Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LiveFreeOrDie · 07-10-2002, 07:30 PM

Our friendly neighborhood creationist wacko over at Christian Forums, npetreley, has recently posted a "challenge" to produce a transitional sequence of non-vertebrate (plant or animal) fossils:

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=fcfbb7946292fdd9f0ac55f5f36e94de& threadid=18033" target="_blank">Christian Forums</a>

I realize his specific demands are rather bizarre (no polyploidy allowed?!), but I would be interested if anyone knew of some pictures of nice non-vertebrate transitional sequences that might at least partially fit the bill.

TIA,
LFOD

Doubting Didymus · 07-10-2002, 07:57 PM

But those drawings (on the thead linked above) are drawings of real fossils!

Why do they need pictures? Is this person suggesting that the fossils in that drawing are made up? Who would do that and why?

Duvenoy · 07-10-2002, 08:21 PM

Whut do dis turkey be's smokin'? Wisht he'd share some wid me.

The rules of his little game are preposterous. If he wants transitional fossils, he should ask for transitional fossils. Instead, he's seen the spot where these fossils are very rare and pounced on it. I'll give him limited credit for study.

But nothing more. Photographs! Yeesh! doesn't he know that an accurate drawing is far better than viewing a photo over the web? Most fossils of small orgamisms, and not a few large ones, look like merely an interesting rock in a photo.

Of course he knows it!

Not worth my time.

doov

Splat · 07-10-2002, 09:25 PM

That's funny, because some of the best fossil sequences are snails (this was S.J. Gould's area, as I recall).

Brown and Gibson's Biogeography reproduces one series (drawings, unfortunately; sorry I don't have full citation info, but it was a popular textbook and should be available in libraries) and explains it clearly.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Splat ]</p>

Hallucigenia · 07-10-2002, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie:
<strong>Our friendly neighborhood creationist wacko over at Christian Forums, npetreley, has recently posted a "challenge" to produce a transitional sequence of non-vertebrate (plant or animal) fossils:</strong>

That "challenge" is about as valid as requesting a photo of Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. Oh, and the Ascension, just for good measure.

1) Reptiles did not "become" mammals. Pelycosaurs (as shown in the diagram in the link) weren't reptiles, they were early synapsids. And Synapsida is a sister group to Reptilia, not a member of it. Given that npetreley got this wrong, I doubt he could comprehend any other fossil sequences, whether they represented transitions or not.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to expect to find similar degrees of change between fossils in other groups.

3) How, exactly, does one quantify "comparable degree of change" anyway?

4) I'm not sure what he plans to prove by excluding polyploidy, but it's not like chromosomes are preserved in the fossil record to any great extent. I wouldn't be surprised if he wouldn't be able tell anyone what is, or is not, a polyploid in the first place.

From <a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm" target="_blank">this site</a>, we can get some primary literature references wherein are detailed several invertebrate transitions:

Quote:

Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).

Any of the above might well satisfy even the silliness required by npetreley.

One might also find some information <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html" target="_blank">here</a> (this site also includes the Eocoelia example included by npetreley).

What the creationists don't seem to "get" is what transitional forms really tell us: they demonstrate, in vivid detail, the concept of "descent with modification" -- the essence of evolution. The transition need not be as dramatic as "dinosaur --> bird" or "pelycosaur --> mammal" to demonstrate this concept. The aformentioned Eocoelia transition from coarse-ribbed shells to smooth shells demonstrates this quite well.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-11-2002, 04:44 AM

Do electron micrographs count as pictures or drawings?

From Cuffey's site linked above:

Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 07-11-2002, 06:01 AM

Maybe you could mention trilobites?

Try for instance Peter Sheldon: 'Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites', Nature 330, 561-3, 1987.

Here�s what <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0632052384/qid=1015700506/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-8637056-7391618" target="_blank">Clarkson (1998)</a> has to say about it:

Quote:

Ordovician (Llandeilian) trilobites in Central Wales occur in great numbers in a virtually continuous series of black shales. Sheldon (1987) studied a sequence spanning some 3 Ma, in which there are eight common trilobite lineages.

