Casey Luskin embarrasses himself again

Posted 9 January 2010 by PZ Myers

Once again, the Discovery Institute stumbles all over itself to crow victory over evolution, led by the inspiring figure of that squeaking incompetent, Casey Luskin. This time, what has them declaring the bankruptcy of evolution is the discovery of tetrapod trackways in Poland dating back 395 million years. I know, it's peculiar; every time a scientist finds something new and exciting about our evolutionary history, the bozos at the DI rush in to announce that it means the demise of Darwinism. Luskin has become the Baghdad Bob of creationism.

The grounds for this announcement is the bizarre idea that somehow, older footprints invalidate the status of Tiktaalik as a transitional form, making all the excitement about that fossil erroneous. As we've come to expect, though, all it really tells us is that Casey Luskin didn't comprehend the original announcement about Tiktaalik, and still doesn't understand what was discovered in Poland.

The fossil tetrapod footprints indicate Tiktaalik came over 10 million years after the existence of the first known true tetrapod. Tiktaalik, of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish, and these footprints make it very difficult to presently argue that Tiktaalik is a transitional link between fish and tetrapods. It's not a "snapshot of fish evolving into land animals," because if this transition ever took place it seems to have occurred millions of years before Tiktaalik.

Errm, no. Shubin and Daeschler are smart guys who understand what fossils tell us, and they never, ever argued that Tiktaalik's status as a transitional form depended on slotting it in precisely in a specific chronological time period as a 'link' between two stages in the evolution of a lineage. A fossil is representative of a range of individuals that existed over a window of time; a window that might be quite wide. They would never express the kind of simplistic, naive view of the relationship of a fossil that the DI clowns seem to have. For instance, here's a picture of the relationship between various fossils, as published in Nature when Tiktaalik was announced.

The lineage leading to modern tetrapods includes several fossil animals that form a morphological bridge between fishes and tetrapods. Five of the most completely known are the osteolepiform Eusthenopteron; the transitional forms Panderichthys and Tiktaalik; and the primitive tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. The vertebral column of Panderichthys is poorly known and not shown. The skull roofs (left) show the loss of the gill cover (blue), reduction in size of the postparietal bones (green) and gradual reshaping of the skull. The transitional zone (red) bounded by Panderichthys and Tiktaalik can now be characterized in detail. These drawings are not to scale, but all animals are between 75 cm and 1.5 m in length. They are all Middle–Late Devonian in age, ranging from 385 million years (Panderichthys) to 365 million years (Acanthostega, Ichthyostega). The Devonian–Carboniferous boundary is dated to 359 million years ago.

Notice what you don't see? They didn't publish this as a direct, linear relationship that could be disrupted by a minor anachronism. It does not look like this:

Ichthyostega
↑
Acanthostega
↑
Tiktaalik
↑
Panderichthys
↑
Eusthenopteron
↑

These are all cousins branching off the main stem that led to modern tetrapods. Tiktaalik was almost certainly not our direct ancestor, but a distant cousin that was representative of a transitional state in the branching cloud of species that emerged out of the Devonian. And the authors of these papers knew that all along, weren't shy about stating it, and if they made an error about anything, it would be in assuming that a gang of self-styled scholars who claim to be presenting a serious rebuttal to evolutionary ideas would actually already understand a basic concept in paleontology.

You would think Luskin would have also read the Niedzwiedzki paper that describes this new trackway, which rather clearly describes the implications of the discovery. It does not declare Tiktaalik to be uninteresting, irrelevant to understanding the transition between fish and tetrapods, or that Tiktaalik is no longer a transitional form. It clearly is.

No, here's the new picture of tetrapod evolution that Niedzwiedzki and others have drawn. At the top is a diagram of the relationships as understood before the discovery, at the bottom is the new order.

Phylogenetic implications of tracks. a, Phylogeny of selected elpistostegids and stem tetrapods fitted to Devonian stratigraphy. The grey bar indicates replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in body fossil record. b, Effect of adding the Zachełmie tracks to the phylogeny: the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended and the 'changeover' is revealed to be an artefact. Pan, Panderichthys; Tik, Tiktaalik; Elp, Elpistostege; Liv, Livoniana; Elg, Elginerpeton; Ven, Ventastega; Met, Metaxygnathus; Aca, Acanthostega; Ich, Ichthyostega; Tul, Tulerpeton. ANSP 21350 is an unnamed humerus described in ref 17. The bars are approximate measures of the uncertainty of dating. These are not statistical error bars but an attempt to reflect ongoing debate.

Look closely.

Hey, the branches are the same! The relationships are unchanged! What has changed is that the branches of the tree go back deeper in time, and rather than a sharp changeover, there was a more prolonged period of history in which, clearly, fish, fishapods, and tetrapods coexisted, which isn't surprising at all. Tetrapod evolution was spread out over a longer period of time than was previously thought, but this is simply a quantitative shift, not a qualitative change in our understanding of the relationships of these animals. It also says that there is the potential for many more fossils out there over a bigger spread of time than was expected, which is something we can look forward to in future research. Not research from the Discovery Institute, of course. Research from real scientists.

Now also, please look at the b phylogeny above, and tell me where the evidence for Intelligent Design creationism in this new figure lies. Perhaps you can see how a cladogram illustrating the evolutionary relationships between a number of fossils challenges our understanding of evolutionary history, because I don't see it. If anything, it affirms the evolution, not the Sudden Appearance by Divine Fiat, of tetrapods.

For extra credit, explain where in diagram b of the Niedzwiedzki paper it shows that Tiktaalik has been "blown out of the water," as Luskin puts it. Should they have scribbled in a frowny face or a skull and dagger next to the Tiktaalik bar, or perhaps have drawn a big red "X" over it? Because I can guarantee you that Niedzwiedzki and coauthors still consider Tiktaalik a transitional form that is part of the story of tetrapod evolution. All they've done is put it on the end of a longer branch. Nothing has changed; Tiktaalik is still a revealing fossil that shows how certain vertebrates switched from fins to limbs.

Finally, just for fun, maybe you can try to explain how the "Big Tent" of Intelligent Design creationism is going to explain how the Young Earth creationists in their camp — you know, the ones that think the planet is less than ten thousand years old — are going to find it heartening that a fossil discovery has pushed one stage in tetrapod evolution back farther by another 20 million years. That's 2 x 10³ times greater than the entire span of time they allow for the existence of the universe, all spent in shaping a fin into a foot. There ought to be some feeble expression of cognitive dissonance out of that crowd, but I suspect they won't even notice; as Luskin shows, they aren't particularly deep thinkers.

Ahlberg PE, Clack JA (2006) A firm step from water to land. Nature 440:747-749.

Daeschler EB, Shubin NH, Jenkins FA (2006) A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440:757-763.

Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277): 43-48.

Shubin NH, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA (2006) The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb. Nature 440:764-771.

102 Comments

a lurker · 9 January 2010

Casey Luskin says something that should embarrass himself when talking about evolution. In other news: it was cold last night at the North Pole, water is wet, and Casey Luskin is incapable of embarrassment when talking about evolution no matter how stupid and ignorant what he says is.

waldteufel · 9 January 2010

Don't forget, Casey's target audience does not include rational, thinking adults. His target audience are the pulsating masses of pasty-faced, god-bothering fundies who need to be fed something occasionally to keep their minds numb. Casey is very good at that.

Being a fool and a liar merely add to his cache' among the credulous.

Stanton · 9 January 2010

waldteufel said: Don't forget, Casey's target audience does not include rational, thinking adults...

Actually, to be fair, some of his target audience are rational, thinking adults: it's just that such people have been trained and conditioned to be hyper-credulous towards anti-science "skeptics," and fellow party-members, and trained and conditioned to be irrationally overly skeptical of scientists and powerful Democrats.

Eamon Knight · 9 January 2010

When I first read the trackway story, my Inner Creationist immediately came up with the "But it upsets the timetable and disproves evolution!" schtick. These people are so fucking predictable.

harold · 9 January 2010

Stanton -

Actually, to be fair, some of his target audience are rational, thinking adults:

it’s just that such people have been trained and conditioned to be hyper-credulous towards anti-science “skeptics,” and fellow party-members, and trained and conditioned to be irrationally overly skeptical of scientists and powerful Democrats.

