Expelled

Edit: I forgot to mention my "slap on the forehead" moment regarding this film. Richard Dawkins stated that one theory of life on earth could be that an alien planted life here. Excuse me, but that is Intelligent Design.

Interesting point, but wouldn't the said aliens have to had controlled how that life developed/formed/shaped (or whatever) to be ID? E.g. would just dropping amino acids into the primordial oceans be inline with ID?

Besides, ID is about God (religion) when you boil it all away, even if you believe in the alien theory above (see Mission to Mars), who "Intelligently Designed" the aliens? When you get to the end of it, it relies on an Omnipotent beginning, i.e. God.
 
Interesting point, but wouldn't the said aliens have to had controlled how that life developed/formed/shaped (or whatever) to be ID? E.g. would just dropping amino acids into the primordial oceans be inline with ID?

Besides, ID is about God (religion) when you boil it all away, even if you believe in the alien theory above (see Mission to Mars), who "Intelligently Designed" the aliens? When you get to the end of it, it relies on an Omnipotent beginning, i.e. God.
I'm no expert on evolution or Intelligent Design. And frankly I have no desire to be. But from what I gather, ID is more about filling in the blanks. I believe the documentary used the example of how Newtonian physics was everything until Einstein came along. Einstein then helped to fill in the gaps where Newtonian physics was lacking. ID could work in the same way with Darwinian evolution, if allowed to be properly explored and if Darwinism were allowed to be propely questioned scientifically. Expelled does not make the claim that ID does do this, it just points out that it's not even being allowed to be studied as it should. That scientists (and even journalists) who openly question Darwinism are simply shut down, harrassed, oppressed, black-balled, even fired. So most scientists that do question Darwinism simply keep their mouths shut.

Your last paragraph sums up the reason for all the animosity. Atheists (as a whole) can't get over this. They refuse to allow this sort of thinking. Again, it comes down to a question of faith. And faith in some form of higher entity is unacceptable to them. The documentary explains the situation much better than I can convey.

But I believe that it stated that in order for the amino acids you mentioned to be formed, there needed to be a minimum of 26 proteins. I think the odds of all that happening were something like 1 in 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Another odds example in the documentary was like winning a mega jackpot on a slot machine 200+ times in a row. I may be off on my odds. The film didn't mention that this amino acid would then need to replicate itself somehow. I don't know the odds, but I would conservatively double the odds of that happening. Then they talked about the complexity of the cell. In Darwin's day, they could only see a nucleus and a cell wall. But with today's electron microscopes, the complexity of the cell has been revealed. What was once a simple leap in faith from amino acids to cells by Darwinists, is now a leap of truly epic proportions. The examples are subjective, but one scientist said that if the cell was looked at as a Buick in Darwins day, today it would be viewed as a galaxy (like the Milky Way). That the cell is essentially a massive chemical factory, in microscopic form. There were other examples. The film had a very cool special effect showing the workings inside a cell. The odds of life forming and evolving naturally continue to grow as more knowledge of life is discovered. And I thought the universe itself was mind-boggling. But the mathematical odds of life just happening to where we are today is utterly unexplainable (to me).

I know I have not adequately answered your question. I'm not sure anyone can at this point. And unfortunately, Darwinism cannot either if examined objectively.
 
Besides, ID is about God (religion) when you boil it all away, even if you believe in the alien theory above (see Mission to Mars), who "Intelligently Designed" the aliens? When you get to the end of it, it relies on an Omnipotent beginning, i.e. God.

That is an exaguration that distorts what ID says. ID doesn't say there is a God and doesn't depend on a God; it simply doesn't reject the baseless assumption that there isn't a God (which darwinism subscribes to). It only goes as far as Darwinism does in attempting to explaining life on Earth.

Your question of who "Itelligently Designed" the aliens [who supposedly seeded the earth with life, according to one theory] is flawed; a bit of a red herring because it goes beyond the scope of ID, or Darwinism for that matter.

You seem to be looking at this as a attempt by "fundamentalist" Christians to "inject" God into the debate, which is in fact, 180 degrees out of wack. It is Athiests in the darwinist community who are trying to keep the possibility that God might exist out of the debate, which proving Darwinism wrong would allow.

A perfect example is to look at which side is trying to have a reasonable debate and which side is trying to avoid it. Darwinists are doing everything they can to keep ID from even being considered, and won't debate it objectively; instead using underhanded and illogical tactics to distort the debate, and illogical arguments to support their position. One side wants to make an attempt to state and prove its argument, and the other side is working to prevent that from happening.

Where are Christian's trying to "force God" into the debate?

If ID is true, Darwinian evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to suppress ID. When atheists can't supress they obfuscate, distort, demonize and personally attack the IDer's.

Both Darwinian evolution and ID only theorize on how life developed on earth. The difference is that Darwinism makes, as one of the assumptions inherent in it's metaphysical worldview [which dictates how evidence is interpreted], that God and the supernatural doesn't exist, in as far as creation of species here on earth is concerned. ID doesn't make that assumption, as there is no way to prove it.

