Fossil and Evolution

[mijopaalmc]

OK, so I have a question.

Holding a Bachelors of Arts in Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology from a fairly liberal college in and living fairly conservative part of the US with a fairly conservative circle of friends, I find myself more than I like having to defend evolution as science and explain why creationism (or ID) isn't science. I am fairly competent in the more abstract aspects of evolution in particular and science in general (e.g., why invoking the supernatural is non-scientific in general and pseudoscientific when it is claimed to be scientific). However, when it comes to the specific empirical evidence for evolution, especially the fossil record, I am a little more shaky.

I will attempt to illustrate my difficulty in understanding how exactly our knowledge of the fossil record demonstrates evolution to the exclusion of all other currently much exposited (ID is certainly not well developed, but nonetheless the has been expounded on it) by providing an analogy. In both I use the common time scaling metaphor in which the lifetime of the Earth is considered to fit into one day. This equates some familiar evolutionary timescales with 1.92 seconds (100,000 years), 19.2 seconds (1,000,000 years), 192 seconds or 3 minutes 12 seconds (10,000,000 years), 1920 seconds or 32 minutes (100,000,000 years), etc. I'm sorry if my idea of "familiar evolutionary timescales" is vague (after all it does cover many orders of magnitude), but I wanted to allow for speciation and other evolutionary event to occur at varying speed.

Anyway after pondering the continuity of evolution that is claimed to be demonstrated by the fossil record, I still come up again the conceptual obstacle that, when the lifetime of the Earth is scaled to take place over a day, evolutionary events take place over time periods that are long enough that it seems that one wouldn't necessarily accept entities separated the various intervals of time to have arisen from one another. For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other.

I realize the problem with this analogy is that inanimate or non-living matter does not evolve in the same sense that living organisms do, if it can be said to evolve at all. However, I mean the analogy to be understood in a relatively figurative or metaphorical way. After all, an evolutionary approach to the fossil record has one take entities that are widely spaced in time and posits a developmental link amongst them, when one wouldn't accept a developmental link amongst entities separated by analogous periods of time.

I'm sorry if this post is confusing but I am trying to understand the creationist (or ID) position by think thinking like an creationist (or ID proponent). This means at least indulging those positions as if they are honestly posed.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The article [swiki]Intermediate Forms[/swiki] might help.

It's not so much that "continuity of evolution [...] is claimed to be demonstrated by the fossil record", as that the fossil record shows us exactly what we would expect to see if:

(a) Evolution happened just as we think it did.
(b) We had an incomplete fossil record of the process.

---

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

 

[KingMerv00]

Welcome to the forum.

If you are looking for evidence of evolution, talkorigins.com knows all and sees all.

Edit: I'm not kidding. That is the greatest evolution link you could ever hope to find. Click on it.

 

[drkitten]

Anyway after pondering the continuity of evolution that is claimed to be demonstrated by the fossil record, I still come up again the conceptual obstacle that, when the lifetime of the Earth is scaled to take place over a day, evolutionary events take place over time periods that are long enough that it seems that one wouldn't necessarily accept entities separated the various intervals of time to have arisen from one another. For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other.

Goodness. In that case, how do you possibly explain the near-instantaneous transition between a baby and a human adult? In less than the time it takes to blink (under your analogy), I turned from a squalling infant into a college profession.

I realize the problem with this analogy is that inanimate or non-living matter does not evolve in the same sense that living organisms do,

And that the time scale you're attempting to impose is complete (rule 8).

However, I mean the analogy to be understood in a relatively figurative or metaphorical way. After all, an evolutionary approach to the fossil record has one take entities that are widely spaced in time and posits a developmental link amongst them, when one wouldn't accept a developmental link amongst entities separated by analogous periods of time.

Why not? Developmental links are accepted among entities separated by appropriate periods of time for the process by which they change. Scientists have no problem accepting, for example, the idea that radioactive decay can occur over millions or billions of years; we can use. We know, for example, how long potassium takes to decay into argon and can use that to infer a developmental link in rocks up to several billion years old. We understand the process, we understand how long it takes, and we are aware of no process that can really stop or interfere with it.

More importantly, you're assuming (falsely) that no intermediates are found between two forms, when that's simply not true. Much of the additional evidence for the theory of evolution since Darwin's day has come from the observation that if this organism evolved into that one, we should be able to find intermediate forms. The development of mammals from reptiles, for example, is documented not just by a single form, but by a slew of intermediate forms that can be placed in a recognizably progressive continuum that ties more or less exactly to the age of the fossils. The observation that whales are mammals (and presumably evolved from land-based mammals) suggests that we should find fossils of recognizably whale-like animals but that nevertheless have legs and could survive on land -- and, behold! Basilosaurus, Pakicetus, and Ambulocetus.. For bonus points, please arrange these fossils in order of increasing whale-ish-ness. You've just reconstructed their temporal sequence as well; the more whale-like ones are the more recent.

