So Who Has their Head in the Sand?

Interesting article, but one that seems to be nothing more than a wonderful example of quote-mining. By now, you are probably more than familiar with the concept of quote-mining, that is taking a quote out-of-context in such a way to change its meaning.  There have been many instances of quote-mining, one of my personal favorites is here with Ben Stein quote-mining Charles Darwin, and doing a pretty poor job.  In any event, my opinion of quote-mining is that it is a reprehensible tactic and one usually used by the loosing side of an argument when they seem to feel they have nothing left to loose.

Here in the new post 'Irony Alert: Michael Shermer on "When Facts Fail" ' from the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution 'news' and Views.  I had to read through it twice to get the point the author, Cornelius Hunter, was trying to make.  What it looks like to me is he is insinuating that folks like Michael Shermer are engaging in the exact behavior that he [Shermer] was writing about, that is the refusal to change ones mind when confronted with facts that contradict 'beliefs'.

So, instead of listing all the 'facts' about Intelligent Design that Michael Shermer might be refusing to consider . . . oh wait, there are no facts about ID.  So I guess Hunter had to take a different path, in fact [pun intended], the only path open to him.  So what he does is list a whole bunch of stuff, claiming these were all examples of facts failing evolution.  But are they?

One example Hunter uses is, the emphasis is Hunter's:

"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist."

Since this is from Wikipedia, let's look at it a bit more in context:

"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes)." (Wikipedia: Trilobite)

To get the entire explanation, you really should click on the link and read it all for yourself.  Hunter took only one line to try and make his case.  Of course it doesn't present the complete picture -- after all the more complete context doesn't support his contention -- hence quote-mining.

The bottom line, which Hunter failed to mention, is really two-fold.  The first is that the evidence supports that the majority of the evolution of trilobites precedes the time periods when bony structures formed and started leaving detailed fossils.  So, on the one hand Creationists like to claim there are no transitional fossils and on the other when there are not clear transitional forms, they claim that disproves evolution.  Really?  How . . . two-faced.

The other thing you get when you read it is that science is honest about the things we do not know.  Instead of making definitive statements you see terms like 'do not seem' and 'evidence suggests'.  That's how science works.  The things we don't know or aren't sure about are openly identified.  It identifies areas where we need more work.  Look at what we know today compared to what we knew 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.  Can Hunter really claim this is some sort of fact failure?  The only failure is in his imagination.

A quick Google of some of his other 'failed facts' show similar issues, Hunter simply is representing them as fact failures, however they really aren't at all.  Some of them are reasonably understood, from an evolutionary standpoint, others less so.  But at no time can you call these failures.  Only a Creationists would call something we don't understand to the nth degree a failure.  I guess having a deity you can rely on to give you all the answers means you have no failures . . . also you have no successes.  After all, how many scientific advances can identify the point where Creationism/Intelligent Design entered and added something to the whole?  Yea, I get the same answer.  There aren't any!  Planes fly not because a deity wills it, but because of our understanding of many scientific theories. 

All Hunter has proven is science doesn't know everything.  Of course the scientific community has never said that it knows all.  That's a lie put forth by anti-science organizations, like the DI.  One of the common anti-science tactics is to build a strawman argument, demolish it and claim a victory.  In this case, the strawman is that science knows all, and then you point out a few things where the science isn't complete and claim science is all screwed up.  So which side is actually being honest in this discussion?

Actually this is a common tactic.  Remember the Dover Trial and Michael Behe?  Unlike Hunter here, who is only a Fellow at the DI, Behe is a 'Senior' Fellow, I'm not sure if that means smarter or simply older. Here's a quote from the decision:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (Wikipedia: Dover Decision)

So, I would also like to address this idea of Hunter's from a different angle.  Take any scientific theory, say Light, Gravity, Germs, or even Evolution.  Look back on a timeline and look at the changes to the theory as you go further and further back.  You will see an almost constant evolution [used in the context of 'change over time'] of the theories.  Does this sound like a community of people who reject new ideas and cling to their belief set?  Scientific advances are not made by re-hashing the old!  It would be hard to call them advances if all we are doing is running in place.  Picture the medical community of Darwin's day.  How would you like to be treated by those medical techniques?