While I do strongly agree with you that some members of the Fox News/Sarah Palin/Discovery Institute/Liberty University/etc ideological cluster sometimes engage in short term rational thought, I have broken your quote in two. I have done this to illustrate that it borders on a self-contradiction. How trained to be irrational on a wide variety of issues do they need to be, before the generalized term "rational thinking adults" is no longer applicable? Incidentally, as others have noticed - 1) Fossil discoveries give us the minimum age of a lineage, so new discoveries that extend the age of a lineage in a reasonable way are always possible. 2) Anytime the above happens, creationists will claim that evolution has been "disproved". 3) Indeed, any time any new discovery expands, clarifies, and marginally modifies science, creationists will always be prone to claim that it "disproves" science. Their rigid authoritarian minds apparently cannot tolerate the idea of a growing, developing body of knowledge.

Rob · 9 January 2010

Major evolutionary transitions that improve reproductive success ofter reoccur. The transition of mammals from terrestrial to aquatic: whales, manatee/dugong, seal, sea lions (eared seals), walrus, otter, beaver, muskrat, polar bear, etc. Flight has arisen in insects, reptiles (pterosaurs), birds (dinosaurs), mammals, with gliding also in modern mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Mike Elzinga · 9 January 2010

Yesterday I was going through my files of ID/creationist materials I have accumulated over the years since the 1970s. These include the works of Morris, Gish, Parker, and the whole gang at ICR.

I also have newspaper clippings from various newspapers in which long articles by creationists were printed.

It is useful sometimes to look back over the record of ID/creationist hysteria to see the patterns in their propaganda.

Nothing in Luskin’s hysterical hype has changed from the past. Every time a new discovery was announced by the science community, the ID/creationist crowd trotted out the same gleeful pronouncement that Darwinism has failed again.

The current set of tactics in politics about health care, about global warming, and about terrorism are coming from the current Right Wing dominated Republican Party. These religious fanatics all drink the same Cool-Aid, and they have taken over a major political party to advance their agenda.

Obviously there are interests with large amounts of money that have discovered this cesspool of ignorance and are vigorously stirring it. And the news media love it. This is really not funny.

Jim Thomerson · 9 January 2010

If you would like a basic primer on creationist arguments, get a copy of Criswell's "Did Man Just Happen", published in the mid-1950's. It is still quite current!

fnxtr · 9 January 2010

Mike, it couldn't have happened if the Anything For A Buck Party hadn't heard Ka-CHING! every time they pandered to the radical right.

RBH · 9 January 2010

Answers in Genesis has made exactly the same argument:

But the discovery presents a major problem for the evolutionary status of Tiktaalik and similar fossils, which supposedly date back to around 370 to, at most, 380 million years ago. If Tiktaalik represents the earliest adaptation of sea life for land walking, then how was Niedźwiedzki’s finding—which he calls “an animal with four limbs, unique for true tetrapods”—walking across Poland almost ten million years earlier?

Case has a position as a docent waiting for him in Petersburg when the Disco 'Tute folds.

Torbach · 9 January 2010

Mike Elzinga said: The current set of tactics in politics....coming from the current Right Wing... taken over a major political party to advance their agenda...interests with large amounts of money..

viscerally agree, however the same is said in retort about evolution, dems, climate change... that it is a self-interested, $ driven conspiracy to guide things away from something good. which begs to me wonder, is it pathological projection wrapped in Dunning-Kruger effect? or is there some type of logical (i should say, dependable) thought pattern that traces their train of thought and allows me to understand why they simply refuse to accept evidence?

James Downard · 9 January 2010

I can't help chiming in that dear Casey is a classic Tortucan (see the Ill Wind in Tortuca thread) so we don't need to attribute over lying to his mental kit. Some years ago when he was just finishing his "geological" studies in college I asked him if he knew of the term Lagerstatten and he didn't, in much the same way Stephen Meyer couldn't get a grip on the implications of fossil preservation forensics when he was still purveying his wares at Whitworth College here in Spokane.

That Luskin falls into the same arguments as AiG is hardly surprising. There is only one way of thinking badly so the identity of the two trains comes with the territory. The inability of ID to distinguish itself methodologically from YEC is both cognitive and political: both approach the data with an apologetic style fueled by power MHBS modules, while the reluctance to apply their own Wedge splitting to their own side means no Discovery Institute denison will ever be caught dead showing in what respect their reasoning differs from them by criticizing them and consequently giving aid and comfort to evolution by dumping on them.

In venturing so stridently in areas where he has insufficient expertise to tread, Luskin is a good candidate for the Kent Hovind of ID award.

John Stockwell · 9 January 2010

The sort of thing that we are seeing more of out of the Discovery Institute
is more along the lines of standard creationism, which is to say, naysaying
based on the outright misrepresentation
of scientific results as "disproofs" of evolution. Ultimately, much of
what is presented falls under the heading of "out-of-context" quoting
or cherrypicking of results.

If the DI keeps this up, the sheer volume of standard creationist material
will overwhelm any of the stuff that their allegedly more scientific
participants (Behe/Dembski/Wells) put out.

stevaroni · 9 January 2010

RBH said: Answers in Genesis has made exactly the same argument:
But the discovery presents a major problem for the evolutionary status of Tiktaalik and similar fossils, which supposedly date back to around 370 to, at most, 380 million years ago. If Tiktaalik represents the earliest adaptation of sea life for land walking, then how was Niedźwiedzki’s finding—which he calls “an animal with four limbs, unique for true tetrapods”—walking across Poland almost ten million years earlier?
Case has a position as a docent waiting for him in Petersburg when the Disco 'Tute folds.

How can an argument from Answers in Genesis even contain the phrase "then how was Niedźwiedzki’s finding...walking across Poland almost ten million years earlier?" when they assert that there was no ten million years earlier?

Wheels · 9 January 2010

stevaroni said: How can an argument from Answers in Genesis even contain the phrase "then how was Niedźwiedzki’s finding...walking across Poland almost ten million years earlier?" when they assert that there was no ten million years earlier?

If they take it for granted in the course of making the argument "Evolutionism is internally inconsistent!" See? Those evolutionists can't even get their own dates right.

Joe Felsenstein · 9 January 2010

PZ Myers wrote: For instance, here's a picture of the relationship between various fossils, as published in Nature when Tiktaalik was announced.
[ladderlike phylogeny illustration snipped] [its caption] The lineage leading to modern tetrapods includes several fossil animals that form a morphological bridge between fishes and tetrapods. ...
Notice what you don't see? They didn't publish this as a direct, linear relationship that could be disrupted by a minor anachronism.

The figure is from the Nature News and Views article that accompanied the original Tiktaalik paper. It was by Per Ahlberg and Jennifer Clack, major researchers in that field. The tree shows branching of each fossil from a lineage, but it has a ladderlike form that is easy for the reader to misunderstand as a Great Chain of Being. Biologists ought to work harder to avoid feeding this misconception. Ladderlike trees are all too common in the literature. They are an artifact of our interest in one of the species. If I were (say) utterly fascinated by the Rhesus Macacque and drew a phylogeny of primates, but for each lineage splitting off the one that leads to the Rhesus Macacque I included only one descendant, then for apes I might have only one ape, and for New World monkeys only one monkey. The result would be ladderlike and appear to be a triumphal march to the Rhesus Macacque, with apes merely a stage along the way.

Paul Flocken · 9 January 2010

harold said: Stanton -
Actually, to be fair, some of his target audience are rational, thinking adults:

it’s just that such people have been trained and conditioned to be hyper-credulous towards anti-science “skeptics,” and fellow party-members, and trained and conditioned to be irrationally overly skeptical of scientists and powerful Democrats.
While I do strongly agree with you that some members of the Fox News/Sarah Palin/Discovery Institute/Liberty University/etc ideological cluster sometimes engage in short term rational thought, I have broken your quote in two. I have done this to illustrate that it borders on a self-contradiction. How trained to be irrational on a wide variety of issues do they need to be, before the generalized term "rational thinking adults" is no longer applicable? Incidentally, as others have noticed - 1) Fossil discoveries give us the minimum age of a lineage, so new discoveries that extend the age of a lineage in a reasonable way are always possible. 2) Anytime the above happens, creationists will claim that evolution has been "disproved". 3) Indeed, any time any new discovery expands, clarifies, and marginally modifies science, creationists will always be prone to claim that it "disproves" science. Their rigid authoritarian minds apparently cannot tolerate the idea of a growing, developing body of knowledge.

