Transitional Fossils

[Jose]

Creationists seem to claim that no transitional fossils have been found, thus disproving the theory of evolution. Evolutionists claim to have found very many of them. What's going on?

1. What is a transitional fossil?
2. What would one look like?
3. What are your criteria for coming to these conclusions?

I've put in the last question as an afterthought. It might help us resolve differences in our definitions.

[gluadys]

Eureka, I think I've found it. Just when I thought we'd be going back and forth on this issue forever, I think I have a breakthrough.

What I'd like to propose is the mathematical phylogenetic tree (MPT) to resolve the issue. It goes along with what I stated earlier about using a coordinate system to map species.

We'll start with some base assumptions:
- Common descent is true.
- A phylogenetic tree can be constructed in which all life (extinct and extant/known and unknown) can be mapped onto the tree.
- The tree is mapped in which species reside on integer coordinates (for example, species A can be at location (100,100)).
- Directional lines are drawn to represent the direction of speciation from one species to another.

Sounds like it might work. I am glad to see you include both known and unknown species. In some cases we don't have hard evidence of an inferred common ancestor. In others we have a plausible common ancestor, but can't tell if it is a direct ancestor or represents a collateral line.

Defining a "unit" might be difficult.

Here is some info on units actually used:

the darwin
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridl ... ution2.asp

the haldane
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric ... PDG383.pdf

The sort of map you are suggesting would end up looking pretty much like a cladogram, so I thought I would look up information on what cladograms are and how they are constructed. Lots of fascinating stuff.

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/CLAS/CLAS.Clad.html
http://biology.fullerton.edu/biol404/ph ... intro.html


This one is great fun. It only covers dinosaurs, but it has a lot of info in it. Click on any species and there are little quizzes (designed for kids) about how paleontologists derive information from fossils and where they are found. Click on the nodes (blue dots) on the cladogram and find out what characteristics define the clade.

http://www.ology.amnh.org/paleontology/ ... ogram.html

I didn't go into this one as I am not registered. But the registration is free and it looks like a lot of interesting interactive tutorials on various aspects of biology and bioinformation.

http://workbench.sdsc.edu/

[Jose]

otseng wrote:
Eureka, I think I've found it. Just when I thought we'd be going back and forth on this issue forever, I think I have a breakthrough.

What I'd like to propose is the mathematical phylogenetic tree (MPT) to resolve the issue. It goes along with what I stated earlier about using a coordinate system to map species.

We'll start with some base assumptions:
- Common descent is true.
- A phylogenetic tree can be constructed in which all life (extinct and extant/known and unknown) can be mapped onto the tree.
- The tree is mapped in which species reside on integer coordinates (for example, species A can be at location (100,100)).
- Directional lines are drawn to represent the direction of speciation from one species to another.

These base assumptions are reasonable. Remember, however, that the phylogenetic tree does not need to assume that common descent is true. It merely needs to assume that there are characterstics among organisms, and that some of these are similar and some are not. I can construct such a tree using furniture, after all.

The important thing is that we have a way to "display" the similarities and differences. We can do this with your tree. To make the tree "quantitative," we can draw lines to connect the species, with the lengths of the lines being equal to the numbers of differences--so that if we measure the total length of lines connecting two species, we get the number of differences. Using an orthogonal grid, it becomes a little tricky to do this if we connect the species directly, since "length of line" is then the sums of various hypoteneuses. It's easier if we use vertical lines measured in "units" of difference, conveniently connected by horizontal lines, the length of which doesn't matter.

Such a tree is really no more than a representation of similarities and differences. It does not address the question of how those similarities and differences came about. With furniture, the answer is that humans designed them on purpose. With living things, we have two hypotheses: God designed them exactly as they are, or evolutionary change led to the current diversity.

I hope that what I have said here helps in the discussion of the last few days. The Tree does not assume any particular history. It is just a description of differences. To assess whether common descent might be true, or whether it might not, we need to apply the scientific logic of predictions based on our hypotheses.

The creation model predicts that no intermediate species should exist. In this case, intermediate fossils, or transitional fossils should not exist. Creationists certainly state often that none exist, so they must have some definition that they use for what transitional fossils should look like.

The evolution model predicts that intermediate species must exist. Transitional fossils must be abundant.

Either way, we need to know what transitional fossils should look like. For evolution, the "atomic transitionals" should neatly fit between the parent species and daughter species (D is between C and E). On a larger scale, there should also be transitionals (N is between B and W). Still, we need to know how to identify them.

gotta run...