So, Hunter . . . who has their head stuck in the sand when faced with fact that refute their belief system?  It sure doesn't sound like the scientific community is guilty here, but can you say the same? 

A Discovery Institute Post that Makes Less Sense Than Normal

My mail beeped and I had a Google Alert for this: "Darwinists and the Fossil Record: Missing a Few Marbles" and instead of making me laugh, it had me scratching my head.  Not because it was something making me think, but more just trying to figure out what they were trying to get across.  Here's a small quote:

"Neo-Darwinism leads us to expect more than just change over time in the fossil record. It anticipates a fossil pattern of very, very gradual evolution of new forms -- evolution by tiny steps. On Darwinian grounds we should expect to find this pattern even given our highly incomplete fossil record."

But . . . isn't that a lot of what we see?  For example, take a look at this:

Paleontologists take the fossils that are found and build a picture.  Yes the fossil record is incomplete, and as we find more and more fossils, the picture changes.  But none of that is unexpected.  What was also discovered was that Evolution isn't always tiny incremental changes, but larger scale changes over a shorter period of time.  The author of the Discovery Institute's (DI) silly piece is Jonathan Witt, he mentions this (Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge's Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium) but Witt dismisses it.  Which is one of the strange things, but pretty typical of the DI and their talking heads.  They take a valid and well supported scientific theory and dismiss it, offering nothing in return.

Well that's not exactly true, Witt offers the usual "Intelligence did it" argument the DI has been making for 20 years.  But Witt makes the same mistake the rest of the DI makes, he fails to support it.  It's nothing but conjecture.  Where is the evidence, where is the support, where is any sort of validation for an intelligent agent?  What mechanism did this 'intelligence' use?  These and many other questions are ignored because the intelligence Witt and the DI are talking about is their religious belief in a deity.  They keep claiming 'intelligence' to try and make people forget they are talking about the Christian God.

Don't believe me, well how about this definitely not DI review of Douglas Axe's "Undeniable".  Axe runs the DI's pet lab, the Biologics Institute and periodically writes and posts various Intelligent Design (ID) missives.  His latest, "Undeniable" is . . . well let me not put words in Jason Rosenhouse's review:

"For one thing, the book is openly evangelistic. The creator is the Christian God. Period. No subterfuge about the possibility of intelligent aliens or anything like that."

It does make me wonder how long Doug will be associated with the DI.  You might remember that Doug is the second director at Biologics.  The original one, George Weber, was interviewed by the New Scientist, and shortly thereafter left the Board.  Weber stated:

"We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" and "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." (New Scientist)

Axe was the one who explained Weber's departure in an email to New Scientist as

 [Weber] "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it."(Wikipedia: Biologics Institute)

So Weber is pretty clear on the purpose the DI opened their pet lab and ends up leaving.  After years of denying the religion base of Intelligent Design, Doug publishes a book that is opening evangelistic. My guess is if Doug's book doesn't do well and start helping the fund raising, he might find himself leaving as well. 

The majority of Witt's post is a long attempt at an analogy, but in reality it's more of a strawman.  I mean where are the mechanisms analogous to natural selection?  It reminds me of a restatement of another common analogy, a monkey and a typewrite will eventually write a Shakespearean play.  We discuss how inadequate that analogy is back in 2008 (Arguments XIII - The 747 or a Shakespearean monkey).