That is because their only source of information is a stagnant, decaying, rigid body of ignorance. The two don't mix well.

Leszek · 9 January 2010

So basically the "great minds" of creationism have come up with the argument:

If tetrapods evolved from Tiktaalik, why are there still tiktaaliks around [10 million years later]?

It seems to me I have heard this before somewhere....

Frank J · 9 January 2010

Now also, please look at the b phylogeny above, and tell me where the evidence for Intelligent Design creationism in this new figure lies.... Finally, just for fun, maybe you can try to explain how the "Big Tent" of Intelligent Design creationism is going to explain how the Young Earth creationists in their camp — you know, the ones that think the planet is less than ten thousand years old — are going to find it heartening that a fossil discovery has pushed one stage in tetrapod evolution back farther by another 20 million years.
— PZ Myers

C'mon, you know exactly how they'll spin it. If you take the figures out of context (and that's what they do with everything) it looks like the "trees" keep getting closer to an "evolutionary lawn" (courtesy of Charlie Wagner). At this rate, in a few years "Darwinists" will have to concede that all the "branching" occurred in one big "explosion" "a long time ago." As for the YECs, I see 2 diverse groups of YEC that buys the DI's concession to mainstream chronology. One is the hopeless literalist who will just pray that the DI "takes the next step and sees the light." The other is simply math-challenged, and doesn't even process the numbers. The important thing is that they will spin different stories depending on which groups they think are more likely to read and understand their spin. Most rank-and-file creationists will simply not follow the technical stuff, so the won't see how they misinterpreted/misrepresented it. They'll just seek out a few soothing anti-"Darwinism" sound bites, then run to AiG or Dr. Dino to tell them what they really want to hear.

Stanton · 9 January 2010

harold said: How trained to be irrational on a wide variety of issues do they need to be, before the generalized term "rational thinking adults" is no longer applicable?

I know I sound contradictory, but, I say that because I've encountered such people. I've met and spoken with otherwise normal, intelligent people who, upon hearing evolution (or any other hated strain of science), turn into ranting godbots. I've also met people who are simply overly skeptical of actual science and scientists, and that the Discovery Institute's schmaltzy lie about being oppressed strikes a sympathetic chord with them.

Dave Luckett · 9 January 2010

Stanton said: I've met and spoken with otherwise normal, intelligent people who, upon hearing evolution (or any other hated strain of science), turn into ranting godbots.

That trips a memory, for me. An unauthorised portrait of Adolf Hitler, made by Klaus Richter in 1941, was painted from a rapid sketch the artist made of Hitler's face at the moment when he heard the word "Jew". It shows a face gone rigid and staring. The artist described the expression as "demonic and defensive". It occurs to me, looking at it (it is the frontispiece of "Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God" by Robert G L Waite) that Stanton is describing the same reaction. Something about the word or the concept has disengaged the intellect and tripped - what? - an automatic mental response on a level below the conscious mind. The only cause that I can imagine for this is overwhelming psychological need. That would be true for Hitler, I think. But for millions of modern Americans, and others?

Stanton · 9 January 2010

Dave Luckett said: The only cause that I can imagine for this is overwhelming psychological need. That would be true for Hitler, I think. But for millions of modern Americans, and others?

I don't know yet: I'm not yet in a position to interview millions of modern American creationists and those sympathetic to Creationism to find out.

Alex H · 10 January 2010

Stanton said:
harold said: How trained to be irrational on a wide variety of issues do they need to be, before the generalized term "rational thinking adults" is no longer applicable?
I know I sound contradictory, but, I say that because I've encountered such people. I've met and spoken with otherwise normal, intelligent people who, upon hearing evolution (or any other hated strain of science), turn into ranting godbots. I've also met people who are simply overly skeptical of actual science and scientists, and that the Discovery Institute's schmaltzy lie about being oppressed strikes a sympathetic chord with them.

There seems to be something about strongly held beliefs that short out what Carl Sagan referred to as our Baloney Detection Kits. Case in point, my mom has a few friends who are devout Mormons. About 90% of the time, they're highly intelligent, rational people who work as lawyers, doctors, and bankers. But bring up the story of how Mormonism was formed (for those who haven't heard it, Jedediah Smith found two golden tablets Jesus hid in the Eastern United States that were written in 17th century English, copied them down to create the Book of Mormon, then managed to lose both tablets before anyone else saw them). Now, most people here probably have our Baloney Detection Kits ringing at about the same level that they do when we get an email that begins with "I have reseived yor name from list of rispectid Amrican Busyness Men," but to a Mormon, the response is "Yes, isn't the story amazing?"

Naon Tiotami · 10 January 2010

Leszek said: So basically the "great minds" of creationism have come up with the argument: If tetrapods evolved from Tiktaalik, why are there still tiktaaliks around [10 million years later]? It seems to me I have heard this before somewhere....

Haha, exactly, exactly right. You win comment of the week, in my personal book.

emil · 10 January 2010

Dave Luckett said:
Stanton said: I've met and spoken with otherwise normal, intelligent people who, upon hearing evolution (or any other hated strain of science), turn into ranting godbots.
That trips a memory, for me. An unauthorised portrait of Adolf Hitler, made by Klaus Richter in 1941, was painted from a rapid sketch the artist made of Hitler's face at the moment when he heard the word "Jew". It shows a face gone rigid and staring. The artist described the expression as "demonic and defensive". It occurs to me, looking at it (it is the frontispiece of "Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God" by Robert G L Waite) that Stanton is describing the same reaction. Something about the word or the concept has disengaged the intellect and tripped - what? - an automatic mental response on a level below the conscious mind. The only cause that I can imagine for this is overwhelming psychological need. That would be true for Hitler, I think. But for millions of modern Americans, and others?

I think this is exactly what happens, Dave. I can't show statistical proof, but my personal experiences of Christian evangelical indoctrination seems to conform to the idea that all of the belief system is predicated on fulfilling a psychological need. Evangelical faith especially is based upon "experience" not evidence, and much thought and effort goes into creating situations in which the inductee will experience euphoric emotions and associate them with the specific religious group in question. After enough "getting high on Jesus" moments, the inductee is hooked, just like any addict, and will defend every element of the faith for fear of being deprived of the next fix.

harold · 10 January 2010

Dave Luckett -

at the moment when he heard the word “Jew”. It shows a face gone rigid and staring

As I have mentioned in recent threads, I think that an underlying concern with the social ranking of demographic groups is a major factor that drives Americans to the science denial/authoritarian/war-promoting/right wing economics ideology cluster, which is currently referred to, somewhat inaccurately, as "conservative".

harold · 10 January 2010

One interesting thing is that in the United States, in any general forum that is not exclusively the domain of one political group, simple neutral statement of a fact about evolution, climate data, US demographics with regard to such things as income and incarceration, contraception, Biblical scholarship, opinion among serious economists, or a wide variety of other issues, will predictably provoke rage reactions.

I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about statement of fact.

I've actually noticed that since my college years, although in the past I was merely amused and puzzled by it.

A large number of Americans obey a rigid ideology that literally requires denial of facts.

So the neutral statement of a fact is instantly presumed to be equivalent to the advocacy of a social/political opinion.

For example, in the context of evolution, imagine if you posted "Tiktaalik shows certain anatomic features which are intermediate between features seen in fish and features seen in modern tetrapods" on a creationist site. That's literally a neutral statement of fact, but one can easily imagine the reaction.

Stanton · 10 January 2010

harold said: For example, in the context of evolution, imagine if you posted "Tiktaalik shows certain anatomic features which are intermediate between features seen in fish and features seen in modern tetrapods" on a creationist site. That's literally a neutral statement of fact, but one can easily imagine the reaction.

You mean something along the lines of this?

"ZOMG!!!111 Evil evilutionists admit they were lying all along about ev1lution!!!

A lurker · 10 January 2010

RBH said: Answers in Genesis has made exactly the same argument:

And yet they list the following argument that should never be used:

If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)

And yet it is the exact same argument that you quoted them as using for tetrapod evolution. They have also used the same argument in the context of feathered-dinosaurs:

Complicating matters even further is the fact that true birds have been found among the Liaoning province fossils in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors. The obvious bird fossil Confuciusornis sanctus, for example, has long slender tail feathers resembling those of a modern scissor-tail flycatcher. Two taxa (Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx) that were thought to be dinosaurs with true feathers are now generally conceded to be flightless birds.11

But who says the creationism needs to be consistent?

