We keep hearing from Intelligent Design Creationists that the fossil record is lacking in transitional fossils. To support their claims, they consistently quote mine statement by Gould and others while ignoring the actual data.
Thanks to modern technology, Youtube presents Transitional Fossils I and II by DonExodus2
And check out the full offerings by DonExodus2
I’m a 24 year old male in Chapel Hill, NC.
Most of my videos pertain to the subject of evolution, creationism, and religion.
Education: Highschool BS Evolutionary Biology- UNC-Charlotte. Doctoral- UNC-Chapel Hill
Theological- 8 semesters at Cathedral Preparatory school from 99-02.
Im just getting into youtube, and will be adding videos pretty rapidly in the coming weeks.
I liked it.. but then at 6:15ish it says “needs to develop” and then “the fossil record clearly shows all of these being developed”. You know that it will be parsed by some as “Oh? How did that fish KNOW it had to develop waterproof skin to become a reptile? Well? See!? You can’t answer that!!”. Use enough long words and you’ll end up with people picking the words they do know and interpret them as best they can (ie not always very well).
I don’t know how to make this basic information more accessible, maybe with easier to remember names… I can’t spell austrapheliticus without help but I know how to write Lucy. Scientific accuracy is one thing.. outreach potential is quite another.
I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.
Great find
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Hat Tip to Reed Cartwright.
perfect
I prefer music by T. Rex and the Trogs.
“I fully support the teaching of biology set to Neil Young and Grand Funk.”
Kool music. I think I’ll watch it again with the headphones on!
The music will probably turn the fundies off faster than the facts. Should it be re-mixed with something like Lawrence Welk?
;-)
“…I’m getting closer to my home”…Oh yeahhh!
Oh yes! Clear and succinct and fine background tunes. More, please.
Evolution makes no predictions by definition. It is an uncaring molecular process driven by random mutations and ratcheted by additional random processes, called selective pressures. Weather, climate, predation, disease, accidents, catastrophes and floods are all dominated by randomness and thus two concatenated random processes cannot predict anything.
Evolution curve fits observations over intervals by adding such variables as may be necessary to connect the dots, much like a multivariate regression where with enough variables invented any continuous curve cab be approximated over a short interval of outcomes.
And since mutational effects are 99% harmful or useless even when expressed there should be millions of fossils that do fit any series such as so called whale evolution where the blowhoile apparatus supposedly evolved as teh nose moved steadily backward on teh head to the top.
But where are all the blowholes or noses moving in any other of the 359 degree directions, there should be many with nostrils moving sideways, down at all angles, after all successive mutational expressions don’t care. It’s true only those that proved “beneficial” would persist, but that does not excuse the absense of failed expressions that would be 100/1 in evidence. This is of course the case in all other so called transitional series where every fossil is perfect fit in the series.…how convenient…anbd impossible.
Evolution the science for the committed myopic community.
A common confusion about evolution is that it is random, when in fact it is all but random. While Keith is correct that we may be unable to identify all the selective pressures involved, this does not mean that evolution therefore is random or unpredictable.
Evolution is a process which includes as one of its processes variation, inheritance and selection. All these processes are observed in nature and in fact some excellent research exists that shows natural selection in action in nature. In addition, real predictions can and have been made based on evolutionary principles, contrary to Keith’s unsupported assertion that “evolution makes no predictions by definition”. Even Darwin made some predictions which turned out to be quite successful.
An unsupported assertion. Perhaps Keith could provide us with an example?
Again we notice a problem here with reality. Most mutational effects are neutral, or near neutral, some are beneficial and some are harmful. However confusing neutral with useless, ignores the large amount of evidence in support of the importance and relevance of such neutral variation. Hint: neutrality is an essential component for the success of evolution as it improves evolvability.
As to whale evolution, again we see intermediates where the blow hole is slowly moving to the top. Should there be millions of fossils, Keith does not explain why and in fact the number of transitionals, however impressive, match expected numbers based on some simple back of the envelope calculations.
So far the only myopic person in this thread appears to the Keith who can be observed making many unsubstantiated comments, while ignoring the 18 minutes of transitional fossils video
So who is myopic here?
I see we’ve gone from ‘there are no intermediate fossils’ to ‘there should be millions’, which I suppose is progress. Keep it up, Keith!
Why would they be present if they failed? That comment is even dottier than your norm.
No logic nor supporting analysis is presented by Keith, showing how ignorance seems to be a driving force behind keith’s myopic vision (and may I add understanding) of evolutionary theory and the available data and evidence.
Of course, what is even more noticable is an absence of any ID relevant explanations. Figures.
While I’m now certain that Keith is a parody, his “where are all the failures” point should be addressed.
