David Perlman celebrates Darwin's birth year with a short list of evolutionary transitions. It's a strange thing; these kinds of examples are thick on the ground everywhere, published in the scientific literature every week, and somehow, the creationists never seem to be able to find them.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Brian Fahling, an attorney for the American Family Association, has written a highly dishonest propaganda piece for Agape Press about evolution and intelligent design. I know it's hardly sound sport to fisk these things, but someone's gotta do it. Like most religious right types, he freely combines…
It's always amusing to see creationists try to explain why Charles Darwin was wrong, especially when they make up lists of reasons "Darwin's theory of evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny." These are always people who wouldn't know what scientific scrutiny was if it knocked them…
199 years ago today, Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England at the home of his family (known as the Mount). By pure coincidence, Charles would have published one of the most important books ever written 50 years later in 1859, and next year will mark not only the…
A few disclaimers: I do get kickbacks from affiliate programs when you purchase books after clicking through those links. If you'd rather not fund a perfidious atheist's book addiction, just look up the titles at your preferred source—I don't mind. This list is not a thinly-veiled attempt to get…
Ehh, them there's just creatin' more gaps.
A good list to have.
Creationists dont care for truth,it's in their way,so no amount of transitional fossils will ever be enough for them.Who cares.
That is because those are quantum evolutionary transitions. Just try to prove it is not.
It's the mantra syndrome. It's more fun to chant your mantra "There aren't any transitional fossils" than it is to learn that you are wrong. The mantra gets the like-minded clapping as well.
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. A "transitional fossil" is defined to be a fossil that fills a gap in the collections of all fossils that exist. All the fossils mentioned are just members of the collection of fossils that exist; none them represent the important missing transitions. Do you have any examples of fossils that aren't just fossils that exist?! DO YOU!!??
(Sad that I have to say, but the above was not intended seriously)
The IDiots, like the creationists, know about the transitionals, which is one reason they have to come up with "irreducible complexity" and similar claims to deny that such transitions are possible.
In that way, a transitional really does produce two gaps where there was just one. And since they don't have to explain, well, anything, they don't need to explain the transitional. After all, god can do anything, so...
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Not only is it more fun to chant, it's easier than thinking. For some reason it's easier for creationists to conceive of God's infinite spice rack of animals, or some vast Lazy Susan of species which he dips into from time to time, than it is to realize that everything evolved over vast spans of time. Then they wind up rotting inside from their very own, extra special revelatory "Conceit of Hindsight."
...where the operative word is "short." N = 3, by my count.
That or you end up in a familiar argument that usually goes as follows:
Me: "Aha! See, a transitional fossil!"
Cretionist: "But where's the transitional fossil to *that* transitional fossil?"
*Repeat ad nauseaum until you eventually fail to produce*
Me: "I've given you 31,200 examples! I can't find one that exhibits transitional features..."
Cretionist: "Jesus Lives, Evilution is wrong!!"
*followed by sound of me repeatedly beating my head against a wall*
fossil
OM mani padme whereareallthetransitionalfossils
OM mani padme whereareallthetransitionalfossils
OM mani padme whereareallthetransitionalfossils
...
Sven @ 8: ...where the operative word is "short." N = 3, by my count.
Yeah, I wish he'd been given more text space and better copyediting for that piece. (I tripped over nothing egregious on first reading; just some less-than-graceful or -precise word choices.) Perlman deserves good editorial support, but the Chron has lost a whole layer of frontline editors over the last six months.
Perlman himself seems ready to go down with the ship. He's been there since the '50s or so and just keeps on keepin' on.
He was being awfully polite about "skeptics," wasn't he?
But isn't EVERY fossil a transitional fossil? Every single fossil found existed at a point in time after the life form from which it evolved. And if it was an evolutionary success, then there is another fossil at a point in time still later which show a continuing evolution.
He left out the jackalope.
Shorter version: Owah Tana Siam
Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters documents many of these lineages and transitions, with photos and diagrams. The only problem is that as a result it's a bit dry. But it's a good reference if you ever need to rebut the 'no transitionals' crimson clupea
Shubin's "Inner Fish" is much more accessible and readable.
RBDC@10 - Dude, you just made my day. Thanks for that video.
"But.... I have thoughts. And that can really fuck up the faith thing. Just ask any Catholic priest."
Oh man. :-D
JC
Perhaps creationists can not find transitional fossils for the same reason criminals cannot find police officers.
No one would give a rat's ass about creationists any more than they would the Royal Descendants of Atlantis or the Theosophists.
Except for one thing. They are trying to cram their beliefs down everyone else's throats. While taking over the USA and heading on back to the Dark Ages.
With some success lately, the last 8 years were notable for being a disaster for everyone but the fundies. 18 out of 22 previous civilizations fell from within. Within my lifetime, two collapsed, the Soviet and British empires.
The concept of visualizing or documenting "evolutionary transitions" is, itself, a bit of a fallacy--or at least couched in fallacious concepts. The nomination of particular fossils as "transitional forms" is akin to the search for "missing links". Ususally, a few, typically vertebrate, select examples (e.g. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, or Ambulocetus) are offered. Or long lists of fossil genera are given under the heading of "transitional forms" between some group A and some group B.
This has been done time and again. There's a sort of boilerplate creationist response to this: the so-called transitional form is either a member of "Group A" or "Group B". Our invocation of these groups--many of which (like "fish") are not real--only serves to reinforce the typological preconceptions that creationists are taking advantage of. "It has feathers, so it's a bird, not a dinosaur", for instance.