Well I guess I can close with wishing Witt wouldn't take the DI and their writings so seriously, but seeing as he's a 'Senior Fellow', whatever that now means, my guess is he'll keep peddling the party line until he either gets bored or the funding dries up.  As an English Major, he might try a bit harder to make a bit more sense.  This post isn't going to help him land his next writing job.  Johnny, you have to keep an eye out for the future, isn't ID's time limited?  You don't think so?  I might caution you with a reminder about 'Creationism" and "Creation Science" and what happened to them after losing court cases.  Yes, they were replaced and the DI and their version of religion, ID, hasn't been doing too well.  Here's one last thought for you, from Jason Rosenhouse again:

"How does ID makes sense of the fossil record, which shows a clear progression from simpler, ancient organisms to more complex, modern organisms? Why did God do His creating over billions of years, and why did He do so in the one sequence that would later suggest evolution to so many? Why did he just watch the unicellular organisms for a billion years or whatever before getting on with the show? What was the point of the millions of years of bloodsport taking place among creatures with enough brainpower to know they were suffering and miserable, but not enough to enter into a relationship with God? What are mass extinctions all about? How is this consistent with the idea that life was designed for a purpose?"

You might do a little critical thinking  . . . not the DI variety, but actual critical thinking before your next post.  You won't, but I can always hope.

Transitionial forms re-visted

Over on Topix I have been listening to a creationist try and sound all scientific on transitional fossils. It’s a pretty common argument usually stemming from a misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil really is. The argument usually comes in one of two forms:

1. There are no transitional fossils
2. Transitional forms could not survive, so would not be possible under evolution – therefore evolution is obviously false.
3. While there may have been fossils found that might be transitional, there isn't any evidence linking them to modern forms.
   

There may be more arguments against transitional fossils, but these seem to be the main themes. Other arguments tend to be more offshoots of these.

Kennie ham is an example of that. His other abortion, Answers in Genesis, tends to lean on the first argument -- although they no longer word it this way. I guess they had problems denying all of the transitional fossils so they sort of claim that it is an argument that should not be used (AiG arguments that should not be used). Now read it carefully, because it really is nothing more than a minor 'adjustment' in the 'there are no transitional fossils argument. Instead of targets transitional fossils as a whole, they are targeting the relationship between species by using the Biblical 'kind'.

Does this sound just a wee bit familiar? How about the whole micro v. macro argument. You know the one where anti-evolutionists quit arguing that evolution was impossible and now argue that speciation is impossible. Well actually they claim that speciation has not been proven. This is nothing more than another transitory face-saving gesture. Can't deny, evolve the argument into something else. Well at least they are consistent.

"We find variant transitional fossils for animals within the same kind—horse to a horse for example but that is expected in a biblical worldview."

Rather than dwelling more on kennie's delusions, let's talk about transitional fossils. What is a transitional fossil, also known as a transitional form. Oh, and biology also calls them 'intermediate' forms. I looked up ‘transitional fossil’ in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil) and saw that they defined it as simply the remains, such as a fossil, that exhibit an evolutionary transition. In other words it displays certain characteristics from earlier ancestors and contain, usually in a more primitive form, the attributes of species that come later. Here is a pretty impressive list of some of the transitional fossils that have been found: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. Wikipedia also has a nice long list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

So how do some groups continue to make such a ridiculous claim? By redefining what a transitional form is. You have no idea how many times someone mentions the cat-dog, or used a nonsense phrase like ‘true transitional form’. What they are doing is changing the goal posts. They cannot argue against the evidence of the hundreds, even thousands, of transitional fossils, so they change the definition and claim that the fossils are not ‘really’ transitional mainly because they don't look like something out of the late-late show. AiG does this by inserting the word ‘kind’ and ignoring the evolutionary evidence. It goes something like this : Within the Horse kind you have horses, zebras, and donkeys. In the Cat kind you have lions and tigers. In the Bear kind you have polar, grizzly, and brown bears. Now let us not forget that kennie ham is a biblical literalist . . . and yet this concept of 'kind' for horses, bears, and cats is an invention of the 'mind' of kennie ham – thereby immediately suspect. He uses this idea to explain things like mules, hinneys, zorses, polar-brown bears, ligers and tigons. In other words, hybrid species. He completely ignores the evolutionary studies that show why these hybrids can exist and hybrids of species that are further away from their evolutionary relationship cleft point do not exist. But that’s a stock in trade, ignoring the evidence.