C.E. Petit · 10 January 2010

Casey Luskin can't be ashamed by anything.

That would require a sense of shame.

Whether that implicates the "moral superiority" espoused by advocates of Inscrutable Design is left as an exercise for the student.

raven · 10 January 2010

Indeed, any time any new discovery expands, clarifies, and marginally modifies science, creationists will always be prone to claim that it “disproves” science.

All new fossil discoveries disprove evolution which is always a theory in crisis. In other news: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength

Pete Dunkelberg · 10 January 2010

Arguments that should never be used includes

#12. There are no transitional forms. (It would be better to say there are no intermediates between two different kinds. We find variant transitional fossils for animals within the same kind—horse to a horse for example but that is expected in a biblical worldview.)

Paul Burnett · 10 January 2010

Dave Luckett said: ...a face gone rigid and staring. The artist described the expression as "demonic and defensive". ... Something about the word or the concept has disengaged the intellect and tripped - what? - an automatic mental response on a level below the conscious mind. The only cause that I can imagine for this is overwhelming psychological need. That would be true for Hitler, I think. But for millions of modern Americans, and others?

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are millions of modern Americans who, if you say the words "abortion" or "evolution" or "Obama" to them, will show the same reaction.

Paul Burnett · 10 January 2010

James Downard said: Some years ago when (Casey Luskin) was just finishing his "geological" studies in college I asked him if he knew of the term Lagerstatten and he didn't...

For those unfamiliar with the term "Lagerstätten," see http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/defLagerstatten.html for a discussion and examples.

Stanton · 10 January 2010

Paul Burnett said:
Dave Luckett said: ...a face gone rigid and staring. The artist described the expression as "demonic and defensive". ... Something about the word or the concept has disengaged the intellect and tripped - what? - an automatic mental response on a level below the conscious mind. The only cause that I can imagine for this is overwhelming psychological need. That would be true for Hitler, I think. But for millions of modern Americans, and others?
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are millions of modern Americans who, if you say the words "abortion" or "evolution" or "Obama" to them, will show the same reaction.

You mean like the way all those people booed Senator McCain when he tried to say that his rival was actually a good family man and a decent American?

barkdog · 10 January 2010

Alex H: Wrong Smith. Jedediah was a mountain man; Joseph read the tablets. As far as I know, Jedediah was completely sane; not sure about Joe.

Shebardigan · 10 January 2010

This is obviously off-topic. I am not a Mormon here, but feel strongly that if you're going to trash somebody else's belief system, you should at least try to get more than 10% of the details right.

Alex H said: But bring up the story of how Mormonism was formed (for those who haven't heard it, Jedediah Smith found two golden tablets Jesus hid in the Eastern United States that were written in 17th century English, copied them down to create the Book of Mormon, then managed to lose both tablets before anyone else saw them).

1. It was Joseph Smith jr. not "Jedediah". 2. The gold plates (not tablets) were disclosed to JS by an angel -- he didn't just find them, and they were not written in 17th Century English. 3. The gift of translation from "Reformed Egyptian" was bestowed upon J. Smith Jr. using "urim and thummim" or a "seer stone". The "seer stone" was used by placing it into a hat, looking into the hat and dictating what was seen; this is regarded by some as the origin of the expression "talking through his hat". 4. He didn't "lose" them, they were "taken away", perhaps due to misconduct on the part of Jos. Smith Jr, or for protection from the LDS reformers; opinions vary.

John Harshman · 10 January 2010

What creationists never seem to realize is that invalidating transitionals by finding older fossils is the logical equivalent of saying, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", which of course is another of the arguments AiG says you shouldn't use.

To be fair, there are real evolutionary biologists who use this same argument, e.g. Alan Feduccia.

Matt G · 10 January 2010

I came up with a good analogy for the "no transitional fossils" argument. Say a friend comes to you with a photo and says "this is a picture of me at my fifth birthday party." You say "well, it does look like you, but how can I be sure?" The friend comes back to you the next day and says "here are photos of me on my sixth, seventh, eighth, etc. birthday parties, right up to my last birthday." You say "yes, they do look more and more like you, but I won't be satisfied until you show me photos of you from every day since your fifth birthday."

Dan · 10 January 2010

Matt G said: I came up with a good analogy for the "no transitional fossils" argument. Say a friend comes to you with a photo and says "this is a picture of me at my fifth birthday party." You say "well, it does look like you, but how can I be sure?" The friend comes back to you the next day and says "here are photos of me on my sixth, seventh, eighth, etc. birthday parties, right up to my last birthday." You say "yes, they do look more and more like you, but I won't be satisfied until you show me photos of you from every day since your fifth birthday."

Chez Watt, 03JUN2005: This guy's just moved in next door. I believe he is an alien, and arrived on earth fully formed about a week ago. He insists this is untrue, and that he developed from a single cell into his present state. I found this a little hard to swallow, so I asked him to prove it. He showed me a biology textbook, and also half a dozen pictures showing a person not dissimilar to himself in various stages of development. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He found a couple more pictures. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He couldn't. I have examined him minutely over the past week, and can find no evidence that he is changing NOW. He was completely unable to demonstrate to my satisfaction any evidence to support his proposition. So I shot him.

Dan · 10 January 2010

Casey Luskin claims that:

1. Any scientist who produces evidence contrary to evolution is expelled from science.

2. Shubin and Daeschler have produced evidence contrary to evolution.

These claims cannot BOTH be correct.

(In fact, both are false, but as a point of logic either 1 is wrong, or 2 is wrong, or both are wrong.)

stevaroni · 10 January 2010

Dan said: This guy's just moved in next door. I believe he is an alien, and arrived on earth fully formed about a week ago. He insists this is untrue, and that he developed from a single cell into his present state. I found this a little hard to swallow, so I asked him to prove it. He showed me a biology textbook, and also half a dozen pictures showing a person not dissimilar to himself in various stages of development. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He found a couple more pictures. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He couldn't. I have examined him minutely over the past week, and can find no evidence that he is changing NOW. He was completely unable to demonstrate to my satisfaction any evidence to support his proposition. So I shot him.

Not only that, but I found some pictures of another little boy, apparently taken near the same time, which show a boy of similar age who is also in a little league uniform but - and here's the clincher - it's a different boy, wearing the uniform of a different team! Under these circumstances how could you possibly believe the first guy?!? I say he's a lyin' sack, and it was good that you shot him.

Stanton · 10 January 2010

Did you dissect him afterwards?

Yreka Bakery · 11 January 2010

Dan writes:
"Casey Luskin claims that:

1. Any scientist who produces evidence contrary to evolution is expelled from science.

2. Shubin and Daeschler have produced evidence contrary to evolution.

These claims cannot BOTH be correct."

Yes they can. (I'm speaking only theoretically here.) No one said the scientists who provide the contrary evidence are expelled right away.

Rolf Aalberg · 11 January 2010

stevaroni said:
Dan said: This guy's just moved in next door. I believe he is an alien, and arrived on earth fully formed about a week ago. He insists this is untrue, and that he developed from a single cell into his present state. I found this a little hard to swallow, so I asked him to prove it. He showed me a biology textbook, and also half a dozen pictures showing a person not dissimilar to himself in various stages of development. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He found a couple more pictures. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He couldn't. I have examined him minutely over the past week, and can find no evidence that he is changing NOW. He was completely unable to demonstrate to my satisfaction any evidence to support his proposition. So I shot him.
Not only that, but I found some pictures of another little boy, apparently taken near the same time, which show a boy of similar age who is also in a little league uniform but - and here's the clincher - it's a different boy, wearing the uniform of a different team! Under these circumstances how could you possibly believe the first guy?!? I say he's a lyin' sack, and it was good that you shot him.

I can't conceive of no greater lie than using a photograph of your uncle to prove you had a father.

