On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:09:23 -0800 (PST), David Lee Nidever wrote:
DN>Sure, have to make sure what our definition of evolution is. But
>I don't agree that the only facts about evolution are from
>microevolution. What I'm talking about is the fossil record. We
>see that life started with microorganisms, and then more complex sea
>animals, then fish, then land organisms, and on and on. We see a
>lot of change in life over time. We see that new organisms appear.
>This isn't saying anything about how any of it got there. These are
>just the facts about the history of life, and they show definite
>change over time. This is what I call the facts of evolution.
They are indeed "the facts about the history of life" but they are
not necessarily "the facts of *evolution*", unless you know somehow
that a fully naturalistic mechanism called "evolution" caused them.
If you assert that, I will then ask you what *exactly* that
mechanism was:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that
a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings,
on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown HOW the innumerable species inhabiting this world
have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure
and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", 1872, Everyman's Library, 1967, p18. My
emphasis)
DN>These can't be disputed and that's why I'm saying ICR is wrong.
>They don't account for the facts of evolution in the fossil record.
That the "ICR is wrong" does not necessarily mean that "evolution"
is right. If the God of the Bible exists, and He has created
progressively over time, the the "ICR", although "wrong" about the
details would be right in the big picture.
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:05:47, Glenn Morton wrote:
JB>The fossil record is a record of stasis and sudden appearance.
>What does THAT tell us?
GM>It tells me that you continue to ignore the fish/amphibian
transition. Here is an updated list again.
First, thanks to Glenn for posting this great evidence for
Intelligent Design and Mediate Creation! :-) But Glenn just
sidesteps Jim's question. Gould's two general principles of "stasis
and sudden appearance":
"The history of most fossil species includes two features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited
and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of
its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.' "
(Gould S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, p151).
apply to the fossil record of the "fish/amphibian transition" also.
GM>378 MYR ago- Pandericthys--These are lobe-finned fish.
Yes, specifically they are a genus Panderichthys, within the family
Osteolepsis, suborder Rhipidistia, and order Crossopterygii:
"The genus Panderichthys (Vorobyeva, 1980, Schultze and Arsenault,
1985) appears particularly close to amphibians in the loss of
mobility between the postparietals and parietals and the elongation
of the snout. Unfortunately the appendicular skeleton remains
poorly known. " (Carroll, R.L., "Vertebrate Paleontology and
Evolution", 1988, p166)
GM>Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod,
>they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete
>skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still
>fish. (Ahlbert and Milner, 1994, p. 508). This fish also had
>lungs and nostrils (Schultz and Trueb, 1991, p.87) but also had
>gills.
I find this impressive evidence of far-sighted planning by an
Intelligent Designer. Here we have a line of fish that had
developed "lungs and nostrils" millions of years before they needed
them on land. From this same line also came legs and ears and a
whole host of what Darwinists euphemistically call pre-adaptations:
"And so on to the next step, because land animals must also protect
their body from drying out, by swapping scales for an impervious
skin...Land animals also need to protect their eyes from drying by
a flow of tears and need an eyelid to protect it from dust
particles. Similarly the nose must be protected by a supply of
mucus. The land animal must also change its sense organs. It no
longer needs the curious organ which runs along its side called a
lateral line, and this is converted, by an amazing series of steps
which I shall shortly describe, into the ear. The eye, too,
changes, since the refractive index of air is different from that of
water and no doubt there ale modifications in the sense of smell,
though I doubt if anyone has studied that. And then, of course,
there is the problem of the legs themselves. Before ever the fish
reached the land the structure of its fins began to change. Instead
of rays, a series of bones corresponding to the tibia, radius and
ulna of the arm appeared. Digits, tarsals and metatarsals evolved
(so it is now generally conceded) as wholly new structures, though
the point - unwelcome to Darwinians - was hotly contested in the
1930s. The fish which decided to remain fish very sensibly,
converted their lungs into swim-bladders with which they could
regulate the depth at which they swam. Though we have this clue in
the bone-structure of the crossopterygian fin there are no
intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil
collections of the world. Once again the critical evidence for
gradual evolution is missing." (Taylor G.R., "The Great Evolution
Mystery", 1983, pp58-60)
GM>These things really looked like tetrapods until you see the fins.
