Western Book Tours
Paleontologist Takes on Creationists with Fossil Evidence in “Evolution”
By Jenny Shank, 11-02-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Thursday night at the Boulder Book Store, Donald Prothero discussed his new book, “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters,” in which he lays out the fossil evidence for evolution in passionate and concrete terms. Prothero considers evolution to be the first front in what he sees as religious fundamentalists’ attack on all science. Prothero said that in the past when his colleagues have addressed the arguments of creationists, they’ve done so with “kid gloves.” “In the age of the blogosphere,” he said, “you’ve got to go at it with bare knuckles and lots of mud throwing,” because the creationists “play dirty.”
Prothero began his presentation by suggesting, as Stephen J. Gould had before, that “science and religion are non-overlapping ways of looking at the world, and should not conflict or interfere with each other.” He gave a brief chronology of battles against evolution, which began right when Darwin first proposed the theory in 1859. Most educated westerners accepted evolution by the time of Dawin’s death in 1882.
In the United States, the first backlash against evolution came in the 1920’s, culminating in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Since then, there have been periodic legal challenges to the teaching of evolution, but the courts have rebuffed these efforts, and “legally speaking, it’s dead.” But creationism is alive and flourishing in America, and Prothero said that depending on the study, 40 to 50 percent of Americans say they believe in creationism.
In recent years, creationists have begun to make an argument they call “intelligent design,” which Prothero said is basically the same argument with different wording, “an attempt to sound scientific without obvious parallels to Genesis.” William Paley first put forth the idea that became “intelligent design” in his 1802 book, “Natural Theology,” in which he wrote that if a person were to find a watch on the beach, its “intricate contrivances” would argue for a designer or watchmaker.
Prothero said that one of the main weaknesses of this argument is that there are many bad designs in nature. He cited humans, whose backs and feet are not meant for bipedalism, and whose genome is “full of non-functioning DNA.” “What is the design implication,” he asked, “for male nipples?”
The bulk of Prothero’s book consists of presenting fossil lines as they evolve from one phylum to another. Creationists, he said, frequently claim that there are no “transitional forms,” but Prothero presented several modern examples, such as the Neopilina, which has qualities of both mollusks and segmented worms, and Onychophora, which has wormlike and insect-like features.
“But creationists don’t care about invertebrates,” he said, so he gave the example of Amphioxus, which has a notochord (a feature all chordates, or vertebrates, share during their embryonic stage). He pointed to the “recent discovery of soft bodied impressions of vertebrates from the lower Cambrian of China,” which proves the phylum to which humans belong (chordata) is as old as others, going back to the Cambrian explosion.
Prothero discussed last year’s discovery of a fossil called Tiktaalik, known popularly as the “fishibian,” which has some amphibian features, such as its head, and some fish features, such as its gills. Archaeopteryx, the fossil depicted on the cover of the book, is the best-known transitional form, with the feathers of a bird, yet the long tail and discrete hand bones of a reptile. One of the best fossil sequences supporting evolution, according to Prothero, is that of land mammals’ evolution into whales, which includes several transitional species, such as Ambulocetus Natans, whose name means “walking swimming whale.”
One audience member asked what the weakest sequence in the fossil record was, and Prothero replied, “We would love to have better early bat fossils.” He explained that because the bat is a delicate creature with parts that don’t preserve well, there are gaps in the record that creationists jump on, and say “bats appear with completely modern parts,” an assertion Prothero says isn’t true. Still, “paleontologists would be orgasmic about it if they could have better early bat fossils.”
Judging from the questions, there were no creationists in the audience at the Boulder Book Store, but Prothero argued that it’s still important to wage a fight against inroads creationists have made into the educational system. American scientific literacy is already among the worst in the world, he said, citing studies that measure American students as behind much of Asia and Western Europe in scientific knowledge.
He blames “bad textbooks, poor teaching, and the culture as a whole” for the nation’s scientific illiteracy problem. The media is partly to blame, he said, because they insist on presenting two dissenting viewpoints even on issues about which there is next to no debate in the scientific community. News programs always “pull in some crank from way out on the fringes.” He cited the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds, which is accepted by almost all paleontologists, but whenever a news program does a story on this, they always feature “the same two or three dissenters.”