We have a similar tale to tell regarding human evolution, over a much, much smaller time-frame. Simply looking at the size of the brain, one can observe a steady, smooth increase in brain size from the early hominidae to modern humans that exactly parallels the progression in time.

I'm sorry if this post is confusing

I don't think the post is confusing. I question its honesty.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Goodness. In that case, how do you possibly explain the near-instantaneous transition between a baby and a human adult? In less than the time it takes to blink (under your analogy), I turned from a squalling infant into a college profession.



And that the time scale you're attempting to impose is complete (rule 8).



Why not? Developmental links are accepted among entities separated by appropriate periods of time for the process by which they change. Scientists have no problem accepting, for example, the idea that radioactive decay can occur over millions or billions of years; we can use. We know, for example, how long potassium takes to decay into argon and can use that to infer a developmental link in rocks up to several billion years old. We understand the process, we understand how long it takes, and we are aware of no process that can really stop or interfere with it.

More importantly, you're assuming (falsely) that no intermediates are found between two forms, when that's simply not true. Much of the additional evidence for the theory of evolution since Darwin's day has come from the observation that if this organism evolved into that one, we should be able to find intermediate forms. The development of mammals from reptiles, for example, is documented not just by a single form, but by a slew of intermediate forms that can be placed in a recognizably progressive continuum that ties more or less exactly to the age of the fossils. The observation that whales are mammals (and presumably evolved from land-based mammals) suggests that we should find fossils of recognizably whale-like animals but that nevertheless have legs and could survive on land -- and, behold! Basilosaurus, Pakicetus, and Ambulocetus.. For bonus points, please arrange these fossils in order of increasing whale-ish-ness. You've just reconstructed their temporal sequence as well; the more whale-like ones are the more recent.

We have a similar tale to tell regarding human evolution, over a much, much smaller time-frame. Simply looking at the size of the brain, one can observe a steady, smooth increase in brain size from the early hominidae to modern humans that exactly parallels the progression in time.



I don't think the post is confusing. I question its honesty.

Just because the arguement is fundamentally flawed it does not follow that mijopaalmc is a liar.

Stop being such a, well, you.

 

[drkitten]

Just because the arguement is fundamentally flawed it does not follow that mijopaalmc is a liar.

I've seen this particular trope -- "Oh, gee, I'm really an evolutionist, but here's the problem that I can't resolve with evolutionary theory" -- way too often. It's almost a standard opening debate tactic among creationists.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I've seen this particular trope -- "Oh, gee, I'm really an evolutionist, but here's the problem that I can't resolve with evolutionary theory" -- way too often. It's almost a standard opening debate tactic among creationists.

I don't know whether the OP is honest or not, but I was writing a disection of the argument, rather than resorting to attacking the poster, because that acomplishes nothing.

 

[Oualawouzou]

So, how are evolutionnists genuinely puzzled by an aspect of the debate supposed to introduce themselves?

 

[drkitten]

So, how are evolutionnists genuinely puzzled by an aspect of the debate supposed to introduce themselves?

Simply asking a question is a good start. Not beginning by writing phrases that are obviously suspect -- or creationist caricatures -- sis an even better one.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who could seriously write the sentence 'For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other' is actually a believer in evolutionary theory.

 

[KingMerv00]

Simply asking a question is a good start. Not beginning by writing phrases that are obviously suspect -- or creationist caricatures -- sis an even better one.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who could seriously write the sentence 'For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other' is actually a believer in evolutionary theory.

Well be polite anyway. There really are confused people out there. If he IS a liar. Oh well.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Simply asking a question is a good start. Not beginning by writing phrases that are obviously suspect -- or creationist caricatures -- sis an even better one.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who could seriously write the sentence 'For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other' is actually a believer in evolutionary theory.

The possibility of the OP merely being mistaken is once again ignored.

ETA: Heck, it's even a form of argument from incredulity. "No one would ever honestly say such a mistaken thing. Ergo, they are a liar!"

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's a perfectly reasonable question.

---

Anyway after pondering the continuity of evolution that is claimed to be demonstrated by the fossil record, I still come up again the conceptual obstacle that, when the lifetime of the Earth is scaled to take place over a day, evolutionary events take place over time periods that are long enough that it seems that one wouldn't necessarily accept entities separated the various intervals of time to have arisen from one another. For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other.

The analogy with the candlestick is a poor one. You should conclude that someone had swapped candlesticks, but only because you already know that candlesticks can't change shape.

Let's offer a more accurate analogy.

---

You are shown a schematic of a lava lamp, taught the laws of hydrodynamics, etc.

Based on this, you arrive at the theory that the state of the lava lamp should change over time in certain ways.

You are then permitted to observe it for a day, but only in the form of still pictures taken once every 1.92 seconds.

You find that it looks different every time that you look at it.

You find that the patterns you see in the lava lamp, and also the sequence of patterns, are entirely consistent with your theories about the lava lamp.

You never see any evidence of anyone changing one lava lamp for another.

Should you conclude:

(a) Your theory was correct.