>The teeth had infolding enamel which is identical to that of the
>earliest tetrapods.
Indeed. I personally find this `labyrinthine' cross-section of
teeth structure as persuasive evidence for common ancestry
relationship between the Rhipidstia and the Ichthyostegids:
"In addition to the internal nares, the teeth of the ichthyostegids
were a legacy from the rhipidistians...The teeth which edged the
jaws and studded the palate in both forms were conical and sharp,
like those of most fish-eating vertebrates, but they bore
distinctive striations from the base to the tip of the crown. When
a tooth is cut in cross section, each striation can be seen to mark
an infolding of the tooth wall. In the interior of the tooth, the
enamel is further convoluted to form a labyrinthine pattern." (Stahl
B.J., "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution", 1985, p218)
GM>Unlike all fish but like the tetrapods, the Panderichthys have
>lost the dorsal and anal fins, leaving 4 fins in the place where
>legs would be in the Tetrapods.(Ahlberg and Milner, p.508.
Yes. Another `co-incidence' or evidence of intelligent design and
far-sighted, but subtle planning? What was the Darwinist
`blind watchmaker' selective advantage in losing "dorsal and anal
fins, leaving 4 fins in the place where legs would be in the
Tetrapods", especially since it didn't happen in other fish?
Gould points out that fins do not provide an easy transformation
to limbs:
"I might grant the probability of the most crucial environmental
transition- from water to land-if the characteristic anatomy of
fishes implied, even for incidental reasons, an easy transformation
of fins into sturdy limbs needed for support in the gravity of
terrestrial environments. But the fins of most fishes are entirely
unsuited for such a transition. A stout basal bar follows the line
of the body axis, and numerous thin fin rays run parallel to each
other and perpendicular to the bar. These thin, unconnected rays
could not support the weight of the body on land. The few modern
fishes that scurry across mud flats, including Penophthalmus, the
"walking fish," pull their bodies along and do not stride with their
fins. Terrestrial vertebrates could arise because a relatively
small group of fishes, only distantly related to the "standard
issue," happened, for their own immediate reasons, to evolve a
radically different type of limb skeleton, with a strong central
axis perpendicular to the body, and numerous lateral branches
radiating from this common focus. A structure of this design could
evolve into a weight-bearing terrestrial limb, with the central axis
converted to the major bones of our arms and legs, and the lateral
branches forming digits. Such a fin structure did not evolve for
its future flexibility in permitting later mammalian life; (this
limb may have provided advantages, in superior rotation, for
bottom-dwelling fishes that used the substrate as an aid in
propulsion). But whatever its unknown advantages, this necessary
prerequisite to terrestrial life evolved in a restricted group of
fishes off the main line-the lungfish-coelacanth- rhipidistian
complex. " (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life", 1991, p317)
Indeed, just one look at a Ichthyostegian shoulder clavicle and
pelvic girdle reveals tremendous changes that would be required
*before* the arm and leg could function at all. Stahl describes it:
"The girdles of the ichthyostegid amphibians were as completely
adapted for bearing weight as the limbs. The dermal part of the
pectoral girdle had lost its connection with the back of the skull:
the bones through which the attachment was made in ancestral fishes,
the posttemporal and supracleithrum, had disappeared entirely.