Instead of "filling in gaps" or "documenting transitions", new fossils are populating the Tree of Life. As GregB (#13) points out, every fossil is, in this respect, a transitional form. All fossils and--all living forms are needed to understand and reconstruct the history of evolutionary changes. Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx do not have a special status as "transitional forms", while all the rest are fish and tetrapods, or birds and dinosaurs.
The concept of visualizing or documenting "evolutionary transitions" is, itself, a bit of a fallacy--or at least couched in fallacious concepts. The nomination of particular fossils as "transitional forms" is akin to the search for "missing links". Ususally, a few, typically vertebrate, select examples (e.g. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, or Ambulocetus) are offered. Or long lists of fossil genera are given under the heading of "transitional forms" between some group A and some group B.
This has been done time and again. There's a sort of boilerplate creationist response to this: the so-called transitional form is either a member of "Group A" or "Group B". Our invocation of these groups--many of which (like "fish") are not real--only serves to reinforce the typological preconceptions that creationists are taking advantage of. "It has feathers, so it's a bird, not a dinosaur", for instance.
Instead of "filling in gaps" or "documenting transitions", new fossils are populating the Tree of Life. As GregB (#13) points out, every fossil is, in this respect, a transitional form. All fossils and--all living forms are needed to understand and reconstruct the history of evolutionary changes. Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx do not have a special status as "transitional forms", while all the rest are fish and tetrapods, or birds and dinosaurs.
The Jeebus retards claim every transitional species was magically created out of nothing, so they are not transitional at all. They also say evolution requires more faith than magical creation. It's impossible to be more stupid than a Christian.
and somehow, the creationists never seem to be able to find them.
Hard to find or see anything on your knees, with your ears blocked, eyes shut, and hands towards the sky, innit?
The creationists can find them alright, but they will not believe they are there by natural means. Their god put them there to give credence to the rationalists beliefs, and mindless rejection to the religion saturated brain dead minds who think their god is toying with the evolutionists whims of a natural event. It is truly amazing how religion can warp logical thinking on a scale akin to abject insanity.
Rev @10: great video. Hadn't see that Lewis Black skit before. "...fossils are the handiwork of the devil." LOL.
@#24: Maybe god put them there, maybe the devil did --- see video from Rev's link.
I'd comment, but I'm too distracted by the little things below the article:
Inside SFGate: Strong Argument For Pole Dancing. A Marin lawyer says it's a fab workout. Photos.
And the ads: Evolutionary Biology Jobs Found: 252 Local Jobs Available! Sign up & View Free Job Listings. Wow! Sign me up for Darwinist indoctrination today!
@Darby #26
"I'd comment, but I'm too distracted by the little things below the article:
Inside SFGate: Strong Argument For Pole Dancing. A Marin lawyer says it's a fab workout. Photos."
It *is* a good workout. Fun, too.
"Evidence shows that Australopithecus - among them the famed Lucy - was a dead-end tribe, but Ardipithecus clearly gave rise to the "Homo" lineage"
Sure?
Great news! Atlantis just took off to repair the great Hubble Space Telescope! Science in flight and everywhere, and no imaginary god to mar the event.
According to wikipedia today is the anniversary of the launch of the Beagle (in 1820). Not a huge event to go wild about but a nice little coincidence to go with the Atlantis launch etc.
Re: #16. I found Don Prothero's book very enjoyable since he piles up the evidence and makes you look at it. As a layman, I found I had to up my science-thinking ante a bit but it is certainly worthwhile. Unlike the Shubin book (which I thought was great), Don Prothero pulls no punches about calling creotards stupid, dishonest and/or wilfully ignorant. A detailed 400+ page book on the interrelationship of species should be convincing enough, but if not you can always hit a creationist on the head with it.
It should probably be pointed out that Tim White's view of Ardipithecus being ancestral to Homo rather than Australopithecus is a view shared by a tiny number of researchers (basically Tim and a few of his close colleagues). The evidence certainly does not show that Australopithecus was a dead end.
Maybe if Tim White would actually publish something about ardipithecus, since it's been something like 15 years since he found them, the rest of the world could evaluate his evidence. Seems like he might be afraid that his evidence won't hold up.
FTR, I was being facetious. Just in case.
Creationist 'theory' states that then every single fossil of a novel species discovered is simply evidence of another thing God poofed into existence. Once you realise this then it becomes apparent that the hunt for a nice series of transitional fossils will never be of use in convincing them that evolution is real. The more evidence you find is not simply "two more gaps" but, to them is another brilliant example of Gods ability to create.
"Ya BUT, Dinosaurs with fossilized feathers was just a Japanese joke played on the Americans, how do you expect me to believe anything Science tells me when they get duped so easily!" - Creationist mom.
Do you have any examples of fossils that aren't just fossils that exist?!
Pfft, I have a complete non-existent unicorn fossil in my garage. It's useless for ploughing my garden, just like the Bible says (the legs keep falling off).
I took the liberty of sending a link to the list to Chris Matthews of HardBall. I assume this blog entry was for Tom Tancredo who used the usual 50+ year old arguments that evolution theory was somehow still in doubt.
I was disappointed Matthews didn't do his homework before asking Tancredo to state his position on evolution and science. It might have been a much better interview had Matthews realized Tom Tancredo was using really ignorant arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXsSN-B8pU8