Ashby Camp wrote:
> I also mentioned in my former post that to evaluate the claim
>that a particular fossil animal (creature B) constitutes a
>transitional form, one needs to know the identity of the animals it
>is alleged to connect (creatures A & C) and the anatomy and dates
>of existence of each of the animals in question (creatures A, B &
>C). If creature B is indeed creature A on its way to becoming
>creature C, then one would expect the features of creature B to be
>either the same as those of creature A or intermediate between the
>features of creatures A & C (the original post mistakenly read A &
>B). In other words, one would not expect the differences between
>creatures B and A to be in any direction other than toward the
>features of creature C. <
This is an unreasonable expectation and requires that one ignore the
environmental and adaptational needs of the transitional animal to survive.
For instance in the case of whales, modern whales have no back feet. When you
say "one would not expect the differences between creatures B and A to be in
any direction other than toward the features of creature C" This would
require that the trait of the hind limb's size, generation by generation,
would do nothing but shrink. This totally ignores the possible need for the
hind limb during the amphibious phase. I know of no animal with an
amphibious lifestyle which has lost it's hind legs.
Otters, alligators, seals, the platypus and walrus' all have their hind legs.
Whales, ancient and modern have vestigial legs!
Asshby Camp wrote:
> To aid in this analysis, Glenn referred the reader to drawings
>of the skeletons of these various creatures which appeared in the
>article by Annalisa Berta in _Science_ 263:180 (1994). In his
>opinion, these drawings show _Ambulocetus_ to be a morphological
>intermediate between the mesonychid and an archaeocete. He was
>particularly impressed by the direction of change in the skulls and
>ribs.
>
> Unfortunately, the readers of _Science_ are not told that the
>mesonychid shown in the series is _Mesonyx obtusidens_, the drawing
>having been taken from Plate 5 of W. B. Scott's "On Some New and
>Little Known Creodonts," _Journal of the Academy of Natural
>Sciences of Philadelphia_ 9:155-85 (1888).<
What do you mean the readers weren't told? Look at reference 16 in the
Science article you mention above!!!. It is where you got that particular
piece of information. That reference says "(Top) Mesonyx" and then
proceeds to give the reference you cite. I would say that the readers were
quite informed of the animal being drawn. All they had to do was what you, a
reader did; read the reference. The Journal, Science, is not a popular
account for the non-scientist. This journal is written for the scientist who
is aware that references must be checked. When these situations arise in
creationist literature, there is more of a problem precisely because the
literature is directed at non specialists. In such situations, it is
important to be very clear about the limitations of the data..
I would bet that the Mesonyx they used is the earliest, most complete example
of a mesonychid. But I have been unable to verify that.
Ashby then goes on to state (his references snipped to save space):
> This is a crucial
>omission because the genus of which that creature is a member
>(_Mesonyx_) first appears in the fossil record in the Middle Eocene
> This makes it too late to be the ancestor of
>_Ambulocetus_, which its discoverers place in the Lower to Middle
>Eocene. One suspects that a comparable omission in crea-
>tionist literature would be viewed by evolutionists as deceptive. <<
This objection is based upon the implicit assumption that the actual ancestor
of a species MUST die and be removed from the earth when the daughter species
arises. This is untrue and has been documented to be untrue in gastropods.
Nehm and Geary follow the rapid evolution of a new species Prunam
christineladdae from P. coniforme. The mathematical measure of parent
species traits gradually become more variable and then then becomes bimodal.
At this point you have two species, the daughter and the parent living side
by side! (see Ross H. Nehm and Dana H. Geary, "A Gradual Morphologic
Transition During a Rapid Speciation Event in Marginellid Gastropods,"
Journal of Paleontology, 68(4), 1994, p. 787-795) In this case if the strata
with the earlier examples of the parent species and the strata in which the
transition had taken place had been eroded away, you would claim that P.
coniforme was too late. (see below) This would be especially true if the
preservation of individuals was sparse or rare as it is in the case of land
mammals.