The debate between ID and Darwinism does boil down to God, at the moment, but this is due to the Athiests in the Darwinist community, not the IDer's. The athiests have made it about the rejection of God vs. the possibility that he might exist.
 
"You are still ignoring a huge inconvenient truth for your argument in the fact that the darwinian evolution process can not be tested or verified, in any way, shape or form. That simple omission shows that you are incapable of being honest here."

there is lots of testing going on to find self assembling chains for life. an example.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice

where would discover institutes scientists begin in proving external manipulation? you're under the fallacy that things can't be proven. if simple life can be shown to form on it's own, then outside manipulation works it's way into mythology as the god ideal that started it.

and i don't keep raising the bar. i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.
 
"You are still ignoring a huge inconvenient truth for your argument in the fact that the darwinian evolution process can not be tested or verified, in any way, shape or form. That simple omission shows that you are incapable of being honest here."

there is lots of testing going on to find self assembling chains for life. an example.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice

where would discover institutes scientists begin in proving external manipulation? you're under the fallacy that things can't be proven. if simple life can be shown to form on it's own, then outside manipulation works it's way into mythology as the god ideal that started it.

and i don't keep raising the bar. i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.

Sorry, your article is based on experiments that weren't even accurately synthesized.

Rebuttal

Face it, evolution still hasn't been proven. Keep trying, though, because it's fun refuting the wild claims of the evos.
 
i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.

Since fossten rebutted your 1st point, I will touch on the second part...

ID doesn't claim a mechanism for the creation of species (and doesn't need to), it simply states that darwinian evolution is not a valid mechanism, and that the verifiable evidence currently available more accurately implies some intelligence behind the creation of new species rather then random mutation (or "decent with modification"). Darwinism has two mechanisms for change in it; adaptation and evolution. Adaptation does have extensive evidence to back it up and the process can be tested (and it lines up with both ID and evolution). Evolution cannot be tested. The typical "evidence" of evolution is an "example" of the "result" of evolution (based only on an assertion). Weather or not darwinian evolution resulted in the new species cannot be proven, either way. Simply put; The process of darwinian evolution cannot be tested.

Even if your 1st point [the Miller experiment] were accurate [instead of a rigged experiment with false and exagurated claims implied in its findings], it in no way even attempts to test or prove the process of darwinian evolution. It is more geared toward proving how life occurred naturally without some intelligence influencing the creation of life.

To prove the process of darwinian evolution, you need to be able to test and verifiy the process that creates a new species from a pre-existing one. If all species started out independently (as the experiment you cite seems to imply), then darwinian evolution is disproven.
 
excuse me shag, but what is evolution but life occuring naturally? the middle of your reply makes no sense. if life can't start on it's own, evolution doesn't happen. you seem to be confused in what you are arguing against. here's a little article i thought interesting

"The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
Overview
By Barbara Forrest

The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement’s leading figures, asserts that “the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory,” its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.

Launched by Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.”

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.” Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in “mere” creation, aiming — in Dembski’s words — “at defeating naturalism and its consequences.” This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

As Christians,” writes Dembski, “we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science.” Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.’s in religious studies and biology specifically “to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” Behe sees the relevant question as whether “science can make room for religion.” At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its “Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars” — in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a “sense of the Senate” that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.

© The American Museum of Natural History, 2002. Reprinted with permission from Natural History magazine and by permission of the authors."




i see you read all 4 pages fossten. and your expertise to know if they were properly synthesized would be? you stopped at millers experiments, so i know you didn't follow through to be able to make an informed comment. but that is what i expected.

and shag, if you claim no mechanism, then you don't have a theory, or you have evolution. to claim an intelligent design, you must know what the intelligence is, or at least have some thought of what it is to pursue it. this is what i mean by it not being science. it sounds good and full of promise, but when truly looked into, it is nothing. that is why there are no published articles on their work. just a propaganda campaign that hides "god" creation behind careful wording.
 
and finally, a quote from this page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.
 
You shot yourself in the foot with your own article. You don't even understand that you are constantly making the argument that because evolution within species, or adaptation, exists, therefore neoDarwinian evolution, or one species evolving into another species, must also be true. It's such a non sequitur and you do it all the time. Your own article blows your entire argument out of the water.

And your article about transitional fossils is baloney. You really need to stop using talkorigins as a good source for evolutionary information. It's easily discreditable, and most of the "claims" made by writers (few and far between that they are in that website) have been thoroughly answered and debunked.

Rebuttal

Please read it carefully, as it answers your article point by point. I seriously doubt you have enough of an open mind to even click on it.

What do the Experts Say?

In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:


"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
 
excuse me shag, but what is evolution but life occuring naturally?

This is nothing more then an attempt to obfuscate through equivocation; redefine what the word evolution means. The definition of evolution in question is very specific; darwinian evolution. I have accurately defined it numerous times and in numerous threads, and you know it. Your "definition" is vauge and simply and underhanded rehetorical tactic that is used by darwinists all the time. Attack or defend the definition being used, don't attempt to reframe the debate by redefining the term in the middle of the debate.


the middle of your reply makes no sense.
What part is that?

if life can't start on it's own, evolution doesn't happen.

