Transitional Fossils: Archaeopteryx, Dinosaur-Bird Evolution and Creationism

Charles Darwin predicted that the fossil record would revealtransitional fossils, showing intermediate features between the different types if animals.  If everything evolved from ‘lower’ orders, then we should indeed find fossils that show traits of both modern and ancestral (ie if birds evolved from reptiles, we should find birds with reptilian features, and/or reptiles with avian features) forms.  Worth noting of course, is that such a finding would seriously contradict the Biblical notion of the contemporaneously “created kinds.” Because of this, existence of transitional fossils has become probably the biggest target of anti-evolution propaganda.

Nothing epitomizes the unethical treatment and utter abuse of painstaking scientific research and publication by the anti-evolution movement like their incessant claim that transitional fossils do not exist. These arguments range from playing on semantics, ignoring important discoveries, cherry-picking scientific literature, and quote mines (you’re not surprised are you?).

Rather than try and list every instance of transitional fossils (see list here), I will focus on the reptile-avian relationship, and expose the laundry list of straw man arguments employed by the evolution-denier movement.

Transitional fossils

It’s important to note what we mean by transitional fossils.  In general, it’s a fossil that shows traits of two types (evolution deniers are generally vague about the meaning of ‘types,’ for the point of this blog, we’ll use it synonymously with orders) of animals, as though it were an intermediate between the two.  

1869 marks the discovery of the first such creature.  Discovered in Germany, Archaeopteryx lithographica is a bird with reptilian features not found in modern birds, including a long bony reptilian tail (with many vertebrae), teeth, a reptilian mouth, a neck that attaches to skull from the rear (not below), etc (see full list here) (Nedin). This is important to keep in mind because evolution-deniers generally cite its avian features and ignore its reptilian features as though they didn’t exist.

Archaeopteryx appears in the late Jurassic, which is where we’d expect a transition between reptiles and birds if the latter evolved from the former.  Archaeopteryx appears well before more modern birds, but well after reptiles first appear in the Permian (320 MYA).  Theropod dinosaurs (ie like Velociraptor), appears in the Triassic (230 MYA).  The general consensus is that birds evolved from theropods, but a small yet vocal minority argue that they in fact, descend from another class of reptiles (more on this below).  It’s also important to note that Archaeopteryx is not the only transitional fossil to be found.  A number of other fossilized birds with reptilian characteristics have been discovered, as have feathered theropods.  In fact, the line between feathered theropods and birds has becomes blurred as discoveries continue.

Read More here

Dinosaurs | American Museum of Natural History – The Liaoning Forest
Massive dinosaur bird discovered in China
The feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning

The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds 

Taxonomy

Taxonomy is the classification of things (though in this case we are speaking of its application to living organisms).   This is what gives us the ability to categorize organisms into an organized structure for better study.  It’s important to note that the vast majority of species that ever lived have gone extinct, so existing fauna are really just a small sampling compared to what the Earth’s history has harbored.  It’s also important to note is that Paleontologists generally classify birds as avian dinosaurs (UCMP Berkely), and that new taxons like “dino-birds” aren’t created each time a new gap is filled.

Keeping these in mind, we can wade through some of the more common anti-evolution misunderstandings.  One of the arguments is that Archaeopteryx is a “fully formed bird.”  Of course, this lends no credence to their argument since eagles, hummingbirds, penguins, ostriches, condors, kiwis, and dodo birds are all “fully formed birds” and yet they themselves constitute a diverse class of vertebrates.   However, of the fauna that we can currently observe and study, they bear more resemblance to one another than reptiles or mammals.

Another common tactic is to cite other early fossilized birds and the reptilian traits they possess.  For example, there are other early birds that have teeth (though no modern bird that we know of possesses ssuch).  What many anti-evolution sources do is point to this in order to argue that, teeth are also an avian trait. The fallacy in this argument should be obvious; these too are transitional fossils (early birds that retain reptilian characteristics not found in modern birds).

Quote mining Alan Feduccia

Alan Feduccia is a professor of Paleobiology and North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC at Chapel Hill).  His view is that birds actually evolved from non-dinosaurian archosaurs (meaning a different line of reptiles than what most Paleontologists believe).  Yet, anti-evolutionists quote mine Alan Feduccia as though he were a Young Earth creationist, completely ignoring what it is that he is actually saying.  Whether birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, or another line of reptiles, the reptile-avian connection is still true, and Archaeopteryx is still a bird with reptilian features.

Also important to note is the way anti-evolutionist sources portray Alan Feduccia as though he’s the only avian expert in the field.  In reality, it’s his contrarian viewpoint that highlights his stance and since most Paleontologists agree on the theropod ancestry, there is little to make them stand out from one another, at least in popular science publications like National Geographic.   The perception of ‘balance’ in the media tends to distort the truth, given that they tend to give a 50-50 viewpoint of competing viewpoints, even if one of those viewpoints is by and far in the minority.

One of the arguments posed by Feduccia, which anti-evolutionists have taken and run with, is that some of the early feathered theropods don’t really display feathers at all, but rather collagen fibers.  Of course, this argument pertains specifically toSinosauropteryx (not the entire line of feathered theropods).  Here is a quote from a National Geographic article, Feathered Dinosaur Was Bald, Not Bird Ancestor, Controversial Study Says  article evolution-deniers seem bent on referencing.

I highly suggest reading the entire article, since this is the type of article anti-evolution sources tend to quote mine in pretense that it “disproves” evolution, when in fact it does no such thing.

So there you have it.  Feduccia’s explanation of later feathered theropods is that they are actually birds which have lost their ability to fly.  So Feduccia himself admits that there is a resemblance between birds and theropods, and the argument that birds did not descend from theropods is by and far in the minority (as the article itself states).  What anti-evolutionists are doing is cherry-picking what works for them and leaving out the rest.

While I am not in a position to critique Feduccia, I will say that the theropod lineage makes a lot more sense to me and seems inescapable.  But perhaps I’ll put Feduccia’s book on my reading list to better digest his findings (I strongly suggest anti-evolutionists who quote mine Feduccia do the same).

As to why the theropod-bird relationship makes more sense to me, simply put, the blanks are mostly filled in.

The line of between theropods and birds have become rather blurred over the last 2 decades.  You can get more information from these links:

Allosaurus
Compsognathus
Sinosauropteryx
Alverzaurids
Therizonosaurus
Omnithominids
Tyrannosaurus
Caudipteryx
Oviraptor
Troodon
Sinornithosaurus
Microraptor
Dromasaeosarus
Archaeopteryx
Confuciusornis


As the theropod lineage has become better understood, it’s been discovered that theropods also had hollow bones as well as lungs similar to modern birds.