Instead of being braced against the skull the remaining dermal bones
on each side abutted a new bone formed in the ventral midline, the
interclavicle. The dominant element in each half of the pectoral
girdle was now the scapulocoracoid, with which the upper limb bone
articulated. It rose dorsally to form a strong blade for the
attachment of muscles which bound the girdle against the trunk. The
pelvic girdle had evolved the rigidity and the contact with the
axial skeleton that allowed it to serve as a firm anchor for the
hind legs. The two loosely associated ventral plates of fishes had
given way to a structure built of left and right halves almost
immovably joined to each other in the ventral midline. In its basic
design, this girdle was like that of later tetrapods. The three
bones of each side met laterally in the acetabulum, the depression
into which the head of the proximal limb bone fits. Two of them,
the pubis and the ischium, spread from this point ventromedially to
meet their counterparts in the midline, affording a surface for the
origin of muscles that moved the leg downward and back and forth.
The third bone, the ilium, extended upward to reach the sacral rib
and vertebra, to which it was securely tied. Besides bracing the
girdle against the vertebral column, this bone provided anchorage
for the muscles which raised the limb." (Stahl, 1985, pp209-210)
Even apart from the total lack of any plausible fully naturalistic
mechanism, Davis & Kenyon point out that if evolution is true, then
there must have been many different transitional species required to
bridge these gaps, but there are appear to be none:
"If crossopterygians really did evolve into amphibians, tremendous
changes must have taken place. Fins must have been transformed into
forelimbs...The skull had to change from two parts to a single,
solid piece. The hip bones had to enlarge and become attached to
the backbone. Numerous changes must also have occurred in organs,
muscles and other soft tissues. For example, the air bladder of the
fish had to be transformed into the lungs of the amphibian. Though
just a few of the many examples possible, these are enough to show
how large the differences between early fish and amphibians really
were. How many different transitional species were required to
bridge the gap between them; hundreds? Even thousands? We don't
know, but we do know that no such transitional species have been
recovered. Moreover, we have no fossil evidence of the evolution of
the crossopterygians from other fish. Two large gaps thus exist in
the fossil record between ordinary Devonian fish (325 million years
ago) and amphibians; one between ordinary fish and crossopterygians,
and an even larger gap between these lobe-finned fish and
amphibians." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People", 1993,
p104)
GM>This contradicts Gish's claim that there is no fossil which
>shows loss of fins. (Gish, 1978, p. 78-79)
Glenn is always going on about old, out-of-date quotes. In this case
he quotes Gish's *1978* book "Evolution: the Fossils say No". Yet
Gish has an updated 1985 edition of that book, retitled "Evolution:
the Challenge of the Fossil Record". In it he says (pp72-73):
:
"According to the assumed evolutionary sequence of life, fish gave
rise to amphibia. This change would have required many millions of
years and would have involved a vast multitude of transitional forms.
The fossil record has been diligently searched for a transitional
series linking fish to amphibian, but as yet no such series has been
found. The closest link that has been proposed is that allegedly
existing between rhipidistian crossopterygian fish and amphibians of
the genus, Ichthyostega...There is a tremendous gap, however, between
the crossopterygians and the ichthyostegids, a gap that would have
spanned many millions of years and during which innumerable
transitional forms should reveal a slow gradual change of the
pectoral and pelvic fins of the crossopterygian fish into the feet
and legs of the amphibian, along with loss of other fins, and the
accomplishment of other transformations required for adaptation to a
terrestrial habitat. What are the facts? Not a single transitional
form has ever been found showing an intermediate stage between the
fin of the crossopterygian and the foot of the ichthyostegid. The
limb and the limb girdle of Ichthyostega were already of the basic
amphibian type, showing no vestige of a fin ancestry. There is a
basic difference in anatomy between all fishes and all amphibians not
bridged by transitional forms. In all fishes, living or fossil, the
pelvic bones are small and loosely embedded in muscle. There is no
connection between the pelvic bones and the vertebral column. None
is needed. The pelvic bones do not and could not support the weight
of the body...In tetrapod amphibians, living or fossil, on the other
hand, the pelvic bones are very large and firmly attached to the
vertebral column. This is the type of anatomy an animal must have to
walk. It is the type of anatomy found in all living or fossil
tetrapod amphibians but which is absent in all living or fossil
fishes. There are no transitional forms."
