Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: SOR Pamphlet #4 Message-ID: <961@utastro.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 16:03:32 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.961 Posted: Thu Jan 3 16:03:32 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jan-85 01:54:08 EST Distribution: net Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 303 We have been down for some time, so here at last is my response to Ray Miller's SOR Pamphlet #4. I haven't seen SOR #5 yet if it has been posted. ------ >GAPS: THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION > One of the major problems for evolutionists is the sudden explosion of >complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks, including trilobites, brachiopods, >worms, jellyfish, sponges, etc. No transitional forms, indicating how these >complex creatures supposedly evolved, have ever been documented. Pre-Cambrian >sedimentary rock can be found which is identical with overlying fossiliferous >Cambrian, but the gaps are still present. There evidence for 2.5 billion years of life prior to the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". And fossils typical of Cambrian types *are* found in Pre-Cambrian rocks, although not in abundance. Stephen Jay Gould is of the opinion that the Cambrian fossil record is consistent with the typical "sigmoid" population growth curve that is commonly seen in biological systems: An initial exponential phase during which the available resources are much more abundant than the growing population, followed by a levelling off as the population is limited by the finite resources. See "Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud" (love those titles :-) in his *Ever Since Darwin*. > This pattern continues throughout the entire evolutionary tree. Paleon- >tologists from each specialty admit that their particular area does not docu- >ment evolution, while at the same time maintaining a faith that all of the oth- >er areas provide the missing evidence. For example, the evolutionary botanist >Edred Corner wrote: ``Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of >evolution - from biology, bio-geography, and paleontology, but I still think >that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special >creation'' [3]. A typical creationist quotation out of context. Dr. Corner was (a) talking about angiosperms, not all plants, and (b) emphasizing the fact that *in this case* we do not have good fossil evidence as to *precisely which forms* they evolved from. He was not arguing that angiosperms didn't evolve from simpler forms. (See *Creation/Evolution*, Issue VII, article by Kenneth Miller). > Each time a particular kind of plant or animal appears in the fossil >record, it does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi- >cating how it evolved. Gaps are large, systematic, and continuous throughout >the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model. ``Despite >the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it >has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of >which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires inter- >mediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them'' [4]. >Even the prominent Stephen Gould wrote: ``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'' [5]. Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence'' >is not the mark of an objective scientist. But Stephen Jay Gould also says, in response to Creationist misquotations of his writings like this one, "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transition- al forms are generally lacking at the species level but *are abundant between larger groups* [emphasis added]. The evolution from reptiles to mammals is well documented" (Creation/Evolution VI, p. 38). Kenneth Miller comments in his article quoted above: "In order to defeat the notion of descent, Dr. Gish claimed that 'the missing links are still missing,' that there are gaps in the fossil record so severe that the record simply does not show evolution. This is a shocking set of untruths. "The fossil record not only documents evolution but the very existence of the fossil record was the force that drove unwilling scientists to admit nearly two centuries ago that living forms had changed (evolved). This record shows intermediate form after intermediate form. There is a long series of interme- diates linking reptiles with mammals. There are evolutionary sequences showing the evolution of the horse, the elephant, sea urchins, snails, major groups of plants, and many other animals now extinct. Furthermore, these fossils show an orderly succession which fully documents the evolutionary tree of life." For more specific examples, Roger J. Cuffey, in "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", which is reprinted in *Science and Creationism*, gives references to over 100 papers in the literature which document transitional forms at many different levels (species, genus, etc.). >PROPOSED TRANSITIONS > When pressed hard for evidence of transitional forms, evolutionists always >point to Archaeopteryx or to the horse series. Archaeopteryx, the proposed >link between reptiles and birds, is considered by many evolutionists to be the >best example of evolution in action. > However, close scrutiny indicates the characteristics of Archaeopteryx do >not give much support for the evolutionary model. Archaeopteryx did not have >half-scales and half-feathers, but rather fully developed feathers capable of >flight. Also, it turns out that Archaeopteryx's so-called reptilian features >are not unique to reptiles, but are possessed by several other types of birds. >For example, the living ostrich, hoatzin, touraco, etc. are all considered to >be 100% birds, and yet possess common traits which are labeled reptilian in Ar- >chaeopteryx. Furthermore, even the famous teeth cannot be used to label Ar- >chaeopteryx as partially reptile. Some reptiles have teeth