Modern intermediates – Ostriches and Hoatzin

In addition to the intermediates in the fossil record, we also find modern birds possessing reptilian traits we wouldn’t predict had we not known about them.  Both ostriches and hoatzin nestlings have small remnant claws.  This makes perfect sense in the light of evolution, which states that they must have evolved from clawed vertebrates.  It makes no sense in light of the “created kinds” argument.

Of course, the standard response from anti-evolutionists is that these too are “fully formed birds”, and therefore, having digits is also a bird-like trait.  This is of course, a form of circular reasoning.  The fact is, if we didn’t know about the hoatzin nor the ostrich, we would never predict finding a bird with remnant claws under creationism.  However, under evolution, we would predict to find birds such (or at least not be surpised by it).  One can claim they were created with claws but this begs the following questions;

1-Why weren’t other birds created with claws?
2-Why are these claws so undeveloped?

These are really examples of the “living intermediates” anti-evolutionists claim don’t exist.

.. The “X must evolve into Y” fallacy

Fossilization is a rare occurrence.  Given the requirements needed for a dead specimen to become fossilized before becoming host to scavengers, erosion, and other forces that can destroy an animal’s carcass, it’s amazing we have as many transitional fossils as we do (so far 8 Archaeopteryx’s have been found).  It’s important to understand this, because there is no way of knowing whether Archaeopteryx is in fact a direct ancestor to modern birds, or a close relative thereof.  What’s important is that it appears in the layers after the first reptiles, and before modern birds, and that it contains physiology of both.

Another common fallacy is the straw man argument that if one class or animal evolved from another, then every member of the older class must have evolved into the newer one.  But evolution is about adaptation, diversification, and the filling of niches, not a change that happens in unison.  The fact that a line of theropods become birds over millions of years, does not mean that all theropods must uniformly become birds.  However, this doesn’t stop anti-evolution sources from pointing out the fact that theropod dinosaurs still exist in the late Jurassic, and that these are supposed to be ancestral to Archaeopteryx.  This common fallacy is based on a gross misuncerstanding of evolution, which is also responsible for the common rhetorical question; “if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around?”

That’s not evolution that’s DE-volution!”

“There is a common misconception that evolution means “upgrade” or improvement, as opposed to the adaptation to specific environments.  This fallacy is often used in reference to the dodo bird, which of course, was flightless.  Hence, many anti-evolution sources claims that this is de-volution, which disproves evolution which supposedly states that everything is getting better (which is not what evolution ‘states’).

Dodo birds found themselves in a nice little niche on Mauritius Island, where food was plentiful on the ground, and the general lack of predators made flight less of a necessity.  Because of this, excellent flight capability was no longer needed to ensure reproduction and the passing of its genes (much in the same way that our eyesight is getting worse because poor eyesight is no longer a one-way ticket to being eaten by leopards or bitten by cobras).  Of course, man’s arrival brought new predators (including man himself) as well as scavengers which brought aboutcompetition for the dodo bird, leading to their extinction.

More on Dodo Birds

Half a Wing is useless, therefore there is no evolutionary advantage to develop wings

This is simply untrue.  Not only can we observe birds using partial wings for such things as faster running, the animal kingdom itself is full of animals making use of partial flying capabilities. (Claim CB921.2)
So there you have it.  That’s virtually the entire laundry list of anti-bird evolution arguments on the current anti-evolution market (at least that I can think of).  Some of them might seem silly, especially to those with an understanding of Paleontology or Biology, but rest assured, these are real arguments passed around by anti-evolution sources.  Given the amount of them, and the depths at which they must be explained to the person who doesn’t necessarily have the time or resources to learn all of this, I’m sure you can understand why I chose to stick to this one transitional sequence.  Rest assured, the evolution-deniers have similar laundry lists against the evolution from apes to humans, land mammals to whales, lizards to snakes, fish to amphibians, etc.

The shortest route to understanding the absurdity of their claims is to have a deep understanding of the fossils that have been found (since anti-evolution works mostly by conveniently leaving out pesky facts that you can easily learn from real science sources).

References

Nedin, Chris

“All About Archaeopteryx” Talk Origins January 1999 28 March
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html 

“Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?” UCMP Berkely. 28 March 2008
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Alan Feduccia.  UNC at Chapel Hill Department of Biology. 28 March 2008
http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/feduccia/

Lovgren, Stefan

“Feathered” Dinosaur Was Bald, Not Bird Ancestor, Controversial Study Says.  National Geographic News. June 1, 2007. 28 March 2008
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070601-dino-feathers.html

Claim CB921.2: An Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html

More Online Sources

The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds – Geology Rocks
Bird Evolution – PBS
Archaeopteryx FAQs – TalkOrigins
Journal of Dinosaur Paleontology
Nova: Fossil Evidence
Archaeopteryx – Enchanted Learning
Aves:Fossil Record – UCMP Berkely
Classification of the Chordates

Highly suggested to anyone interested in the Geologic record and transitional fossils: Evolution: What the Fossils say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero.

The end of the Pleistocene marks the end of the last ice age and is accompanied by the extinction of several large fauna. Perhaps the most noticeable of these happened in North America. This also marks the migration of man from Eastern Asia into North America. The existence of kill sites, as well as the contemporaneousness of man’s arrival into the Americas and the disappearance of large fauna, has led some researchers to conclude that these Paleoindians hunted large megafauna to extinction, in what’s known as the Overkill or Blitzkrieg hypothesis.

Megafauna Defined

Because the Clovis hunters are known to have hunted mammoths and other large game, I will look at overkill from the hypothesis that the Clovis hunters were more specialized and more likely to hunt larger game, meaning that mammoths were more the target than smaller game, such as mountain goats. The argument that has been put forth by people such as Martin and Steadman; that Clovis culture Indians (one of the earliest Paleoindian cultures) hunted large game such as mammoths and mastodons to extinction (Grayson and Meltzer 344); has received sharp criticism.

Historical Overview

Archeological finds, genetic markers, linguistic comparisons, and carbon dating reveal that around 13,000 Years BP, groups of Siberian people crossed the Bering strait, which at the time connected Alaska to Eastern Siberia (Sutton 18). These tribes came in waves and over time, eventually filled the Americas to become the peoples that we now refer to as Indians/Native Americans, Inuit, Meso Americans, etc. While there appears to be controversy as to the waves of migration, the question being debated is whether or not Clovis culture Indians hunted megafauna to extinction.

Overkill and Blitzkrieg

Though they vary in actual definition, the terms overkill and blitzkrieg are used interchangeably (American Museum of Natural History). Both apply to the idea of man hunting megafauna to extinction. The argument for overkill is based on this set of assumptions;

1-The appearance of the Clovis culture in North American coincides with the disappearance of the megafauna.
2-Clovis people preyed upon, if not subsisted on, large mammals such as mammoths.
3-The hunting went to the extent of causing the extinction of these megafauna.

