Casey Luskin over at the Disco-Tute’s blog is getting all excited about the recent discovery of fossilized tetrapod (four footed vertebrate) footprints in Poland, dated 395 million years ago. What? The Disco-Tute is excited about new scientific discoveries? Well, yes, but only because they think it disproves evolution, or something. Luskin’s post is entitled Tiktaalik Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints, which should give you an idea. Briefly, the transitional (between fish and tetrapod) fossil Tiktaalik was found in rocks 375 million years old, but these new tetrapod fossils are 395 million years old, so this newly discovered tetrapod wasn’t a descendant of Tiktaalik. Luskin claims this means Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional form, even though it clearly has features of both fish and tetrapods (more on that below).
Here’s Luskin:
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. [My bold.]
Of course, Luskin’s reasoning is wrong – if Tiktaalik is an intermediate between fish and tetrapods, then the discovery that this evolution also occurred earlier doesn’t suddenly magically mean that Tiktaalik isn’t an intermediate between fish and tetrapods anymore. The evidence that Tiktaalik is an intermediate is still evidence that Tiktaalik is an intermediate. Luskin doesn’t understand what an “intermediate” is – he thinks it has to be something on a direct line from (in this case) fish to existing land animals; it’s actually just a fossil that shows evolutionary change within lineages. (It has features of both a fish and a tetrapod, so it shows evolution happening.) Luskin thinks evolutionary theory says this happened only once. But evolutionary theory doesn’t say that. Transitional forms don’t have to be direct descendants of living species, they just have to be transitional between species (“cousins” of our ancestors, if you like) – that is, they just need to demonstrate evolution occurring.
PZ has a good post up, Casey Luskin embarrasses himself again, where he explains that Tiktaalik's status as a transitional form does not depend on us slotting it in a specific chronological time period as a link between two stages in the evolution of a lineage.
Why ID Is Useless
An interesting thing about Tiktaalik, is how Neil Shubin (its discover) managed to find it using a prediction of evolutionary theory. In his post, Luskin quotes Shubin. I’ll repost what Luskin quoted, but I’ll add a piece that he missed, from Zimmer and Shubin on Tiktaalik:
What evolution enables us to do is to make specific predictions about what we should find in the fossil record. The prediction in this case is clear-cut. That is, if we go to rocks of the right age, and the rocks of the right type, we should find transitions between two great forms of life, between fish and amphibian.
[…]
What we see when we look at the fossil record, at rocks of just the right age, is a creature like Tiktaalik. Just like a fish, it has scales on its back, and fins. You can see the fin webbing here. Yet when we look at the head, you see something very different. You see a very amphibian-like thing, with a flat head, with eyes on top. It gets even better when we take the fin apart. When we look inside the fin, as in this cast here, what you’ll see is bones that compare to our shoulder, elbow, even parts of the wrist—bone for bone. So you have a fish, at just the right time in the history of life, that has characteristics of amphibians and primitive fish. It’s a mix.
[My bold to indicate the bit that Luskin didn’t quote.]
Tiktaalik is undoubtedly transitional. With gills, scales and fins it is a fish, but its fins, instead of having the many tiny bones normally found in fish, had fewer but sturdier bones in its limbs – bones similar in number and position to those of every land creature that came later. Also, it had a flat head with eyes on the top like a modern amphibian, and it had a neck (which fish don’t have). It also had spiracles (breathing holes) on the top of its head, which suggests it had primitive lungs, and it had stronger ribs that allowed it to pump air into these lungs. Normal fish don’t need these because they breathe through their gills.
Luskin misses the point of all this with his “Tiktaalik, of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish” comment. Typical creationist – scientist finds a transitional form (fish to tetrapod) and creationist insists it’s not transitional because it’s still either a fish or a tetrapod. (Fish, in this case.) Nothing would satisfy Luskin – regardless of what new fossils are found, according to Luskin they’ll either be a fish or a tetrapod but never a transitional.
Also, it is beyond question that Shubin used evolutionary theory to predict where he would find Tiktaalik. He reasoned that if there were lobe finned fish but no terrestrial vertebrates 390 million years ago, and terrestrial vertebrates 360 million years ago, evolutionary theory would predict that you would find fossils of the transitional form in rocks around 375 million old (ie in between the two). And you would find them in a freshwater area, since both lobe finned fish and early amphibians lived in freshwater. So that’s where he looked. And guess what? That’s exactly where he found it. So evolutionary theory predicted where the fossil would be found. Again, this all flies right over Luskin’s head:
The New York Times presaged Shubin's argument, first reporting on Tiktaalik that "the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik was an intermediate between the fishes Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys, which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods. The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365 million years ago." But would neo-Darwinism have predicted true tetrapods from 397 million years ago? Definitely not
No, but then neither would Intelligent Design (ID) have predicted this. The same way that ID didn’t predict Tiktaalik. These new fossils were discovered by real scientist doing real science, not by creationists using “Intelligent Design.” What this demonstrates is that science expands our knowledge while ID is completely vacuous and useless. ID didn’t predict anything (neither Tiktaalik nor these new fossils) since ID is nothing but a bunch of ignorant whining about evolution.