Richard Simons · 11 January 2010

Rolf Aalberg said:
stevaroni said:
Dan said: This guy's just moved in next door. I believe he is an alien, and arrived on earth fully formed about a week ago. He insists this is untrue, and that he developed from a single cell into his present state. I found this a little hard to swallow, so I asked him to prove it. He showed me a biology textbook, and also half a dozen pictures showing a person not dissimilar to himself in various stages of development. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He found a couple more pictures. I asked him if he could supply transitionals to fill in the gaps. He couldn't. I have examined him minutely over the past week, and can find no evidence that he is changing NOW. He was completely unable to demonstrate to my satisfaction any evidence to support his proposition. So I shot him.
Not only that, but I found some pictures of another little boy, apparently taken near the same time, which show a boy of similar age who is also in a little league uniform but - and here's the clincher - it's a different boy, wearing the uniform of a different team! Under these circumstances how could you possibly believe the first guy?!? I say he's a lyin' sack, and it was good that you shot him.
I can't conceive of no greater lie than using a photograph of your uncle to prove you had a father.

But it would give a good idea of the hair style and the clothing fashion your father probably wore at the time.

Fritz Kurt · 11 January 2010

A good theory would predict most new findings. A bad theory needs to be redrawn whenever new discoveries come up. That's why Darwinism proves again to be a very bad theory.
But if the dogma is fixed upfront, there will always be an explanation for the unexpected.

DS · 11 January 2010

Fritz Kurt said: A good theory would predict most new findings. A bad theory needs to be redrawn whenever new discoveries come up. That's why Darwinism proves again to be a very bad theory. But if the dogma is fixed upfront, there will always be an explanation for the unexpected.

Really. Well perhaps you could give us some examples of things that the theory of evolution did not predict. Perhaps you could give us some examples of things have been modified over the last one hundred and fifty years. Notice that the main ideas of descent with modification and natural selection have been modified slightly but remain essentially intact after almost two hundred years. Doesn't that qualify as a good theory? Can you name a better one? Do you think that Luskin had a better theory? Do you think that creationism has been modified over the years? Do you think that is predicts anything at all? Why do you think that is?

harold · 11 January 2010

Fritz Kurt -

A good theory would predict most new findings.

You got this part almost right. A good theory does make successful predictions. Whether it predicts "most" new findings is a semantic question. The theory of evolution has made many good predictions, among them - Many new living and fossil organisms discovered; all fit into a nested hierarchy, all of life has common biochemistry, all of life has common cellular structure, all of life has common genetic code, closely related organisms share closely related physiological traits (and more). Evidence from multiple independent fields converges to support the theory of evolution. Let me explain why these are valid predictions of the the theory of evolution - because if any of those new discoveries had not turned out that way, the case for common descent with variation and differential rates of reproduction would have been challenged. Let me explain why they are NOT evidence for "common design". Because if the opposite results had been obtained (which would have been powerful evidence against evolution), ID/creationists would also claim "design". Since everything will always be claimed as evidence of "design", ID/creationism makes no predictions - it doesn't matter what happens, you will always call it design.

A bad theory needs to be redrawn whenever new discoveries come up. That’s why Darwinism proves again to be a very bad theory.

There is no scientific theory known as "Darwinism", and the theory of evolution has not been "redrawn" in 150 years. However, you are exactly wrong about good theories being inflexible and rigid (you also contradict yourself immediately below). For example, Newtonian physics was a very good theory. We now know that it's actually an extremely useful approximation, in many, many contexts, of an even better and more complete theory. However, if you want to test the value of Newtonian physics, simply have someone drop an anvil on your head from 100 feet above.

But if the dogma is fixed upfront, there will always be an explanation for the unexpected.

This is a perfect description of ID/creationism. It's also a self-contradiction. Above you criticized the theory of evolution for being "redrawn"; here you criticize it for being "dogma fixed upfront".

stevaroni · 11 January 2010

Fritz Kurt said: A good theory would predict most new findings. A bad theory needs to be redrawn whenever new discoveries come up. That's why Darwinism proves again to be a very bad theory.

Bad theory? Let's review the "redraw", shall we... Circa 1970: Primitive fish are known to have existed ca 400mya. Primitive amphibians are known to have existed ca 350mya. Evolution predicts that there had to be intermediate forms, half fish / half amphibian, near 375mya. 2003: Neil Shubin says "I think I'll go find one of these things", goes out to a 375 million year old river estuary and digs up tiktallik. Shubin says "Here. These things existed. This fills one of those mythical gaps". 2009: Researchers in Poland dig up evidence of another half-amphibian dragging itself around 380mya. Science says "Oh goody! Another one of these things! Fun!" How exactly is this a "redraw"? Only in the creationist fantasy world does having a better picture of the past mean you know less. A world, I should point out, that offers absolutely no explanation for the existence of these creatures in the first place. The irony is exquisite. Creationism is arguing over the interpretation of dead animals that, in their model, don't actually exist! I dread the day when we find the third, fourth and fifth examples of 375 million year old tetrapods. With every body we turn up we apparently somehow get closer to conclusively proving that these creatures didn't actually once walk the Earth. Ya know, just like the 12 known archeoptryx specimines, and even worse, all the other known species of primitive lizard-birds cast doubt on the supposed existence of lizard-birds because, ya know, we've found more than one!

stevaroni · 11 January 2010

Richard Simons said:
Rolf Aalberg said: I can't conceive of (a) greater lie than using a photograph of your uncle to prove you had a father.
But it would give a good idea of the hair style and the clothing fashion your father probably wore at the time.

It would also prove that there actually were people walking the Earth in the 60's. Don't forget, the bigger issue here isn't so much proving something specific about your lineage (although that's always nice), but rather rebutting the nonsensical creationist argument that you had no father at all, that you suddenly "poofed" into being one morning, along with everybody else. To this end, photos that unambiguously show members of your family in the past, especially in places and situations that support what is already known about the family narrative, have a very great probative value indeed.

Fritz Kurt · 11 January 2010

..here's the new picture of tetrapod evolution that Niedzwiedzki and others have drawn...

Aha, this is not a redrawing?? How about to leave away the purely speculative common descent lines at the bottom of the picture? Then it would represent the actual evidence and no dogmatic story telling.

eric · 11 January 2010

The lines represent nested hierarchies that exist in fact. These include morphologic and genetic similarities. Common descent is the scientific reason for those nested hierarchies, but they exist whether you want them to or not.

But lets get to the heart of the matter. So you think common descent is dogmatic story telling. Okay, why don't you tell us specifically when, where, and how tiktaalik came to be?

RDK · 11 January 2010

Dan said: He was completely unable to demonstrate to my satisfaction any evidence to support his proposition. So I shot him.

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR.

Stanton said: Did you dissect him afterwards?

You mean get your hands dirty and actually accomplish something? That would be a silly thing to do; we've already established that he's an alien.

RDK · 11 January 2010

eric said: But lets get to the heart of the matter. So you think common descent is dogmatic story telling. Okay, why don't you tell us specifically when, where, and how tiktaalik came to be?

That's easy. 6,000 years ago, Garden of Eden, out of Yahweh's ass. Amirite Fritz?

DS · 11 January 2010

Fritz wrote:

"Aha, this is not a redrawing?? How about to leave away the purely speculative common descent lines at the bottom of the picture? Then it would represent the actual evidence and no dogmatic story telling."

Actually, no this is not a redrawing. It is just another way of looking at the data with new data included and some ambiguity removed. So, unless you think we should have discovered every fossil possible to discover before proposing any theory you have no point to make at all. If we never discover another fossil will evolution b]then be just fine with you?

Now, why do you think that including new data that is completely compatible with the original hypothesis is a bad thing? Is it because creationists refuse to revise their ideas ever? Is it because creationists never try to discover anything new? Is that where this bizarre attitude comes form?

Dan · 11 January 2010

Fritz Kurt said:
..here's the new picture of tetrapod evolution that Niedzwiedzki and others have drawn...
Aha, this is not a redrawing?? How about to leave away the purely speculative common descent lines at the bottom of the picture? Then it would represent the actual evidence and no dogmatic story telling.

In exactly the same way, why don't we leave out the purely speculative idea of atoms? Why don't we just catalog the billions of chemical reactions? Then the catalog would represent the actual evidence and no dogmatic story telling.

Nils Ruhr · 11 January 2010

Hi, in case you didn't get the message. PZ got his definition wrong:
(I've copied the text from UD)

"PZ doesn’t seem to understand the concept of transitionals.

In order to be a transitional it must appear IN THE LINEAGE.