So argument number one is bogus, there have been transitional forms, there will continue to be transitional forms – in fact we are all transitional forms from the past and into the future. The ones we identify as 'transitional' are the ones that more clearly demonstrate the past and future. Who knows some future biologist may list homo sapien as a transitional form. There would be a hit to kennie's ego! Of course none of his ideas are supported by the evidence, only a denial of the evidence and a fanciful tale of how he sees the world. So much for the Biblical Literalist when he has to invent explanations to support his viewpoint..

Well since that denial tactic doesn't work at all, some creationists have started a more targeted argument. They have taken the idea of transitional forms and claimed that they would not be workable or survive in the real world. Now they point to the fact that the transitional forms that we have found in fossils so obviously the forms didn’t survive. Not true! Many of the forms exists for even longer than homo sapiens have been around. They were here and now they are not, but many were around for millions of years. We have yet to hit our first millennia let alone 10, or 100.

Here is the problem for creationists, the fossil record is not the only support for the transitional forms. There are the comparative studies of modern organisms that draw the parallels between species, past and present. This is easily illustrated by the adaptive radiation of the forelimb of mammals. All conform to the basic pentadactyl pattern but are modified for different usages. Or you can look at the pelvic relationship between dinosaurs and birds. Geography also plays a part in supporting the idea of transitional fossils. As we look at both ancestral forms and modern forms you have to look at the geography and where they are located! As you go back in the fossil record, geology also supports transitional forms because we are not just looking at the fossil, but the geological strata they are found in. This indicates the timeline for the changes. It’s when you take ALL the evidence into account you can see the picture that folks like kennie ham are doing their best to ignore. They challenge some of the pieces, ignore the others, and never look at the entirety of the evidence.

So the second argument is also bogus, so where is a creationist to go? Well recently another whine, represented by the third argument, that the relationship between forms is not supported, that many of the forms are not in a direct relationship with modern forms, has been popping up, the confusion between a transitional form and an ancestral form. I was tempted to write this one up, but another poster on Topix beat me to it. Here is Feklahr’s post: (http://www.topix.com/forum/city/asheville-nc/TFA47A72UBQ0T364O/post34739).

Regarding Transitional Fossils

I thought it would be wise to address some of the confusion surrounding the term "Transitional Fossil".

First, some links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Second, a paragraph from the second link regarding transitionals:

Transitional vs ancestral

"A source of confusion is the concept that a transitional form between two different taxinomic group must be directly ancestral to one or both groups. This was exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy was the attempt to identify taxa that were ancestral to other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the record is actually a direct ancestor of any other. In fact because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder like progression, and the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasized the concept of one taxonmic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the concept of identifying sister taxa that share a common ancestor with one another more recently than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to another later population, but in general transitional fossils are considered to have features that illustrate the transitional anatomical features of actual common ancestors of different taxa rather than to be actual ancestors."

In closing:

What I am trying to demonstrate here is the misnomer surrounding transitional fossils. If we use the Archeopteryx example, it is listed as a transitional because it exhibits features of both dinosaurs and birds. It is not posited that it is the "middle form" in the transition of dinosaurs to the modern bird features. In other words, it is not an "ancestral" form to the modern bird, simply a species that exhibits both dinosaur like and bird like traits during a geological period between the proliferate life of dinosaurs and the proliferation of bird life.

So the bottom line on these particular arguments are more mischaracterizations of evolution. Evolution is not a straight line process and just because a fossil is identified as transitional doesn't require that it be in a direct-line relationship with a modern form. When cladistics traces something like the evolutionary line of the modern horse, they could be wrong on some of the details -- but what they are showing is the best evidence based on current knowledge that we have. A new fossil might change our understanding -- that's how science works. What we end up with is not just a different explanation to some degree, but a better explanation, a more complete explanation! Things are supported, not proven, and new knowledge can change the support. Nice job Feklahr, thanks!

So not only do transitional forms exist, but there are thousands of them. There is no 'missing link', but there are many links between different species. We are engaged in finding them and the work continues. Each new discovery tends to send the creationists scrambling for some new rationalization. It certainly is fun to watch. Just like the Discovery Institute tried about Tiktaalik in an post by that simplistic mouthpiece little casey luskin titled "Tiktaalik blown out of the water by earlier terapod fossils". See what I mean, rationalizations!

'THE' Missing Link

Here is another frequently heard anti-evolution argument. It usually falls into one of two tracks. The first claims something along the lines "Science hasn't yet found THE missing link" or "There are no transitional fossils." I do chuckle a bit when one person says both comments.

OK, the missing link . . . or I should say 'THE' missing link. Can we simply say that the whole concept of a single link between any two species is more a side-show concept than a scientific concept? There is no such thing as a single link between any two species. The progression from one species to another is chain of changes, many very small, that accumulate over time. The evidence, both fossil and even the genetic relationships clearly show the progression. In my opinion the discovery of THE missing link would probably support Creationism more than Evolution since such a single organism the is some sort of 50-50 amalgamation between two distinct species would probably not support evolution particularly well. So while many creationists whine over THE missing link, the slightly more rational people of the world recognize this is just another in a line of straw man arguments.

What has been found are hundreds of 'missing links', better known as transitional, or intermediate forms. Just recently another was found, "Walking Seal called Missing Link in Evolution". I really don't like the way the term 'missing link' was used here, because it seems almost to imply 'THE' missing link. In reality, as I said above, there are many, many intermediate steps between species, and many of those steps have yet to be discovered. We know this, and each new find fills in part of the puzzle biologists have facing them. So while this is certainly 'A' missing link explaining how the animal group moved from land-dwellers with legs to the semi-aquatic, flippered swimmers around today, it is the the mythical missing link.

I can't wait for the Discovery Institute to try and spin this, like they did with Tiktaalik in "Latest Fossil Find "No Threat" To Theory of Intelligent Design" when they stated:

"They are not intermediates in the sense that have half-fish/half-tetrapod characteristics. Rather, they have a combination of tetrapod-like features and fish-like features"

Of course they are simply living in a state of denial, because that is exactly what a transitional, or intermediate form is, one that exhibits a combination of features. But since they live in such a state, I am sure Casey, or one of the other less-than-brilliant members of the DI will have some half-baked response how the Puijila darwini isn't really transitional either since it doesn't meet their supposed 50-50 requirement that only seems to apply when the DI is looking at a transitional form.

There are many transitional forms and, as I have said before, ALL existing forms are transitional. We are not what we were in the past, and we more than likely will not be what we will become in the future. We are in fact a transitional form ourselves, and that just irritates the hell out of the DI. They just keep arguing against it because then they can continue to claim "We haven't found THE missing link" and "There are no transitional forms" for no apparently reason, nor understanding of what they are claiming.

The "Eyes" have it

The human eye has been used many times as proof of the impossibility of evolution. Recently an this article discusses the evolution of the human eye "One in the Eye for Intelligent Design"

Now the normal attack on the Eye and Evolution usually quotes Charles Darwin himself who easily admitted the human eye would be challenging to explain through evolution, but usually his comments are taken out of context, quote mining, something Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents are very good at! The Panda's Thumb reminded me of his entire discussion on the eye:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents tend to leave off this part:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

There is more and you can read it here if you like.

Of course this won't settle the whole discussion because William Dembski, in response to some other material about the evolution on the eye just cracked me up with his response. Now before you read this please remember that the Discovery Institute doesn't accept the fossil record as being a valid source of scientific information. They love to point at gaps, whine about radiological dating, and generally ignore anything about fossil they dislike. So what does one of their poster child say here on his own website? "Urbilateria — more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these?" Does anyone else see the humor of asking for fossil evidence after spending so much time denigrating it. Plus, as anyone who has actually LEARNED anything about fossils knows that soft tissue fossils, such as an eye, are nearly impossible to find because the eye isn't part of the body that tends to become fossilized. So not only is he asking for something he will ignore if someone dropped it in his lap, but he should know that it's a rhetorical question anyway.

