The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Your poor reading comprehension continues to embarrass you. I said that scientists tend to prefer the phrase "hydraulic sorting" to the phrase "hydrological sorting" I did not say that they prefer the word "hydraulic" to the word "hydrological" under all circumstances; they use the latter word where it is proper to do so --- for example, when it is not qualifying the word "sorting". Wings in birds and bats are both homologous and analogous, obviously. But it was your apparent belief that concepts such as homology and homoplasy render evolution unfalsifiable that made me think that you were deficient in understanding. Who knows where you get your ideas from? If I was asked to speculate, I might allude to the back end of one of the larger domesticated Bovidae. If you thought about it for a few seconds, you would see that hydrological factors impose selective pressures on the external but not the internal form of an animal. So we expect fish, dolphin, ichthyosaurs to have similar streamlining, but not to be more internally similar than is necessitated by their common vertebrate ancestry. Evolution would be falsified by finding a greater degree of homology than could be explained by common ancestry: for example if the bill of the duck-billed platypus was in fact identical to the bill of a duck, or if bats, in other respects being mammals, had wings just like birds.(There are of course lots of other potential ways to falsify evolution, but this seems the most relevant to the errors expressed in your post.)---I note that you have still not mustered up the courage to approach the actual topic. Perhaps in your next post you will overcome this timidity, but I shall not be holding my breath.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Similar but not identical.Curiously the webpage these images came from was discussing analogy and the difference to homology, and these critters are used as an example of analogous development:

quote:

---

Analogy: Squirrels and Sugar Gliders

​

Beyond being cute and cuddly, flying squirrels and sugar gliders have many striking similarities: big eyes, a white belly, and a thin piece of skin stretched between their arms and legs, a trait which helps them "glide" and remain stable when leaping from high places.

​

But sugar gliders and flying squirrels also have some key differences. Most importantly, they reproduce and bear their babies in fundamentally different ways:

​

• Flying squirrels are placental mammals. Placental mammals spend a long time developing inside the mother's body being nourished by a placenta before they are born.
• Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals, like kangaroos. Marsupial mammals may only spend a short time developing inside the mother's body and are very tiny when born. After birth, a baby marsupial crawls into its mother's pouch and is nourished by her milk as it continues to grow and develop.

---

There are also key differences in teeth, skull and the rest of the skeleton, differences that are detailed on the Paleos site for marsupial and plancental mammals. (see Message 1140).Another example they give is

quote:

---

Analogy: Of Shrimp and Snails

​

Barnacles and limpets (shown below) have many superficial similarities: both are small creatures with conical shells and can be found in the ocean on rocky shores.

​

But the similarities end there. Inside their shells, they are very different:

---

Also see

quote:

---

Homologies and analogies

​

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature so the presence of four limbs is a homology.

​

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

​

​

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

​

​

Bird and bat wings are analogous that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they have both experienced natural selection that shaped them to play a key role in flight. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

​

Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.

---

Convergent evolution disproves two common creationist concepts:

1. that there is a limit to what microevolution can accomplish (dogs will always be dogs and not some other critter),
   ​
   Because starting from two entirely different lineages very similar species are developed via mutation and selection,
   ​
   and
   ​
2. special creation, that each new species is created fully formed rather than descendant from other nearby species,
   ​
   When confronted with closely related species and shown the degree of similarity, the creationist claim is that god/s reused a template they had already developed.
   ​
   This argument is contradicted by and invalidated by convergent evolution, where these "templates" were NOT used, ... with no explanation for this failure.

While special creation would just copy and paste?When we look deeper we see that the differences outweigh the similarities, and that those differences are linked by homologies to ancestor populations that were more different between the two lineages until you get back to their common ancestor population, as demonstrated in Message 1140 in detail.Evolution theory explains both the similarities between related species and the convergence of species where selection is for a similar "solution" to the ecological challenges.We can also think of fossils as embedded in a matrix of time and space, a 4D supercube, and the critical element in this view is that for species (A) to evolve from species (B) they must be located closely nearby in both time and space. This holds for all species, so you have to be able to link one to the other with both location and time.Special creation has no such limitation, and thus species can appear anywhere amidst totally unrelated species. The flying squirrel could just appear in Australia, the sugar glider could just appear in North America, or even Africa.As you can see from Message 1140 we can draw those lines, those links, just as we saw detailed in Message 1114 for Pelycodus from Pelycodus ralstoni to Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.And we can also detail how certain traits change while others remain relatively constant during the evolution of new traits, just as we saw described in Message 1114 for Therapsids with the evolution from reptile jaw to double jaw to mammalian jaw, with the time and space linkages provided in Message 1140 from Synapsid to Therapsid to Cynodont to Mammaliform to Mammalia.There is no credible explanation from Special Creation for the geological/temporally ephemeral existence of these species to appear and then disappear once the mammals came to be, to have their brief moment upon the stage of life, except for the recording their place in the evolutionary processes that actually occurred in the past.One special creation would be improbable, two twice as improbable, and the improbability grows astronomical as we follow it from reptile to sugar glider or flying squirrel with the detailed lineage in Message 1140 through dozens of stages.Note that a prediction from the 4D supercube model was used to find Tiktaalik:

quote:

---

... To find a transitional fossil between land animals and fish, we start by looking at the very first tetrapods to show up in the fossil record. Then, we look for fish which had a similar pattern of bones in their fins as the tetrapods had in their limbs.

​

STEP 1: We used the distribution of known fossils to determine where there was a gap in the fossil record

​

... We know the lobe-finned fish are from 390-380 million year old rocks. The first tetrapods appear around 363 million years ago. Common sense tells us that the transitional form must have arisen 380-363 million years ago.

​

STEP 2: Determine the age of the rocks the transitional fossil should be in

​

We look to geologic maps of the world to help us find areas with rocks of the right type and the right age which have not been explored yet.

​

STEP 3: Find where the right rocks are at the surface and exposed

​

We know that lobe-finned fish and the first tetrapods lived in freshwater streams because of the sediments we find them in. So we look for freshwater deposits, not marine. We also have determined we should look in rocks between 380 and 363 million years old, in the Middle Devonian.

​

It just so happens that of the three Devonian freshwater deposits in North America, only one was completely unexplored: the Canadian Arctic. So the team set their sites on organizing an expedition. That was in 1999.

​

STEP 4: Plan an expedition to the most promising site!

​

... All they found were marine fossils. So the following years, they moved east until they located the right sediments. In 2000, they found a site laden with interesting fish pieces and began digging. A wealth of complete fish skeletons started to emerge. Each year they returned and dug a little deeper. Ultimately, the site produced Tiktaalik in 2004. Not only was it exciting to find a new species, but it was made all the better by the fact that scientists had predicted the existence of a creature like this all along. We only needed to do some detective work to find it. Another affirmation of our theory!

---

Located the right time and place in the 4D supercube and voila: the intermediate fossil between fish and quadruped is found ....EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : /url

It is parsimonious to explain "the general stasis of forms" as something creationists have made up. This explanation involves the postulation of no new nor unobserved entities or mechanisms, since creationists observably make stuff up all the time. Since they are not all absent, the "creationists-made-that-up" hypothesis is once more superior. You're going to run away without addressing the topic at all? I will concede that evading the topic and running away will cause you less embarrassment than sticking around and discussing it. But you would embarrass yourself still less by not posting at all.

In short, you raise questions and issues when you post. But you don't stick around for too much discussion that would disfavor your position.

I agree with most of your excellent post, but I see the particular point you make here a bit differently. The quoted argument argument has a weakness common to nearly all arguments that "God would not have done it that way". In essence most (and probably all) such arguments are straw men because for the most part, the typical creationist does not, and more importantly, need not make specific arguments about how God did it. Why should a creationist favor the idea that God had a wing template that he used whenever he wanted animals to fly, or an echolocation template for bats and dolphins? God is all powerful,with infinite resources at his command, and might use any route to make an animal fly.Convergent evolution really does not disprove creation so much as c.e., and the evidence for convergent evolution do disarm one particular creationist arguments against evolution. Let's recall that the conclusion regarding evolution as being the theory of the origin of species is not a proof, but is instead arrived at in the same was as are other conclusions. Namely by a process of verification and falsification and not by eliminating of special creation and other explanations as a possibility. In fact such elimination is impossible on the scale necessary to constitute a proof.Obviously, the evidence does rule out certain creationist paths, but not all. The fact that a particularly silly creationist argument is ruled on is of little consequence.

d.p.Edited by NoNukes, : Server reported that post contained no data, and I repeated post instead of checking.

I think that the point is less "God would not have done it that way" than "there is no particular reason for God to have done it that way" - or at least it should be. And showing examples where God clearly did not do it that way emphasises the point.It is not a refutation of creationism, it is the assertion that evolution is the superior explanation because it does provide strong reasons for thinking that it ought to be that way.

The problem for creationism is that if there are no common ancestors then there is no reason we should see clades at all. A creator can mix and match any types of characteristics as the creator sees fit. You can have species with feathers, mammary glands, and gills. You can have other species with fur, flow through lungs, and a forward facing retina.When we get to genetics the the problem grows even worse for creationism. There is absolutely no reason that a creator would need to change introns more than exons for different species, and there is no reason why introns should diverge at a faster rate than exons when compared to morphological differences. There is no reason why an orthologous ERV shared by many primate species should have more divergence between its 5' and 3' long terminal repeats than an orthologous ERV shared by just humans and chimps. There is no reason that the phylogeny of genes like Cytochrome C should match the phylogeny based on morphology.There is absolutely no reason why we should see this matching branching structure of shared derived features and genetics if creationism true. Only common ancestry combined with evolution can explain it. Then why do we see matching nested hierarchies? How strange then that the creator would give dolphins a fore limb that has more in common with humans than it does with sharks. It is the human and dolphin forelimbs that share homology, not other fish species.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

replaced by Message 1153 updating the ichthyosaur evolutionary story.Not so much a quote mine as a miss-attribution in a creationist\IDologists writing.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Interesting point.If all creatures were created at the same time, why would there be clades? The very existence of clades by definition implies time and that time is manifested in the fossil record.

Worse, we have a record of what was created and when it was created and the things mentioned in the records of Creation simply are not in evidence in the fossil record. This is particularly true in all three religions based on the Judaic myths and the different flavors of Creationism that has appeared in those three religions that incorporate the very same creation stories.

Curiously, in looking up this quote I find it on ICR: The Intriguing Ichthyosaur--an Evolutionary Fish Story? where it is (correctly) attributed to

quote:

---

11. Martill, D. M. 1993. Soupy Substrates: A Medium for the Exceptional Preservation of Ichthyosaurs of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Jurassic) of Germany. Kaupia - Darmstdter Beitrge zur Naturgeschichte. 2: 77-97.

---

While A New Approach to Earth History mistakenly attributes it to Gould, but also took the effort to investigate the issue in more detail:

quote:

---

Utatsusaurus and the origin of ichthyosaurs

​

Ichthyosaurs — the name means ‘fish lizards’ — were reptile inhabitants of the sea, living at the same time as dinosaurs trod the land and pterosaurs glided in the air. They looked rather like modern dolphins. The smallest was around 1 metre, the biggest, Shonisaurus, an amazing 23 metres, both extremes arising early in their evolution. Ichthyosaurs had eyes as big as those of any animal known, with the record going to the 9-metre-long Temnodontosaurus. Its eyes measuring 26 cm across, Temnodontosaurus was also the first ichthyosaur to be discovered, when in 1811 the 12-year-old Mary Anning found remains of its skull and vertebrae on the Dorset coast.

​

Despite looking like fish, their anatomy shows they were once land-lubbers, for they had two pairs of limbs, with digit-like bones rather than rays or spines in their flippers, and a shoulder girdle connected to the skull. The roof of the skull had a pair of openings called fenestra: a hallmark of reptiles.