Where do we go from here? Well, clearly the creationists at the Disco-Tute will continue to miss the point entirely and claim that this discovery by real scientists somehow invalidates discoveries made by other real scientists. Meanwhile, actual real scientists will use this new information as a springboard to investigate and learn more. Philippe Janvier from the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris (reviewer of the paper on the newly found fossil) told CNN:
"The divergence between the tetrapods and their closest fish relatives is much younger than previously thought and it obliges us to find actual evidence -- skeletons or complete fossils -- in much earlier strata that could enlighten us between this divergence."
Real scientists will now do actual research on these new fossils so we can learn more about our past. The difference between this and creationist poseurs such as Luskin, couldn’t be clearer.
Additional Reading
Jerry Coyne’s excellent book Why Evolution Is True
With as often as the Disco-Tute folks are wrong on things, you'd think they would pack it in? Oh wait, this is the lying, dishonest, and morally bankrupt Disco-Tute we're talking about... Forget I said that!
This is an excellent blog entry. I am going to pass this one around a bit if you don't mind.
Posted by: Larian LeQuella | January 10, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Well done for chasing up the rest of the Shubin quote, although I doubt it was a blinding flash of intuitive genius that led you to do that. It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe: For every quote used by a creationist, there is an equal and opposite rest of the quote.
Posted by: yakaru | January 10, 2010 at 01:49 PM
How can there be two transitional fossils when there isn't room in a creationist's head for more than one?
Posted by: bigjohn756 | January 10, 2010 at 04:12 PM
How can there be two transitional fossils when there isn't room in a creationist's head for more than one?
Exactly: if a creationist can't wrap his head around it, it doesn't exist. And then they accuse us of thinking we are gods...
Posted by: Valhar2000 | January 11, 2010 at 03:41 AM
So once a certain ancestor of tetrapods evolved into a tetrapod, no other ancestor could ever do it again. That makes sense. I wish it worked with cancer.
Posted by: Ryan W. | January 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM
I believe a quote by Eminent Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson sums it up all too well: "Science is a philosophy of discovery while Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance". He eloquently adds "Have you discovered anything lately? No? Then get out of the science classroom".
Posted by: CG | January 14, 2010 at 12:07 PM
ID does not exist. I agree. Take a house for example. There appears to be intelligence to the design but we all agree that ID is not possible because there is no evidence to support it.
*Think hard before you respond as you may only end up arguing against your own logic.
The two Yaki's and Yaji's out there - why don't you take this one on?
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 20, 2010 at 06:01 PM
It seems Peter Pan also lacks knowledge about why we reject ID, as well as why we reject medical anecdotes. Have you ever met a skeptic and actually listened to him or her, Peter?
The house analogy fails outright for a particular reason: Houses lack the most fundamental feature of life. That is, houses do not make other houses. One of the defining features necessary for evolution is imperfect self-replication.
But anyway, let's go ahead and continue playing the game Peter lost already. Some reasons we can be confident houses are designed:
We see houses being designed and built by humans.
Humans design houses for human purposes: Door knobs are at an easy access height for most humans. Outlets are designed to power human-made machines according to the local region. Kitchens are designed to make it easier to prepare human food. Bedrooms are designed to provide comfortable sleeping environments for humans. And so on, and so on.
We see the change in house designs as human technology advances and aesthetics change.
We see evidence of designs from one 'family' of house designs crossing over into other 'families' of house designs.
Houses show signs of tool marks in their construction.
---
We do NOT see evidence of tool marks in DNA. (Not that Creationists are eager to describe the tools a designer would use.)
We do NOT see features crossing over from one branch of living creatures to another. (Some exceptions for small stuff like ERVs: Endogenous Retroviruses. They get past that particular restraint on evolution by directly manipulating another life form's DNA by transcribing their own sequences onto it.)
We DO see sub-optimal designs with solutions that would be obvious for an intelligent designer. (If eyes are designed to see, why put blood vessels in front of our eyes' light receptor surface when they could be designed like a squid's, with the vessels not blocking the light?)
We do NOT see any evidence for a purpose for which life was designed. Instead, we see multiple, conflicting cross-purposes: A rabbit wants to use its body to make more rabbits, while a wolf wants to use that same resource (the rabbit's body) as food.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 20, 2010 at 07:39 PM
Your inability to see only demonstrates you inadequacies. FDo not blame God.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 20, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Evidence is not proof. seeing evidence is fun and exciting but the mind is a powerful thing. You may be hallucinating and believe you are seeing something you are not, as in the case of people who have near death experiences. Tool marks in houses may not be tool marks at all. Do you have a habit of believing without proof?