While Gish may be wrong on some minor points, he is correct in his
major claim that: "There is a tremendous gap...between the
crossopterygians and the ichthyostegids, a gap that would have
spanned many millions of years and during which innumerable
transitional forms should reveal a slow gradual change of the
pectoral and pelvic fins of the crossopterygian fish into the feet
and legs of the amphibian...". Both Stahl and Carroll confirm
this:
"Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians
will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should
be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly
ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived
after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show
no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that
characterized the primitive tetrapods. " (Stahl , 1985, p148)
"Where information regarding transitional forms is most eagerly
sought, it is least likely to be available. We have no intermediate
fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians..."; "The
remains of rhipidistian fish are common in Middle and Upper Devonian
deposits that might be expected to yield the remains of ancestral
amphibians, but no fossil is known that could be considered
intermediate between these two groups." (Carroll, 1988, pp4, 579-580).
Colin Patterson (a paleoichthyologist) says thst Ichthyostega does
not provide a smooth transition from rhipidistians to amphibians:
"In the second part of his paper, Gingerich discusses the
stratophenetic method in relation to the origins of the major groups
of tetrapods. Here I thought the deficiencies are obvious. To take
one example, Gingerich asserts that discovery of Ichthyostega
"provided an important confirmatory link" between Devonian
rhipidistian fishes and Carboniferous amphibians. In support of
this, he cites two reputedly rhipidistian features of Ichthyostega,
neither of which is characteristic of rhipidistians alone amongst
fishes, and he neglects to mention that, among the little that is
known of Ichthyostega, the skull roof, nares, and humerus have all
failed to meet the expectation of smooth transition from
rhipidistians to amphibians. According to Gingerich, tests of
stratophenetic phylogenies are provided by new fossils. But when a
new fossil is found and is inconsistent with the phylogeny (like
Ichthyostega), the stratopheneticist's answer is that this test has
shown that the fossil record was insufficiently dense and continuous
for the method to work. And when a new fossil is consistent with
the phylogeny, the record was sufficiently dense and continuous."
(Patterson C., Book Review, "Systematic Zoology", 29, 1980, p216, in
Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", 1991, Vol. I,
pp281-282)
GM>368 MYR-Ichthyostega-- much like Acanthostega but has 7 digits on
his hindlimb. He has lungs. His legs were only good for being in
water. They could not support his weight. (Coates and Clack,
1990, p. 67)
What "good" were such "legs" at all, if they "could not support"
Ichthyostega's "weight"? In "water" Ichthyostega would not need
legs, since it could swim! The only use for legs would be on *land*,
and this is what Ichthyostega's legs appeared to be *designed in
advance* for:
"The ichthyostegids...already had well-developed legs. The limb
skeleton exhibited, fully defined, the pattern that was to remain
characteristic of land vertebrates. A single, large bone extended
through the upper part of the leg to meet, at knee or elbow, two
elements which supported the lower limb. These bones articulated
distally with a number of small ones that gave flexibility to the
wrist or ankle region. The five-toed foot stretched out flat, its
metapodial bones bracing those of the digits. Although the proximal
bone extended laterally from the side of the body like the fin of a
fish, the lower part of the leg was turned in a vertical direction in
such a way that it could lift the body from the ground. The girdles
of the ichthyostegid amphibians were as completely adapted for
bearing weight as the limbs." (Stahl, 1985, pp209-210)
GM>366 MYR -Hynerpeton-more advanced legs and pelvic girdle than
>Ichthyostega. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)
Once the major design change is made, namely "legs and pelvic
girdle", further advancement of same is really *microevolution*.
GM>362 MYR- Acanthostega- has four legs, lungs but still has gills.
>(Coates and Clack , 1991, p. 234) He has 8 digits on his front leg.