There appears to be no real controversy among the first two here. For example, it does seem apparent now that the Clovis people were not the first to migrate to North America (Nemecek). But this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Clovis people are responsible for the disappearance of the now extinct megafauna. The disagreement centers around whether or not the existing kill sites display evidence that the killing of these animals was frequent and methodical enough to cause their extinction.

Correlation from Down Under

If human arrival is, in fact, the cause of North American megafaunal extinction, we should expect a correlation of this with other continents andshould find other instances of rapid extinctions taking place just after the arrival of Homo sapiens, as this gives us yet another instance of mass megafaunal extinction. This is indeed the case with Australia, as the arrival of the people now referred to as Aborigines coincides with mass extinctions (Ellis 99). We also know that Homo sapien’s arrival into
Europe coincided with a loss of megafauna (Ellis 107) as did their arrival in New Zealand (Grayson and Meltzer 345).

Africa

One must ask why Africa, of all continents, would have retained its megafauna. The answer seems simple from an evolutionary perspective; African megafauna lived alongside our ancestors as, over millions of years, they went from apes that walked upright, to the formidable hunters of the Pleistocene. Natural selection would have simply selected for those individuals who avoided contact with humans or were at least, able to cope with their existence.

Evidence against Overkill

Climate changes – The Overchill Hypothesis

11,000 years ago, the last ice age ended, and this marks the retreat of the ice sheet, causing temperatures to rise (Ellis 97). Climatic changes alone bear enough explanatory power to account for such a large extinction, as this has certainly happened in the past. The end of the last ice age brought with it, a warmer and wetter climate, and this may have in fact affected the flora that mammoths and mastodons depended on (Haynes 404).

Lack of Kill Sites

It has also been noted that, while kill sites have been discovered, the amount of kill sites found only suggest that Clovis culture Indians hunted megafauna, and in no way supports the hypothesis that they are in fact, the cause of their demise (Grayson and Meltzer 313). The objection hinders on a negative stance; there is simply not enough evidence of overkill. One of the more concrete and methodical objections to the overkill/blitzkrieg hypothesis comes from Donlad K. Grayson’s and David J. Meltzer’s ”Clovis Hunting and Large Mammal Extinction: A Critical Review of the Evidence.”

Grayson and Meltzer take a look at the 76 Clovis sites provided in FAUNMAP and critique these sites for evidence tying Clovis hunting to fossil remains. Their research begins by excluding 47 based on lack of documentation (Grayson and Meltzer 321). Moving along their list of given Clovis sites, they filter out what they consider to be insufficient or loosely tied correlations.
Hyperdisease

Another model that has been put forth as the cause is hyperdisease: the idea that humans and/or their accompanying fauna (such as dogs, lice, and/or mites) brought diseases with them from the old world, inadvertently infecting large megafauna (Ellis 114). Perhaps the greatest advantage of this explanation is that it carries with it the benefit of fitting the “arrival of human” correlation. It would also comply with the natural selection-based explanation as to why African megafauna weren’t destroyed with the ‘arrival’ of humans. It is also possible that the culprit disease wasn’t picked up by humans until their
arrival in Asia, and given that the first Europeans, like the first Americans, were migrants from Asia, the extinctions on both continents (not as abrupt in Europe, but still significant nonetheless) fit this model.

This explanation would also account for the apparent lack of relevant kill sites, as these deaths would have happened sporadically throughout various ecosystems, as opposed to kill sites. Far from mere conjecture, hyperdisease has been reinforced by the finding of tuberculosis in American mammoths (Than 2006). It is also known that Tuberculosis can infect a variety of mammals and only prove terminal to specific species within this group.

 
Further Review

While such dramatic changes in climate certainly have the sort of impact to cause such extinctions, there are other factors to consider. For example, North America has been host to other instances of dramatic climate changes (Ellis 99). Why didn’t these fauna go extinct then? “Overchill” also faces a problem with the disappearance of horses. The fact that horses thrived in North America after being reintroduced by the Europeans, casts doubt on their alleged inability to cope with a Holocene climate. Much of Grayson’s and Meltzer’s objections to overkill appear to be that of selective dismissal. After filtering out what they perceive to be as irrelevant due to such factors as “poor documentation,” their methodology is to then move forward and dismiss cases based on a lack of substantiation.For example, in justifying overlooking more than half of the Paleoindians sites found on FAUNMAP, the following explanation is given.

But as can be seen in Table III, the vast majority of the sites were excluded simply because they were insufficiently described or documented. Indeed, it is striking how often sites asserted to provide evidence of Clovis hunting are so inadequately published that the claims for that hunting cannot be properly evaluated and thus must be rejected (Grayson and Meltzer 322).

In addition to this, there are several examples of blatant dismissals based on lack of established control measures . The problem is not that any of these should individually be given the benefit of the doubt, but rather that there should be some weighting given to their existence in the first place. Rather than simply dismissing so many cases based on lack of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” perhaps it would be a bit more objective to factor in a ratio that allows for some weighting factor of these otherwise easily dismissed cases, some of which were dismissed based on the fact that the possibility of stratigraphic disconformities can’t be disproven.

One of the more puzzling justifications for dismissing Clovis sites;

“Another group of sites, including many of the Florida underwater localities, were eliminated from further consideration because the only evidence of the presence of an extinct mammal was in the form of undoubted or suspected bone or ivory tools (e.g., Dunbar et al., 1989; Dunbar and Webb, 1996). As noted, we are interested in the use of these animals for subsistence, and not as sources of raw material for artifacts” (Grayson and Meltzer 322).

It appears that Grayson and Meltzer are systematically dismissing cases of ivory bone tools as usable evidence of overkill. The problem with this should be obvious to anyone who understands that modern elephants face extinction because of the ivory trade, not because they are being hunted for food. It appears as though Grayson and Meltzer simply feel it ‘doesn’t count.’ It would seem only logical that an existence of desire for ivory-based tools would increase the systematic hunting of mammoths, much as we’ve seen with elephants.

Also, because the transition to the Holocene also meant rising sea levels, it is possible that we have lost many of the kill sites that once existed. This possibility is supported by the existence of underwater localities. In fact, as Gary Haynes puts forward in “The catastrophic extinction of North American mammoths and mastodonts,” the Pleistocene-Holocene transition would reduce the feeding areas of proboscideans and reduce them to patches of land where these megafauna would congregate to (Haynes 405). No longer would they have free range of the North American landscape. These early hunters would have been keen on megafaunal patterns and would predict their routes, making hunting them that much easier. The congregation of so many mammoths and other megafauna to the same patches of land would have also facilitated the spread of disease.

Man’s Best friend lends credence to both overkill and hyperdisease

There is ample evidence that dogs accompanied the Paleoindians to the New World. Archeological finds in the New Word, the mtDNA trace of domestication of dogs occurring in Eastern Asia just prior to Asian migration to the New World , the added explanatory power this provides for the ability of Paleoindians covering so much ground in so little time during their migration to the New World, all lend credence to this hypothesis (Fiedel 12).