Only lucky critters get fossilized. The odds are very poor that any given critter is going to wind up preserved and then dug up so that we can bring it into a lab to study. Some environments lend themselves more to fossilization than others, but by and large, fossilization is going to be a rarity, just like the “99% harmful” mutations (ignoring for a moment that this is completely wrong… most mutations are neutral or nearly neutral, thanks to wobble in the codons).
But let’s keep assuming that 99% of mutations are going to be bad. “Bad” in this case means lowered fitness, which means fewer viable offspring (in many cases, it would be zero, as the organism might not even gestate completely and die before birth/hatching), while that 1% of mutations would be beneficial, producing more offspring. That would mean that, over a few generations, there would be MANY more examples of critters with that beneficial mutation than all of the ones with bad mutations (many of which might never reach a stage in development where fossilization is at all possible). Which one is going to be more likely to fossilize: an example of a mutation that has propagated through a population for a few generations, or one which was seen only once or twice in a few critters who never had offspring? More examples means there’s more chance to fossilize, so the odds are heavily against the hypothetical “nose moving in other directions” that Keith the Parody mentions.
To take a more modern example, let’s say you’re going into a landfill to look for an mp3 player with a specific feature to chart the “development of mp3 players”. If that feature is something found in the iPod line (let’s go with the scroll wheel), you’re more likely to find it, because there were more of those models manufactured and sold than any other mp3 player (ie it was more successful and more fit). It would be more likely to wind up in the particular pile in the particular landfill you happened to be digging in.
K eaton:
Why are not the ocean beds all over the planet covered with fossils?
Once again Keith displays his ignorance. Where to start?
First, evolution is not an entirely random process as PvM pointed out and as this guy no doubt already knows.
Second, just because there are some random elements in evolution, doesn’t mean that no predictions can be made. So Keith, the outcome of flipping a coin is random. Can you make any predictions as to what the outcome would be if you flipped the coin one million times? If not, you don’t understand probability. If so, then your contention is falsified.
Third, there are plenty of examples of large lineages where many species went extinct, many without giving rise to any other species. Just look at the horse lineage. How many species existed in the past? How many species exist today? How many toes do they run on? So Keith, is three intermediate betwewen four and one? Then look at the hominid lineage. How do you explain Neanderthals? If you say they are an intermediate in the human lineage then you concede that humans evolved. If you don’t thyink that they are intermediates, then once again your contention is conclusively falsified.
Fourth, as for whale evolution, how do you explain the fact that there are fossils that document the intermediate forms in the movement of the whale nostrils? So if fossils are found that don’t fit in as intermediates, will you concede that those would be no problem for evolutionary theory or would you then claim that evolution could not explain them?
Keith, grow up, learn some biology and go somewhere else, not necessarily in that order.
Beneficial mutations are common and we see them every day. Antibiotic resistance mutations, anti-biocide mutations, anticancer drug mutations and so on. These are beneficial to the pathogens although humans consider them problems. They are responsible for killing millions worldwide every year.
They are also known in humans, adult lactose tolerance, amylase high expression, HIV resistance, resistance to artherosclerosis.
No beneficial mutations is just a creo lie. All they have are lies.
Below is one of many laboratory studies quantitating beneficial mutations.
True however Keith was careful in his formulation that 99% of the mutations are detrimental or useless. However the last part shows a common confusion amongst ID creationists, namely that neutral or near neutral mutations are inherently useless. They are useful in that they allow genetic variation to spread through a population without affecting the fitness or phenotype. However, such a variation, which may initially be near neutral can acquire beneficial roles, for instance when environmental conditions change, or neutral variation can affect evolvability by providing a reservoir of genetic variation. Claiming that neutral mutations are just useless is a statement of ignorance at best.
I could point to various scientific works that explain this but until Keith acknowledges that he needs to do more research, I will not waste my time, anyone with an internet connection can do the research for themselves (perhaps with the exception of William Wallace, our creationist friend who seems to be unable to find the reports how to homogenize data for surface observation stations. Ignorance of evolution and Global warming so often seems to correlate that one may start to wonder if there is actually a causal explanation in order.)
A comment on evolution and “randomness”.
Let’s just deal with “mutation and natural selection” for now. Let’s also just deal with mutations that arise during cellular reproduction, although mutations may occur in non-dividing cells. Let’s also assume that the genomes we are talking about are DNA. These very minor simplifications won’t hurt, and will make it easier to be clear.
Whatever mutations, that is, whatever variance of offspring DNA from parent DNA that occur, they are independent of the human-perceived “needs” or “desires” of the organism possessing the parent DNA.