So in the interest of promoting scientific literacy, I’ll conclude without mentioning opposing theories to evolution, such as the belief that humans can arrive on earth fully formed, conveyed by UFOs. Sorry, as a member of the media, I couldn’t help myself.
I just don't get it - how religion can bias a person so strongly (at an early age) that it completely blocks out reason. Everything evolves, the universe and the person - even religion!!!
Sam
The author blames "bad textbooks, poor teaching, the media and the culture as a whole" for lack of belief in evolution. As a non-creationist and an observer, I find this a bit rich of him to blame other science authors, other teachers, the US education system and basically the whole of society for not making evolution more credible.
Has he not considered that, may be, just may be, rational people will not cross the line from believing in what they see and believing what they are told to believe? Not different from religious aversion, methinks. Look, I'm not anti-evolution. Just voicing my opinion.
Putting blame on religion (or creationists) for the problem is also counter-intuitive. Recent polls have shown that while religious adherence has declined considerably in the last 2 decades, belief in evolution have stagnated or even declined in some countries. It's no wonder this guy is looking for someone to blame.
The solution? Present the facts or mechanisms of evolution in no uncertain terms (not "just-so" stories - these should be thrown in the bin where they belong) so as to remove any doubt about evolution's claims. This is what science is all about. No point blaming your audience for not understanding when you are incoherent or vague. Just my 2cts. GSS
The fact is, science should head in the direction in which the evidence leads and procliam that even if it is uncomfortable. This is not done however. Intelligent Design is clear science. Science is supposed to look for causes, through observation. The observable world does not show any evidence of macro-evolution nor does the evidence in the fossil records or biology show macro-evolution has ever occured. So where does that leave us? It means that the apparent "design" seen in the world around us is is not an illusion, but real. No need to invent fairy tales to wish it away. I mean how much more evidence does one need when just looking at the incredibe complexity of the human body let alone just one living cell? The human body is so complex, so vastly superior to anything man has ever "designed" himself, how could a so called intelligent person say this was a result of anything but design? This is a no-brainer. It really takes what I call an "intelligent nit wit" to believe this. An "intelligent nit wit" are those who have the credentials behind their name but have no common sense.
Do any of you who so firmly grasp on to the stupid theory that all life has evolved wihtout any intelligent agent behind it truly understand the complexity of the human body? If you do then you must have alot of faith to believe that it could have occured without the need of an intelligent mind.
Most of you reading this have never looked at the theory of evolution critically and just accept the "just so stores" as fact. Well wake up! The evidence truly will speak for itself if you will look at it with some common sense and an open mind.
Gerard said, "The solution? Present the facts or mechanisms of evolution in no uncertain terms (not "just-so" stories - these should be thrown in the bin where they belong) so as to remove any doubt about evolution's claims. This is what science is all about."
And that's what he's doing, Gerard.
Scott, I can honestly say that's as good an argument for creationism, excuse me, intelligent design, as any I've ever read. Seriously. Maybe better.
Comment By Michael, 11-05-07The only people who believe in creationism are those ridiculous "born again" fundie christians and some muslims, thus I conclude from that alone that creationism has no credibility. I guess I have prejudices against certain kinds of people.
Comment By Marion, 11-05-07First of all, why is it so important to you that creationists quit believing in creation? I certainly do not mind if you want to believe you are descended from a slug (what happened to the monkey-human link?), or whatever.
I happen to be a midwife, and I see the miracle of life every day. Humans beget humans, fish beget fish, horses beget horses, etc. When you show me even one fossil showing a cross over from one major critter to another I'll get a little more excited.
Meanwhile I see no need to "throw dirt" or anything else to try to force someone to change the way they believe.
Because even though you find your deliberate ignorance more comforting than objective knowledge, on a day-to-day basis knowledge is always a better way to live your life. Even so, we're not talking about forcing anyone to give up their comforting beliefs, only keeping them from using the power of government to force it on us or on our children.
Comment By Marion, 11-06-07All I'm asking is evidence of evolution of humans. Name calling doesn't do it.
Comment By Michael, 11-06-07Well why don`t you start reading science journals Marion to see this overwheming evidence for evolution instead of websites run by fundamentalist nutjobs? Creationism and flood "geology" are pure mumbo jumbo with no credibility amongst academics. Personally I do believe in God...and that he used evolution as his way of bringing humans into existance.