(b) Someone replaces the lava lamp with a different one every 1.92 seconds.

---

I hope this helps.

 

[KingMerv00]

The possibility of the OP merely being mistaken is once again ignored.

ETA: Heck, it's even a form of argument from incredulity. "No one would ever honestly say such a mistaken thing. Ergo, they are a liar!"

Agreed. I've met at least half a dozen people in my life who were genuinely confused about evolution. One was my mother. I did my best to set them straight and now they don't seem confused anymore. I guess I could have called my mother a liar but I doubt Thanksgiving would be enjoyable after that.

mijo has 2 posts. There is not enough information to call him/her a liar yet so I think we should be friendly neighborhood skeptics until we get a reason not to be.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The possibility of the OP merely being mistaken is once again ignored.

ETA: Heck, it's even a form of argument from incredulity. "No one would ever honestly say such a mistaken thing. Ergo, they are a liar!"

And all the people who take an "honnest look" at the evidence for and against homeopathy and think there might be something to it are just mistaken? The most likely source is someone claiming to accept evidence but rejecting all evidence that does not support their predetermined conclusion. Creationism in this case, homeopathy in others

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And all the people who take an "honnest look" at the evidence for and against homeopathy and think there might be something to it are just mistaken? The most likely source is someone claiming to accept evidence but rejecting all evidence that does not support their predetermined conclusion. Creationism in this case, homeopathy in others

It is entirely possible to be honest and wrong at the same time.

ETA:

FFS, you sound like my ex-girlfriend.

"I asked you to take out the trash."

"No, you asked me to take out the recycling. Besides, I took out the trash this morning."

"Are you calling me a LIAR?"

"No, I'm saying that I might have misheard you or you might have mispoken. . ."

"You ARE calling me a liar!"

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is entirely possible to be honest and wrong at the same time.

Yes, but I can see how the way this was framed can be seen as an attempt to appear to come at it from a position of openness to both sides while really being predetermined.

And then you need to determine what the odds of someone being a liar are before you call someone a liar. Admittedly drKitten seems to have lower odds in this than many other of the posters here.

 

[KingMerv00]

And all the people who take an "honnest look" at the evidence for and against homeopathy and think there might be something to it are just mistaken? The most likely source is someone claiming to accept evidence but rejecting all evidence that does not support their predetermined conclusion. Creationism in this case, homeopathy in others

I think someone could take an honest look at the evidence for (haha) and against homeopathy and still believe in it.

Sometimes people just don't understand burden of proof or the scientific method.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think there is something that is being ignored here: I initially acknowledged that my analogy was poor.

I thank you, Dr. Adequate, for developing a new analogy.

As I am trying to understand how things that appear to be discrete entities with wide temporal separation could be said to have developed one form another, I will have to ponder the lava lamp a little more.

 

[Dr Adequate]

After all, an evolutionary approach to the fossil record has one take entities that are widely spaced in time and posits a developmental link amongst them, when one wouldn't accept a developmental link amongst entities separated by analogous periods of time.

Well, we must distinguish between what intermediate forms tell us about evolution, and what evolution tells us about intermediate forms. The "entities" are predicted by the theory, the "developmental link" is a conclusion from the theory, once we're convinced that the theory is true --- one does not, therefore, use the "developmental link" as evidence for the theory, 'cos it isn't.

The theory of evolution, as I've said, is, or tends to be, confirmed, by finding certain forms in the fossil record which it predicts should be there, and no forms that it says shouldn't be there. Take for example Tiktaalik, as mentioned in the SkepticWiki article: its form and location were predicted by evolutionary theory.

Once we are convinced, by this and other data, that the theory of evolution is true, then we can interpret the intermediate forms as being the fossils of transitional species.

Of course, checking whether they are intermediate forms does not require us to "posit a developmental link" or anything about how they came to exist, we just need to look at their forms in comparison to those of other fossils or living species.

---

I must apologise for my colleagues, who evidently wouldn't recognise an interesting epistemological question if it hit 'em over the head with the collected works or Karl Popper.

 

[The Atheist]

OK, so I have a question.

Hi there!

Despite evidence to the contrary, this is the right place to discuss such matters. Not with me, though, I'm just an atheist - but I hope I can explain the mixed reaction to your OP so that everyone can take a deep breath and move on in the hope that you haven't been irretrievably scarred already!

First off, I see you've fallen into drkitten's deadly ID/Creationist trap.

Have no fear, the kitten has no teeth, but it does have a nasty habit of clawing the legs of anyone who suggests that Evolution^TM doesn't totally and utterly explain everything, or that they're not quite able to understand it. Anyone falling into either of those categories (about 90% of people by my last count) is an IDiot/Creationist.

Other than that, there are some extremely knowledgeable evolutionarians who post here who will see you right. Along with Dr Adequate, I'd think that Paul C Anagnostopoulous, Taffer, Cuddles and a few others will sort your confusion out in short order.

Cheers - good luck!

Good luck!