-----------------------------------------------------------
P. chris. P. con. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
P. chris 5
----------------------------------------------------------
P. chris P. con. 4
----------------------------------------------------------.
P.cris-P.con.(tranistional) 3
----------------------------------------------------------
P.con. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.con. 1
----------------------------------------------------------
no P. con 0
----------------------------------------------------------
The above is what Nelms and Geary saw (0-4) . But what if beds 1-4 had been
eroded and the preservation of P.con. had been sporadic? Then you would
see,
-----------------------------------------------------------
P. chris. P. con. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
P. chris 5
---------------------------------------------------------- Erosion
no p.con. 0
----------------------------------------------------------
and you would be claiming that P.con was too late. Erosion is rampant in the
geologic column. and in the case of animals like mammals whose habitat is
above water, the fossilization potential is very poor. such a situation is
not unlikely nor to be unexpected.
There is also the statistical argument. The earliest example of any given
activity are unlikely to have been preserved. The first boat made by man is
hardly likely to have been found, much less preserved. So when we find the
earliest boat in the archaeological record, it is quite reasonable to infer
that boats were invented some time prior to the date this boat was made. How
much earlier? That is a matter of argument. In 1965 the earliest known boat
was from a find dated at 6400 B.C. from Pesse in Holland. according to your
logic, boats had nothing to do with the invention of the boat paddle. They
were too late!! The earliest boat paddle is from Star Carr, England from a
site dated at 7500 B. C. Of course I am sure that this paddle had nothing to
do with water navigation. Boats had not been invented yet (at least
according to your logic). (see Grahame Clarke and Stuart Piggott,
_Prehistoric Societies, (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 106
I used to raise fantail guppies. These fish, with brightly colored
delta-shaped tails were derived from the wild, gray fish with a small tail in
this century. While this is only a small change, it did not result in the
death of the wild-type guppy and its removal from the face of the earth. The
two forms live together today.
I believe that the oldest copy of _Caesar's Gallic Wars_ which we have is
from around 1000 A.D,( I believe). This of course, is much to late to be of
any value in telling us what Caesar, if he existed, really did in Gall.
Your logic is flawed both on geologic grounds( your view requires no
erosion), on paleontologic grounds (P. coniforme to P christineladdae) living
together after P. chris. arises), on statistical grounds and on historical
grounds (the guppy not to mention dogs, cats cows etc.)
As we discussed earlier, the mesonychidae were found first in the Paleocene a
full 8 million years prior to the first whale. The paleocene fossil material
is fragmentary but sufficient to ensure that Mesonychids walked on the earth
before the whales swam.
Ashby Camp wrote:
> The little that we do know about _Dissacus_ makes it very
>unlikely that it was an ancestor of _Ambulocetus natans_. In
>_Dissacus_, both the front and hind feet are pentadactyl, but in
>_Ambulocetus_ the hind feet appear to be tetradactyl (judging from
>the drawing, the fact that the first metatarsal was not found, and
>the fact that only two proximal, three intermediate, and three
>distal phalanges were found). It is hard to believe that a semi-
>aquatic creature, as the ancestor of _Ambulocetus_ is hypothesized
>to have been, would gain a reproductive advantage by losing one of
>its hind toes. If anything, one would imagine that the additional
>toe would provide a broader surface area to aid in swimming. <
I find nowhere the statement that Ambulocetus has lost a digit on its back
foot. Could you point that out? The quotes below indicate otherwise. I
quote Thewissen et al,
"The feet are enourmous: the fourth metatarsal is 14.5 cm long and its toe
more than 17 cm long. The fifth digit is only slightly shorter but is
noticeably less robust than the fourth. Toes are terminated by a short
phalanx carrying a convex hoof, as in mesonychids, the terrestrial ancestors
of cetaceans." Thewissen
et. al, 1994, p. 211)
Ambulocetus's front feet were equally large Thewissen et al, 1994, p. 211
state:
"The digits were strongly diverging, as is evident from the asymmetry of the
metacarpo-phalangeal joint in digits II and IV. The fifth digit is most
completely known: it was approximately as long as the forearm."