The addition of dogs compounds the possibility of both overkill and hyperdisease (which are by no means, mutually exclusive). Dogs would have aided greatly in both tracking and bringing to bay large herbivores like mammoths while assisting in confrontation of large predators like American lions and Giant short faced bears (Fiedel 18). The inclusion of dogs would have also of course, meant more mouths to feed, which would have compounded the need for meat, and driven hunting to an even greater extreme. Furthermore, these dogs could have brought Eurasian diseases with them, diseases that they themselves may have been immune to, unlike their previously unexposed New World mammalian counterparts.

Conclusion 

Given that the multiple explanations for the abrupt disappearance of North American megafauna all contain their own explanatory power and are by no means mutually exclusive, it’s easy to resort to a sort of intellectual path of least resistance and simply conclude that it’s “a combination of all of the above.” However, there is a certain negligence in simply doing so, as it leaves little or no room for the weighting of such factors, as though they each share a “33%” level of impact.

Given that the large mammals of North American survived multiple ice ages with little or no trace of their numbers dwindling during these times, and given that the appearance of man to previously ‘uninhabited’ continents has been shown to coincide with such mass extinctions, the climate change should be allotted no more role than a possible supplement to this disappearance. The arrival of Pleistocene hunters should be given the primary role, through overkill as well as the likely addition of hyperdisease.

The combined effect of the most efficient hunting groups on Earth at the time (man and dog) hunting to feed themselves would have put them in closer and constant contact with the large mammals such as Mammoths, possibly infecting them with this new hyperdisease. Mammoths, being the social animals that they were, would have easily passed on this disease(s) to other Mammoths, and likely to other mammals as well.

References

American Museum of Natural History. 2 December. 2007.

http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/overkill/Bit1.html

Ellis, Richard
No Turning Back: The Life and Death of Animal Species. Harper Perrenial, 2004

Contains a Geologic historical record of extinctions. Spends one chapter on the Pleistocene extinctions as well as the role homo sapiens potentially played therein.

Fiedel, Stuart J.

“Man’s best friend – mammoth’s worst enemy?” World Archaeology Vol. 37(1): 11–25 2005

Retrieved from EBSCOHOST database on October 9, 2007.

Grayson, Donald K. and David J. Meltzer

“Clovis Hunting and Large Mammal Extinction: A Critical Review of the Evidence.” Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2002

Retrieved from EBSCOHOST database on October 9, 2007.

Haynes, Gary

“The catastrophic extinction of North American mammoths and mastodonts.”World Archaeology Vol. 33(3): 391–416

Retrieved from EBSCOHOST database on October 9, 2007.

Nemecek, Sasha

“Who were the First Americans?” Scientific American September 2000. 15 November.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=who-were-the-first-americ

Than, Ker

“Tuberculosis Helped Bring Down Mastodons.” Live Science 22 September 2006. 12 November.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060922_mastodon_tb.html

1-Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived alongside one another, proving that the later could not have evolved from the former, and therefore disrupting if not disproving the notion that the hominid line displays human ancestry 

2-The discovery of a 10 MYO gorilla shows places the ape-human split into a timeframe where primate ancestry becomes impossible (or at least, improbable).

I will explain them here

1-Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived alongside one another…

“First, as reported on August 9, two alleged ancestors of man, Homo erectus and Homo habilis, were found to be living together about 1.5 million years ago (MYA). This is a big deal because Erectus was supposed to have evolved from Habilis before later evolving into Sapiens (us).”

First, let’s start with what makes the hominid line extraordinary, and why we know these are our ancestors. We find a gradation from “upright ape” (Austrolepethecus afarensis) to anatomically modern humans.  These transitions include brain size (from 420cc (similar to a chimpanzee) to 1350cc (modern human)) jaw protrusion, arm/leg length, the existence then disappearance of a sagittal crest, complexity of stone tools, etc.  The more anatomically modern human the attributes, the more recent they happen to have existed.  The fossils we find are a small and partial collection of what actually existed, so the idea that we need to know which of these are ancestral to us and which are side branches is simply mistaken.

Erectus and habilis do indeed overlap.  The idea put forth by the author of the article assumes that every member of habilis must have somehow, uniformly evolved into the erectus line.  This is not how speciation works.  Speciation is generally the result of new niches being filled, often caused by ecological changes.  This is really nothing more than a rehash of the “fish are still fish” argument that assumes that, if amphibians evolved from fish, then all fish must have evolved into amphibians (given the existence of lungfish and mudskippers, it’s not difficult to imagine how some fish would have found a ‘profitable’ niche on land, especially when they were the first vertebrates to inhabit such….but I digress).  Long story short, there is nothing damaging about the overlap between habilis and erectus.

Furthermore it is not necessary for erectus to have descended from habilis.  It may be possible that they too simply share a common ancestor.  There may be more hominid fossils not yet found.  Perhaps more and more “habilis” fossils will be found to the point where habilis itself is split into subgroups the way erectus has been.  We may find that habilis goes further back, to 3MYA at which point we don’t really call it habilis but something else (similar to the overlap ergaster and early erectus). As time moves forward, Anthropologists will uncover more hominids and existing lines become split into smaller taxons, and we may find completely new hominids that do an even better job of filling these gaps.  Whatever the case may be, habilis, with its cranial capacity from 550cc-800cc (depending on which specimens we refer to) shows up in the fossil record almost 1 million years before early erectus, with its 900cc (1100cc for later Erectus fossils) and more advanced tools.

Part of the problem is that creationists think evolution happens in a straight line as opposed to a sort of branching out.  This hominid phylogeny (click the image for a larger version) better represents how Anthropologists see the hominid line.  As you can see, there is nothing damaging about evolutionary overlaps.

“Think of it as finding out dad and grandpa were actually brothers, not father and son.”

Actually, it’s more like finding out that dad and grandpa’s lives overlapped (and trying to argue that it disproves reproduction).

2-The discovery of a 10 MYO Gorilla…

“The traditional theory is that man evolved from chimps about 6 MYA, chimps evolved from gorillas about 8 MYA, and gorillas evolved from orangutans about 14 MYA.”

This is not only a mischaracterization of Evolution, it is completely untrue.  These apes share common ancestry—they didn’t “evolve from” one another.  Based on this faulty premise, the author then proceeds with some puzzling logic.

“The second discovery, reported here, pushed the hypothetical human-ape split back another 10 million years, to now around 20 MYA. How so? But, with the discovery of a 10.5 million year old gorilla in Africa, this pushes the human-ape split back to at least 20 MYA.”