Are they “random”? It depends on what you mean by random. The probability that a given segment of DNA will experience a “mutation” of any sort is impacted by all sorts of exogenous and endogenous factors, like level of mutagens in the environment, chromosome structure and position of the segment on the chromosome, sequence of the segment in question, other biochemical features of the segment (such as methylation), etc. So someone might argue that mutation is not entirely “random”, in the sense that a given type of mutation would not be equally likely to occur at any point in the genome.
But someone else might argue, more correctly perhaps, that if we could account for a sufficient number of the factors that affect, in a significant way, the probability of a given mutation at a given site, mutation occurence would appear probablistic, or “random”, to human eyes, within those conditions. (In other words we might know that there would be a certain probability of a certain mutation at a certain site, just as we know that a roulette ball has a certain probability of landing in a certain spot - in that case we know the probability to a high degree of certainty, assuming a well-engineered table - but don’t know when it will land in that spot.)
However, whether we call mutations “random” or not, they are absolutely independent of human-perceived “needs” or “desires” of the organism.
If a mutation has a potential phenotypic effect, those organisms that express the effect may (or may not) be acted on by natural selection, one way or the other.
Natural selection is almost never conceived of as purely random. The elements that make up the environment may arise in so complex a manner as to be random to human eyes - climate, weather, soil conditions, other organisms present. The occurence of specific mutations may be perceived as a random sampling from probability distribution. The effects of natural selection itself are often modeled, in classical population genetics, in a probablistic and statistical way. We can easily note that thinking of the expected number of offspring, and the variance of that expected value, from individuals posessing or lacking a certain trait, is an obvious way to model natural selection. (In the case of severe selection like the killing of all population members who lack some sort of resistance element, it becomes simpler).
However, in the long run, natural selection tends to have such a strong directional effect that it is not conceived of as random.
@harold,
Nice, detailed rebuttal.
It might be simpler and more accurate to use “random” in a different sense, though. Mutation is “random” in the sense that it is not controlled by the needs of the organism in which it appears. Random as opposed to “directed” (e.g., Larmarkian).
I’m not disagreeing with the points you made, but it seemed like an additional and useful way of explaining “random” mutation.
Dave:Creationists see neanderthals as being fully human:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]fast-talking
Peter,
I know that some creationists think that neanderthals were completely human, however, they are completely wrong. Neanderthals were very distinct morphologically, culturally and genetically. The genetic evidence clearly indicates that they were not humans. I can provide references if you wish. The best hypothesis based on current evidence is that they are an extinct sister group to homo sapiens that may or may not have made a slight genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool.
In any event, they certainly fulfill the criteria put forward by Keith. They were an unsuccessful hominid lineage, whether or not they were in the direct line of descent to modern humans is immaterial. And I suppose we could add Homo florensis to the list as well.
Keith just doesn’t seem to get the concept of the tree of life. If he did, he wouldn’t make such nonsensical claims.
AIG is lying again. Since when do red hair and fair complexions have anything to do with being fully human? Orangutans have red hair. Chinese, Japanese, Africans, Mexicans and Italians are fully human.
The evolutionary predictions and findings predicted that Neanderthals would be similar to modern humans. That they were most likely light skinned and capable of speech and thought was discovered by scientists not religious fanatics in Kentucky. The stereotype of Neanderthals as primitive went out before I was born, again due to scientists, not the churches. AIG is taking credit for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Of course, they forgot to mention that Neanderthals disappeared 26,000 years ago, before the last ice age was over and 20,000 years before the earth was created. LOL
Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?
The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition. The copying errors in DNA are best described as from a uniform distribution without any bias. About 1 per 10**9 base pairs approximately in human DNA according to Wills.
Now if you want to contend that small incremental changes occurred effecting a specific morphological change like a nose/blowhole location then the gene(s) expressing nose location would have to be varying due to mutations on the same gene perhaps several loci, some neutral, some harmful, some beneficial and through selection pressure changes, etc. always were reflected in some perfectly coordinated movement front to top..so be it..but statistically that’s essentially impossible.
There would be some increments in a given direction that were so slight that no selective advantage could be distinguished, then perhaps reversion, then sideways, then down…it’s absolutely inevitable. Thus although if the advantage is to go deeper into water and be able to breathe it is logical moving up top is the way to go, over eons necessary to effect such it is rediculous to presume there would not be many, many, “failures” in nose location and certainly some would be fossilized. The same can be said fore the enormous number of additional adaptations to get to a sperm whale from a land dwelling, quadruped with its many specialized features. Thuis again many failed experiements…ad finitum over millions of species, yet neat little perfect series are what you claim to construct.
Its a fairy tale.
Neanderthals are currently thought to have interbred with so called fully human populations, perhaps onoly rarely. They were degenerative genetically for reasons not understood..perhaps isolation and interbreeding in small populations, disease,radiation effects localized to their population..no one knows.
