Copyright 1995 Glenn R. Morton
This may be freely distributed to anyone as long as not
alterations are made in the text and it is distributed in its
entirety.
****Whale transition*****
Jim Bell wrote, quoting me:
"
<< Are you trying to say that the Whale transition is not a major
(or would not be a major) transition from one group to another?
Most creationists and evolutionists agree that it is a
major change of morphology. It is attested to by a fairly
complete sequence of fossils each only a small step from the
previous one.>>
He replied:
>You're wrong, according to Wise, who states: "None of the
stratomorphic intermediates have intermediate structures." (TCH
p. 227).>
Well if Kurt is the standard of truth by which all knowledge is
judged, then obviously what I am about to say is erroneous. But
on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that you can
seriously believe that just because Kurt said something and the
entire paleontological world disagrees with him that Kurt must of
necessity be correct. He may be correct, but then again, he may
be wrong. I think he is wrong when he says that these animals
have no intermediate structures. That is merely a statement with
no definition or documentation of what he means by no
intermediate structures. I can say the sky is green but that
does not make it true.
Do not get me wrong in my criticism of Kurt or of Phil. None
of this is intended personally. Kurt was the only person at the
1986 International Conference on Creationism who was friendly to
me during my talk. I will never forget his kindness. But that
does not obligate me to agree with him when I think he is wrong.
Phillip Johnson chooses only Basilosaurus to discuss in his
section on the whale (Johnson, 1993, p. 86-87). He starts his
section with "The fossils provide much more discouragement than
support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but
objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist
paleontology." p. 86.
This is an interesting statement which brings to mind
several questions. On what basis does he make this claim? Has
he personally observed the fossils in an objective fashion? He
gives no reference for an objective paleontologist who reported
this, so one can only guess at the basis of such a statement.
Has he been told that all paleontologists are unobjective? Is
this like the racial stereotype "All cretins are liars" only a
stereotype applied to those scumbag paleontologists? What
scientific study of the habits of paleontologists prove their
unobjectivity? How do you scientifically measure objectivity? [I
am always objective; it is you that have nonobjective tendencies.
:-) ] If he has been told that all paleontologists are rarely
objective, who told him that? Who is the snitch in the paleo
department? More importantly, is this statement designed to make
people not listen to what a paleontologist might have to say
about evolution? After all, he is an unobjective fellow. I for
one would like to know the answers to some of these questions.
Phil then goes on to talk about the vestigial feet of the
whale Basilosaurus. He says,
"The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some
supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for 'evolution,'
and then ignore all the difficulties. The practice is illustrated
by the use that has been made of a newly-discovered fossil of a
whale-like creature called Basilosaurus.
.... Paleontologists now report that a Basilosaurus skeleton
recently discovered in Egypt has appendages which appear to be
vestigial hind legs and feet. The function these could have
served is obscure. They are too small even to have been much
assistance in swimming, and could not conceivable have supported
the huge body on land. The fossil's discoverer speculate that
the appendages may have been used as an aid to copulation."
Accounts of the fossil in the scientific journals and in the
newspapers present the find as proof that whales once walked on
leges and therefore descended from land mammals." P. 86
He then goes on to mention the difficulties he sees of whale
evolution which Jim Bell quoted on Friday. These include
equipment to allow deep diving under water, underwater sound wave
communication, the suckling of the young in a fashion that they
don't swallow seawater. He does not mention, much less explain
the following:
Pakicetus is only known from the skull with no post-cranial bones
found. As Phillip Johnson notes, the modern whales have
specialized equipment for hearing underwater. Pakicetus's
hearing structure is intermediate between that found in whales
and that found in land animals. Thewissen and Hussain (1993,
1993, p. 444) state,
"Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular
foramen is small as is the case in all terrestrial mammals.
It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum
following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial
mammals."
"The incus of all described cetaceans has a greatly
inflated body and crus longum, whereas Pakicetus shows only
slight incudal inflation near the joint for the malleus."
Ambulocetus natans is the next whale and was found in strata
120 meters stratigraphically higher than Pakicetus. They found a
whole lot more of the skeleton. The presumed order of evolution
has Mesonychid as the ancestor, Ambulocetus as an extremely early
whale transition, the archaeocetes as the earliest true whales
and the Mysticeti and Odontoceti as the modern groups. Drawings
of these creatures skeletons can be seen in Berta 1994. Those
drawings show the following intermediate traits for Ambulocetus.