How can we believe our own perceptions when our perceptions cannot be trusted - unless you are willing to believe the observed experiences of lunatics who see 'God' while dead - many of whom were former Atheists BTW.
So we've established that we cannot believe what we see and Atheists can be just as just as wacked out as anybody else. I get the sense that I am corresponding with members of a cult. I have no idea who and what you people are.
If I have'nt proven my point enough, replicated 'imperfection' infers design. There can be no design without intelligence. Thanks for conceding the point.
Hugs and Kisses,
Peter Pan.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 20, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Furthermore, to understand how nature works, observe how man works, for man is a creation of nature.
Man designs a an imperfect car and replicates that car design continuously until the shit hits the fan. Ford recalls 10 Million cars and thinks about how to fix the imperfection. Man analysis the flaw and through trial and error creates a better car design eliminating the imperfection. The original design is now extinct. Evolution has occured. But the origin of the evolutionary process began in the unseen, unprovable mind. The evolution also went through many incarnations until a survivable design was settled upon. Since Man comes from nature, Man is a reflection of nature and both work the same. Idea is created 1st in the mind then is manifestated into physical reality. I don't give a damn whether or not you can see an idea in a mind or not. That is not my problem that you do not have the mental capacity to see the obvious and would even go so far as to argue against it.
Hope this helps.
Hugs and Kisses,
Peter Pan.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 20, 2010 at 10:50 PM
And futhermore Bronze Medal - I do not see ID in a house just as you do not see ID in DNA. Take apart a house and show me where the intelligence lies. In a nail? No. In the floorboard? Nope. In the toilet Bowl? Nope yet again. You can look from now till the end of time and never find any intellignce in components of a house. Therefore, we have to conclude that there is no ID in a house because there is no observable proof of intelligence in the bathroom.
Now, deoes'nt this seem a bit silly? We know there is intelligent design in a house despite not finding it anywhere; despite the lack of proof.
The same logic applies to life as well. ID exists in a plant as it does in a house, despite not fiding it anywhere; despite the lack of proof.
Go on, take the leap. It's not that much of a stretch. To argue against the obvious would have one looking in the face of a fool.
I continue my lecture at another time.
Hugs and kisses,
Peter Pan.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 21, 2010 at 07:01 AM
Laying on the arrogance rather thick already.
Who's blaming gods? I thought you were the one blaming gods while I was arguing that evolution shaped life.
We know how evolution works, and it's not like man. It has far more restrictions than we do.
You didn't even bother reading what I wrote, did you? Humans can borrow design elements exactly from other cars or even unrelated designs. Evolution can't. Find me a crocoduck or some other chimera if you want to disprove evolution.
It sounds more like you're arguing that nature is a reflection of man, not the reverse.
As for "unprovable", if this designing mind is unprovable, you've just admitted failure. You've admitted that you have no purpose here other than to waste our time. Also, if you can't prove something to someone else, that means you can't prove it to yourself.
Or do you claim to be a god, capable of proving the unprovable?
If it's so "obvious" why do you have to hide it behind words like "unseen" and "unprovable"?
And the problem isn't that I'm arguing against it: The problem is, and always has been, the failure of Creationists to argue FOR the idea.
You wrote up a failed analogy that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or the nature of life. I pointed out that simple fact, and suddenly you're arguing that what's "obvious" is now "unprovable." Make up your mind.
Of course it's silly! That's why you constructed that particular straw man! That's not how I proposed detecting intelligent agency, and you know it! I even gave you some suggestions of what sort of evidence I would need to believe you an all of the sudden, you start backpedaling and lying about what I said.
What logic? My logic, or your straw man of logic? By your straw man, nothing makes sense anywhere.
By real world logic, there is a huge difference between a house and a plant. The plant makes other plants like itself but slightly different. It doesn't put any thought into the process and it usually turns out fine. The house, on the other hand, requires intelligent humans to think about how to construct it.
In short, plants construct themselves without thinking about it. Houses do not.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 21, 2010 at 08:37 AM
Another very simple thing I should explain:
If you don't know what to look for, how am I supposed to know what you want me to look for?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 07:11 AM
First we are small and closed minded, now we're a cult. What's next from the play-book, comparing us to Nazis and Hitler?
Posted by: Darth Cynic | October 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM
I can't believe you guys are treating the Pan Troll as though it was really interested in a dialogue. A battle of wits with an unarmed man...
Posted by: Yojimbo | October 22, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Hey, I know he's too much of a coward to commit to anything. He's already performed the ultimate chickening out by declaring something "unprovable" but still asking me to accept it on blind faith in his infallibility.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM