Question 1: The Fossil Record

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:25 pm

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:44 pm

That would be a prime example of a quote taken out of context. The way in which it was taken from context leads me to believe that the person who first took the quote should be beaten over the head with the book, and forced to eat it.

The above quote is from Chapter 10 - "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record". Darwin's writing style was to ask a rhetorical question and then give an answer, as we see below:

Here's the context, with your little piece highlighted.

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.

So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.

From : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote75

Now, do you see why my post sounds so irrate? Its as if you quoted me saying "I would never in any way support the war on Iraq" as having me say "I...support the war on Iraq"

I can produce an online copy of the book if you'd like it.

perfessor · Post by **perfessor** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:10 pm

"Should we accept evolution in light of absense of fossils?" This is an interesting tag to attach to the thread. There is no absense of fossils - we have gajillions of them. Obviously, the real question is, what constitutes a transitional fossil?

So I would like to ask you, Simon, to clarify your definition. What would you need to see in a fossil, before you would call it a transitional or intermediate? I'm trying to avoid the "shifting goalposts" syndrome that often surrounds this particular point.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:26 pm

Nyril, context is king, as it is said .. but in this case (as opposed to the example you gave regarding the war) I did not have the speaker say something he did not mean to convey. I quoted Darwin as saying that the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [his] theory." Read in the context which you quoted, we see that this is precisely what Darwin meant to say; but this is not to say that Darwin thought his theory was shown to be untenable - of course Darwin believed his theory to be quite tenable and sound. After all, he dedicated quite a bit of his life working on it. To suggest that I meant to portray Darwin as certain that he had a defeater for his theory is not only to mistake what I meant to convey, it is also to fail to answer the questions I raised in my post.

By the way, this is just a side not but.. when I read this -- "Darwin's writing style was to ask a rhetorical question and then give an answer, as we see below" -- I had to laugh a little bit at the idea that someone might suggest that this "writing style" was Darwin's or something Darwin invented or something new (We've all read Aquinas, to name one, no?) But perhaps this is not what the person whom you quoted meant to convey.

perfessor, you're right that the issue is not with an absence of fossils as a whole, but rather the absence of transitional forms. The description field wasn't long enough for me to put it that way.

So again, the questions are: What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:23 pm

Finding transitional forms in the fossil record isn't so much of a problem as getting opponents of evolution (read: 'creationists') to accept them as such. Fortunately, paleontologists don't have this problem. Here are a few popular examples...

Exhibit A- Everyone's favorite dino-bird...

Archaeopteryx

Exhibit B- The walking whale...

Ambulocetus

Exhibit C- The missing link...

Australopithecus

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:01 am

It's difficult for me to debate with someone so bigoted and ignorant as to imply that creationists are by definition excluded from the field of paleontology.

Still, I'll do my best.

The examples you provided are infered to be intermediate examples .. but where are the transitional fossils? The examples you gave don't seem to account for gradualism.

Do the examples you have given really overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

[As an aside .. We've got 7 specimens of Archaeopteryx .. 8 if you count a feather .. and some people are thinking that the whole thing is a hoax motivated by money, and that eventually it will be exposed as such - replacing the Piltdown man as the biggest hoax scientists ever fell for.]

PS - "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977, p. 14). -- More quotes here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc04.html

Gaunt · Post by **Gaunt** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:15 am

Simon, perfessor asked but you may have missed it. How do you define a transitional fossil? What would you need to see in a fossil that you could call it transitional? without a firm definition, anything that is shown can be dismissed on the grounds that it isn't really a transitional fossil, it's just an odd chimp or whathaveyou.

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:02 am

Nyril, context is king, as it is said .. but in this case (as opposed to the example you gave regarding the war) I did not have the speaker say something he did not mean to convey. I quoted Darwin as saying that the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [his] theory."

Read the next sentence. Really, honest. Follow the part that I bolded (the quote that you posted), and read the next sentence. The first three words would be enough to show that you've done exactly that.

Here's your part.

is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.

Here's the part I wanted to direct your attention to.

The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

He posts his problem, and in the next sentence posts the solution to it. Indeed, the next two paragraphs address it. How did you not take something he said and reverse its meaning entirely?

By the way, this is just a side not but.. when I read this -- "Darwin's writing style was to ask a rhetorical question and then give an answer, as we see below" -- I had to laugh a little bit at the idea that someone might suggest that this "writing style" was Darwin's or something Darwin invented or something new (We've all read Aquinas, to name one, no?) But perhaps this is not what the person whom you quoted meant to convey.

It wasn't. The book was written in question-answer format. The use of a possessive indicates that that is the specific writing style that Darwin used. If Nyril writes in third person and people say that he's doing as such, it is not his specific means of writing, it is simply the format that Nyril was inclined to write in. Darwin's trying to convince several million people, so he heads off the argument and answers the most obvious objections right in the document itself (A reader might think, "hey, what about fossils?" and he puts up a response to spare him the effort of reproducing his response for everyone that asks that question). What was done, was that people selected the quote from the question part of things, ignoring the part where he goes and gives his response to that specific question.

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:16 am

It's difficult for me to debate with someone so bigoted and ignorant as to imply that creationists are by definition excluded from the field of paleontology.

Depends on the creationist really.

If they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is extremely difficult to then go out and study formations that occurred 50,000+ years ago with any sense of credibility. At the very least, they will either need to ignore age entirely in their dealings, close their eyes and hum loudly when they find a find that occurred before the 6,000 year limit, or be the laughingstock of the scientific community when they suggest that a find that details a critical part in the development of a certain thing occurred roughly 3,000 years ago.

I doubt any other sort of creationist would have a problem in the slightest, as long as they could get over the age thing.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:25 am

It would be better for the position of the Darwinist to quarrel about whether or not Darwin meant "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record," when he said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record," however, I'm not going to do that with you.

The fact of the matter is that Darwin said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." And he goes on to explain that the geological record must be "imperfect".

Stephen Jay Gould said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

The questions remain, What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?