The Mesonychid has a rounded skull the archaeocetes (an early
group of whales) have a pointed, streamlined skull. Guess what,
Ambulocetus had a proportionately longer more streamlined skull
than the Mesonychid but it is relatively broader than the
archaeocetes. The Mesonychid has 11 ribs connected to the
sternum, with one floating rib. Ambulocetus has 7 ribs attached 3
floating. Archaeocetes has 5 or 6 ribs connected with 9
floating. Modern whales have all floating ribs. Sounds like an
intermediate to me. The Mesonychid has 4 legs with toes having a
convex hoof. I quote Thewissen et al, (1994, p. 211)
"Toes are terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex
hoof, as in mesonychids, the terrestrial ancestors of
cetaceans."
The hand would sprawl like that of a seal or walrus. and somewhat
like the hands of modern whales, the fingers flared. But unlike
modern whales the elbow, wrist and finger joints were flexible.
This latter trait is similar to the mesonychids. The animal
provably moved by dorsalventral undulation like modern whales.
Thewissen et al state (1994, p211)
"The skeleton of Ambulocetus indicates that it could locomote
on land and in the water. As in extant cetaceans Ambulocetus
swam by means of dorsoventral undulations of its vertebral
column, as evidenced by the shape of the lumbar vertebra. Unlike
modern cetaceans, however, Ambulocetus had a long tail and thus
probably lacked a tail fluke."
The skull features are definitely cetacean. Thewissen et al
state, (1994, p. 211-212)
"Ambulocetus is clearly a cetacean: it has an inflated
ectotympanic that is poorly attached to the skull and bears
a sigmoid process, reduced zygomatic arch, long narrow
muzzle, broad supraorbital process and teeth that resemble
those of other archaeocetes, the paraphyletic stem group of
cetaceans."
All of the early whales have the nasal openings (nares) toward
the end of their snout. This is unlike modern whales which have
the nares on top of the head but like the mesonychids. (Vaughn,
1972, p. 180).
Johnson asks, "Did rodent forelimbs transform themselves by
gradual adaptive stages into whale flippers?" (Johnson, 1993, p.
87) The answer is no, rodent forelimbs did not transform
themselves. As I noted on Friday, Johnson's use of the term
"rodent" for the ancestor of the whale is not correct. Rodents
are from the order Rodentia; Mesonychids are from the order
Carnivora. (See Romer, 1945, p. 614,625) Big difference to an
expert. While the layperson may not find that terribly important,
it does have the tendency to reduce the credibility with the
experts. One person asked about the ancestry of the Mesonychids I
guess wondering if the rodents were the ancestors of the
Mesonychids. Mesonychids do not have rodents in their ancestry.
The Procreodonts were the ancestors of the mesonychids.
More importantly to me, a college student who believes what
Dr. Johnson wrote here and then goes into zoology is going to
find that this is erroneous. This samll loss of credibility for
what a Christian leader said, will increase the likelihood of the
young person leaving the faith. Given enough of these small
losses and it adds up to big problems. That is why I feel it is
imperative for Christians apologists to do their absolute utmost
to keep errors to a minimum. If one is going to attempt to
challenge the experts in a field, as Johnson is doing, then one
must be as knowledgeable as is possible and make as few mistakes
like this as he can. We all make mistakes, and we can not be
expert in all fields. But we shouldn't make too many errors or we
won't convince anyone of our position. And we might end up
driving away from the faith those who we most want to keep -- our
young.
I am going to finish the whale section with a couple of
quotes. Gish said (1985, p. 78),
"There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record
between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal
ancestors."
In light of the more detailed (and yet still amateur) treatment I
gave the whales above, is Gish's statement true?
Jim asked me to disprove Kurt. I don't have to disprove Kurt.
Kurt agrees with me according to the article you are citing Look
up to the first full paragraph on the page of your quote. Wise
states (1994, p. 227).
"Stratomorphic intermediate species and organismal groups
should be a common feature of the fossil record. And
examples of stratomorphic intermediates do exist. Mammal-
like reptiles stand between reptiles and mammals, both in
the position of their fossils and in the structure of their
bones. The reptiles, and the phenacodontids, which stand
between the horses and their claimed ancestors. In like
manner, some fossil genera are stratomorphic intermediates
in the group in which they are classified. They are the
oldest fossils known in the group and most similar to the
group from which they are supposedly descendent. Examples
include Pikaia among the chordates, Archaeopteryx among the
birds, Baragwanathia among lycopods, Ichthyostega among the
amphibians, Purgatorius among the primates, Pakicetus among
the whales and Proconsul among the hominoids."