>His legs could not support his weight either. (Coats and Clack,
>1990, p. 66-67). He has fishlike lower arm bones (Coates and Clack
>1990, p. 67)
Glenn places Acanthostega in a line "368 MYR-Ichthyostega", "366
MYR -Hynerpeton" and "362 MYR- Acanthostega" to give
some idea of progression. But in fact Acanthostega was thought to
have appeared *before* these two:
"Acanthostega was a tetrapod, too, but at 360 million years old, it
has a special distinction: aside from creatures suggested by a few
older fossil fragments, it is the most primitive tetrapod known."
(Zimmer C., "Coming Onto the Land", Discover, June 1995, pp120)
Actually, the discovery of fuller skeletons of Acanthostega
represents a huge problem for Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker'
adaptationism, because it showed that the tetrapods developed their
legs in water, millions of years before they needed them on land:
"Clack who works at the University of Cambridge's Museum of Zoology,
discovered the bulk of Acanthostega's skeleton in 1987 and has been
carefully reconstructing it ever since with fellow paleontologist
Michael Coates. They are just finishing up their monographs on the
creature, and some of the conclusions they've drawn from its body
are surprising other paleontologists. For a long time it was
assumed that our limbs and feet, which work so well for walking on
land, evolved for that exact purpose. But Acanthostega has
convinced (Clack and Coates otherwise; tetrapod anatomy evolved
while our ancestors lived exclusively underwater and it evolved for
life underwater. The first vertebrate that walked onto land didn't
crawl on fish find, it had evolved well-turned legs millions of
years beforehand." (Zimmer, June 1995, pp120).
This is easy to explain by an Intelligent Design model, but
difficult to explain by a `blind watchmaker' model.
GM>358-352 MYR A fossil found in Pennsylvania which is the second
>oldest amphibian, has only lungs and no gills and is fully capable
>of walking on land. (Washington Post, 117:(239): A2, Monday Aug.
>1, 1994)
Same comment as for "366 MYR -Hynerpeton". This is just
*microevolution*. Once the major design change is made, namely
"lungs", and legs, then even the ICR would not have a problem with
its further development by naturalistic processes.
But I am surprised that Glenn keeps quoting this out of a
non-scientific journal. If this was as important as it seems to be,
I would expect it to be written up somewhere in a scientific
journal.
GM>Note that the loss of gills would be a deleterious mutation since
>an animal that can live in both land and sea is more fit. Yet this
>did not kill the tetrapods.
Agreed, but then this sounds more like Intelligent Design than
Darwinist evolution:
"The theory of natural selection demands that organs are efficient
at all stages of their evolutionary development; if they were not,
their possessors would simply have become extinct." (Hutchinson P.,
"Evolution Explained", Wren: Melbourne, 1974, p160)
GM>And Jim, don't try citing that Lower Devonian trackway from
>Australia. That slab was found in a courtyard of a 100 year old
>house, They don't know where it came from so they can't be sure of
>the age. Second, there are no digit marks on this slab and they
>aren't really sure it is a tetrapod rather than a fish.
I am not sure why Glenn has a problem with this. Stahl says that
the common ancestor between the rhipidistians and the ichthyostegids
was probably way back in the Middle Devonian:
"As primitive as the ichthyostegids of the Upper Devonian period
were, they seem to have been at the end, or near the end, of a side
branch of the labyrinthodont line. They had already diversified-at least
three genera are discernible in the material from eastern Greenland -
and had specialized to the extent of losing the intertemporal bones,
elements of the rhipidistian skull that persisted among many
labyrinthodonts of Carboniferous and Permian time. The fully formed
legs of the ichthyostegids and their completely un-fish-like pelvic
girdle indicate also that these animals lived long after the
appendicular skeleton of the fishes began to change. To verify their
theories of amphibian origin, paleontologists have to find the remains
of earlier members of the tetrapod line. It is conceivable that some of
these forms may yet come to light in rocks of Middle Devonian age.
The lineages that were to produce terrestrial species may have been
segregated as much as 30 million years before the ichthyostegids
inhabited their swamps, at a time when lobe-finned fishes were the
predominant vertebrates in fresh water." (Stahl, 1985, pp221-
222)
That is, if Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' evolution is true! :-)
[...]
God bless
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------