This new finding at best pushes the gorilla/non-gorilla split further back by about 2-4 MY.  It doesn’t necessarily change the chimpanzee-human split, as this wouldn’t happen until AFTER.  The author is misusing the notion of a “human-ape split,” and the reader is left to assume that this means the split between humans and chimpanzees.  What this is in fact referring to is the first ape-human split (meaning the point when orangutans would split off of the line that leads to humans, at this point, this still includes the line that will lead to gorillas and chimpanzees).  While this can potentially push the human-chimpanzee split back 2 MY or so, it’s hardly the damaging find the author is leading his readers to believe.

For the record, this fossil is not necessarily a gorilla, but rather it may be more appropriate to think of it as ancestral to gorillas.  Furthermore, it may simply be a case of convergent evolution (species sometimes develop similar traits independently—saber tooth marsupials and the existence of wings on pterodons, birds, bats, and insects being a perfect example of such).

Also let’s not let the irony slip past our radar here. This fossil find consists of tooth fragments.  Anyone familiar with creationist arguments are well aware that they will argue the claim that “tooth fragments are not conclusive” when they apply to transitional fossils.

“But, the bigger problem is-unless you’re a scientist-you’ve likely never have heard about it outside of this column”

Actually, they are a quick google search away.

10.5 MYO “Gorilla”

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070824121653.65mgd37f&show_article=1
http://www.physorg.com/news107011927.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5841/1016a
http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/08/press-going-ape-again.html
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=27&idC..972
http://www.biotechnews.com.au/index.php/id;1353041073

Habilis/erectus chronological overlap

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/h ominid_journey/timeline.html
http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_habilis.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/08/africa/evolve.php

In the true Creationist fashion, the author follows up his straw man arguments with the infamous quote mine technique;

“As the authors of the report on all this in the British journal Nature noted, “We know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes.”"

This quote loses some its muster when you quote the entire sentence (after all, then you’d be exposed to the fact that the same quote acknowledges that our ancestors are bipedal apes).

“The human fossil record goes back to 6 to 7 million-year-old but we know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes.”

Copy-paste away!

So I finally got a copy of Phillip Kitcher’s new book,Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith.  I had been eagerly anticipating this book and not surprisingly, I finished it within 2 days of starting it. Not only did I learn several new facets of Evolution, but thanks to Kitcher’s well-articulated methodical dissection of the various sciences that reinforce Evolution while falsifying it’s “rivals,” I have learned how to better articulate what I already knew.

The majority of the book has Kitcher systematically debunking the three forms of Creationism; Genesis Creationism (Young Earth Creationism), Novelty Creationism (Old Earth/Progressive Creationism), and Intelligent Design (extremely undefined as this can mean anything between Young Earth Creationism, and Theistic Evolution).  What makes Living with Darwin unique in reinforcing Evolution is Kitcher’s ingenuous idea of simply reintroducing the historical findings to show at which point the former versions of Creationism were no longer taken seriously.  The latter portion of his book focuses on the effects Darwinism has had on religion and even goes so far as to suggest a course of action.  What makes his arguments unique here is that he doesn’t fully agree with the idea of simply “refuting and discarding” religion, and he gives several reasons why, while offering an alternative form of religion.

To summarize;

Genesis Creationism made way to Novelty Creationism in the early 1800′s as Geologists realized that 1-The statigraphic layers must have taken at least millions of years to deposit in such a formation and 2-the fossils we find in the layers exist in an order that shows that they have existed in different Geological eras, and that humans are a very recent development. (It should be obvious to YECists that if their ad hoc YEC Flood Geology arguments like “hydrodynamic sorting” and “pre-flood habits” carried any weight, then their outdated model would not have given way to Old Earth Creationism at this point in history, which predates Darwinian Evolution).

Kitcher then moves on to the early debates between Darwinists and those holding onto Novelty Creationism (the idea that newer species were created throughout various times in the Earth’s history).  Perhaps the best illustration of why/how the Darwinists won this argument was due to geographical similarities.  For example, the fact that blind cave-dwelling insects in America resemble their closely located non-cave-dwelling counterparts than they do European cave-dwelling insects (who in turn, better resemble their nearby outside relatives), is a complete mystery in the context of Creationism, whereas Evolution would indeed predict such.

Turning his focus on Intelligent Design, Kitcher points out the flaws in IDist thought, and the assumptions in which they operate (which in many ways is a rehash of the age-old creationist assumption that if the eye evolved, it must have evolved in lego-like sections, with the retina serving as one section, the ulna another, cornea, yet another, etc).  He then moves on to point out the false assumptions involved with the laundry list of “statistical improbabilities” brought forth by IDists.   In addition, he takes ID to task in its inability to bring forth an actual methodology (ie. Like asking for the parameters that cause/allow for this ‘anonymous’ intelligence to assist the flagellum to gain a motor but why it is inept/unwilling to modifying DNA sequencing so as to stop perpetuating sickle cell anemia in some individuals).

The last portion of his book focuses on the effects Darwinism has had on religion, and how the loss of religion has affected some.  This segues into somewhat of a sociopolitical comparison between American and European societal infrastructures and the role this may play in how religion is viewed in these similar yet separate cultures.  Kitcher offers his own alternative religion (more or less the ‘moderate’ religion people like Ken Miller seem to embrace), while acknowledging the criticisms this form of religion receives from both fundamentalists and strict Atheists.

Living with Darwin certainly has its place in the new trend of science/religion books, in part because of the balance it provides.  While it acknowledges the dangers of dogmas, it also pays attention to the actual human aspect of religion. It gives some attention to the fears, and hopes that drive people to religion and maintains an amazingly patient treatment of Biblical literalism.

I highly recommend this book to;

1-Anyone trying to grasp Evolution (this is an extremely efficient crash course)
2-Anyone looking for more efficient ways of explaining Evolution
3- Atheists/Agnostics who are completely sold on the Dawkins/Harris oversimplified methodology of simply refuting and discarding religion.
4-Creationists who refuse to learn about Evolution from “Evolution sources” yet pretend not understand why we call it a fact.
5-Philosophy buffs who complain that Dawkins shouldn’t be engaging in the philosophy of God’s existence or lack thereof (for the record, I disagree, though I admit I am no Philosophy buff myself).

Watch most of the debate here.

Claim 1: Evolution starts with nothing, then an explosion (Big Bang) produces everything over billions of years.

Kirk is using arguments from ignorance to ‘disprove evolution’ (ie “The origins of the universe are still a mystery, therefore Evolution is false”).  Evolution explains how current life evolved from lower orders, not how the universe began (the study of the universe’s origins is a different field of study altogether). The origins of life, as Brian Sapient pointed out, is known as Abiogenesis, which is a much newer field of study, still very much in its infancy.

Transitional forms are still missing

There are plenty of examples of reptile-bird, land mammal-whale, fish-amphibian,ape-human, etc transitions.