The only thing I disagree with Kurt in the above quotation is his
contention that stratomorphic intermediates should be common. In
light of his earlier quote which seems to demand morphing, which
is not a valid demand, stratomorphic forms may not be as common
as he wants them to be. The mathematical behavior of the
nonlinear programs I have distributed show that it is much more
likely that sudden change occurs than the morphing that Kurt
wants. Morphing is an unreasonable expectation placed on the
theory by creationists and Darwin, himself, but which new
information shows is not the reality. Wise's demand for
intermediate structures which Jim Bell quoted in his Friday post,
is nothing more than a demand for morphing.
Jim wrote:
>You're wrong, according to Wise, who states: "None of the
stratomorphic intermediates have intermediate structures." (TCH
p. 227).>
and then he concluded,
<<Since we lack the step-by-step intermediates that would support
such a conclusion (see Wise, above) why would we call this a
transition at all?>>]
We would call the whale a transition because the intermediate
fossils have both whale and mesonychid features in a mixture, and
because Kurt whom you are quoting in support of your position,
agrees that Pakicetus is a stratomorphic intermediate! (see my
quotation of Wise above) He also agrees that Ichthyostega is a
stratomorphic intermediate for the fish/amphibian transition.
Wise's expectations of a morphing series in the ideal transition
is simply flawed. He is attempting to force onto nature and
evolutionary theory, something that is not observed in nature and
not required by evolutionary theory. Evolution needs mutations
which alter morphology. There is no requirement that these
mutations be of the morphing variety!
Obviously, I can't cover every transition in the fossil
record. So is it required that every transition have a complete
set of fossils? No. If the earth is billions of years old, as I
know Johnson believes and Wise doesn't, then it is to be expected
that some fossils have been destroyed and some never fossilized.
A complete index of all fossils will not be found nor is it to be
expected. Secondly as I have noted, the mathematical behavior of
iterative/mutational systems like my programs and like life, show
that sudden change is possible. For Christians to expect every
single transition to have an infinitude of morphing forms before
they will consider accepting the concept of evolution, raises the
bar so high that they will never be faced with such a choice. In
that situation, can such a person really be said to have made an
objective or rational choice of which view to accept? Similarly,
an atheist who wants the waters of Lake Champlain split before he
accepts God, has done the very same thing, setting the bar so
high that he will never have to face that choice either.
****Strategy****
For over 130 years, the strategy conservative Christianity
has taken with evolution has been to pick holes in it.
"Evolution is wrong because....", you fill in the blank. It has
not taken the tack of "We are correct because..." This approach
reminds me of a couple of bullies in my home town. They used to
sit on a ledge along a creek and through rocks at other kids who
came along. Due to the height of their ledge, they could not be
hit (or hit hard) with anything the children below could throw at
them. Their rocks would gain speed as then fell upon any poor
victim below the ledge. The victim's rocks would loose speed as
they ascended. It was a beautiful position for the bullies; they
could inflict harm with no risk of receiving harm.
Conservative christians are content to sit on the ledge
throwing rocks at the scientific theory, the scientific data, and
even at the scientists (look how often their motives are
questioned). But conservative christians do not apparently feel
much of a need to actually advance a view which explain the data.
Thus we can laugh at the small inconsistencies of the scientist's
theory but never have to have our theories critiqued. Wise
suggests an explanation for the fossil record (Wise, 1994, p.
228):
"Just as the more general order may be due to a pattern of
a Creator's introduction or of the advance of a global
flood, these few stratomorphic intermediates may be
explainable in the same way. If, for example, the general
order of the fossil record is due to introduction of
organisms, then one might occasionally expect stratomorphic
intermediates to have been created in the sequence between
the two groups. "
What Wise is suggesting is that we explain everything in the
fossil record as "God did it". This explanation gets right to the
core of the relation between God and Nature. Does God create a
nature which can act independently of Him by His delegation of
some of the activities? Or must God do everything Himself by
fiat? How far do we want to take this view? If we choose Wise's
explanation then everything can be explained that way. The rock
DOES fall according to the inverse square law because God,
Himself, consistently moves it that way. Electrons follow the law
V=IR because God consistently moves them in that fashion. This
view is safe from criticism because "God did it."
In the transitions above with all these mixed-feature
animals, the explanation "God created it that way" may be true,
but it is the ultimate ad hoc explanation for anything and any
difficulty. With this explanation, any difficulty no matter how
pernicious, can be disposed of. Thus like most ad hoc
explanations, it explains anything and everything and thus,
nothing at all! It can not explain why the lobe-finned fish
appear at just this stratigraphical level and Ichthyostega appear
where they do. God just did it. No particular reason, that is
just the way it is. It doesn't explain why ambulocetus has the
same type of toes as the Mesonychids. No reason, God just did it
that way. Ask Him!