Wrong. Darwinism (which is what is being debated) doesn't say anything about how life started on this planet, as part of it's theory. There is some speculation by Darwin, but that is all it is, and not part of the theory. If life starts on its own, or is put here by God (or Aliens) that doesn't say anything about darwinian evolution. Darwinism is only concerned with how the diversity of life came about from one little spark of life.

This is part of the reason why darwinism isn't a threat to the belief in God, BTW.

you seem to be confused in what you are arguing against.

No, you are trying to confuse the issue. I know you know better then what you are saying. You are attempting to distort the issue through:

  • Equivocation: (redefining evolution to something more acceptable, and

  • red herring argument: ( focusing on how life started, which is irrelevant to the process of darwinian evolution


here's a little article i thought interesting

"The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
Overview
By Barbara Forrest

WOW. You can find an op-ed peice that supports your view.
Impressive.
Never mind the fact that the article is nothing more then a hit peice on ID that has to distort and propagate at least one lie to make it's argument.

The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory.

I have lived in Kansas all my life. I grew up in it's school system. Not suprisingly, in 1999 I bought into evolution (I was 19 at the time). Also, not suprisingly, I followed this issue very closely. The claim that the KS BoE deleted references to evolution from science standards is a flat out lie.

The Kansas School Board did a number of things:

  • The Board ruled that teaching evolution wasn't mandatory, put also was permissible

  • Actually increased the space in the science standards devoted to evolution, but included only "microevolution"

The fallout from this was very interesting. Kansas Darwinists conducted a campaign to distort the the ruling and misinform the media. They claimed that the board eliminated evolution entirely (which is probably where this articles author got that claim from) and told the MSM (who largely repeated it without checking the facts) that Kansas prohibited the teaching of evolution and/or mandated the teaching of biblical creationism. All of these claims by Kansas darwinists are lies.

...its [ID's] proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.

Because the scientific community won't give them a forum. If someone won't listen to your ideas or agrument, then you go around them. It is not because of any intellectual dishonesty on the part of IDer's, but instead on the part of the athiests who have a stranglehold on the scientific community that keeps ID from being considered by the scientific community. The film documents this very well, and it has been documented on this forum too.




Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.”

This is all true. Athiests have a stranglehold on the scientific community, which is why there is a huge effort to supress ID and avoid debating it.


Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims.

Another 180 degree distortion. It is hard to get scientists on board with an empirical research program when they know that the scientific community will blackball you and you will lose your livelyhood.

Again, the dishonest and disingenuous aspect come from the athiest side.

In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”

That quote is blatantly taken out of context. What was the bigger point Johnson was making? What ideas or claims was it attached to?

The athiests in and through the scientific community are distorting this issue. The won't allow it to be about science. Instead they make it about religion and philosophy, usually in regards to the IDer's.

It is obvious that this article is distorting the truth here. It is cherry picking "evidence" for it's argument and then attributing the causes most convenient for it's argument (either through impilcation, or direct claims). The is no intellectual integrety in that article. It's sole purpose is to mischaracterize the debate, and the IDer's position. It is looking at cherry picked effects and (though implication) ascribing it's own cause. In many of these examples, circular reasoning is used to imply the authors point.

...and shag, if you claim no mechanism, then you don't have a theory, or you have evolution.

More equivocation. You don't get to redefine what makes a scientific theory. There is no basis for your claim that a mechanism is needed for a theory.

Again, here is what a scientific theory is:

  • The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
    darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria

  • It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
    The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID.​

  • It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
    Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​


to claim an intelligent design, you must know what the intelligence is, or at least have some thought of what it is to pursue it.

Further attempt at equivocation. You don't get to redefine what things do or do not mean; especially in the middle of a debate. You don't need to know what the intelligence is or isn't for ID.

This claim and the last one is simply you attempting to impose more standards on the definition of ID and what a scientific theory is. More "moving of the goalpost" logical fallacies.

that is why there are no published articles on their work.

You know better then that. The scientific community intentionally supresses ID (through internal politics, blackballing scientists, etc..). That is why there are no per-reviewed articles.

So, in this post alone we have:
  • equivocation (at least three times)
    red herring argument
    circular reasoning
    cherry picking
    quoting out of context
I might have missed a few...

Are you even capable of having an honest debate?
 
and for transitional fossils, they exist.

Did anyone ever say transitional fossils don't exist in this thread? I know I didn't.

Transitional fossils don't prove anything about darwinian evolution. All it says is here is point "A" here is point "B" and here is point "C" . "A" would be an early fossil, "B" would be a transitional fossil and "C" would be the modern creature.

If those fossils are of the same species then darwinian evolution isn't even being discussed; adaptation is.

If those fossils are from different species, the evolution can be suggested as a cause, but it doesn't prove anything. You would first need to prove (not just assert) that there is a connection between the fossils. Then you would need prove (not just assert) that darwinian evolution is the process by which the changes that differenciate the fossils occurred. the simple existance of fossils doesn't prove that.



peruse through the whole article.

That is your job. To expect the reader to follow that link and read it is rude and imposing.

It is your job to convince me, not my job to be convinced.

make your argument and use the article to strengthen it. Otherwise, you are wasting my time.
 