Chinese farmer fooled the world-wide scientific community with Archeoraptor (a fraudulent fossil) in 1991…

A common claim made in creationism is that “evolutionists were fooled by a fake fossil claim” (with the implication that the rest of the fossil record may be a series of hoaxes and errors).  Sometimes these claims are difficult to track down but this one is easy.

I’m not sure what Kirk considers to be “the world-wide scientific community” but suspicions began with Phil Currie’s (the first Paleontologist to even see the fossil) initial inspection, and suspicions were confirmed upon further review.  One or two publications jumping on a story does not indicate “the worldwide scientific community,” it indicates stressful deadlines and powerful cover stories that all successful publications are under pressure to comply with and produce.

As always, the scientist who discovered the fake was an “evolutionist” in creationist vernacular. The fact that the frauds are always exposed by ‘evolutionists’ should be more than enough to convince anyone of the validity of the transitional fossils that have undergone rigorous scrutiny and whose findings, as always, must go through peer-review.

Archaeopteryx is “just a bird” because it has feathers.

Archaeopteryx is not ”Just a bird.”  It’s a bird that had reptilian features, not found in modern birds (for example, teeth and long tail with multiple vertebrae) and shows up in the fossil record prior to modern birds but in similar layers with feathered dinosaurs.  Everything HAS to be classified into a family of animals, and that includes transitional fossils.  In fact, some paleontologists consider dinosaurs to be split into avian and non-avian subsets.
“Microevolution has been observed, Macro Evolution hasn’t” “horses don’t produce non-horses”….

The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that “macro evolution” is supposed to happen overnight.  In reality it “microevolution” over a longer period of time.  The difference in nomenclature refers to the duration of time, not the “method” or “type” of evolution.

If evolution is true, we should see chimera-like animals that are supposed to be the intermediates we would find.
Kirk goes on to show images of a “crocoduck” (duck with a crocodilian head), a “bull frog” (frog with a bull’s head), and a “sheep dog” (sheep with a dog’s head).  This is where I begin to have trouble believing he really believes what he is saying.  There is no way to argue that evolution would predict such chimera-like creatures.  In fact, these types of animals would disprove evolution, because they fall outside of the evolutionary tree pattern.  These are in fact the types of animals you’d expect from an omnipotent creator, who is not bound to the same prototype of tetrapods (animals with four limbs).  Six legged dogs, cats with wings, birds with feathers PLUS 4 grasping limbs, spiders with 12 legs, etc would all falsify evolution.   Instead, everything falls into the same predictable pattern, and we have snakes with leg remnants and pelvises, humans with wisdom teeth and goose bumps that occur for the same reasons a cat’s hair frizzes, and whale embryos with teeth and horse embryos with 5 digits.

Furthermore, we have plenty of living examples of intermediates.
Fish -> Amphibians -> Reptiles
Amphibians -> Reptiles -> Land Mammals

Amphibians -> Reptiles -> Birds
Land Mammals -> Seals -> Whales
Rodents -> Monkeys -> Apes
Monkeys -> Apes -> Humans

As Brian Sapient correctly pointed out, everything is a transition.

*I’d like to point out that the above instances are not to be taken literally in the sense that one animal evolved the previous animal in the sequence, but rather that these are modern day parallels of the types of creatures that would have existed.  For example, whales did not evolve from seals, but rather creatures like Ambulocetus Natans.  Rather, a seal is simply a modern day mammal with a similar semi-aquatic features as Ambulocetus, and hence, a parallel.

Darwin quote mine

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”

To my knowledge this doesn’t exist, and the few creationist sources I can find using this quote mine, don’t seem to give a reference.  Perhaps Answers in Genesis will add this to their list of “Arguments Creationists should not use.”

DNA is a message akin to a message like “John Loves Mary forever” which tells us someone wrote it

I’m not even sure how this is an argument.  DNA has no message saying “God was here” or “Jesus loves you.”  The fact that our DNA is so similar to a Chimpanzees, and the fact thatour 2nd chromosome is actually 2  chromosomes that recently fused, and bears much semblance to the corresponding chromosome pair in Chimpanzees is just another nail in the creationist coffin.

History of Man

The times of existence of the various hominid shown in the chart above are based on dated fossil remains. Each species may have existed earlier and/or later than shown, but fossil proof has not been discovered yet. There is also dispute concerning many overlapping species, for example, the overlap between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. It could well be that the two are continuing examples of the same species. The same dispute exists withHomo erectus, Homo sapiens archaic and homo sapiens sapiens. If all species have been discovered and the lineage of man lies within them, the most probable lineage would include all but the robust Australopithecines and the neandertal.

The following chronology is abbreviated:

The earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery. It is dated at 4.4 million years ago. The remains are incomplete but enough is available to suggest it was bipedal and about 4 feet tall. Other fossils were found with the ramidus fossil which would suggest that ramidus was a forest dweller. A new skeleton was recently discovered which is about 45% complete. It is now being studied.

A new species, Australopithecus anamensis, was named in 1995. It was found in Allia Bay in Kenya. Anamensis lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago. Its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.

Australopithecus afarensis lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. It retained the apelike face with a sloping forehead, a distinct ridge over the eyes, flat nose and a chinless lower jaw. It had a brain capacity of about 450 cc. It was between 3’6″ and 5′ tall. It was fully bipedal and the thickness of its bones showed that it was quite strong. Its build (ratio of weight to height) was about the same as the modern human but its head and face were proportionately much larger. This larger head with powerful jaws is a feature of all species prior to Homo sapiens sapiens.

Australopithecus africanus was quite similar to afarensis and lived between three and two million years ago. It was also bipedal, but was slightly larger in body size. Its brain size was also slightly larger, ranging up to 500 cc. The brain was not advanced enough for speech. The molars were a little larger than in afarensis and much larger than modern human. This hominid was a herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was now like the human.

Australopithecus aethiopicus lived between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is probably an ancestor of the robustus and boisei. This hominid ate a rough and hard to chew diet. He had huge molars and jaws and a large sagittal crest. A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on the skull extending from the forehead to the back of the head. Massive chewing muscles were anchored to this crest. See the opening picture of an early Homo habilis for an example. Brain sizes were still about 500cc, with no indication of speech functions.

Australopithecus robustus lived between two and 1.5 million years ago. It had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more massive skull and teeth. Its huge face was flat and with no forehead. It had large brow ridges and a sagittal crest. Brain size was up to 525cc with no indication of speech capability.

Australopithecus boisei lived between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was quite similar torobustus, but with an even more massive face. It had huge molars, the larger measuring 0.9 inches across. The brain size was about the same as robustus. Some authorities believe that robustus and boisei are variants of the same species.

