BTW, this one is my favorite...
"The Fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Psalm 14:1
;-)
First, Darwin admitted it because at the time, not many fossils (of any sort) had been found, cataloged, and researched, nor was it easy for researchers in different parts of the globe to share or compare findings. The fossil evidence in his day *was* weak.
That has changed immensely in the past 143 years.
Today, there's an enormous body of fossil evidence for transitory forms -- and these resoundingly confirm the predictions of evolution.
For just one example, consider the whales. They are clearly mammals, and they they differ in many fundamental ways from land mammals. Evolution postulates that all mammals must have branched from the same "family tree", and thus the whales must have descended (and evolved) from earlier land-dwelling mammal ancestors.
And yet, as little as 50 years ago, the fossil evidence for such a transition was spotty. But fossil discoveries over the past few decades have filled in most of the gaps very nicely and *in exactly the way that evolution predicts*. Even more interestingly, creationism has no good explanation for the existence of various fossils that lie along a stepwise path between land-dwelling mammals and the whales.
From the talkorigins.org archives:
I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about the evidence for transitional forms being "very weak"?Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)
Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic. Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap. There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete, but we now have a partial lineage, and sure enough, the new whale fossils have legs, exactly as predicted. (for discussions see Berta, 1994; Gingerich et al. 1990; Thewissen et al. 1994; Discover magazine, Jan. 1995; Gould 1994)
- Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead of nails.
- Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
- Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
- Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
- Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
- Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
- Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
- Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on B. isis.)
- Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
- Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils. They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene), an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
- Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to modern whales.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
- Toothed whales:
- Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
- Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
- Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical skulls.
- Baleen (toothless) whales:
- Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but still had all its teeth. Later,
- Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
- Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
And if that's not enough for you, there are dozens of more step-wise transitional lines (each consisting of dozens of steps revealed by discovered fossils) listed at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
And that's just a quick sketchy overview of the huge amount of fossil evidence available.
Every fossil is a transitional form. Trying to convince a creationist by finding fossils that fill gaps is a fool's game: each new fossil that fits into a gap leaves two gaps in its wake.
Psalm 14:1
That's as may be, but it's orthogonal to this discussion. Creationists try to divert attention by channelling the discussion to a debate about the existence of God, but that issue doesn't even enter into the minds of the evolutionists. I offer this quote:
God made man, but he used the monkey to do it. Ape is the plan, and we're all here to prove it.
-- Devo, "Jocko Homo"
Did you actually READ that web page that she directed you to? It's very important that you see why we hate quote-miners so much. For example, did you actually look up each of those quotes yourself, and verify that the author meant to say what you think he said? If you haven't, did you know that you are guilty of intellectual fraud?
Lets look at a few of the quotes you posted, to show what I mean...
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
-Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University
This is an example of an innacurate quote to a T. For example, I have no way of checking to see if he really DID say what you quote, because you don't leave any sort of reference. However, we can note he has also said:
"since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."Gould, S.J. (1983) p 260, Hens teeth and Horses toes. Norton & Co., New York
And
"Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find."(Gould, S.J. (1991) Bully for Brontosaurus. Penguin, London. 540 pp, p 144-145.
Feel free to look those up in a library, they are in context, and mean exactly what the author meant for them to mean.
In reference to the Patterson quotes:
"I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Stephen Binkley, June 17, 1982).
and
"Chelvam asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence against darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry or descent with modification, and Darwin's special theory of mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Colin Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).
Letter from Patterson to T.O. regular
I don't have the time to hit on all of the quotes there, though most of them are improperly quoted so as to make them extremely difficult to track down and interpret the context. Nearly all of them are more than 15 years old (excepting the Denton quote), and more than quite a few are more than 30 years old, with some older than Darwin(funny how someone born before Darwin has an opinion on his theory, eh?)! Science moves on whether you like it or not. We know a lot more now than we did 15 years ago about evolution. Yet creation science has stood stock still for the past 50. I suggest you read jennyp's link. If you want to efficiently argue with a scientist, be scientific, check and recheck your attributions. It is one of the major failings of most creationist webpages that I can think of, and it more than illustrates the state of creation science today, the fact that they have no evidence to support their cause, so they are reduced to putting words in other peoples mouths. How truthful is that?
I'm sorry you're afraid to research the quotes you rely on. <sigh>Such naïve use of quotes, innocently borrowed no doubt from a godly source you trust, and believing you have something with which to smite the godless mainstream theory of biology. Dig deeper, incindiary. CLICK HERE & don't stop until you've found the real stories behind each of those quotes that sounded so convincing. When you discover that they're utterly cynical Clintonian truth-twisting games being played on you, hopefully you'll feel like I did when I discovered that all ten of the Hollywood Ten really were Communist cadre.
258 posted on 2/5/02 10:29 PM Pacific by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: jennyp
Well of course you're going to say something like that... your theory is under attack.