You haven't broken this post up, so I am assuming it is one continuous piece, and not a few different ideas pasted together by you.

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

That is a lot of unneccessary writing to define evolution. The end result [The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved] is still very vauge. Darwinian evolution is very specific in what it claims. Let me clarify here...

Darwinian evolution is a three step process:

  • Random mutation of desirable attributes
  • Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures
  • Leading to the creation of a new species

Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get new species, not a taller version of the same one. Evolution is not proved by genetic similarities among living things, the heritability of characteristics, or the age of the Earth.

What the article is doing is a very quick version of an underhanded tactic that Darwinists do to distort critics and their claims.

Eugenie Scott recommends: "define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level". Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to "the Big Idea", that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use." This underhanded tactic is known as "equivocation"; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Interesting that this portion asserts the lack of falsifiable predictions in creationism, but ignores the fact that darwinian evolution in and of itself is not verifiable and therefore not falsibiable. It is also somewhat vauge on what constitutes a scientific theory. It doesn't specifically spell out the criteria that qualify a scientific theory as such. By the definiton given [a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena], biblical creationism is a valid scientific theory.:eek:

The author then adds his own qualifications to the definiton given of what a scientific theory is, under the premise that it is "implied" in the definition. The last one (usefulness) is not implied (as he redefines it) in the original definition given [a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena]. The original definition given only implies usefulness in regards to an explanation for a class of phenomena, not in a predictive manner. The author is using equivocation of the given definition to discredit creationism.



Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris.

Here he is setting up a straw man argument to knock down. The argument he is making is a mischaracterization of the argument against darwinian evolution by ID. ID argues that there is a lack of ability to prove darwinian evolution, which is true. You cannot test the process of darwinian evolution, and therefore cannot prove it. Lack of proof is merely an indication of the lack of testability of the evolutionary process.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it.

This point is based on the overly broad [and innaccurate] definition given to evolution in the begining of this point through equivocation. Only under that broad and vauge definition of evolution can you say there is evidence to support evolution. Darwinian evolution is very specific and has no evidence to prove the process. The best that can be done is tangental findings that are spun to be examples of darwinian evolution simply because the fit under into the theory. Basically, because we have finding that aren't inconsistant with darwinian evolution, they prove darwinian evolution. That is a huge stretch, and a non sequitur.


So in this post we have:
  • equivocation
  • Straw man argument
  • mischaracterization

did I miss anything?

All the points made in this post are invalid because they are based on at least one logical fallacy.
 
Shag, due to your superhumanly fastidious thoroughness, I have but two short comments.

1. hrmwrm has not yet seen the movie.

2. I do not believe hrmwrm is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two different definitions of evolution. I really believe he does not understand that one definition does not prove the other to be true. In other words, like most people, he has been faked out.
 
2. I do not believe hrmwrm is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two different definitions of evolution. I really believe he does not understand that one definition does not prove the other to be true.
That may be true, especially since even I'm having a hard time just with the word "obfuscate". :confused: :p
 
That is an exaguration that distorts what ID says. ID doesn't say there is a God and doesn't depend on a God; it simply doesn't reject the baseless assumption that there isn't a God (which darwinism subscribes to). It only goes as far as Darwinism does in attempting to explaining life on Earth.

Your question of who "Itelligently Designed" the aliens [who supposedly seeded the earth with life, according to one theory] is flawed; a bit of a red herring because it goes beyond the scope of ID, or Darwinism for that matter.

You seem to be looking at this as a attempt by "fundamentalist" Christians to "inject" God into the debate, which is in fact, 180 degrees out of wack. It is Athiests in the darwinist community who are trying to keep the possibility that God might exist out of the debate, which proving Darwinism wrong would allow.

A perfect example is to look at which side is trying to have a reasonable debate and which side is trying to avoid it. Darwinists are doing everything they can to keep ID from even being considered, and won't debate it objectively; instead using underhanded and illogical tactics to distort the debate, and illogical arguments to support their position. One side wants to make an attempt to state and prove its argument, and the other side is working to prevent that from happening.

Where are Christian's trying to "force God" into the debate?

If ID is true, Darwinian evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to suppress ID. When atheists can't supress they obfuscate, distort, demonize and personally attack the IDer's.

Both Darwinian evolution and ID only theorize on how life developed on earth. The difference is that Darwinism makes, as one of the assumptions inherent in it's metaphysical worldview [which dictates how evidence is interpreted], that God and the supernatural doesn't exist, in as far as creation of species here on earth is concerned. ID doesn't make that assumption, as there is no way to prove it.

The debate between ID and Darwinism does boil down to God, at the moment, but this is due to the Athiests in the Darwinist community, not the IDer's. The athiests have made it about the rejection of God vs. the possibility that he might exist.

No, I am not. "Intelligent Design", is by it's very name, "An Intelligent Designer". It ultimately relies on an omnipotent creater at the end.

E.G. Aliens created humans/life on Earth, other Aliens created those aliens, yet another group of aliens created those aliens etc. etc. etc. when you finally get to the beginning of it all, you must have an "intelligence" and this intelligence must be omnipotent as nothing could have "designed" it, since we're at the beginning of it all. I.E. God. Otherwise, ID is flawed by it's very name if "randomness" is a possibility. No?