Otherwise it is known as a mosaic- as is the platypus."

(autor: Joseph)

harold · 11 January 2010

Nils Ruhr - Your comment proves that you are clueless with regard to the matter at hand, as is the person you quote.

“PZ doesn’t seem to understand the concept of transitionals. In order to be a transitional it must appear IN THE LINEAGE.

How ironic that you attempt to project your own glaring faults onto others. The next line demonstrates extreme ignorance of these concepts, unless it is a parody.

Otherwise it is known as a mosaic- as is the platypus.”

It would be uncivil for me not to attempt to warn you as to the extreme extent of your ignorance. The platypus is not a "mosaic".

PZ Myers · 11 January 2010

Now UD is a source of information?

That's just wrong. [b]No[/b] fossils are regarded as necessarily belonging to the direct lineage of an extant species.

Nils Ruhr · 11 January 2010

I tried searching for "Übergangsform" (German term for transitional form) on the german version of Wikipedia and I was forwarded to "Mosaikform" immediately.
Does that mean, that "mosaic form" is the same as "transitional form"?

Nils Ruhr · 11 January 2010

@PZ Myers:
> Now UD is a source of information?

As far as I know Joseph has a degree in biological science (something with ocean or marine... I don't remember... I might be wrong.)

Nils Ruhr · 11 January 2010

@harold:
> The platypus is not a “mosaic”.

You're wrong. It is a mosaic form, according to german version of Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbergangsform#Schnabeltier_.28rezent.29

harold · 11 January 2010

Nils Ruhr -

No, I am not wrong.

Although I don't even speak German, it is obvious to me from that link that the German term "mosaikform" means about the same thing as "transitional fossil" in English. All of the pictures are of organisms well known to be represented by transitional fossils.

I am able to read French and Spanish, and I can assure you that similar-looking words can have different meanings in different languages.

In English, very misguided people who think that the platypus is related to ducks sometimes refer to it as a "mosaic" of mammalian and avian traits. This is a very silly thing to think. Joseph's comments are wrong no matter what kind of degree he claims to have.

stevaroni · 11 January 2010

Nils Ruhr said: "PZ doesn’t seem to understand the concept of transitionals. In order to be a transitional it must appear IN THE LINEAGE. Otherwise it is known as a mosaic- as is the platypus."

Yeah, because if I was looking to create a history of the airplane, I'd be totally out of line to start the book with the Wright flyer, progress through lightweight fabric biplanes, cite the Douglass DC3 as a pivotal design, discuss the move to jet power and then widebodies, because they were only representative examples of what was going on at the time, and not necessarily direct descendants of each other. I'll bear that in mind next time I'm in an aviation museum. That apparently I can't get anything useful about the history of aviation from those pretty old warbirds that I like so much because the companies that made them may or may not still be around.

Damian · 11 January 2010

From a translation of the German page of Mosaikform:

Forms is known as a mosaic in the evolutionary biology organisms, possess the characteristics of two taxa. Dabei stehen sie nicht zwangsläufig in gradliniger Beziehung zu den beiden Taxa, es können auch nahe Verwandte davon sein. They are not necessarily straightforward in relation to the two taxa, it can also be closely related to them. Mosaikformen werden daher auch als Zwischenformen oder als Übergangsformen bezeichnet. Mosaic forms are therefore referred to as intermediate or transitional forms. Es handelt sich dabei jedoch um Organismen, die Merkmale von stammesgeschichtlich älteren und stammesgeschichtlich jüngeren biologischen Gruppen in sich vereinen. These are, however, organisms that combine the characteristics of phylogenetically older and phylogenetically younger biological groups in themselves. Sie stehen evolutionsbiologisch betrachtet zwischen den beiden Taxa. They are evolutionary-biological seen between the two taxa.

harold · 11 January 2010

Nils Ruhr -

Does that mean, that “mosaic form” is the same as “transitional form”?

It is obvious that the German term "mosaikform" translates into English as "transitional form". Damian -

Mosaic forms are therefore referred to as intermediate or transitional forms.

I rest my case. In English, as I noted above, "mosaic" is used

These are, however, organisms that combine the characteristics of phylogenetically older and phylogenetically younger biological groups in themselves.

All organisms on earth meet this definition. However, "transitional" fossils are especially illustrative of how particular traits arose during evolution.

harold · 11 January 2010

Oops -

That's "In English, 'mosaic' is used to imply a mixing of two unrelated lineages in one individual".

The term can be used correctly (e.g. discussing transgenic organisms) or used to express incorrect beliefs. When used in the context of the platypus, it is nearly always an indication of the incorrect belief that the platypus has avian (duck) features.

John Harshman · 11 January 2010

harold said: It would be uncivil for me not to attempt to warn you as to the extreme extent of your ignorance. The platypus is not a "mosaic".

Well, yes it is, actually. In evolutionary biology, a mosaic can an organism that combines primitive and derived characteristics, as well as one that combines characteristics of two different groups. (There's a third meaning in cell biology, but never mind that one.)

John Harshman · 11 January 2010

A transitional form doesn't have to be a mosaic, though it almost certainly would be. A mosaic combined primitive and derived characters, demonstrating mosaic evolution (good term to google for more on this, by the way). This is because different morphological features rarely change at exactly the same rate. Australopithecus afarensis, for example, is a mosaic of ape-like/primitive traits (e.g., brain size) and human-like/derived ones (e.g. posture).

We can imagine a transitional that's an exactly smooth intermediate between two forms, in which each and every character is exactly half-way between the primitive and derived state. Sort of the middle snapshot of a morphing program. That would be a non-mosaic transitional form. I don't know of any except in trivial cases where only a single character is changing (e.g., the Phacops rana complex).

Of course that perfectly intermediate transitional is exactly what creationist imagine for evolution, and exactly what they demand in a transitional form. And they are not disappointed when none are offered.

Peter · 11 January 2010

Oh Casey. When will you ever learn? He is someone who really seems to believe that the more he is wrong and the more people tell him he is wrong the more right he believes he is. Brilliant imperviousness to reason, evidence, and rationality.

harold · 11 January 2010

John Harshman -

I'm not aware of that use of the term "mosaic" in biomedical science, in English.

I've only seen it used this way - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_%28genetics%29

John Harshman · 12 January 2010

I'm not exactly sure how you are constraining "biomedical" there. But for evolutionary biology, google "mosaic evolution"; for genetics, google "mosaic mouse".

Matt G · 12 January 2010

At what point do you stop saying "Casey Luskin embarrasses himself again," and start saying "Casey Luskin continues to embarrass himself"?

harold · 12 January 2010

John Harshman -

Again, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement here.

"Mosaic mouse" is exactly the use of the term "mosaic" that I described above. They're genetic mosaics.

The term "mosaic evolution" apparently has an uncontroversial meaning in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_evolution. I had never seen it used that way before. However, it may be a British term, or it may simply be that genetic mosaics were a major "hot" topic during my education, and other uses of the term were put on the back burner. Or maybe I just heard it and forgot it.

It's a clear example of confusion in scientific terminology. Two quite different meanings of the word "mosaic" in biology.

However, let's review the context of all this. A creationist referred to the platypus as a "mosaic" (and also claimed that PZ Meyers could not understand the concepts of lineage or transitional fossil). There is a common belief among creationists (and even some other ill-informed people) that the platypus is "part duck". The platypus is not a "mosaic" in this sense. It does not have avian features. Given the ill-informed nature of the creationist comment, I concluded - I still think correctly - that he meant that he thought that the platypus is a "part duck, part mammal" mosaic. That remains my conclusion (about that individual's statement) until I have a reason to think otherwise.

Note that conversing with people who are clueless about science, yet attempt to use science terminology, can be confusing, as they often don't really know what they are trying to say, themselves.

It also turned out that in German, what we would call a "transitional" form, from the fossil record, is referred to as a "mosaikform". Of course, every species is "transitional", but this term is usually reserved for specimens that answer major questions about major lineage origins, such as Tiktaalik, or, from a human perspective, fossil hominids. Apparently, the German term "mosaikform" is a third use of the mosaic analogy in biology.