Your assumption that the loss of this toe would hurt locomotion is
contradicted by the data. Ambulocetus far from having to gain selective
advantage from the loss of a digit, did gain selective advantage from the
elongation and divergence of the fingers and the growth in the size of the
feet.
Ashby lays out a number of traits in which the earliest mesonychid, Dissacus,
differs from Ambulocetus, These are.
> Osborn and Earle (p. 35) note that the femur of _Dissacus_ is
>"flattened transversely, this widening of the shaft being in strong
>contrast to the rounded femora of recent Carnivora." There is no
>mention of flattening in the description of the femur of _Ambulo-
>cetus_. On the other hand, Thewissen, et. al. (p. 210), state that
>the forearm of _Ambulocetus_ "was fixed in a semipronated
>position, as a result of the triangular shape of the radial head."
>There is no mention of such a feature in the description of the
>radius of _Dissacus_.
>
> The dentition of _Dissacus_ and _Ambulocetus_ is quite
>different. Thewissen, et. al. (p. 212), state that the fourth
>premolar of _Ambulocetus_ "has a single high labial cusp." This is
>not true of _Dissacus_, as the drawing by Osborn and Earle (p. 31)
>makes clear; P4 in _Dissacus_ has three cusps (actually the third
>"cusp" is a cristid obliqua - see below). Thewissen, et. al. (p.
>212) also state that the first and second lower molars of _Ambulo-
>cetus_ have "a high connate para- and metacone, and a protocone
>that is on a broad and low lingual shelf." As depicted by
>Frederick Szalay, the lower molars of _Dissacus_ have a small,
>rounded paraconid and are marked by a feature analogous to
>carnassial notches and a crest (called cristid obliqua) formed by
>the buccal wall of the talonid (Frederick S. Szalay, "Origin and
>Evolution of Function of the Mesonychid Condylarth Feeding
>Mechanism," _Evolution_ 23:704 [1969]). These latter features are
>not present in _Ambulocetus_. In addition, the lower canine is
>much larger in _Dissacus_ than in _Ambulocetus_, the premolars of
>_Dissacus_ have a backward slant which is not present in _Ambuloce-
>tus_, and there is a significant gap between the first and second
>premolars of _Dissacus_ which is not present in _Ambulocetus_
>(compare Szalay, 718 with photo and drawings in Thewissen, et. al.,
>211). <
And
>The skull structure of _Ambulocetus_,
>on the other hand, is very different from that of _Pakicetus
>inachus_ and later archaeocetes. Just compare the back of the
>craniums of the skulls of _inachus_, _Ambulocetus_, and later
>archaeocetes. A diagram of _inachus_ can be found in the article
>by Gingerich, and Berta (p. 180) provides diagrams of the last two.
>The notion that the skull of _inachus_ evolved into the shape of
>that of _Ambulocetus_ and then reverted to its original shape in
>the skulls of later archaeocetes, all within a couple of million
>years (if that long), cannot be taken seriously. <
I notice that you cite all the differences but none of the similarities.
For instance, you must have missed the following statement, "Crests are pooly
developed on the teeth of Ambulocetus, as in their mesonychid ancestors." and
"Few details of the talonid remain, but there seems to have been a single
cusp and no basin as in Pakicetus" ( both,Thewissen, p. 212) You also ignore
the very unique, mesonychid type of hoofs on the fingers of Ambulocetus.
The claim that the skull of the early whales went from Pakicetus to
Ambulocetus to archeocetus is based upon the erroneous idea that only animals
which are fossilized at a given time are living at that time. This is wrong
as noted above.
It is unclear to me exactly what your points are here. No one would say the
Ambulocetus is identical to Dissacus or Pakicetus! Dissacus, Ambulocetus, and
Pakicetus all had different lifestyles which required different morphologies.
To suggest that animals with different lifestyles must look alike, would seem
to hinder the survival of one of the species!
If your point was that the traits you cited are more important to
determining the ancestry than the traits listed by Thewissen et al, you
failed to explain why your traits are more important for determining
taxonomy.