​

Another indication of their terrestrial origin is their lack of gills. Like marine mammals, they had to draw oxygen from the atmosphere. This was why, when an ichthyosaur embryo in the womb uncurled itself in preparation for birth, it instinctively oriented itself so that it passed out of the womb tail first. Only when its head emerged did it need to breathe, at which point it could take its first gulp of oxygen by immediately swimming to the surface.

​

​

Amongst the oldest known ichthyosaurs was Utatsusaurus, from the Lower Triassic of Japan. As in terrestrial reptiles, the pelvic girdle was attached to the spine, but no longer robustly enough to support the body’s weight. Another transitional feature were the equal lengths of humerus and femur. In more advanced ichthyosaurs, including the contemporary Chaohusaurus, the humerus was longer than the femur (the front limb larger than the hind limb) whereas in most terrestrial animals the femur was longer. Utatsusaurus was also closer to terrestrial animals in not having a dorsal fin or a tail fluke. On several fronts, the view that ichthyosaurs were former land-dwellers that evolved adaptations for life at sea is well supported.

---

He goes on to talk about design and miss-atributes the quote:

quote:

---

Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:

​

This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor.

​

In the Cenozoic, sea-going mammals with terrestrial ancestors — dolphins and killer whales — also converged ‘on a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design’. Did these ‘remarkable’ innovations evolve from nothing? In the mind of a scientist, evolution from nothing should be a scientifically well-founded inference, not a quasi-religious presupposition. Gould’s position is to believe that matter itself is a miracle-worker, the essentially pantheistic view of Epicurus. By contrast, ‘just the right place’ and ‘just the right hydrological design’ point to processes that were not accidental.

---

Meanwhile wikipedia has this

quote:

---

Evolution of fins

​

Ichthyosaurs are ancient reptiles that resembled dolphins. They first appeared about 245 million years ago and disappeared about 90 million years ago.

​

"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. These structures are all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to serve as a precursor."[64]

​

The biologist Stephen Jay Gould said the ichthyosaur was his favorite example of convergent evolution.[65]

​

64. Martill D.M. (1993). "Soupy Substrates: A Medium for the Exceptional Preservation of Ichthyosaurs of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Jurassic) of Germany". Kaupia - Darmstdter Beitrge zur Naturgeschichte, 2 : 77-97.

​

65. Gould,Stephen Jay (1993 "Bent Out of Shape" in Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History. Norton, 179—94. ISBN 9780393311396.

---

SO ... now we have the actual correct reference, AND that Gould used ichthyosaur as an example of convergent evolution ...So I got a copy of Eight Little Piggies from the library and read the "Bent Out of Shape" chapter, and I can confirm that Gould did NOT make this statement. The closest I could find was (pg 81):

quote:

---

In considering the convergence of ichthyosaur upon fish, we must marvel most at the location of the fins and paddles -- the machinery of swimming and balancing. The fore and ind paddles are, perhaps, least remarkable, for ancestral structures are clearly present as front and back limbs of terrestrial forebears -- and these can be modified, as whales and dolphins have done, to forms better suited to sculling than for walking. But the dorsal (back) and caudal (tail) fins are boggling in their precision in convergence with analogous structures in fishes. For terrestrial ancestors of ichthyosaurs obviously possessed neither back nor tail fin, and the ichthyosaurs therefore evolved these structures from scratch -- yet they occupy the position and maintain the form, that hydrodynamic engineers deem optimal for propulsion and balance.

---

Later in the chapter (pg 93) he notes that Louis Dollo "argued that the tailbend arose because the two-lobed caudal fin of ichthyosaurs evolved from a skin-fold along the back (source of the dorsal fin as well), which extended itself in a posterior direction to form the upper lobe of the tailfin and then pushed the vertebral column down to form the lower lobe. ... " -- so there is an evolutionary path to the convergence of form, but not to the way the internal structures are modified to achieve that form. Being a predator the selection pressure to perfect the swimming ability as much as possible from the given parts would certainly push the features to optimum location and form. No surprises.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : sp

I must say, that I haven't heard those two arguments from creation believers lately. Hydro sorting, or 'creatures running uphill to escape the Flood'.Really.Edited by time, : No reason given.

Possibly because there was a lot of evolving after creation?