The genomes are considered 99% identical to homo sapien, they had the ability for language and speaking in their DNA analysis.
Jeez even the wikipedia site knows this.
The tree of life is a bush, not a tree and its upsidedown with almost all major taxa, etc. bursting into full fruition folowed by stasis, extinction, and minor variation within narrow vertical limits.
Can’t you all see that Keith is a parody? please stay on topic.
The fact that a process has a known distribution means it is random…sort of by definition
not at all, actually.
a standard bell-shaped distribution hardly implies complete randomness.
in fact, just the opposite.
if you can find a best fit curve to a distribution of data points that is significant, that indicates non-randomness by definition. However, since you don’t appear to understand the difference between “randomness” and “probability distribution”…
Where to start with the math and logically challenged…?
project much, moron?
ad infinitum Keith? There is no infinite series involved. Have you looked at a Hox gene mutant? Do you understand the myriad of variations that organisms possess? For example that most organisms are not perfectly symmetrical in bone size from left to right? Are you aware that increased symmetry increases performance? Are you aware that the mathematics on population genetics nicely predicts a dramatic increase in fixation chance for any beneficial allele, where as there is only a threshold based on population size only for slightly deleterious mutations? And it all ends up as only a chance of fixation (much smaller than the advantageous chance) anyways? You have a non-sensical Platonic idea of a species as being one thing and only one thing with no regard for the tremendous amount of variation within a species. Further your simplistic notions of probability would not even get out of chapter 1 of a college algebra treatment of probability.
Why not start with yourself? Just a friendly suggestion
Of course copying errors are but one of the many sources of variation in the genome. What is even more interesting is that since some of the sources of variation are under genetic control, they are open to evolution themselves. In other words, sources of variation can evolve to become more successful.
An interesting handwaving argument. Where is that math you promised? Do you really believe that there is a gene expressing nose location? Could you help us identify said gene? Until Keith can show that this is statistically ‘essentially impossible’ we should reject his objections as a just not so story :-)
What the fossils show is how the blow hole, contrary to Keith’s assertion, moves further backwards. Now Keith may argue that this move is initiated by something else than variations in genetic information, but it would be hard for Keith to ignore these data. As to the amount of variation needed. Within most species, there is a large source of variation regarding the location and shape and form of for instance the nose, mouth, ears and even eyes.
To claim that there is no evidence for blow hole evolution is plain silly, as PZ Myers showed. Were all the changes solely because of selective pressures?
Let me ask Keith, do you accept the evidence for the evolution of the location of the blowhole, the evolution of the middle ear as so well documented by science or do you also reject these factual data? I am curious as to where your objections are located.
It’s better described by a ‘strawman’
You do know that while Wikipedia is a good source for information, there is more scientific data outside wikipedia that deals with the less obvious aspects?
Surely Keith has no excuse not being familiar with evolutionary theory given the presence of Dennis Anderson’s website at the OK Community College?
You have shown you can cut and paste but can you defend or even explain the relevance of your statement?
Is the bush/tree upside down? Of course not, after all major taxa do arise before the species arise by the nature of the Lynnaean system. Any species will have to belong to a higher taxa, including a phylum. Yes, quite a few phyla arose during a few million years although most of them looked quite alike, causing quite a bit of confusion in recognizing fossils, and leading to an interesting over inflation of the number of ‘phyla’ until a closer look revealed the true story. See this PLOS paper for some interesting details about bush versus tree.
What is such a big deal about the tree of life being a bush or a tree? We see stasis, we see gradual evolution, we see more abrupt evolution and we see extinction. What we do not see however is minor variation within very narrow vertical limits. That is a misrepresentation of fact.
I understand, being asked to support your claims is best not responded to.
Ah the power of denial…
Jacob,
You are extremely rude and I don’t have to respond to anyone who is rude to me. Since you are not willing to engage in a civil scientific discussion, I will not respond to anything else you write. Until you answer my questions about the SINE insertions, I will not read anything else you have to write. I suggest that others treat you the same way.
If you show up on any other threads I will repeat my questions. I will keep asking until you answer or go away. Your refusal to discuss the evidence disqualifies you from any serious scientific consideration.
Amazing. Call him an ass and you get a lecture on polite discourse (akin to getting a lecture on diet from Hannibal Lecter), but make thoughtful detailed comments on his scientific claims, and that’s not worthy of a response.
No dipshit, you and all the other evolution-deniers obsessed with “Darwinism” have missed the big point, which is that modern evolutionary theory left Darwin behind a long long LONG time ago. Were Darwin alive today, he’d hardly recognize it, and some of it would outright astonish him. If you think we are all here defending “old time evolution”, you are even more out of touch than I thought you were, which is saying quite a bit.
Update