
Transitional fossils are great. Darwin recognised their value when he lamented their scarcity:
“But as for this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (Origin of species 1859).
Not surprisingly, creationists intentionally misuse this quote to claim such fossils do not exist and use Darwin as an argument from authority. Of course, only 4 years earlier, perhaps the most famous transitional fossil of all; Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered, and the second specimen, now called the “London specimen” was discovered 3 years after the “Origin” was published. Their importance was not realised until later though, but every time a new transition is found, this prediction of Darwin’s is further confirmed. It also means creationists have to spend more and more time with their heads in the sand in denial, or spread lies about the nature of the fossil. Every now and then they concede that the fossil does display the characteristics of two related groups, but childishly claim that there are now two gaps that need to be filled – one before the transitional form and one after it. This truly is the stuff of desperation, and often these gaps are filled. Even worse for creationists though is the fact that we can predict where and in what age of rocks we will find transitional fossils of a particular lineage in – it’s called geographic distribution of lineages fundies!
Since Darwin commented on the rarity of transitional forms (150 years ago – take note fundies) hordes of transitional forms have been discovered. A small fraction of which are noted here. With every new transitional fossil, a further nail goes into the creationist coffin. Recently, a new one has been described that sorts out the evolution of frogs and salamanders. It had been suggested that frogs and salamanders evolved from a tetrapod group called the Temnospondyli. These are an ancient group that are found in early Permian rocks. This new specimen called Gerobatrachus hottoni has been dubbed a “frogamander” (pictured above) as it displays characteristics of frogs, salamanders and other Temnospondyls. Thanks to this fossil, we can also propose that frogs and salamanders diverged from each other some 240 and 275 million years ago.
“But as for this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (Origin of species 1859).
Not surprisingly, creationists intentionally misuse this quote to claim such fossils do not exist and use Darwin as an argument from authority. Of course, only 4 years earlier, perhaps the most famous transitional fossil of all; Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered, and the second specimen, now called the “London specimen” was discovered 3 years after the “Origin” was published. Their importance was not realised until later though, but every time a new transition is found, this prediction of Darwin’s is further confirmed. It also means creationists have to spend more and more time with their heads in the sand in denial, or spread lies about the nature of the fossil. Every now and then they concede that the fossil does display the characteristics of two related groups, but childishly claim that there are now two gaps that need to be filled – one before the transitional form and one after it. This truly is the stuff of desperation, and often these gaps are filled. Even worse for creationists though is the fact that we can predict where and in what age of rocks we will find transitional fossils of a particular lineage in – it’s called geographic distribution of lineages fundies!
Since Darwin commented on the rarity of transitional forms (150 years ago – take note fundies) hordes of transitional forms have been discovered. A small fraction of which are noted here. With every new transitional fossil, a further nail goes into the creationist coffin. Recently, a new one has been described that sorts out the evolution of frogs and salamanders. It had been suggested that frogs and salamanders evolved from a tetrapod group called the Temnospondyli. These are an ancient group that are found in early Permian rocks. This new specimen called Gerobatrachus hottoni has been dubbed a “frogamander” (pictured above) as it displays characteristics of frogs, salamanders and other Temnospondyls. Thanks to this fossil, we can also propose that frogs and salamanders diverged from each other some 240 and 275 million years ago.
More information can be found here.
18 comments:
Hi Billy,
Every now and then they concede that the fossil does display the characteristics of two related groups, but childishly claim that there are now two gaps that need to be filled – one before the transitional form and one after it.
I remember hearing PZ Meyers debate with some nutjob who wrote a book called a billion missing links or something.
What do they want? Blood?
Lee
Oh, and thanks for the links... learning is fun
But what about the crocoduck?
Hey, did you guys know that Situational Ethics was apparently developed by a Christian? I didn't know that :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
The link was courtesy of Kelvin Holdsworth's blog which is highly recommended, as it's probably the best christian blog out there (faint praise, I know ;-) ):
http://www.thurible.net/
The new indiana jones movie is excellent incidently. You guys should take some time off from science and relgious and go see it!
Lee,
I think they want the DVD of 4.5 billion years of CCTV footage on earth - yet they believe in a god they haven't seen - how strange is that!
Brian, I have to share this comment with you that I got concerning the evolution of Whales -
"I was talking about: the kind [of changes]that promote changing from a water-dwelling, gill-breathing whale to become a land-dwelling, LUNG-breathing cow."
How many errors can you spot?
Ryan,
Is Indy not an archaeologist and therefore a scientist :-)
Billy-
the fossils keep appearing, don't they. Poor old creationists. I wonder what Jimmy's take on this is? He hasn't been over to my blog in a few weeks, can't remember him commenting on your's at all.
You might be interested in my latest post BTW.
Not heard from Jimmy either. Maybe he has seen the light.
Hey, if you guys want to challenge another christian talking crap on abortion:
http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/05/19/cranmer-pleads-on-abortion/#comment-28693
He claims that the fact that nobody took him up on his challenge to retain the current abortion time limit proves that pro-choicers know their position is immoral and can't defend it.I'm doing my best, and the best reply I get is "shame on you" for wanting to murder babies. Ould is famous for claiming to be cured of homosexuality despite (by his own admission) never having any actual gay experiences in the first place. By that logic, I'm cured of climbing mountains. Let me know if you require the help of my ministry Billy ;-).
That should be challenge to argue *against* changing the current time limit.
"But what about the crocoduck?"
Do you mean archaeopteryx?
Ryan-
I left a comment over there. I don't know who this guy is, but just by skimming his latest posts, I'm not tremendously impressed!
"But what about the crocoduck?"
How about mantis shrimps, crab apples, wolf men and monkey boys?
Read and appreciated your comments Jonathan.
Cerebusboy-
I've been leaving comments on a new post at Ould's place. With my most recent comment, I was suddenly informed that my comment has been flagged as spam, and the blog administrator will have to correct it. Sent him a message- no response. Hmm.
Shame on you ;-).
Checked it out - you clearly had the intellectual upper hand. Ould is a fraud and a coward - did you know that, by his own admission, he never actually had any gay experiences but still claims to have been cured of homosexuality?
Engaging with these people serves as a booster shot when I am tempted to take their mad ideologies seriously, so I suppose I should be grateful.
Cerebusboy-
I spoke too soon: it's appeared now.
Yeah, I had a go at him for censoring but he explained about his spam filters which sounds plausible. David McCarthy has only ever censored one of my messages on his blog, to his credit.
Cerebusboy-
I left a comment on two different threads, the spam filter caught both of them! Gahhhh!
Post a Comment