--J

[An Observer]

..........

The creation model predicts that no intermediate species should exist. In this case, intermediate fossils, or transitional fossils should not exist. Creationists certainly state often that none exist, so they must have some definition that they use for what transitional fossils should look like.

The evolution model predicts that intermediate species must exist. Transitional fossils must be abundant.

.....

More specifically:

The Theistic Evolution (or intelligent design) model asserts that intermediate species should exist. That mutations occurred either directly by force of will of beings (divine or mortal) that can will, or indirectly as a deterministic result of force of will of such beings. And, that natural selection played a roll in determining which species survived.

The Creationist model asserts that no intermediate species should exist. Everything is a direct result of force of will of will of the divine Being, God.

The Atheistic Evolution model asserts that intermediate species should exists. That mutations occurred spontaneously by force of “chance” (as if chance is a force). And that natural selection played a roll in determining which species survived.

Of the three, the Atheistic Evolution model is the least rational (in fact it is totally irrational). It presumes that events occur without a cause (or by chance, which is the same thing). By forcing Creationists to choose between a non-rational model and an overly simplistic model, you are forcing them to choose the overly simplistic model.

Therefore my question:

Why do you omit intelligent Design (Theistic Evolution) from your discussion?

[The Happy Humanist]

The Atheistic Evolution model asserts that intermediate species should exists. That mutations occurred spontaneously by force of “chance” (as if chance is a force).

You use the term "force of chance" (which I've never heard anyone else use) and then tear it down. Strawman.

Of the three, the Atheistic Evolution model is the least rational (in fact it is totally irrational). It presumes that events occur without a cause (or by chance, which is the same thing).

Huh? Since when is "by chance" and "without a cause" the same thing? If I roll a Snake Eyes in a game ofCraps, that is by chance, but is it without a cause?

Are you denying that mutations happen? And that they are random in nature?

Therefore my question:

Why do you omit intelligent Design (Theistic Evolution) from your discussion?

If Intelligent Design can be truly segregated from the other two as "Theistic Evolution," then you are correct, it deserves a place in the discussion. It doesn't make a difference; it can be torn apart on its own or in concert with Creation Science.

[gluadys]

If Intelligent Design can be truly segregated from the other two as "Theistic Evolution," then you are correct, it deserves a place in the discussion. It doesn't make a difference; it can be torn apart on its own or in concert with Creation Science.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it tries to be an umbrella covering all the bases from YEC to TE. The only thing it excludes is a purely natural explanation of evolution.

I would have no problem with ID if they would simply say that the concrete mechanism that put design into the bodies of living species is evolution.

But although some IDists would gladly agree with that, the ID movement leaders won't say it aloud for fear of losing their base of support among creationists.

And I have engaged in conversation with creationist IDists whose position is they have no idea how design gets off the drawing board into living bodies, but they are sure it was NOT by evolution.

Sooner or later those differences will disrupt the ID camp.

Meanwhile, until ID decides where it is going, as a theistic evolutionist, I strongly object to ID being lumped in with TE.

TE has a clear-cut position. God created. The means of the creation of bio-diversity was evolution. Evolution is by far the best scientific explanation (theory) of the evidence of past and present life forms.

[The Happy Humanist]

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it tries to be an umbrella covering all the bases from YEC to TE. The only thing it excludes is a purely natural explanation of evolution.

You know, I had a feeling ID had some kind of an "Identity Crisis." (No Pun Intended!).

==JJS==

[otseng]

Such a tree is really no more than a representation of similarities and differences. It does not address the question of how those similarities and differences came about.

I agree. Could I extend this and say that morphological comparisons is not sufficient to demonstrate common descent? There needs to exist sufficient proof other than morphological similarities to show that common descent is true.

The creation model predicts that no intermediate species should exist.

I would not necessarily go that far. Certainly atomic transitionals can exist. The only thing that the CM would not be compatible with is common descent. Genetic differences between a parent and child is a given. And having a child that is different than a parent is given. But, the CM does not believe that all children ultimately derive from a single parent.

In this case, intermediate fossils, or transitional fossils should not exist. Creationists certainly state often that none exist, so they must have some definition that they use for what transitional fossils should look like.

To me, the argument is not whether a transitional exists or not, but to demonstrate does a transitional support common descent?

The evolution model predicts that intermediate species must exist. Transitional fossils must be abundant.