Another bit of minor confusion. I wonder what they call genetic mosaics in German.

afarensis, FCD · 12 January 2010

Creationists, however use the term mosaic in a completely different fashion. Creationists such as Wise have borrowed Behe's notion of irreducible complexity to try and explain away the fossil evidence:

Although the entire organism is intermediate in structure, it’s the combination of structures that is intermediate, not the nature of the structures themselves. Each of these organisms appears to be a fully functional organism full of fully functional structures.[source here

Basically, they redefine transitional in such a way that they can easily dismiss whatever fossil is offered as a chimera. Basically, only "half a wing" has phylogenetic significance,for the creationist, but a complete wing is irrelevant. Consequently, early tetrapods, pakicetids, early hominins, etc, can be easily dismissed.

harold · 12 January 2010

afarensis, FCD -

Thank you. In summary -

A platypus is not a "mosaic" in the way creationists use the term, largely because nothing is. In particular, it is not a mosaic of mammalian and "duck" traits.

I would think that the typical platypus is not a genetic mosaic, either, although some of them may be, as genetic mosaics occur naturally, as well as being synthesized by scientists.

A platypus species is a perfectly good example of "mosaic evolution", although no more so than many other things, including humans.

All organisms are transitional, but the English term "transitional" is usually used in biology/paleontology to refer to specific examples, often fossils, that are highly informative with regard to early evolution of major lineages. The German Wikipedia article entitled "Mosaikform", which was linked above, showed clear illustrations of famous "transitional" fossils/organisms (Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, and so on). The platypus was not included. The German term "Mosaikform" appears to be virtually synonymous with the English term "transitional form/fossil". Inclusion in this category is, admittedly, at least partly a subjective decision.

Germanicus · 12 January 2010

harold,
in the German Wikipedia the platypus is included under the German name of Schnabeltier (Schnabel = beak, Tier = animal).

Rolf Aalberg · 12 January 2010

From the link by afarensis above here:

The team of experts assembled for this work includes a philosopher, a mathematician, a physicist, a linguist, a theologian, a biophysicist, an astronomer, a chemist and a paleontologist.

Stephen C. Meyer, Walter L. Bradley,
John L. Omdahl, William A. Dembski,
Charles B. Taxton, John Ankerberg,
Hugh Ross, Kurt P. Wise,
John Weldon, John W. Oller
___________________________________________
The data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.

afarensis, FCD · 12 January 2010

harold said: afarensis, FCD - Thank you. In summary - A platypus is not a "mosaic" in the way creationists use the term, largely because nothing is. In particular, it is not a mosaic of mammalian and "duck" traits. I would think that the typical platypus is not a genetic mosaic, either, although some of them may be, as genetic mosaics occur naturally, as well as being synthesized by scientists. A platypus species is a perfectly good example of "mosaic evolution", although no more so than many other things, including humans. All organisms are transitional, but the English term "transitional" is usually used in biology/paleontology to refer to specific examples, often fossils, that are highly informative with regard to early evolution of major lineages. The German Wikipedia article entitled "Mosaikform", which was linked above, showed clear illustrations of famous "transitional" fossils/organisms (Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, and so on). The platypus was not included. The German term "Mosaikform" appears to be virtually synonymous with the English term "transitional form/fossil". Inclusion in this category is, admittedly, at least partly a subjective decision.

A platypus is the example creationists most frequently bring up to illustrate the chimera concept. It has a mixture of both mammalian (fur, warmblooded, etc) and reptilian (lays eggs)traits. Now we would say that this demonstrates the concept of mosaic evolution and argue that the distribution of traits can teach us something interesting about the evolutionary history of montoremes. For the creationists these traits mean nothing other than that the platypus is a weird creature. Let's use Tiktaalik as an example. While we might argue that the anatomy of it's limbs makes it a good candidate for a transitional fossil, the creationist disagrees because those limbs are functioning wholes - God just played mix and match with their anatomy. For the creationist organisms are aggregations of irreducibly complex traits that reveal nothing of evolutionary history and as long as it is functional it is not transitional.

Joe McFaul · 12 January 2010

This just in:

Evolution News & Views says "God did it."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/intelligent_design_frontloadin.html

as stunnignas Dembski's concessionthat he is OEC.

fnxtr · 12 January 2010

Germanicus said: harold, in the German Wikipedia the platypus is included under the German name of Schnabeltier (Schnabel = beak, Tier = animal).

safire Tier from the same source as our -there suffix, also hence "deer". /safire

DS · 12 January 2010

Rolf Aalberg said: From the link by afarensis above here: The team of experts assembled for this work includes a philosopher, a mathematician, a physicist, a linguist, a theologian, a biophysicist, an astronomer, a chemist and a paleontologist. Stephen C. Meyer, Walter L. Bradley, John L. Omdahl, William A. Dembski, Charles B. Taxton, John Ankerberg, Hugh Ross, Kurt P. Wise, John Weldon, John W. Oller ___________________________________________ The data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.

No real biologist eh? Interesting. Well these yahoos can challenge anything they want, but without any evidence they will not get very far with the scientific community. I wonder if they care about that at all. Apparently not.

eric · 12 January 2010

Rolf Aalberg said: The data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.

Fine, Rolf. Perhaps you can explain to us why these distinguished gentlemen spend all their time trying to tell us to do science differently instead of using this new paradigm themselves. Because they seem to be practically allergic to actually using the new science they claim to have invented.

Rolf Aalberg · 13 January 2010

eric said:
Rolf Aalberg said: The data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.
Fine, Rolf. Perhaps you can explain to us why these distinguished gentlemen spend all their time trying to tell us to do science differently instead of using this new paradigm themselves. Because they seem to be practically allergic to actually using the new science they claim to have invented.

I realized after submitting that I should have created a quote box. None of the words are not mine, I wish the gentlemen responsible for the stupid document would do something, - anything - instead of silly verbiage.

Rolf Aalberg · 13 January 2010

Argh. Double negations are a monkey on my shoulder.

stevaroni · 13 January 2010

Rolf Aalberg said: Argh. Double negations are a monkey on my shoulder.

No they're not!

Robert Byers · 14 January 2010

afarensis, FCD said:
harold said: afarensis, FCD - Thank you. In summary - A platypus is not a "mosaic" in the way creationists use the term, largely because nothing is. In particular, it is not a mosaic of mammalian and "duck" traits. I would think that the typical platypus is not a genetic mosaic, either, although some of them may be, as genetic mosaics occur naturally, as well as being synthesized by scientists. A platypus species is a perfectly good example of "mosaic evolution", although no more so than many other things, including humans. All organisms are transitional, but the English term "transitional" is usually used in biology/paleontology to refer to specific examples, often fossils, that are highly informative with regard to early evolution of major lineages. The German Wikipedia article entitled "Mosaikform", which was linked above, showed clear illustrations of famous "transitional" fossils/organisms (Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, and so on). The platypus was not included. The German term "Mosaikform" appears to be virtually synonymous with the English term "transitional form/fossil". Inclusion in this category is, admittedly, at least partly a subjective decision.
A platypus is the example creationists most frequently bring up to illustrate the chimera concept. It has a mixture of both mammalian (fur, warmblooded, etc) and reptilian (lays eggs)traits. Now we would say that this demonstrates the concept of mosaic evolution and argue that the distribution of traits can teach us something interesting about the evolutionary history of montoremes. For the creationists these traits mean nothing other than that the platypus is a weird creature. Let's use Tiktaalik as an example. While we might argue that the anatomy of it's limbs makes it a good candidate for a transitional fossil, the creationist disagrees because those limbs are functioning wholes - God just played mix and match with their anatomy. For the creationist organisms are aggregations of irreducibly complex traits that reveal nothing of evolutionary history and as long as it is functional it is not transitional.

I think I'm within the thread here. You say creationists say the platypus is a mosaic between mammal and reptile. Well this creationist says the platypus shows rather the error of classification systems in saying there are mammals and reptile tribes. So the platypus is wrongly used by anyone as proof or against proof of evolution. The platypus should rather be seen as the revelation of a different equation. That any creature can have any attribute in nature if it needs it. Mammals are not mammals because of biological heritage but because of these creatures need these feathers then were used to define them. If you need it you got it. Dinosaurs were not reptiles after all but just creatures who needed a few attributes that we associate with creatures we call reptiles. Reptiles are just creatures that need like attributes but are not related because they have these attributes. Genesis only talks about kinds and not these great tribes of mammals, reptiles etc. The platypus is just a boring creature that at some point adapted a few details that it needed to survive. Laying eggs or being furry is not a defining point of its identity and relationship to other creatures or not. I see all these classification systems as not true and a blinder on understanding the natural world. I do also see marsupials as slightly altered placentals. I submit that its a dead end for anyone to see creatures and make conclusions about heritage from present ideas on relationships even with living creatures.