What I did enjoy as well, on Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog was the link to the article by Arthur V. Chadwick used to refute even the remote possibility of the eye evolving according to current theories. Dembski doesn't mention Chadwick by name, but here are a couple of things you might like to read:

This is form the very first paragraph of his paper:

"In the absence of physical evidence for the evolution of complex systems and in the absence of evidence for any increase in the information content of existing complex systems, a belief in the theory of organic evolution remains a matter of pure faith. Lacking physical evidence for increase in information content of any complex system, another theory of explanation of origins - Special Creation - has scientific precedence because it does offer an explanation for origins that comports with the data."

Hmmm I think we have a prime example of someone who has already made up his mind and will fit the evidence to his singular point of view regardless of minor details like facts. Here is part of his closing:

"To argue that they came from Precambrian forms that were not preserved because they had no hard parts is to argue again from the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. The absence of evidence, in science has to be construed as the evidence of absence. There is no Precambrian evolutionary sequence because there was no Precambrian evolution. Evolution as an explanation for the existence of complex living systems is a religious view held by those who wish the world to have no Originator (meaning – Huxley 1937, p. 312). Trilobites and all other forms appear on the scene as fully formed, fully competent organisms, period. It is past time to replace the theory of organic evolution with a theory that can explain the data. The only theory with explanatory value for the origin of information is the theory of Special Creation. I make no apology for choosing to place my faith in the existence of a Master Designer, a position that is consistent with the clearest interpretation of the evidence available in the Geologic Record, consistent with the clearest reading of the Book of Genesis, and a faith that is positive, uplifting and full of hope for the future."

Gotta love the consistency. Not only does Chadwick use a 1937, and highly suspect, definition of evolution, but he declares his theory as the only theory with explanatory value. Bold statements from someone whose paper doesn't seem to prove his position in any way.

By the way Urbilateria, if you were wondering, is the hypothetical last common ancestor of protostomes and deuterostomes. yes, hypothetical, which of course means it hasn't been proven. But rather than say it's a construct of the imagination, I believe it's better to say this is a hypothesis that is undergoing further research. At one time the Earth going around the Sun was hypothetical. Personally I just think Dembski is jealous because his pet imaginary construct, Specific Complexity, and its overarching construct, Intelligent Design, hasn't yet reached the plateau of being hypothetical. Right now it's just an idea, a concept, a thought. At least the Urbilateria is being investigated by real scientists, you know the ones that do real science work and publish in real scientific journals.

Arguments VI -- Gaps in the fossil record

I hadn't thought about this one recently, until someone reminded me of it. There are gaps in the fossil record. Now when I first learned this, way back in my first dinosaur class in elementary school, I wasn't a happy camper. I mean back then dinosaurs were Cool and anything that didn't directly tie back to dinosaurs was not! I guess I was all of 8 or 9 years old and anything that was missing, like fossils, were crimes against nature -- to my thinking back then.

Nowadays I understand a lot more and I think even later in elementary school when I learned how fossils formed I understood why there weer gaps and some of the gaps might never be filled. But back then I still didn't like it!

The only thing I don't like today about the gaps is how Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters have tried to use them as rationale for the failures of science to answer questions. What i hope you understand is that the gaps were expected and predicted by paleontology theories. The reason is quite simple, the formation of fossils is a rare event. The conditions that allow a fossil to form are pretty exact and specific. The right materials, moisture content, even pressure and other conditions must be there in order to form a fossil. Most organisms never have the opportunity.

Of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents point to the thousands of fossils and claim how can this be, there are tons of fossils. Well when you look a the age of the Earth and the billions of years involved, translate that to how many organisms have lived upon this planet? Only a very tiny percentage of them will die and eventually form a fossil.

Then of course some of the Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents claim the Earth is only between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, depending on which group of them you happen to be talking to, and attempt to steer the whole conversation away from the gaps.

So, as I said science not only knows about the gaps, but expected there to be gaps. It would be totally amazing if there was an unbroken string from the original organism through modern day man of fossilized remains. In fact that would cause paleontologists to be more concerned over the validity of their finds than having gaps. You can read more about fossils here.

But Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents will continue to point to the gaps as evidence of the weakness of science. What they tend to forget is that a gap can one day be filled. We are still finding fossils and learning. They prefer to put their God/Designer in the gap and say, see God/Designer did it. The problem I see with the God of the Gaps story is that what happens when we find a fossil to fit one of the gaps? What will their story become then?

Of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents have more issues with the fossil record than the gaps. I've mentioned a few in other posts, like their disbelief in transitional fossils and their claim that radiocarbon dating isn't accurate, and their general disbelief in thermodynamics. Like the fossil gaps they like to point at science and make wide claims about its inaccuracy and inapplicability. I wish they would focus more on the science of their own ideas. Tearing down science doesn't mean as much when they use science to try and validate their own pet ideas. Oh there are gaps in the fossil record -- but here is Intelligent Design -- yea that makes sense.

I will close by saying once again that there are gaps in the fossil records expected gaps, explained gaps, and predicted gaps. I would really like to know how that advances Intelligent Design because from what I have read, including books by Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and Coulter, there are gaping fissures in Intelligent Design that no one seems interested in filling.

Arguments V - Transitional Forms

This is one of my favorite arguments against evolution. Of course it does nothing to advance intelligent design, but then neither do most intelligent design supporters.

The argument goes like this "Where are all the transitional forms that should have evolved? Where are the organisms in mid-evolution? Why do Apes still exist if we evolved from Apes, shouldn't there be some transition between us and apes?" You get the point. I hate to do this again, but we need to settle on a definition here. When someone utters this types or arguments, we need to know what they mean by transitional form.

The very first time I had this discussion with a creationist friend of mine I was shocked to learn what he expected in the way of transitional form. He was expecting some part-man, part-fish, part-bird like creature that would exist today to show the relationship. I really thought he was talking about some B-list science fiction movie, the type you would see on late night TV.

I had to sit back and think on it for a little while and it dawned on me his biggest problem was the time frame. He's a YEC, a Young Earth Creationist, who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You know for Evolution to have worked it 'magic' in only 6,000 year, he's right, there would be some pretty strange fossils and potentially even living creatures today.

But when the time frame is extended into the billions of years, the need for transitional forms to be radical disappears. At this point the Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and others makes much more sense. For a more interesting list check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

When you consider the long time for forms to transition, you can see that the changes were much less radical. A shoulder joint here, a wrist here, or feathers here, as opposed to a single organism with characteristics of multiple species in one generation.

Of course my YEC friend denied my evidence. "It's a conspiracy of "paleontologists" who would be out of a job if the 'truth' were known." was one of his responses. At this point I think I truly decided that Intelligent Design had no place in the science classroom. My friend was perfectly willing to disregard the work of hundreds, even thousands of scientists because it didn't agree with his personal religious belief. He had no other basis for his disagreement other than vehement denial.

This form of denial was later repeated by Michael Behe who denied evidence of evolution on his examples of irreducible complexity during the Dover PA trial. I cannot get behind any idea where the main line of argument is to deny evidence. Fossils don't support your idea, so just toss them out -- or claim they were all formed in one world-wide flood. Radiological dating doesn't support your idea, so toss it out -- without realizing that the physics behind it, Thermodynamics, is also the science behind your car running. Geology dates the Earth at more than 4.5 billion years, just toss it aside because you don't like it. Then abuse religion to trick people into agreeing with you. "You believe in God, so you must be an anti-evolutionist!" "The Bible is the only biology text worth studying!" "More people believe in God than Darwin!"

OK, enough said for the moment. Transitional forms existed and today we are the transitional forms of what will come tomorrow. If you disagree, look at your children. They are like you in some ways, like their other parent in others, and still they are their own person. If you still disagree, also look at the furniture of Colonial America. Why are the beds so short . . .were the trees shorter also? Or was the average height less than it is today? We are taller and live longer than 200 years ago. It's Evolution . . . Live and In Person!