and some do not. >Some amphibians have teeth and some do not. Some mammals have teeth and some >do not. Some fish have teeth and some do not. In fact, this pattern holds >true throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum. Even other birds >once had teeth, though they are now extinct. Perhaps Ray would like to explain for us the principle of hydraulic sorting that caused birds with teeth to be fossilized in Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks, but birds without teeth to be fossilized later. Perhaps he would also like to explain for us why embryonic tissue from modern birds has retained the genes necessary to direct the formation of teeth (McGowan, p. 121). Sorry, not "retained"...I should have said, why it has such genes, since according to Creationists, modern birds were created separately, and there is no reason why they should have such genes at all. (This is another example of the "kludgey" nature of life as it exists that shows us that evolution, not creation, is the only reasonable hypothesis.) K. Miller comments, "The reason Gish says that intermediate forms do not exist is because his model requires that he explain them all away. For example, *Archaeopteryx*, a clear intermediate between reptiles and birds which in some ways is more closely linked with the little dinosaurs of the period than with later birds, is declared by Gish to be '100 percent bird'. Why? Because it has feathers. This is where he draws the line. Yet, if one really wanted to discuss the *Archaeopteryx* fossils in detail, one should be aware that several fossilized *Archaeopteryx* skeletons were discovered before one was found with feathers preserved. How were these specimens classified? They were thought to be reptiles and were placed in museums alongside other small dinosaurs. In short, *Archaeopteryx* was an animal whose skeletal structure was reptilian but upon whose skin the first feathers had appeared. Just how much more intermediate does something have to be?" Indeed, it is hardly surprising that *Archaeopteryx* was first classified as a reptile. McGowan gives a list of features that distinguish reptiles from birds taxonomically, (possession of teeth, which Ray Miller harps on, is notably absent from this list), and how *Archaeopteryx* falls with respect to each of these features: IN *ARCHAEOPTERYX* Reptilian Avian HIP 1. Pubic peduncle present TAIL 2. Long, bony tail 3. No pygostyle VERTEBRAE 4. Articular surfaces do not appear to be saddle-shaped (caution is required here because only two articular surfaces can be seen) CHEST 5. No bony sternum 6. Wishbone present HAND 7. Three well-developed fingers 8. Three well-developed metacarpal bones 9. Metacarpal bones unfused ANKLE REGION 10. Metatarsal bones separate 11. No hypotarsus ABDOMEN 12. Abdominal ribs present FEATHERS 13. Feathers present In other words, out of thirteen characteristics that are classificatory between birds and reptiles, *Archaeopteryx* conforms to the reptiles in ten points, to birds in two, and one more is probably also reptilian. What better example of a transitional form could one ask for? Does Ray know of any other species with so many reptilian characteristics that also has feathers? > Finally, Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because the fossil >record indicates that birds were already in existence during the period in >which Archaeopteryx was found [6]. These are just some of the reasons that >many evolutionists are beginning to abandon Archaeopteryx as a transitional >form. Contrary to what Ray says, it is quite possible for *Archaeopteryx* to have existed simultaneously with birds that evolved from it. Creationists have a curious misconception, as seen by their constant references to "Living Fossils", that evolution predicts the extinction of one species if some of its representatives evolve into something else. This is completely wrong. It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for one isolated breeding population to evolve into something else, while another isolated breeding population of the same species, because of differing circumstances, does not. This results in the "daughter" species coexisting with its "parent". > The famous horse series is often found in museums as one of the classic >cases of evolution. However, the observer is not usually told that: all of the >various forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, the presumed reduction in >the number of toes has many contradictions in order, Eohippus is almost identi- >cal to the living African hyrax, and that modern horses have been found in the >same strata with their supposed ancestors. In fact, as more fossil evidence is >collected, it becomes clear that all of these various animals did not evolve, >but were merely contemporaries of each other. Of course, Ray *has* to say this. But saying it doesn't make it true. See Futuyama's book, pp. 85-95, for a detailed, step-by-step description of the evolution of the horse. Chris McGowan, in *In the Beginning...* devotes Chapter 13 to this subject. Ray claims that all these species were contemporaries of each other. The facts: Eohippus is found in the Eocene, Mesohippus in the Ogliocene, Parahippus in the Miocene, Pliohippus in the Pliocene, and Equus (modern horse) does not arise until the late Pliocene. >HUMAN EVOLUTION > In 1912, Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered. For over 40 >years, Piltdown Man was examined by the world's leading authorities, contribut- >ing in some part to over 500 doctoral dissertations. But in the 1950's, it was >revealed that Piltdown Man was a complete hoax! The ``fossil'' turned out to >be nothing more than fragments of an ape's jaw with a human skull treated to >look old. Scientists of the time were so desperate to find support for evolu- >tion, that even a fraud was accepted as valid data. Kenneth Miller again: "To conclude his attack on human evolution, Dr. Gish reminded his audience of the Piltdown