they are obviously not in the human lineage. For a transitional species, we need an orange or banana that is bipedal. It is the mixing of characteristics, not a common characterstic, that matter. In the case of apes and humans, bipedality and brain size are the most obvious. And in the fossil record, what do we find but exactly that. We find primates that have a slightly larger braincase and are bipedal, but yet still have characteristics of their tree-dwelling, quadrapedal ancestors. "Lucy" is a perfect example. Obviously bipedal, but still has characteristics of a tree dweller. Her bipedal nature is transitional between us and new world apes.Just to clear things up, what would you expect a hominid transitional to look like? If you could, please include reference to bipedality and brain size/shape in order for our posts to have something in common (you can include other characteristics that you find important as well).

First, I have a philosophical question. For practical purposes, what is the difference between not being allowed to use a computer for fear that it will catch a virus, and not using a computer because it actually has a virus? Oh well, my parents finally downloaded the patch for the sasser worm so I can get on the computer again. Oh yeah, there was a weekend, wasn't there? I agree, that was a little tedious. Thanks for responding in detail to my arguments, even with the risk of sanity loss. By the way, what was your conclusion? I am content to declare that particular argument over, but I would like to know your take on the results. If you want, I won't debate your opinion about the results unless you want me to. I should have made it more clear; that is the point I am trying to make. I'm glad we agree. I agree that the valid hominid fossils from our discussion could have served as transitionals. What I claim is that there are only enough transitionals to show that evolution concievably could have happened, but not enough to provide strong evidence for evolution.Hey crashfrog, good post (no. 155). I haven't had a chance to research it. I'll do that and get back to you. I assure you that I'll lay awake thinking about it tonight, though. Sweet dreams.

This is pretty reasonable. Any scientific idea has to win over individuals one at a time. One persons strong evidence may be anothers only suggestive evidence.However, before you arrive at this you should be sure you actually have at least a fair fraction of the available evidence. You might want to ask yourself why those you do know about the evidence and actually work in the field don't have your misgivings.

Brilliant question. Obviously the prevention here is as bad as the disease.I too had this problem in my youth; the parents often were too afraid that I would break the computer to let me use it. the way I solved it was clever sabotage - the only way the computer would continue working was if I was allowed to use it. If I can jump in, I don't think anybody's saying that the transitional fossils and their position in the strata represent an open and shut case for evolution. They're just one piece of a mosaic. It's the transitionals, plus their position, plus the evidence from genetics, plus the convergence of cladistics and stratiagraphy, plus the radiodating evidence, plus the evidence from biogeography, plus the observation of the mechanisms, etc. that make evolution the scientifically accepted model that it is. Take your time. If you can come up with a flood explanation for the sorting of the fossil record, specifically in regards to plants, etc., you'll be the first.

although my parents wouldn't let me use the K&E and I had to settle for the POST.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I agree, that was a little tedious. Thanks for responding in detail to my arguments, even with the risk of sanity loss. By the way, what was your conclusion? I am content to declare that particular argument over, but I would like to know your take on the results. If you want, I won't debate your opinion about the results unless you want me to.
  —JT

---

My opinion is that there is not enough evidence to create a concrete lineage of hominids back to the common ancestor with apes. However, the fossil evidence for common ancestory with apes is pretty solid. Of course, as with anything in science, support is tentative but nonetheless evidence is there.

quote:

---

I agree that the valid hominid fossils from our discussion could have served as transitionals. What I claim is that there are only enough transitionals to show that evolution concievably could have happened, but not enough to provide strong evidence for evolution.

---

If we had to depend on fossil evidence alone human evolution would be more tentative than it is. However, genetic evidence for human/ape common ancestory is probably better evidence than the fossil record. Such things as pseudogenes and HERV's (which I am still researching for a separate thread, hopefully it will be done soon) are even better evidence than the fossil record. Combine the two and the evolution of man is very well evidenced and supported. Add to this the clear lineages for other species and we have to admit that humans are no different than other extant species, we to were formed by evolutionary mechanisms. Our physical forms anyway.To sum up, current fossil evidence is not enough to indicate a precise lineage for human evolution. However, the fossil evidence is enough to support common ancestory with new world apes. On top of this, fossil evidence is but one line of support among many, including genetic evidence. For the full picture, you must look at the total body of evidence, not just one arm of the evidence (such as fossils).

Crashfrog,
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I've been busy recovering from school(i.e. doing a lot of nothing).About the prolecantids, I found this article like a month ago. Page Not Found. However, in between me finding the article and getting around to this post, the stupid site switched to a subscription system, and I can no longer access the full article, which includes the quote I need. I'll paraphrase it here, and hope that you'll trust me to do so accurately.You are saying that according to the flood model, the prolecantids would have needed to be hydrologically sorted purely by virtue of their shell complexity. I agree that that type of sorting is somewhere between very unlikely and impossible. However, the above cited article explained how one of the prolecantids had certain soft tissue that made it "hydrodynamically" (the exact word they used) distinct from the others. I believe the soft tissue was pockets of a saline fluid, but I'm not sure.Anyway, these prolecantids had internal features that seperated them from each other hydrodynamically, and it is feasible that they would be sorted accordingly.About the footprints, the laetoli footprints are dated to be 3.6 milion years old, which is a lot earlier than when the first humans are supposed to have evolved.In another post, I think, you had mentioned the sorting of pollen. I admit, I spent several sleepless nights wondering about that. However, pollen is not well sorted. Here (Anomalously Occurring Fossils) is a website that has a list of 200 fossil anomalies, including a lot of pollen.By the way, as a result of discovering this forum and conversing with you guys, I have changed my career goals. Instead of being a mechanical engineer, I am going to get a BS in bioengineering and a doctorate in genome sciences, with an emphasis in recombinatorial genetics.[tongue in cheek]Then, with all that knowledge for my genius to work on, I will once and for all banish from the earth that plague which is evolution.[tongue in cheek]

I'm gonna get at the rest of this later, but for now: I wasn't familiar with the footprints you refer to but talkorigins.org had this to say:

quote:

---

Claim CC052:
The Laetoli footprints, dated 3.7 million years old, appear to be those of modern humans.

​

Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1985. Evolution: The challenge of the fossil record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, pp. 174-176.

​

Response:
How similar the Laetoli footprints look to australopithecine feet is a matter of debate. Tuttle [1990] thinks they are too human-like for Australopithecus afarensis and may belong to another species of australopithecine or to an early Homo species. Other anthropologists think they are significantly different from Homo and could be A. afarensis [reviewed by Foley 2002]. Creationists tend to cite only Tuttle because he best supports their view.

​

Links:
Foley, Jim, 2002. Creationist arguments: Anomalous fossils. Creationist Arguments: Anomalous Fossils

​

References:
Foley, Jim, 2002. (see above)
Tuttle, R. H., 1990. The pitted pattern of Laetoli feet. Natural History (March): 61-64.

---

I'm sorry that you think of it as a plague (even if you're just being tongue in cheek); it's been a phenomenally useful theory with incredible explanitory power and amazing predictive power. As an (ex?) engineer you might be interested to know that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are being employed to design electronic circuits well beyond our ability to entirely understand how they work.As Futayama has said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." That's how powerful and successful the theory has been. What on earth would lead you to believe that a theory of that scientific magnitude is at all "plague-like"?