Comment By Marion, 11-06-07Since I am obviously too dumb to read these articles, how's about you link to articles giving definite proof and evidence of a link to man from the creature of your choice.
What is your source of belief that God used evolution? Faith?????
Marion,
I apologize for the "deliberate ignorance" remark. It was snarky.
How about a one-page primer on evolution first? A list of human ancestors back to the first proto-cell (which is the creature of science's choice) would be meaningless without knowing what evolutionary theory is about. And trying to explain here would probably annoy the web person who runs the site.
This link
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
is a web page that uses plain English to explain evolution and some related concepts. It also has links to more detail, if you wish to learn more.
After reading it (and maybe some of the related pages), if you still disagree, at least you'll know with what you're disagreeing.
Thank you Pete, I admit to having problems being impressed by arguments that resort to name calling.
The fact is, the search has been on for the "missing link" for all of my life....to no avail. You have faith it will be found, I have faith it doesn't exist. Pure and simple.
I have studied a little biology and science as a RN/CNM, so I'm not totally ignorant of science. My opinion is that evolutionists are still flopping around trying to prove the unprovable.
Who says you are stupid Marion...not me! The link below is from the National Academy of Sciences, America`s most prestegious scientific institution, in fact they have the offical role as advisors to Congress over science topics. Here`s what they say about evidence for evolution
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Again I stress that there is a consensus amongst the global science community that there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. There is no evidence which remotely suggests that the Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. Indeed the Noahs flood story can be proven by the geological record to be fiction...unless the author of Genesis was alluding to a local flood in the ME of course.
You have a point saying evolution isn`t 100% proven but it is the only credible theory with alot supporting it regarding the circumstances of our origins
Well it's an up-and-down, back-and-forth thread. This comment might steer the conversation in a different direction, but I think it gets to the root of the issue.
"An atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman."
Two of us can look at the same fossil, cell, organism and see different things. As long as the evolutionist is convinced that they are the climax of the universe and the peak of evolutionary progress they will see it as a step leading up to his supreme reason and 'authority'. The evolutionist is arranging the evidence to suit their view that God doesn't exist. This is more convenient than seeking God and confessing incomplete knowledge.
If I look at it in with a humbled mindset, aware of my imperfections and inability to be omnipotent, I will look in awe at the hand of the Creator at work.
Science can support both views because science is influenced, even though it tries not to be, by subjectivity and, ultimately, faith.
Science is providing evidence for intelligent design and a young earth. One recent article about a T-Rex bone found with preserved soft tissue. Was this soft tissue miraculously preserved over millions of years or is this soft tissue proof that dinosaurs lived recently and the Earth is young?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
Scott
Evolution in the fossil record is an illusion. The author mistakenly (and ironically) claims that “creationists don’t care about invertebrates” when it is quite the opposite!. We love the invertebrate record because it cleanly and precisely falsifies evolution. Just look in any high school or college evolution text book. Invertebrate evolution is missing! The invertebrate record is by far the most complete, yet whenever we are told of an intermediate it is almost always from the vertebrate record. See my article on this:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm
What was just as interesting (and again ironic) is that the author mentions the chordate found in China. That fossil in reality very much contradicts evolution. Here is what the discoverer of these fossils said:
“According to Chen, the two main forces of evolution espoused by neo-Darwinism, natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and random genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many new genetic forms.” Chia-Wei Li was more blunt: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” – ‘A Little Fish Challenges A Giant Of Science’ - The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000, Pg. E1; Fred Heeren, Globe Correspondent.
Evolution is and remains a fairytale for grownups!
Fred Williams
What is your source of belief that God used evolution? Faith?????
No Marion...scientific evidence. One more thing here...you do realize that humans weren`t the pinnacle of God`s creation dontcha? Earth is but a tiny blue dot in the Universe and the very idea that it is somehow something special or unique is a total fallacy.
We can argue this until doomsday, but the fact is there is no more absolute concrete evidence for one than another. You can put your faith in computerized carbon testing, I will put my faith in God. I see "computer glitches" all of the time, way too often to put my faith in them.
I see miracles all of the time, and I see an orderly nature that makes my belief in God stronger.