Alan Fox · 14 January 2010

Nils Ruhr said: @PZ Myers: > Now UD is a source of information? As far as I know Joseph has a degree in biological science (something with ocean or marine... I don't remember... I might be wrong.)

Joseph is our old friend Joe Gallien, retired refrigerator repair man. I recall he did once claim he had taken a course in marine biology but never said when, where or for how long. Typical Joe

Alan Fox · 14 January 2010

Here it is! Joe the biologist!

bradbury · 14 January 2010

Robert Byers writes: "The platypus is just a boring creature that at some point adapted a few details that it needed to survive."

"Boring" is in the eye of the beholder. The platypus' electrical probe of a bill would excite any electrical engineer.
Oh, and watch your teleology. If an animal "needs something to survive," it doesn't just go out and "adapt" something. It's weak explanations like this that make creationists reject evolution. (Well, there's also that Bible thingee, but that's another issue.)

Dave Luckett · 14 January 2010

Pay no attention to Byers. It only gratifies him.

DS · 14 January 2010

Robert wrote:

"Mammals are not mammals because of biological heritage but because of these creatures need these feathers then were used to define them. If you need it you got it. Dinosaurs were not reptiles after all but just creatures who needed a few attributes that we associate with creatures we call reptiles. Reptiles are just creatures that need like attributes but are not related because they have these attributes. Genesis only talks about kinds and not these great tribes of mammals, reptiles etc."

Sadly, you are mistaken once again. Look Robert, there is something called genetics, you know. It has been used to determine phylogenetic relationships. The results agree with all of the fossil, developmental and morphological evidence. Get a clue man, you are truly pathetic.

Or perhaps you would like to explain to us why the nested hierarchy of genetic similarity exists if god just poofed everything? Perhaps you would like to explain the molecular clock, the shared SINE insertions, the mitochondrial gene order data, etc. Thought not. Piss of and stay pissed ignorant troll.

afarensis, FCD · 15 January 2010

Robert Byers said:
afarensis, FCD said:
harold said: afarensis, FCD - Thank you. In summary - A platypus is not a "mosaic" in the way creationists use the term, largely because nothing is. In particular, it is not a mosaic of mammalian and "duck" traits. I would think that the typical platypus is not a genetic mosaic, either, although some of them may be, as genetic mosaics occur naturally, as well as being synthesized by scientists. A platypus species is a perfectly good example of "mosaic evolution", although no more so than many other things, including humans. All organisms are transitional, but the English term "transitional" is usually used in biology/paleontology to refer to specific examples, often fossils, that are highly informative with regard to early evolution of major lineages. The German Wikipedia article entitled "Mosaikform", which was linked above, showed clear illustrations of famous "transitional" fossils/organisms (Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, and so on). The platypus was not included. The German term "Mosaikform" appears to be virtually synonymous with the English term "transitional form/fossil". Inclusion in this category is, admittedly, at least partly a subjective decision.
A platypus is the example creationists most frequently bring up to illustrate the chimera concept. It has a mixture of both mammalian (fur, warmblooded, etc) and reptilian (lays eggs)traits. Now we would say that this demonstrates the concept of mosaic evolution and argue that the distribution of traits can teach us something interesting about the evolutionary history of montoremes. For the creationists these traits mean nothing other than that the platypus is a weird creature. Let's use Tiktaalik as an example. While we might argue that the anatomy of it's limbs makes it a good candidate for a transitional fossil, the creationist disagrees because those limbs are functioning wholes - God just played mix and match with their anatomy. For the creationist organisms are aggregations of irreducibly complex traits that reveal nothing of evolutionary history and as long as it is functional it is not transitional.
I think I'm within the thread here. You say creationists say the platypus is a mosaic between mammal and reptile. Well this creationist says the platypus shows rather the error of classification systems in saying there are mammals and reptile tribes. So the platypus is wrongly used by anyone as proof or against proof of evolution. The platypus should rather be seen as the revelation of a different equation. That any creature can have any attribute in nature if it needs it. Mammals are not mammals because of biological heritage but because of these creatures need these feathers then were used to define them. If you need it you got it. Dinosaurs were not reptiles after all but just creatures who needed a few attributes that we associate with creatures we call reptiles. Reptiles are just creatures that need like attributes but are not related because they have these attributes. Genesis only talks about kinds and not these great tribes of mammals, reptiles etc. The platypus is just a boring creature that at some point adapted a few details that it needed to survive. Laying eggs or being furry is not a defining point of its identity and relationship to other creatures or not. I see all these classification systems as not true and a blinder on understanding the natural world. I do also see marsupials as slightly altered placentals. I submit that its a dead end for anyone to see creatures and make conclusions about heritage from present ideas on relationships even with living creatures.

That does not explain all those animals that went extinct. They needed something to continue existing as well, they didn't get it however. One naturally wonders why some animals get what they need and some don't. You also haven't provided any compelling reason why we should ignore the phylogentic signal in an animals morphology and genes. Something more than assertion is required to overturn several hundred years worth of research on taxonomy and phylogeny.

sharky · 22 January 2010

But not every creature can have any attribute if it needs it. Radial symmetry is just in the echinoderms and the jellies. Fish and whales and bats and birds and lizards all share the same bone arrangement in the wrist and hands--the bones are fused together or shrunken down or greatly extended or what have you, but they're all there.

Everything is basically a cephalocaudally arranged creature with bilateral symmetry. If it doesn't have a tight membrane over its body or a shell, it's covered with scales or... fancier scales, like hair or feathers. Nothing has legs on its back, nothing has two mouths, land things don't have tentacles. I can only think of one recent creature with an extra eye.

sharky · 22 January 2010

(Everything *else,* excuse me. Things already mentioned as having radial symmetry don't have bilateral symmetry on top of that, unless someone brought a Slinky to life while I wasn't looking.)

Stanton · 22 January 2010

sharky said: ...land things don't have tentacles.

I think this gentleman would beg to differ

I can only think of one recent creature with an extra eye.

The tuatara (and some other reptiles) are often quoted as having a "third eye." The so-called "eye" of these creatures is actually an enlarged pineal gland, so enlarged that the skull has an extra hole/foramen for it.

sharky · 22 January 2010

Ha! Yeah, I thought of the star-nosed mole and decided they were too limited in use to apply to my point. They're not entire limbs--they're sensory organs. Everything else just uses whiskers.

*shrug* If the tuatara's spot isn't light-sensing, the tuatara falls perfectly into the "it has a head and a tail and everything's the same on both sides" bucket.

Which is a big bucket, and not what you'd expect if everything could instantly produce whatever it needed.

Stanton · 22 January 2010

Well, the term "tentacle" is often used by biologists to refer to any fleshy appendage. In vertebrates (that have them), "tentacles" are almost always sensory organs.

That, and while pineal glands are not eyes, and can not form images like an eye, that doesn't mean they're not light-sensitive. The pineal gland produces the hormone melatonin in response to light levels: in the case of the tuatara, its extra foramen is essentially a sunroof for its pineal gland.

sharky · 22 January 2010

Whoops! My mistake--I was framing my point mostly in terms of limbs and their basic predictability. If I read about scientists finding a new creature, I don't picture them fishing out, say, a four-winged mammal or a fish with eighteen feet, or a bird with a beak and a mouth under that.

Most of the oddities we get are things that other animals do in other niches. Tunneling birds? Yep. Walking fish? Yep. Venemous mammals? Ollllld news. We can trace the categories they fall into (nothing so vague as kinds or appearance-based as baramins,) but we don't see the sort of delightful randomness we'd get if things just up and evolved depending on what they needed.

Thanks for the tuatara breakdown--I'd heard it was a light-sensitive spot, but not anything in more detail.

davidj · 25 January 2010

Isn't the elephant's trunk a tentacle of sorts?

Niche Profit Classroom 3.0 · 18 June 2010

Jim Thomerson said: If you would like a basic primer on creationist arguments, get a copy of Criswell's "Did Man Just Happen", published in the mid-1950's. It is still quite current!

I agree it is still quite accurate and it's a good read too