Homo habilis was called the handy man because tools were found with his fossil remains. This species existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain size in earlier fossil specimens was about 500cc but rose to 800cc toward the end of the species life period. The species brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed. Habilis was about 5′ tall and weighed about 100 pounds. Some scientists believe that habilis is not a separate species and should be carried either as a later Australopithecine or an early Homo erectus. It is possible that early examples are in one species group and later examples in the other.

Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a half years. Early examples had a 900cc brain size on the average. The brain grew steadily during its reign. Toward the end its brain was almost the same size as modern man, at about 1200cc. The species definitely had speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food. He traveled out of Africa into China and Southeast Asia and developed clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food. Only his head and face differed from modern man. Like habilis, the face had massive jaws with huge molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Though proportioned the same, he was sturdier in build and much stronger than the modern human.

Homo sapiens (archaic) provides the bridge between erectus and Homo sapiens sapiensduring the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more rounded and with smaller features. Molars and brow ridges are smaller. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well proportioned.

Homo sapiens neandertalensis lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Neandertals coexisted with H.sapiens (archaic) and early H.sapiens sapiens. It is not known whether he was of the same species and disappeared into theH.sapiens sapiens gene pool or he may have been crowded out of existence (killed off) by the H.sapien sapien. Recent DNA studies have indicated that the neandertal was an entirely different species and did not merge into the H. sapiens sapiens gene pool. Brain sizes averaged larger than modern man at about 1450cc but the head was shaped differently, being longer and lower than modern man. His nose was large and was different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man at about 5’6″ tall with an extremely heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern man. His jaw was massive and he had a receding forehead, like erectus.

Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc.

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

• Opening Statements
• My 1st Rebuttal Dr 
• Dr J’s 1st Rebuttal 
• My 2nd Rebuttal 
• Dr J’s 2nd Rebuttal
• My Closing Statement
• Dr J’s Closing Statement
• 3 Questions and Answers

I believe my debate with Dr. Jackson highlighted many of the claims I’ve made over creationism’s existence not a science but rather a series of arguments aimed at straw manning the science behind evolution through rhetorical tricks.

So in following up on the last portion of the debate (Q & A):

In regards to Answer 1–The Coccyx as a Vestigial structure whether Dr Jackson likes it or not.

Dr Jackson’s insistence that the coccyx isn’t Vestigial is based on the usual creationist straw man definition of being synonymous with “useless” (creationism often redefines words to its own liking and uses these straw man definitions to ‘refute’ evolution). Dr Jackson suggests that I retract my statement, but he would have to ask this of countless science journals and other references.

The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)

“These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared. It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would’ve been killed instantly.”

http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs-1.html

Coccyx

“…also called tailbone curved, semiflexible lower end of the backbone (vertebral column) in apes and humans, representing a vestigial tail. It is composed of three to five successively smaller caudal (coccygeal) vertebrae. The first is a relatively well-defined vertebra and connects with the sacrum; the last is represented by a small nodule of bone. The spinal cord ends above the coccyx. In…”

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9024559/coccyx

Again, a creator isn’t limited to modifying tails into bones that attach to certain muscles that allow for certain functions. A creator isn’t limited to using the same basic tetrapod blueprint over and over.

In regards to Answer 2–Hominids display a line of animals from upright apes to humans.

I can’t blame Dr Jackson for not wanting to comment on Hominids and their gradual display for ape-to-human attributes. It’s a touchy subject given the fact that Creationists insist that man (“image of God”) and apes (“beasts of the field”) were created separately yet can’t agree on which of the Hominids are ape and which are human. Of course there is disagreement on classifications within the Hominid groups themselves–but this is to be expected within a smooth gradient of fossils with some overlaps. Whether a hominid is classified as Erectus or Ergaster, or whether they are classified as one species, 2 separate species, or one is simply considered a sub class of the other–it doesn’t make their human/ape features go away…it simply means that Anthropologists disagree on naming conventions. By the way, notice that I never mentioned intelligence, I simply showed the gradual transition in brain sizes. Yet he still refutes this claim.

And Dr Jackson apparently never tires from making articles (especially from the NG) say things they really don’t.

“And how can A. afarensis be bipedal with a thumb on its foot? (National Geographic, 11/06) ”

The article says no such thing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061101-lucy-tour.html

“New theories by evolutionist researchers, on jaw measurements of afarensis (Science News, 4/14/07, p230) have just classified it as a gorilla — not my call, but theirs. ”

The article says no such thing. The closest this article comes to making this claim;

“Rak theorizes that a chimplike ramus appeared in the first members of the human evolutionary family and then in later species. However; Lucy’s kind independently evolved a gorillalike ramus that was passed on to robust australopithecines, he asserts.”

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Disinherited+ancestor%3a+Lucy’s+kind+may+occupy+evolutionary+side+branch-a0162921154

Since Dr Jackson is obsessed with National Geographic, perhaps he’ll start using these quotes.
The new fossil also supports the theory that A. afarensis walked upright on two legs, but it hints that human ancestors hadn’t completely left the trees by that time.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucys-baby_2.html

Lucy’s species was given the name Australopithecus afarensis in 1978. The species is believed to be the common ancestor of all later human species, including modern humans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/photogalleries/afarensisancestors/photo2.html

I believe this is the source of Dr Jackson’s “Afarensis/Africanus claim”

Australopithecus: A. anamensis (3.5-4.1 Ma) is the most primitive with a strongly sloping symphysis, large canine roots, etc., A. afarensis (3.0-3.6 Ma) is less primitive, and A. africanus (2.6-3.0 Ma) shares many derived characteristics with early Homo (e.g., expanded brain, reduced canine, bicuspid lower third premolar, reduced prognathism, greater flexion of the cranial base, deeper TMJ). The new postcranial material, however, reveals an apparently primitive morphology of relatively large forelimb and small hindlimb joints resembling more the pongid than the human pattern. More pongid-like proportions are also present in the two known associated partial skeletons of H. habilis (OH 62 and KNM-ER 3735). This may imply either (1) that A. africanus and H. habilis evolved craniodental characters in parallel with the lineage leading to later Homo, or (2) that fore- to hindlimb proportions of A. afarensis (and perhaps A. anamensis) evolved independent of the lineage leading to Homo and does not imply a close phylogenetic link with Homo.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9808/berger/

“And since evolution researchers have disqualified all the missing links you listed (except antecessor), then why do you mention them at all?”

By “disqualified” Dr Jackson means “not our ancestor” (as opposed to non-existent). This is more convenient thinking on his part. Dr J avoids using the word “Anthropologist” and instead calls them “evolution researchers” (more convenient for his cause). The truth is Anthropologists do disagree on classification as well as which Hominids are our ancestors and which are side branches. What creationists do is pick the convenient expert opinion for each hominid and argue that they are all disqualified. This is again, part of the “x must evolve into y” straw man argument that Creationists are fond of (notice he just keeps repeating this one?).
“Neanderthals were people, too — evolutionists and creationists now agree on that”

This statement is meaningless. The word “people” is pretty broad and some Anthropologists even refer to the Australopithecines as “early man.” Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis is a separate line than Homo Sapiens Sapiens which most likely split off sometime before, with Heidebergensis being a possible common ancestor.
In regards to Answer 3–More Ad Hoc reasoning.