Not all Evolution supporters are Athiest (I only know 2, yes it's anecdotal), despite how many times you try to press this. Find me a sizeable amount of ID'ers that don't believe in God?

Also, if you're going to continually accuse "Darwinist" of having some malicious agenda, you should really respond to what TommyB brought up about Jonathon Wells and his destroying Darwin agenda.

Edit: WTF is up with you people using "obfuscate", just use something more common like "unclear" or "confuse". You're not impressing anyone with your thesaurus skills.
 
Not all Evolution supporters are Athiest (I only know 2, yes it's anecdotal), despite how many times you try to press this.
Maybe not, but all atheists are evolutionists. There might be a wacky few that believe in aliens, but that would be a statistical equivalent to zero.
 
"Intelligent Design", is by it's very name, "An Intelligent Designer". It ultimately relies on an omnipotent creater at the end.

Talk about a non sequitur! Unless you are very ignorant on what the theory of ID is (and isn't), the conclusion here obviously doesn't follow the premise.

ID (and for that matter, darwinism) is only concerned with how the diversity of life developed here on Earth. It says nothing about the rest of the universe. The basic theories of ID and darwinism don't even say anything about how life started on this planet, only how it developed into the diversity of species we have on the planet now.

What you are claiming is well beyond the scope of either ID or darwinism. If we were talking about the theory of the Big Bang and some ID-like challenge to that theory, that might be a different thing, but we are not. While darwinism and ID are both rather broad is scope, they are still limited to this planet. You can't ignore that fact.

E.G. Aliens created humans/life on Earth, other Aliens created those aliens, yet another group of aliens created those aliens etc. etc. etc. when you finally get to the beginning of it all, you must have an "intelligence" and this intelligence must be omnipotent as nothing could have "designed" it, since we're at the beginning of it all. I.E. God.

ID and darwinism are both theories based only on the evidence we have here on this planet; they can't (and don't) say a thing about the rest of the universe. Again, that is beyond the scope of either view.

All ID is saying is that the verifiable evidence we have supports the idea of some intellegence guiding the development of species on this plant more so then it does random mutation; darwinian evolution.

Now, with those points in mind, lets run with this hypothetical sci-fi idea you laid out...

Darwinian style evolution could have very well dictated how a diversity of life developed on other planets, no one knows. However, on this planet, all verifiable evidence suggests that an intellegence designed how life developed on this planet, or it least that is what ID is asserting, and that is all it is asserting. It this hypothetical, no God is needed for the theory of ID to work.

Not all Evolution supporters are Athiest (I only know 2, yes it's anecdotal), despite how many times you try to press this. Find me a sizeable amount of ID'ers that don't believe in God?

Where are you guys getting this?! I know I never said all darwinists are athiests, and I don't recall anyone else saying as much in this thread. In fact I have said the opposite.

Whether darwinists are athiests or IDer's are believers in God is irrelevant in and of itself because a bias alone doesn't negate judgement, objectivity or intellecual integrety. How (or if) they let their bias effect their intellectual integrety is relevant. Basically if judgement, objectivity or intellectual integrety is compromised by their bias, it will be evident in their actions (the way they debate, intellectual honesty, rhetorical tactics, reasoning, application of logic, critical thinkin, etc...)

You need to understand, with any debate, the most agressive and vocal side "set the table" for the debate. In this debate, that is the athiests in the darwinist communities. The problem is, the athiests are going out of their way to make sure that there is no place set at the table for IDer's.

Athiest use underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, obfuscation (sorry, confusion), and many logical fallacies in their arguments against ID when they actually debate it. Many times they refuse to acknowledge ID at all, instead "boycotting" hearings, blackballing scientists and professors who are even remotely open to ID, protests, etc...

The actions of the darwinist community, which is dominated by the athiests in it (remember, most vocal and agressive), shows that the bias of the athiests tends to compromises the intellectual integrety of the darwinist community as a whole.


Also, if you're going to continually accuse "Darwinist" of having some malicious agenda, you should really respond to what TommyB brought up about Jonathon Wells and his destroying Darwin agenda.

TommyB wrote:
...Jonathan Wells...has openly declared that, prior to going to Yale to study evolution "my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Scientific objectivity be damned.

This is typical Tommy; because someone has a bias, they have no intellectual integrety, objectivity, in short, no credibility. As I pointed out in my reply to the last point, bias by itself says nothing about any of that. It is what is done with that bias. Wells is a prime example of having a bias and intellectual integrety at the same time.

When you have a bias (as all of us who frequently post on this part of the forum do) you can do one of two things.

You can let that bias cloud your judgement and ruin any chance of objectivity or intellecual integrety. You only look at the info that supports your view and ignore or illogically dismiss out of hand any other arguement. Basically, you reject intellectual integrety in favor of your bias. The arguments by people like this are usually dominated by intentional use of logical fallacies, underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, personal attacks, etc. Usually they are practically incapable of any honest debate. Michael Moore is a prime example of this.