Marion, the first book that you should read is "Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. This book relates that teams of scientists from all over the world are studying evolution not just thru fossils but in real time! They have concluded that Darwin did not fully appreciate the strenght of his own theory as he did not have, modern mobility and communications and computers to fully explore what he started.
For example on the Galapagos Islands, Peter & Rosmary Grant have been returning to these islands for 30 years where they have tagged, measured and tracked thousands of finches (that breed annually) to determine how food influences beak and body sizes & which birds live and die to pass on their genes. In 30 years they are measuring the evolutionary changes in these birds as are many other evolutionary scientists who are studying other fast breeding species.!!!!
Some quotes: "Fossils agrue that evolution can happen. Logic argued that natural selection can make it happen", "a species does not attract our attention until it has existed for a considerable time and then it is too late to inquire into the conditions of it's origins", and last "the process of evolution by natural selection works right up the tree, from individuals to varities, varities to species, onward and upward, branching and branching, always diverging, helping to create all of the myraid of life forms on this planet".
Sorry Fred but until articles from your website are published in major mainstream peer reviewed science journals or are endorsed by the likes of the NAS or AAAS you have no credibility.
By the way...I`ve always wondered where enough water to submerge Mt Everest came from and where it went away to after the flood ended.
I'm tired of being bombarded by the the same nonsense from the creationists, over and over and over. Please, find someone among your ranks who has the intellectual curiosity and the educational background to argue this subject with acuity.
No one has ever suggested that any individual relinquish his faith to science. It really is not an either or proposition.
I have deep faith in the Lord and the truly complex universe of his creation. I, also, know that I don't have Godly comprehension of all things. So, I work with what I have, science and the scientific method.
The fossil record will never show a "missing link" because science has never postulated that man descended from apes or any other currently recognizable organism. The theory has always been that they (man and ape) descended from a common ancester. Also, the theory of evolution is not confirmed by the fossil record alone, but by the convergence of evidence from many branches of science.
So, keep your faith but become educated.
I thought some of you might be interested to know that there's a NOVA episode called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial" airing on Tuesday night on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defining.html
By evolutely inclined, 11-11-07
I'm tired of being bombarded by the the same nonsense from the creationists, over and over and over. Please, find someone among your ranks who has the intellectual curiosity and the educational background to argue this subject with acuity.
Dear inclined: Try John Clayton's site, http://www.doesgodexist.com, for a Christian scientist's perspective. Clayton was an athiest who, as a scientist, set out to prove that God does not exist.
Any Christian with a lick of common sense will realize that evolution is not a dirty word--any living thing evolves as it moves from birth to death. It is the "theory of evolution" that gives me heartache, the supposition and expansion of fact as opposed to clearly documented scientific evidence.
Evolutely inclined,
"Bombarded by nonsense", you say? And yet evolution is the one and only theory taught in all our public schools. I think you were bombarded by nonsense during your entire educational career...and you surrendered to it.
As for someone with the "intellectual curiosity and educational background" you're looking for, how about Francis Collins... a Christian who mapped the human genome! Is that on your resume?
Very well stated Jeanne in regards to the difference between micro-evolution and the theory of macro-evolution which extrapolates observable occurrences far beyond what is reasonable.
Jeanne suggested, "Try John Clayton's site..."
I tried it. It is clear from the get-go he has nothing to offer. Two examples:
In his piece "Who Created God?", he claims that if matter was eternal, hydrogen would have run out by now because it is the fuel of the universe. The problem with this is that, according to current theory, prior to the big bang there was no hydrogen to burn, only energy compressed into a single point. It very well may have existed that way eternally up until 14 billion years ago, or we may live in an oscillating universe.
He claims that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that the universe is moving toward disorder. This betrays a basic lack of knowledge. The 2nd Law merely states that over a long enough time, energy will equalize in a closed system. No scientist would say that represents disorder, if anything it is a high level of order.
He then goes on to uncritically accept the writings of the bible as if the writers were possessed of some special knowledge about god. Unsurprisingly, since he is a Christian apologist.
Now, in fairness to John, he concedes at the end of this particular piece that this is his opinion, not a scientific theory. We must give him points for honesty, if not for a useful contribution to science or religion.
