Tuesday, August 09, 2005
This is a transitional form:  Between what, you might ask. Why, between pre-Cambrian life forms and giraffes.  We bring this up only because evolution is back in the news. There's the opinion piece in USA today that denounces evolution. And there is an essay (8 Aug) over at Tech Central Station in favor of Intelligent Design. As to the latter, here is a key quote: ... the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. The author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer - Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama - is demanding a fossil of every animal that ever existed between species X and species Y, or he will declare the fossil record to be 'incomplete'. And even then, you couldn't prove that animal A begat animal B. The reason for these peculiar assertions about evolution and what the fossil record should show is a basic misunderstanding of what evolution says. Evolution is based on a few fundamental principles: - Fossils are the remains of animals.
- Fossils can be dated accurately to within 20% of their estimated age.
- The fossil record shows there was a time in the past when no species living today, existed.
- All multicellular animals are the result of reproduction by other multicellular animals.
- Each generation of animals differ from their parents.
That's it. If you have an animal living on earth today, like a giraffe, it must have descended from a long chain of multicellular animals. In the recent past, those multicellular animals looked and had structures very much like giraffes. Further back, they looked different. Evolution says that giraffes are the result of reproduction of life forms that existed hundreds of millions of years ago. That over time there were changes which lead to a backbone, and later on, to an air-breathing mammal that could live on land. Looking for an animal with a backbone that lived way in the past - 400 million years ago, say during the Silurian Period? That's basically a fish. So a fish is your transitional form. The key issue that should be debated is this: All multicellular animals are the result of reproduction by other multicellular animals. That's where the evolution skeptics plant their flag. They don't believe it. But the evidence so far is that, indeed, a multicellular animal only comes from a pre-existing multicellular animal (actually, a pair of animals). The burden for evolution skeptics is to show that an animal can appear without being the result of reproduction, and this has to be demonstrated convincingly in the laboratory - today - not by the fossil record. The fossil record is not being used to prove that animals begat animals. It is only used to show that different forms existed at different times.
posted by Quiddity at 8/09/2005 01:43:00 PM
8 comments
Good post, Quiddity. I'd like to add a few points:
1. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has a Ph.D. in meteorology. You can confirm this at his biography on site.
2. Spencer has an odd phrase that he uses repeatedly, 'theory of origins'. I don't know what he means by it, and I'm not sure that he does, either. Many creationists confuse Darwin's theory with theories of the origin of life on Earth. Evolution explains speciation, not the origin of life. Some people object to the theory of evolution because they do not want to think that they are related to apes or monkeys. The fossil record is no consolation to them.
3. When Darwin wrote, Archaeopteryx had not yet been discovered, the fish-amphibian fossils had not been discovered, the amazing feathered dinosaur fossils in China had not been discovered, and the whale precursor fossils had not been discovered. It is very late in the day to claim that transitional forms [in the traditional meaning]do not exist in the fossil record.
VKW
Alabama Christians:
"Meteorology?!? I KNEW IT! He's one 'o them there, whatchacallit, elitists! Damn commies are takin' over our colleges! Prob'ly what's ruinin' our football team, too!
Oh wait -- he's on OUR side? Damn, my bad... The Doc is right! and God is on our side! You say I evolved from a monkey -- that's just like callin' me a N+@@er!"
I've lived in Alabama most of my life. I do not exaggerate. Unfortunately.
For the anti-evolution crowd, there is no possible physical proof that could be presented to dissuade them. If, by some miracle, we actually came across a complete and explicit fossil chain showing conclusively and beyond any doubt that what are now humans began as stromatolites and evolved right up through apes over the last billion years, the anti-evolution people would simply claim that the fossils were "planted by the devil" or fabricated as some kind of anti-christian comspiracy.
How very sad that there people actually get a public hearing. Their views are exactly equal to the UFO believers. The only differences being that UFO nuts have photos and tales of dubious origin, while the anti-evolution crowd has a single book of dubious origin.
Derelict
One thing I would add to your fossil "rules", only a small percentage of once living organisms left behind any fossil evidence at all. Also, after remembering that changes from one generation to the next are very subtle and slight, finding missing link types are impossible but transistional forms are abundant.
I emailed the chancellor of the U of A:
Dear Chancellor Portera,
I would like to bring to your attention an op-ed piece written by Dr. Roy W. Spencer in which he states that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. I provide a link to the piece:
http://techcentralstation.com/080805I.html
Here, as they say in journalism, is the "money quote":
"True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria. In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is."
Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but is Dr. Spencer out of his cotton-pickin' mind? What's next, a Department of Phrenology, or perhaps a doctoral program in psychic surgery?
Dr. Spencer's bizarre assertions cast a shadow of obscurantism over your fine institution. The University of Alabama should disavow these remarks.
Sincerely,
(urizon)
SUNY Student
New Paltz, New York
p.s. Please forward this email to the appropriate department, if necessary.
This is the reponse he sent me:
(urizon):
I received your e-mail. Dr. Spencer is a scientist in the Space Science and Technology Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He does not represent himself as a spokesperson for the University on this subject and because we are an academic institution we respect his right to express his personal views on this subject.
MP
I responded with this:
Dear Chancellor Portera,
Thank you for the clarification. It is refreshing to know that there is still room for opinion-based pedagogy within the hard sciences. Had I known this, I would have gone into engineering instead of literary criticism.
I'm sure our astronauts sleep comfortably at night knowing such open minded individuals are helping shape tomorrow's science leaders. Hey, it's not like he believes the earth is flat, or anything dangerous like that.
I will certainly take this issue up with the appropriate parties.
Sincerely,
(urizon)
If I get a reply, I will post it. And I do intend to follow up on this. This man has no right to be called a scientist.
Spencer makes some interesting observations for a meteorologist. His demand, and make no mistake, that's what it is, a demand, for "transitional fossils" is proof of his lack of understanding of both Paleontology and basic Geological Sciences.
His goofy Stephan Jay Gould reference shows no understanding of the process of fossil deposition, and takes into account none of the processes that occur over geological epochs, like mountain-building, metamorphasis, tectonic activity, and just plain old erosion as ways to destroy what small percentage of creatures were are actually deposited as fossils. Implicit in his statements is a presumption that we have found and examined 100% of all possible fossils world-wide, and have found none of the evidence he demands.
For a "scientist" this guy sure seems like a Dominionist just waiting for the rapture while collecting a government paycheck at the Manned Space Flight Center while waiting for said rapture to transport him up...sans booster.
-- oops not 'metamorphasis' but metamorphism. Geology prof just hit me with book...using dominionist-sanctioned time travel.
Load of rubbish - I reckon the world is flat, obviously anyone would fall off if they lived in New Zealand
|