The second option is to study the opposing argument and make yourself an expert on it. This way, you know the position of your opponent at least as well, if not better then they do. With any honest debate (everything else being equal) the more knowledgable person will usually win. Basically, your bias doesn't cloud your judgement, because you value your intellectual integrety, which is why you study the opposing view so closely and make an effort to balance your knowledge; so you don't need to fall to the temptation of making a dishonest argument that judgement clouded by bias would dictate. With this option, you will already have considered most, if not all the arguments and evidence for the other side and honestly rejected it (if it can honestly be rejected) or honestly accounted for it. While your bias causes you to study the other side, your intellectual integrety and balanced knowledge will force you to dismiss any bias that is based in ignorance, and alter your views accordingly. This is assuming that your own bias isn't formed from uninformed ignorance to begin with.

These two options are really a discription of the opposite ends of the spectum. Most people are somewhere in between the two options. Even someone who is tremendously objective will occasionally let their bias cloud their judgement, and the most intellectually dishonest, and biased person in the world will still have moment where their judgement isn't clouded by their bias and unobjective.

Anyway, back to Dr. Wells...
Wells chose the second option. What Tommy forgot to mention was that, when Wells decided to attack darwinism, he was already a college graduate. His views on darwinism going into that decision were hardly uninformed or ignorant. Wells finished his doctorate in Religious Sudies at Yale in 1986, then went to UC Berkeley where in 1994 he was recieved a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology. Wells worked to make himself an expert on Biology and darwinism.

I can't say conclusively weather Wells allows his bias to cloud his judgement for the most part or not. I have read some of his stuff and I don't see any indication of that, but you would have to judge for yourself. What you can't do is reject him out of hand simply because of his bias; that would be ad homenum reasoning. You should judge his credibility by the actions he takes, namely in regards to the arguments he makes. Is it an honest argument (regardless of weather you agree with it or not), or is it dishonest in any fashion?



WTF is up with you people using "obfuscate", just use something more common like "unclear" or "confuse". You're not impressing anyone with your thesaurus skills.

..what's a "thesaurus"? Some type of dinosaur? :p
 
even the president can prove id

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/080805.asp

id has done it's best to distance itself from "god", but look carefully at the man behind it. phillip johnson, reborn again CHRISTIAN at 38. wanted to put a creator back in creation. from his biography.

"Johnson, by his own account, recognized that “if Darwinism is true, Christian metaphysics is fantasy.” "

"Johnson calls his recipe for victory “the wedge strategy.” Part of the strategy is a result of avoiding the sorts of “traps” Clarence Darrow and other defense attorneys set out in the Scopes trial. He tells his supporters to focus on whether a Creator has to do the creating and avoid being drawn into other issues—as Bryan did in 1925--such as Noah’s flood or what transpired in the Garden of Eden. In fact, Johnson urges his army to keep “the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy.” Rather, he advises, “phrase the argument in such a way as you can get in heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters.”

"Johnson and Provine share a conviction that Darwinism removes the need for a creator God. Other prominent supporters of evolution admit as much. Even Stephen Jay Gould, who professes that religion and science constitute “non-overlapping magisteria,” concedes that, after Darwin, it is clear that “no intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature.”

religion to a T.


and, since you blow off my links and don't like to read.

Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record
(We start off with primitive jawless fish.)

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.

Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.

Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified.

Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!).

Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.

Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.

Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.

Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!

Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.

In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.

Transitions among amphibians
Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:

Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
Finally, here's a recently found fossil:

Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma. "

fish with lungs. amazing. i know, there are no intermediate fossils, right? why would a fish develop lungs? evidence is there if you look. but stay blinded. that's fine.
 
and i continue

Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)

Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs.

The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.

Some transitions among reptiles
I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988)

Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:

Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)

Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian.

Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.
Some species-to-species transitions:

De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria.
Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:
Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)

Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals
This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al., 1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny remains, which is largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the fossil record." Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail." For more details, see Kermack's superb and readable little book (1984), Kemp's more detailed but older book (1982), and read Szalay et al.'s recent collection of review articles (1993, vol. 1).

This list starts with pelycosaurs (early synapsid reptiles) and continues with therapsids and cynodonts up to the first unarguable "mammal". Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion. Here are some differences to keep an eye on:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Early Reptiles Mammals


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 No fenestrae in skull Massive fenestra exposes all of braincase

2 Braincase attached loosely Braincase attached firmly to skull

3 No secondary palate Complete bony secondary palate

4 Undifferentiated dentition Incisors, canines, premolars, molars

5 Cheek teeth uncrowned points Cheek teeth (PM & M) crowned & cusped

6 Teeth replaced continuously Teeth replaced once at most

7 Teeth with single root Molars double-rooted

8 Jaw joint quadrate-articular Jaw joint dentary-squamosal (*)

9 Lower jaw of several bones Lower jaw of dentary bone only

10 Single ear bone (stapes) Three ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus)

11 Joined external nares Separate external nares

12 Single occipital condyle Double occipital condyle

13 Long cervical ribs Cervical ribs tiny, fused to vertebrae

14 Lumbar region with ribs Lumbar region rib-free

15 No diaphragm Diaphragm

16 Limbs sprawled out from body Limbs under body

17 Scapula simple Scapula with big spine for muscles

18 Pelvic bones unfused Pelvis fused

19 Two sacral (hip) vertebrae Three or more sacral vertebrae

20 Toe bone #'s 2-3-4-5-4 Toe bones 2-3-3-3-3

21 Body temperature variable Body temperature constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(*) The presence of a dentary-squamosal jaw joint has been arbitrarily selected as the defining trait of a mammal.