You no doubt will feel that I have not given him a fair hearing, that I should review all that he has written before coming to a conclusion about its usefulness or scientific accuracy. Unfortunately, realistically I could not do that and still respond to this thread. I may well do so later, but since a random selection proved so disappointing, I rather imagine the rest will also.
On the other hand, he does say this, "...we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere." Now, THAT I can wholeheartedly agree with.
Further, you are being disingenuous when you say that "common sense" indicates that all living things evolve. In fact, in the scientific sense, which is what we're talking about here, they do not. Individuals cannot evolve, only populations over generations.
As for evolutionary theory giving you heartache, your reaction to evolution is your own, and has no effect on the fact that all of scientific evidence indicates that it did happen, and is happening even now.
Scott, Evolution is the only theory about the origin of the diversity of life that is taught in public schools because it is the currently accepted, overwhelmingly supported by evidence, scientific theory there is. There cannot be more than one theory about anything, because a theory is the best explanation for the observed phenomena. There can be multiple hypothesis, but once a theory is settled on, that's the only one there is until and unless it is supplanted by a theory that better explains the evidence in naturalistic terms. If you wish to consider that "nonsense", do not expect anyone other than your fellow creationists to take you seriously.
Why naturalistic? Because only physical things are testable. Gods are not, because they exist outside the laws of nature.
Francis Collins, though a religious man, does not support the idea of religion being taught in school as science. Read an interview here: http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm
Unfortunately, neither your assertion that evolution is broken out as you describe (evolution is simply evolution, small or large) or your opinion that evolution "extrapolates observable occurrences far beyond what is reasonable" is supported by the facts, or agreed with by the vast, vast majority of scientists who work in the field. The fossil record supports the theory of species change the same way broken automobile glass, plastic bits, skid marks, a headlight rim and spilled gasoline support the conclusion that an automobile accident occurred, even though you weren't there to witness it.
If you were to claim that someone simply left these items there, faked the skid marks and poured the gasoline, it would require more than your assertion that "This is as good a guess as the other one," you would have to come up with evidence to support your position. Your explanation would have to explain things better than the other one.
In addition, evolutionary theory is supported by paleontology, geology, radiology, genetics, physics and engineering. It is important to remember that all evidence supports evolution. Absolutely all of it. The only discussion in science, which is the only relevant discussion there is, concerns the exact mechanism(s) of evolution, but no serious scientist competent in the field (and darn few outside it) questions evolutionary theory. This may give you heartache or heartburn, but it is nevertheless true.
If evolution were true, then evolutionists would not need to resort to gimmicks and illusions to suppor ttheir theory. Case in point is the most popular illusion (deception) of all , that is that 1) evolution is observerable now, and 2) the old canard "populations evolve, not people", itself an illusion to try to bury evolution in a pile of fog. These illusions are in reality simply references to micro-evolution, or small-scale change within populations that creationist scientists have always accepted. See my article on this illusion here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm
Fred Williams
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com
Recent research - Google "Robert Moyzis"+evolution - shows evolution has occurred in humans in the last 80,000 years. Evolution is happening.
A person cannot evolve because once you're born, that's how you stay. But your descendants can be different from you, and theirs different from them. That's how evolution works. Small, cumulative changes over many generations, frequently leading, according to the fossil evidence, to new species splitting off from the original ancestor.
As for Marion, I have seen a very detailed transition from trilobites to Eurypterids which are invertebrates/arthropods, and their divergence into distinct groups, one being the early arachnids (sea scorpions) and the other I forget, crustaceans? Oh well, it was on Youtube, if I can find it I'll post a link. In any case we do have transitional fossils for invertebrates, if you searched, search again, if you can't find anything, search harder, it's there. As far as evolution anything after speciation is just cosmetic/aesthetic, novel proteins have mutated and have been selected for in nature, new species documented to evolve, the implications are not huge, we have known and documented every aspect of evolution, aside from speciation, taxonomic classification is not important, speciation speciation speciation, lots and lots, changes in populations selected by nature, accumulate genetic dissimilarity until the population cannot not or could not bread with it's ancestors or with any slit off species. It really is just a question of how much more we can learn and refine evolutionary theory.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/paleontologist_prothero_takes_on_creationists_with_fossil_evidence_in_evolu/C39/L39/