I would agree with this.

[otseng]

Before too much on ID gets said here, a thread on Intelligent Design already exists for discussing that topic.

[gluadys]

Such a tree is really no more than a representation of similarities and differences. It does not address the question of how those similarities and differences came about.

I agree. Could I extend this and say that morphological comparisons is not sufficient to demonstrate common descent? There needs to exist sufficient proof other than morphological similarities to show that common descent is true.

Morphlogical similarities would be included in the whole set of similarities. So, no, we don't need something other than morphological similarities to comment on them. We have to be able to comment on similarities which are known exclusively from morphology, since, in the case of fossils, that is often all we have.

But the same arguments would apply to morphological similarities as apply to behavioural, physiological or genetic similarities.

The creation model predicts that no intermediate species should exist.

I would not necessarily go that far. Certainly atomic transitionals can exist. The only thing that the CM would not be compatible with is common descent. Genetic differences between a parent and child is a given. And having a child that is different than a parent is given. But, the CM does not believe that all children ultimately derive from a single parent.

So something that needs to be considered is what would the differences be between a phylogeny which is based on many ancestors and a phylogeny which is based on one. How would you tell that two species must be placed on different trees rather than on different branches of the same tree?

In this case, intermediate fossils, or transitional fossils should not exist. Creationists certainly state often that none exist, so they must have some definition that they use for what transitional fossils should look like.

To me, the argument is not whether a transitional exists or not, but to demonstrate does a transitional support common descent?

No one transitional can do this. All it can do is offer support for the theory that two genera, families or orders are branches on the same tree. But if, collectively, transitionals describe a single phylogeny with a single root, then you have support for common descent.

[Jose]

The Theistic Evolution (or intelligent design) model asserts that intermediate species should exist. That mutations occurred either directly by force of will of beings (divine or mortal) that can will, or indirectly as a deterministic result of force of will of such beings. And, that natural selection played a roll in determining which species survived.

This is an interesting model, which is the one that is held by a huge number of Christians. As I see it, it is not possible to determine, by any scientific test, the difference between this model and the traditional model of natural evolution. Theistic Evolution suggests that the mutations that occur in DNA, which appear random in statistical tests by mere humans, are purposely positioned by God. OK. Why not? The remaining mechanisms are identical in both models. The only difference is whether the mutations occur at random, as they appear to us, or under the direction of an Unseen Hand.

I am puzzled that you equate Theistic Evolution with "Intelligent Design." They are quite different. ID proposes that there are certain things that are impossible to create by evolutionary mechanisms, and that these things are proof of God's existence. It's an extremely silly theory, however, since it pretends that what we know now, in January 2005, is all we will ever know. It suggests that anything we don't know right now can be explained only by intelligent design (read "the Christian God"). I would think that Christians would be offended by this "theory," since it relegates God to the bits of the world that are not yet explained scientifically, and which are becoming fewer and fewer. It is particularly silly to teach it in school, since it's entire theory is 5 words: "or maybe God did it." I bet this is easy enough for parents to teach to their kids without the help of professional teachers.

... the Atheistic Evolution model is the least rational (in fact it is totally irrational). It presumes that events occur without a cause (or by chance, which is the same thing).

No, it does not presume that events occur without a cause. We know the causes of mutation--Xrays, radioactivity, chemical mutagens, etc. We know the chemical mechanisms by which they work. These are the causes of mutation, which is the only part of Natural Evolution that is random. As noted above, it is indistinguishable from Theistic Evolution, which differs only in that it suggests that God directs the mutations.

Why did I omit Intelligent Design? As I said above, ID is a simple, and very unsatisfactory idea, that God exists only for the things we don't understand. I omitted Theistic Evolution because we can't tell it from Natural Evolution. More significantly, though, the Real Question I wanted to address in this thread is what Transitional Fossils look like--a question that does not depend on any particular theory of how evolution works. The argument that strict Creationists use is that transitional fossils do not exist. Yet, evolutionists say that a great many exist. This sounds to me like the two groups are using different definitions. I know what the evolutionists' definition is, and I suspect that the Creationists who deny the existence of transitional fossils are using a very different definition.

I have talked to some Creationists who consider a "mutation" to be something like a fish turning into an amphibian, starting at the front and finishing at the back. The transitional fossil would be this individual caught in the act of changing. Is this the kind of thing that the Creationists refer to, when they say transitional fossils do not exist?