SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93782)1/16/2005 11:13:05 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 108807
 
If anyone believed in it like religion it would be an act of faith. If scientists believe in it like an act of faith then they are rotten scientists. The theory of evolution fits what we see- but when it doesn't, then we throw it out and get a new theory. Unless some factual evidence for God is found, that theory should not include God.

Transitional fossils are obviously an issue of faith for you.

If you can bear to read this, do:

"Creationist factoid: There are no transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 72. "

Response:
There are several good transitional fossils:

Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw. [Zhu and Ahlberg 2004]

A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, showing that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods [Daeschler and Shubin 1998].

A Devonian humerus has features showing it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod which could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk [Shubin et al. 2004].

Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, which probably lived in rivers [Coates 1996]. It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles [Coates and Clack 1990]. It was predominantly if not exclusively aquatic: it had fishlike internal gills [Coates and Clack 1991], and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like fish.

Ichthyostega, a probably amphibious tetrapod from Devonian streams, about 1.5 m long. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fish-like spines on its tail, but fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fish-like features, but it probably did not have internal gills. [Murphy 2002]

Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had 6 digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.
Links:
Morton, Glenn R., 1997. Fish to amphibian transition. home.entouch.net
References:
Coates, M. I. 1996. The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of skeletal evolution. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 87: 363-421.
Coates, M. I. and J. A. Clack, 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature 347: 66-69.
Coates, M. I. and J. A. Clack, 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352: 234-236.
Daeschler, Edward B. and Neil Shubin, 1998. Fish with fingers? Nature 391: 133.
Murphy, Dennis C., 2002. Devonian times: Ichthyostega stensioei. mdgekko.com
Shubin, N. H., E. B. Daeschler and M. I. Coates, 2004. The early evolution of the tetrapod humerus. Science 304: 90-93. See also: Clack, J. A., 2004. From fins to fingers. Science 304: 57-58.
Zhu, Min and Per E. Ahlberg, 2004. The origin of the internal nostril of tetrapods. Nature 432: 94-97. See also: Janvier, Philippe, 2004. Wandering nostrils. Nature 432: 23-24.
Further Reading:
Murphy, Dennis C., 2002. Devonian times. devoniantimes.org

Clack, J. A., 2002. Gaining Ground: The origin and early evolution of tetrapods. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press.

Pojeta, John Jr. and Springer, Dale A., 2001. Evolution and the fossil record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, agiweb.org , agiweb.org .

Zimmer, Carl, 1998. At the Water's Edge. New York: Touchstone, ch. 1-4.



To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93782)1/16/2005 11:39:06 AM
From: Tom C  Respond to of 108807
 
If you don't understand what the words "possibly" and "possibility" have to do with science then you don't understand what science is. Maybe that's why we disagree.

Misunderstanding of quotes about punctuated equilibrium

What paleontologists do get excited about are topics like the average rate of evolution. When exceptionally complete fossil sites are studied, usually a mix of patterns are seen: some species still seem to appear suddenly, while others clearly appear gradually. Once they arise, some species stay mostly the same, while others continue to change gradually. Paleontologists usually attribute these differences to a mix of slow evolution and rapid evolution (or "punctuated equilibrium": sudden bursts of evolution followed by stasis), in combination with the immigration of new species from the as-yet-undiscovered places where they first arose.

There's been a heated debate about which of these modes of evolution is most common, and this debate has been largely misquoted by laypeople, particularly creationists. Virtually all of the quotes of paleontologists saying things like "the gaps in the fossil record are real" are taken out of context from this ongoing debate about punctuated equilibrium. Actually, no paleontologist that I know of doubts that evolution has occurred, and most agree that at least sometimes it occurs gradually. The fossil evidence that contributed to that consensus is summarized in the rest of this FAQ. What they're arguing about is how often it occurs gradually. You can make up your own mind about that. (As a starting point, check out Gingerich, 1980, who found 24 gradual speciations and 14 sudden appearances in early Eocene mammals; MacFadden, 1985, who found 5 cases of gradual anagenesis, 5 cases of probable cladogenesis, and 6 sudden appearances in fossil horses; and the numerous papers in Chaline, 1983. Most studies that I've read find between 1/4-2/3 of the speciations occurring fairly gradually.)

talkorigins.org



To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93782)1/16/2005 12:23:41 PM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
In Dasent’s words I would say: ‘We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled.’