Notice he doesn’t even mention remnants of human civilization (the basis of my question)? He talks about “pre-flood habits” and birds and mammals floating to the top layers. It’s interesting to see how he can simply avoid my rebuttals and make the same claims over and over.

His quotes;
“The only missing link amphibian-reptile fossil evolutionists point to is the Seymouria which is found only in Permian rocks clearly above other layers that contain true reptile fossils (Understanding Evolution [2000], p140).”
This is simply untrue. While the transition from amphibians to reptiles is sketchy, there do exist samples of such in the lower-to-mid Carboniferous, namely Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, and Paleothyris. Furthermore, some of the early reptiles (ie. Westlothiana) are difficult to distinguish from amphibians. It should be obvious that transitionals which are no longer existent, will naturally be less represented in the fossil record, whereas a broader class of animals will be more plentiful in the fossil record, having survived throughout the years. What Creationists fail to see that everything is a transition—reptiles are transitions between amphibians and birds (and mammals) and they are still alive today. Because of this, they are better represented in the fossil record. Furthermore, transitional species tend to come into existence in specific places (because they have adapted to fill a specific niche). This adds to their scarcity in the fossil record compared to those their descendants who branch out into other ecologies.

“I’ve already explained the creationist position on the fossil sequence in the rock layers: original pre-Flood habitats, the fact that dead birds and mammals float, and hydrodynamic sorting. What’s left? ”

What’s left is to explain how the “pre-flood habits” of prairie dogs, gophers, and moles would have kept them from being buried in place, or how hydrodynamic sorting caused Dolphins to fossilize above Ichthyosaurs, modern birds above Archaeopteryx and other birds with reptilian features, how it explains the animal burrows throughout these layers, or even how fish we know exist in the ocean depths today don’t show up until the Triassic layers. This made up explanation might almost work if the sequence of fauna were an overall trend as opposed to an absolute–if we only tended to find rhinoceroses in the upper layers or if we rarely found dinosaurs in the upper layers with the megafauna (as opposed to never).

“I’ll leave off all fossil interpretations, theories and opinions, and lean on the known laws of chemical kinetics … as verified by repeatable lab experiments for the rate laws, rate equations, and equilibrium constants of biochemical reactions.”

In other words “Forget that we agreed to stick to faunal succession, I want to talk Biology now.” I will get to these later.

“I don’t use theories or opinions that rely on the accepted reputations of so-called experts in their fields”

What then is this?

“The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
“Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. ”
(*Note: I actually hadn’t mentioned Basilosaurus legs, I’m not sure who Dr Jackson has in mind).
“And since evolution researchers have disqualified all the missing links you listed ”
“EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them.”
“And if A. africanus really is a million years after afarensis”

Who does he think he’s dishonestly quote mining in these articles if not “experts in their fields?”

“Evolutionary thinking is presuppositional thinking. Evolutionary thinking is inertial thinking, resistant in every way, to any data or observations that indicate scientific truth departing from evolutionary fantasy. This has been made clear from the manner and demeanor of this on-line debate from start to finish.”
I suppose he believes that if he says it enough times, it becomes true. I wonder if Creationists reading this debate will even care that Dr. Jackson has been caught making false assertions on articles he must think I can’t find, falsely accuses me of making certain arguments, and using his own ad hoc reasoning along the way without bothering to address my rebuttals. Sadly most of them won’t, but I’m convinced a handful of them will see the dishonesty behind Dr Jackson’s (a perfect microcosm of Creationism in general) fallacious logic.

*Update (I am, for the time being, too lazy to work this into the blog more fluidly or create a new one)

I finally took the time to read Dr J’s “proof” that dinosaurs co-existed with humans and his logic behind his argument is every bit as disconnected as his previous claims (the reason I took so long to get around to this is because I correctly predicted another false cry for wolf).

These articles do nothing to prove dinosaurs co-existed with man and even before reading the articles, its obvious that his argument is disconnected;

” Shall I provide absolute proof that dinosaurs and humans lived together? Okay.”

and he supports this with…

” There is no process known to prevent the disintegration of these molecules longer than 10-40 thousand years”

In other words “you can’t provide a model for how these molecules can stay intact for that long, therefore dinosaurs co-existed with man.” Furthermore, there is nothing in these articles that suggests that finding these molecules contradicts the evolutionary timeline.

Here is an excerpt from the Ohio State Research article that supposedly proved his case;

“Geologists weren’t surprised that some of those colors turned up in the 350-million-year-old crinoids, Ausich said. “People have suspected for a long time that organic molecules could be found inside fossils,” he added. “This is just the first time that scientists have succeeded in finding them.”"

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foscolor.htm

That’s hardly proof that Dinosaurs co-existed with man. Here is the link to the Science News, 3/26/05 article, which also does nothing to support the disconnected argument.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp

Something else worth mentioning; he never gives the name of these articles, which makes it that much more difficult and time consuming to dig up. I suspect that this is because his method of debating is tailored to those who will believe what he says without question, as well as to make it more difficult to check his fallacious arguments.

1-In your first rebuttal, you made the below statement;
“And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.”

Which whale(s) does this apply to and can you provide a diagram that shows the nasal passage moving up along the backside of the brain?

2- If hominids are not in fact our ancestors, perhaps you can clear some confusion by educating readers on which are ape and which are human (for reference, Chimpanzees have a brain size of roughly 410 cc, Gorillas 500 cc, and all of the hominids below were bipedal);

Australopithecus Afarensis (375-550 cc), Australopithecus Africanus (420-500 cc), Homo Habilis (500-650 cc), Homo Rudolfensis (600-800 cc), Homo Ergaster/Erectus (750 – 1250 cc), Homo Antecessor (1000 cc), Homo Sapien (1200 cc), Homo Sapien Sapien (1350 cc).

* Creation scientists are unable to agree amongst each other on which of these are apes and which are human, so your opinion may help create a consensus.

3-Urban legends and proven hoaxes (like the Paluxy Tracks) aside, why do we not find any remnants of human civilization (agriculture, buildings, boats, chariots, armor, weapons, art work, etc) in anything except the upper layers? Shouldn’t the deposits from the flood have buried this all in place, and certainly lower than animals like the first reptiles (Carboniferous), Theropod Dinosaurs (Triassic) , Mammoths (Pleistocene), Archaeopteryx (Jurassic) ) that were fighting to make it to higher ground?

Dr. Jackson asked:

Three questions for EIAF:

1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would’ve arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?

2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?

3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?