[diagram]

In all of the eight genera, measured from 15 000 specimens, there was a net increase in the number of pygideal ribs, a character used in species diagnosis. It is a striking example of gradual evolution occurring in parallel in the various genera. Equally, Shaldon demonstrated that there are character reversals from time to time, such as temporary decrease in rib number. There is no reason why character reversals such as this should not take place, and here they are clearly demonstrated. This is one of the best examples of gradualistic genetic change known from the fossil record, though the selection pressures that caused it remain uncertain.

Or there�s these (from <a href="http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobites" target="_blank">here</a>):

Bristolia insolens

Bristolia bristolensis

Olenellus mohavensis

Olenellus fremonti

So there.

Cheers, Oolon

lpetrich · 07-11-2002, 07:33 AM

Nick the P had not wanted to see

snail -> snail
fruit fly -> fruit fly
mosquito -> mosquito
trilobite -> trilobite

So does he consider snails, fruit flies, mosquitoes, and trilobites to be separate created kinds? Creationists have this remarkable habit of conceding that a lot of evolution has taken place.

And that no-polyploids condition simply cannot be satisfied from the fossil record; one has to work backwards from present-day forms -- if some fossil species have had present-day descendants.

ps418 · 07-11-2002, 12:51 PM

I discuss some examples and list some references on <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sle.htm" target="_blank">this page.</a>

Patrick

RufusAtticus · 07-11-2002, 03:44 PM

Patrick,

Do you know of any plant series, with good pictures?

07-10-2002, 07:30 PM	#1
LiveFreeOrDie Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA Posts: 77	Non-vertebrate transitional fossils Our friendly neighborhood creationist wacko over at Christian Forums, npetreley, has recently posted a "challenge" to produce a transitional sequence of non-vertebrate (plant or animal) fossils: <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=fcfbb7946292fdd9f0ac55f5f36e94de& threadid=18033" target="_blank">Christian Forums</a> I realize his specific demands are rather bizarre (no polyploidy allowed?!), but I would be interested if anyone knew of some pictures of nice non-vertebrate transitional sequences that might at least partially fit the bill. TIA, LFOD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2002, 07:57 PM	#2
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	But those drawings (on the thead linked above) are drawings of real fossils! Why do they need pictures? Is this person suggesting that the fossils in that drawing are made up? Who would do that and why?

07-10-2002, 08:21 PM	#3
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Whut do dis turkey be's smokin'? Wisht he'd share some wid me. The rules of his little game are preposterous. If he wants transitional fossils, he should ask for transitional fossils. Instead, he's seen the spot where these fossils are very rare and pounced on it. I'll give him limited credit for study. But nothing more. Photographs! Yeesh! doesn't he know that an accurate drawing is far better than viewing a photo over the web? Most fossils of small orgamisms, and not a few large ones, look like merely an interesting rock in a photo. Of course he knows it! Not worth my time. doov

07-10-2002, 09:25 PM	#4
Splat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hell, PA Posts: 599	That's funny, because some of the best fossil sequences are snails (this was S.J. Gould's area, as I recall). Brown and Gibson's Biogeography reproduces one series (drawings, unfortunately; sorry I don't have full citation info, but it was a popular textbook and should be available in libraries) and explains it clearly. [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Splat ]</p>

07-11-2002, 04:44 AM	#6
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Do electron micrographs count as pictures or drawings? From Cuffey's site linked above: Oolon

07-11-2002, 07:33 AM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Nick the P had not wanted to see snail -> snail fruit fly -> fruit fly mosquito -> mosquito trilobite -> trilobite So does he consider snails, fruit flies, mosquitoes, and trilobites to be separate created kinds? Creationists have this remarkable habit of conceding that a lot of evolution has taken place. And that no-polyploids condition simply cannot be satisfied from the fossil record; one has to work backwards from present-day forms -- if some fossil species have had present-day descendants.

07-11-2002, 12:51 PM	#9
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	I discuss some examples and list some references on <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sle.htm" target="_blank">this page.</a> Patrick

07-11-2002, 03:44 PM	#10
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Patrick, Do you know of any plant series, with good pictures?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.