Man hoax. This is surprising since the hoax was revealed and exposed not by anti-evolutionists but by scientists. The same techniques that exposed the Piltdown hoax now verify the authenticity of the work done by Johanson and others [on *Australopithecus afarensis*]." I want to emphasize a major Creationist inconsistency here, since the evidence that proved that Piltdown Man was a hoax relied on precisely the same physical dating techniques that Creationists otherwise reject as evidence of the antiquity of things! > The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was used in the 1925 >Scopes trial to ridicule creationists. Nebraska Man consisted of a single >tooth, although evolutionists had reconstructed Nebraska Man's entire appear- >ance from that tooth. In 1927, the rest of the fossil was uncovered. Nebraska >Man was neither an ape-like man nor a man-like ape, but an extinct pig! K. Miller: "Gish also mentioned Nebraska Man, for which the evidence turned out to be a number of fossilized pig's teeth. However, what he failed to mention was that since the discovery of Nebraska Man in 1922, it was contested by scientists worldwide. In fact, in every case that creationists have pointed out that scientists made errors, the errors were originally discovered by scientists themselves - not by creationists who have made no significant contribution to the literature of evolution." > Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus, later known as Homo erectus) consisted >of a skullcap, femur, and a premolar discovered over a period of seven years. >The discoverer, Eugene DuBois, eventually changed his mind and declared that >Java Man consisted of nothing more than the unrelated parts of a human and a >giant gibbon. By that time, however, evolutionists had already accepted Java >Man as an ancestor of humans. Furthermore, DuBois had found (but had kept >secret for thirty years) the discovery of human skulls (the Wadjak skulls) in >the same strata as Java Man. As for Java Man, Chris McGowan (in *In the Beginning...*) points out that "Many more specimens like Dubois's have been found since the turn of the century, and these are now all referred to as the species *Homo Erectus*. *Homo Erectus* has been found in many parts of the world - Europe, Africa, China and the Middle East - and includes specimens that have been referred to as Java man (the original specimen found by Dubois), Peking man, and Heidelberg man. We now know that the crainial capacity of the species overlaps broadly with the lower end of our own range, and, aside from the heavier build, especially of the skull, there are no significant differences between it and our own species. There is, therefore, a gentle progression from *Homo erectus*, which lived from about 1.5 million till about 200,000 years ago, to *Homo sapiens*..." >Since humans already existed, Java Man could not >have been their ancestor. I have already dealt with this silly idea above. Perhaps the particular individual excavated by DuBois wasn't ancestral to modern man, but *Homo erectus* certainly was. > Neanderthal Man was originally classified as Homo neanderthalensis, but >today is known to be fully Homo sapiens. The original La Chapelle-aux-Saints >fossil is believed to have suffered from spinal osteoarthritis, and many later >finds do not have the stooped appearance. McGowan again: "And what do the creationists have to say about *Homo Erectus* and Neanderthal man? Dr. Gish goes to some lengths in his discussion of *Homo erectus* to establish that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the discovery of both Java man and Peking man, and the notion of fraudulence is reinforced by his telling the story of the Piltdown hoax... Neither Dr. Gish nor Dr. Morris have very much to say about Neanderthal man, aside from the fact that the original material was arthritic and that Neanderthals are like modern man. Dr. Morris ends his discussion by saying that as far as the fossil record is concerned, man has always been man, and that 'There are no intermediate or transitional forms leading up to man, any more than there were transitional forms between any of the other basic kinds of animals in the fossil record.' Our survey of the fossil evidence of hominid evolution has shown that this is just not true, any more than it is true for the other transitional fossils that we have discussed." > Currently, evolutionists are speculating about a group of fossils known as >Australopithecus, of which Lucy is one form. However, the data suggests that >Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct ape. After proposing transi- >tions from hoaxes, extinct pigs, etc. it is not surprising the interest evolu- >tionists show in fossil apes. > Not all evolutionists, however, are so quick to again repeat the mistakes >of the past. For example, Charles Oxnard's multivariate statistical analysis >indicates that Australopithecus probably did not walk upright and was not on >the main human lineage [9]. Furthermore, posture is not critical to the dis- >cussion, as the living pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus spends a great deal of >time walking upright. I would like to see Ray's evidence that *Australopithecus afarensis* was "nothing more than an extinct ape". His claims that *A. afarensis* did not walk upright are contradicted by the discovery earlier this year of a complete individual which, according to the reports, clearly walked upright. One should also mention (Futuyama, p. 108) that *A. afarensis* is almost identical with *Homo habilis*, differing primarily in a smaller brain (450 cc vs. 600 cc.), and that H. habilis is clearly associated with extensive manufacture and use of pebble tools, a *typically* human activity. Finally, I want to mention that the recent NOVA show on Stephen Jay Gould's work definitely showed A. afarensis in the human lineage, although A. africanus and A. Robustus were not. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)