This is not meant to denigrate the idea that God created the
world (for He surely did that), or that He sustains it. But can
he not delegate any process to his creation? Must He be not only
the Prime Mover, but the ONLY mover? The "God did it" theory may
very well be correct. God certainly could do it however he wants;
He could bring it into existence by the snap of a finger if He
wanted. But let's face it, the universal success of such an
apologetic is also its greatest weakness. That is not much of an
apologetic in our scientific age or any age. If God placed us in
this age to witness to the scientific and materialistic peoples
we are surrounded by, our strategy is highly flawed.
Liberal Christianity, on the other hand has taken the road
that the Bible must be interpreted allegorically. While many of
my dear Christian brother take this approach, I personally find
it to rip the guts out of the historicity of the Scripture. I
know lots of people will disagree with me on this also. I see no
break in the obviously historical part of Genesis with a supposed
obviously allegorical part of Genesis except each individual's
subjective judgement of where that line should be drawn. If the
Bible is allegory at the point of the Fall (I mean who ever heard
of a talking snake?) then what is there to keep the Bible from
being allegorical at the point of the Virgin birth(there are no
proven cases of this in humanity), or the resurrection of someone
with the injuries Christ received? Maybe the miracles are just
allegorical tales of Jesus being a good man but they really
didn't happen? No, I must reject this approach as surely as I
must reject the approach the conservatives whose theology I am
most comfortable with.
The only other option is to create a historical/theological
viewpoint which actually explains the data within a framework of
a historical Genesis. This is the only long term, viable option.
By the end of this summer, I am going to give up on finding a
publisher for my book and sell the thing my self. In it I
present just such a view which allows the Bible to be viewed as
both true and historical but does not ignore data as outlined
above. A young Christian can hold the view I advocate and no
professor like my friend Will Provine would easily shake their
faith by showing how the data presented by Christians isn't
correct. I will not get into my view piecemeal any further than
I already have on the reflector. The view is an organic whole
and cannot be accepted piecemeal.
But whether the view I am going to advocate is true or
false, it is imperative that christian scholars develop a self-
consistent viewpoint which upholds the Bible as true, but doesn't
make us into nihilistic bullies who are always throwing rocks at
the latest scientific findings, the motives of all scientists,
and any theory which we find uncomfortable. Christianity was
meant to be more than a destructive force, tearing down the
intellectual works of others but never advancing a better view.
Even lawyers like Johnson or Bell wouldn't go into court with
only negative things to say about the prosecutions case against
their client. They would attempt to advance some hypothesis that
explains the data and makes it look like the butler did it rather
than their client. Attacks against a view are much more
effective when you can offer a workable alternative.
Today Christian apologetics sits on that ledge in my home
town. When are we going to come down and do the work necessary
to develop and then advance explanations of the data?
glenn
***** References*****
Anderson, Kirby and Harold Coffin, 1977 _Fossils in Focus_
(Zondervan, 1977).
Per E. Ahlberg and Andrew R. Milner, "The origin and early
diversification of tetrapods, Nature, 368, April 7, 1994 507-514
Berta, Annalisa, 1994, "What is a Whale?", Science, Jan 14, 1994,
p. 180-181
Beerbower, James R. 1968. _Search for the Past_, (Prentice Hall).
Gish, Duane,1979. _Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!_, (Creation-
Life Publ.)
Gish, Duane, 1985, _Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record_,
(Creation-Life Publ.)
Gold, Stephen, 1983 _Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes_, (Norton).
Huse, Scott M., 1983 _The Collapse of Evolution_ (Baker)
Johnson, Phillip, 1993. _Darwin on Trial_, (Intervarsity, 1993).
Parker, Gary E. 1980. _Creation:The Facts of Life_ (Creation-Life
Publishers).
Romer, Alfred S. 1945. _Vertebrate Paleontology_ (University of
Chicago:, 1945).
Rensberger, Boyce. 1994. _The Washington Post_ 117(239):A2
(Monday, August 1,
1994).
Thewissen, J. G. M., and S.T. Hussain, 1993, "The origin of
Underwater Hearing in Whales," Nature, Feb. 4, 1993, p. 444-445
Thewissen, J. G. M., S. T. Hussain, And M. Arif, 1994, "Fossil
Evidence for the Origin of Aquatic Locomotion in Archaeocete
Whales" Science Jan 14, 1994, p. 210-212
Terry Vaughn, _Mammalogy_, (Saunders, 1972)
Wise, Kurt P., 1994, "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in J.
P. Moreland, editor, _The Creation Hypothesis, (Downer's Grove:
Intervarsity Press)