If your point is that Dissacus is not the ancestor, then fine, Szalay agrees
with you. He believes that the Hapalodectinae were a sister group of
Dissacus and they gave rise to the whales.
If your point is that the Mesonychids are not the ancestor, then what
traits should be the determinant of that?
But if you are saying that there is no ancestor by requiring that a
transitional creature must have the same traits as the ancestor then it is
truly difficult to see how there could ever be a transition. This type of
requirement begs the question at issue. If a transition MUST have identical
traits as the ancestor on every single trait, then it would look identical to
the ancestor and would not be different! It is a neat way to rule out the
possibility of evolution, but logically, on shaky ground.
You are probably going to say that I am assuming evolution and thus begging
the question. What I am doing is different. Everyone agrees that evolution
requires transitional forms of some sort. What I am doing is saying that the
whale series is consistent with all the expectations of what should be found
in the way of a transition as well as the expected age of the transition. Not
only the morphological traits, but also the strata in which they are found.
You are certainly free to deny that these animals are genetically related,
but if you rule out the concept of evolution you have no theory to present
which explains why this sequence of fossils are found together in Eocene
strata other than by chance. You can not present a theory why they are here,
in these strata rather than in the Mississippian or Devonian strata far below
(which is what a global flood should predict). That is
the problem with PC and fiat creation of each individual species.. There is
no connection between paleontological events Events just are. There can be no
theory of why certain events occur in the order they do. All paleontological
events are separate and causally
unconnected. And it is precisely this causal connectedness which gives
evolution its strongest intellectual attraction.
If I am walking along the street and begin to find pennies on the ground. The
pennies are often alone but occassionally a nickel is found with or near a
penny. The pennies are more or less aligned along particular streets and
there are no pennies on some streets. I ask those around why the pennies are
where they are. Everybody shrugs their shoulders and says, "I don't know
they are just there." There is no theory for the placement of the pennies.
Maybe the pennies and nickels were left by the workmen who made the street?
I ask a bystander how long the pennies have been there. He replies that they
weren't there yesterday. Then off in the distance I see a guy with two bags
in his hand, one with a large hole with pennies falling out, and the other
with a small hole which occasionally loses a nickel. Now I have a theory as
to what happened. The money is arranged along the streets that the bagman
walked. The nickels fell out of their bag at a slower rate than the pennies
fall out of theirs. Now I understand the distribution of pennies and
nickels. I tell this to the bystander. He says,
"This can not be true at all. You are merely reading into the chance
confluence of events, your imaginative theories and thoughts which the data
does not support. Your theory has no predictive value. You can't tell
exactly when a penny or nickel will fall so you can not explain the precise
positions of the coins on the street.. And there is no certainty that these
coins on the ground have anything whatsoever to do with the coin bags in that
man's hand. You can't prove that this coin came from that bag! [He picks up
a penny] There are millions of pennies with the date 1994. This coin may have
fallen out of
another gentleman's pocket."
With that, the bystander dismisses my explanation of the facts.
It is in this sense that what I am doing is much different than merely
assuming evolution. If it is true that the pennies fell from the bag, the
pennies and nickels should be aligned along the path taken by the man. But
if the pennies and nickels fell out of an airplane, the pattern of
distribution should be different. I would expect to find pennies and nickels
on the rooftops and in the flower beds. If evolution is true, then certain
observational facts are expected. Morphologically similar organisms should be
found at closely co-temporal strata. They are, regardless of whether it is
the Dissacus or Hapalodectinae who gave rise to the whale. But what
observational facts are expected from PC? Especially facts which
differentiate it from evolution? It would seem to me that the rejection of
evolution requires the belief in a causally disjointed paleontological
record.
While this may garner criticism for "replacing God with Evolution" Isaac
Newton was similarly criticized for replacing God with gravitation in the
astronomical realm. (see Andrew D. White, "A History of The Warfare of
Science with Theology in Christendom,"(New York: George Brazillier, 1955, p.
15-16. This is a reprint of an 1895 book.)
GOTO PART 2