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.
Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)
Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".
Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.
Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma) -- More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor, but as it is known from very complete fossils, it's a good model for sphenacodont anatomy. Medium-sized fenestra. Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum, but there was no eardrum yet, so these reptiles could only hear ground-borne vibrations (they did have a reptilian middle ear). Vertebrae had still longer neural spines (spectacularly so in Dimetrodon, which had a sail), and longer transverse spines for stronger locomotion muscles.
Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.
Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.
Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals. Recent discoveries seem to show trithelodontids to be more mammal- like, with tritylodontids possibly being an offshoot group (see Hopson 1991, Rowe 1988, Wible 1991, and Shubin et al. 1991). Bear in mind that both these groups were almost fully mammalian in every feature, lacking only the final changes in the jaw joint and middle ear.

Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. More flexible neck, with mammalian atlas & axis and double occipital condyle. Tail vertebrae simpler, like mammals. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones and hind limb muscles; this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. Probably cousin fossils (?), with Oligokyphus being more primitive than Kayentatherium. Thought to have diverged from the trithelodontids during that gap in the late Triassic. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma) -- These are trithelodontids, a slightly different advanced cynodont group. New discoveries (Shubin et al., 1991) show that these animals are very close to the ancestry of mammals. Inflation of nasal cavity, establishment of Eustachian tubes between ear and pharynx, loss of postorbital bar. Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel, and mammalian tooth occlusion. Double jaw joint, with the second joint now a dentary-squamosal (instead of surangular), fully mammalian. Incipient dentary condyle. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing; postdentary bones further reduced to tiny rod of bones in jaw near middle ear; probably could hear high frequencies now. More mammalian neck vertebrae for a flexible neck. Hip more mammalian, with a very mammalian iliac blade & femur. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. Probably had coupled locomotion & breathing. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral (the true ancestor is thought to have occurred during that late Triassic gap). Pachygenelus is pretty close, though.
Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known "mammal." Only the skull was found. "Some cranial features of Adelobasileus, such as the incipient promontorium housing the cochlea, represent an intermediate stage of the character transformation from non-mammalian cynodonts to Liassic mammals" (Lucas & Luo, 1993). This fossil was found from a band of strata in the western U.S. that had not previously been studied for early mammals. Also note that this fossil dates from slightly before the known tritylodonts and trithelodonts, though it has long been suspected that tritilodonts and trithelodonts were already around by then. Adelobasileus is thought to have split off from either a trityl. or a trithel., and is either identical to or closely related to the common ancestor of all mammals.
Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Eyesocket fully mammalian now (closed medial wall). Hindbrain expanded. Permanent cheekteeth, like mammals, but the other teeth were still replaced several times. Mammalian jaw joint stronger, with large dentary condyle fitting into a distinct fossa on the squamosal. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma) -- A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called "morganucodonts". The restructuring of the secondary palate and the floor of the braincase had continued, and was now very mammalian. Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Triangular- cusped molars. Reversal of the previous trend toward reduced incisors, with lower incisors increasing to four. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Once thought to be ancestral to monotremes only, but now thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma) -- A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials. Triconodont molar has with more defined cusps. This fossil is known only from teeth, but judging from closely related eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) it had finally lost the reptilian jaw joint, attaing a fully mammalian three-boned middle ear with excellent high-frequency hearing. Has only 8 cheek teeth, less than other eupantotheres and close to the 7 of the first placental mammals. Also has a large talonid on its "tribosphenic" molars, almost as large as that of the first placentals -- the first development of grinding capability.
Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) -- An advanced eupantothere. Fully tribosphenic molars with a well- developed talonid. Known only from one specimen. From Asia; recent fossil finds in Asia suggest that the tribosphenic molar evolved there.
Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous) -- More advanced eupantotheres known only from teeth. Kielantherium is from Asia and is known from slightly older strata than the European Aegialodon. Both have the talonid on the lower molars. The wear on it indicates that a major new cusp, the protocone, had evolved on the upper molars. By the Middle Cretaceous, animals with the new tribosphenic molar had spread into North America too (North America was still connected to Europe.)
Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous) -- The first known definite monotreme, discovered in 1985.
Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls. Placental-type braincase and coiled cochlea. Its intracranial arteries & veins ran in a composite monotreme/placental pattern derived from homologous extracranial vessels in the cynodonts. (Rougier et al., 1992)
Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. "Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals." says Carroll (1988).
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous) -- Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.
So, by the late Cretaceous the three groups of modern mammals were in place: monotremes, marsupials, and placentals. Placentals appear to have arisen in East Asia and spread to the Americas by the end of the Cretaceous. In the latest Cretaceous, placentals and marsupials had started to diversify a bit, and after the dinosaurs died out, in the Paleocene, this diversification accelerated. For instance, in the mid- Paleocene the placental fossils include a very primitive primate-like animal (Purgatorius - known only from a tooth, though, and may actually be an early ungulate), a herbivore-like jaw with molars that have flatter tops for better grinding (Protungulatum, probably an early ungulate), and an insectivore (Paranyctoides).

The decision as to which was the first mammal is somewhat subjective. We are placing an inflexible classification system on a gradational series. What happened was that an intermediate group evolved from the 'true' reptiles, which gradually acquired mammalian characters until a point was reached where we have artificially drawn a line between reptiles and mammals. For instance, Pachygenulus and Kayentatherium are both far more mammal-like than reptile-like, but they are both called "reptiles".

Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds
In the mid-1800's, this was one of the most significant gaps in vertebrate fossil evolution. No transitional fossils at all were known, and the two groups seemed impossibly different. Then the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups were in fact related. Since then, some other reptile-bird links have been found. On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils. I have not included Mononychus (as it appears to be a digger, not a flier, well off the line to modern birds). See Feduccia (1980) and Rayner (1989) for more discussion of the evolution of flight, and Chris Nedin's excellent Archeopteryx FAQ for more info on that critter.

Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.
GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
"Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.
[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]
 
Talk about a non sequitur! Unless you are very ignorant on what the theory of ID is (and isn't), the conclusion here obviously doesn't follow the premise.

ID (and for that matter, darwinism) is only concerned with how the diversity of life developed here on Earth. It says nothing about the rest of the universe. The basic theories of ID and darwinism don't even say anything about how life started on this planet, only how it developed into the diversity of species we have on the planet now.

What you are claiming is well beyond the scope of either ID or darwinism. If we were talking about the theory of the Big Bang and some ID-like challenge to that theory, that might be a different thing, but we are not. While darwinism and ID are both rather broad is scope, they are still limited to this planet. You can't ignore that fact.



ID and darwinism are both theories based only on the evidence we have here on this planet; they can't (and don't) say a thing about the rest of the universe. Again, that is beyond the scope of either view.

All ID is saying is that the verifiable evidence we have supports the idea of some intellegence guiding the development of species on this plant more so then it does random mutation; darwinian evolution.

Now, with those points in mind, lets run with this hypothetical sci-fi idea you laid out...

Darwinian style evolution could have very well dictated how a diversity of life developed on other planets, no one knows. However, on this planet, all verifiable evidence suggests that an intellegence designed how life developed on this planet, or it least that is what ID is asserting, and that is all it is asserting. It this hypothetical, no God is needed for the theory of ID to work.



Where are you guys getting this?! I know I never said all darwinists are athiests, and I don't recall anyone else saying as much in this thread. In fact I have said the opposite.

Whether darwinists are athiests or IDer's are believers in God is irrelevant in and of itself because a bias alone doesn't negate judgement, objectivity or intellecual integrety. How (or if) they let their bias effect their intellectual integrety is relevant. Basically if judgement, objectivity or intellectual integrety is compromised by their bias, it will be evident in their actions (the way they debate, intellectual honesty, rhetorical tactics, reasoning, application of logic, critical thinkin, etc...)

You need to understand, with any debate, the most agressive and vocal side "set the table" for the debate. In this debate, that is the athiests in the darwinist communities. The problem is, the athiests are going out of their way to make sure that there is no place set at the table for IDer's.

Athiest use underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, obfuscation (sorry, confusion), and many logical fallacies in their arguments against ID when they actually debate it. Many times they refuse to acknowledge ID at all, instead "boycotting" hearings, blackballing scientists and professors who are even remotely open to ID, protests, etc...

The actions of the darwinist community, which is dominated by the athiests in it (remember, most vocal and agressive), shows that the bias of the athiests tends to compromises the intellectual integrety of the darwinist community as a whole.




TommyB wrote:
...Jonathan Wells...has openly declared that, prior to going to Yale to study evolution "my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Scientific objectivity be damned.

This is typical Tommy; because someone has a bias, they have no intellectual integrety, objectivity, in short, no credibility. As I pointed out in my reply to the last point, bias by itself says nothing about any of that. It is what is done with that bias. Wells is a prime example of having a bias and intellectual integrety at the same time.

When you have a bias (as all of us who frequently post on this part of the forum do) you can do one of two things.

You can let that bias cloud your judgement and ruin any chance of objectivity or intellecual integrety. You only look at the info that supports your view and ignore or illogically dismiss out of hand any other arguement. Basically, you reject intellectual integrety in favor of your bias. The arguments by people like this are usually dominated by intentional use of logical fallacies, underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, personal attacks, etc. Usually they are practically incapable of any honest debate. Michael Moore is a prime example of this.

The second option is to study the opposing argument and make yourself an expert on it. This way, you know the position of your opponent at least as well, if not better then they do. With any honest debate (everything else being equal) the more knowledgable person will usually win. Basically, your bias doesn't cloud your judgement, because you value your intellectual integrety, which is why you study the opposing view so closely and make an effort to balance your knowledge; so you don't need to fall to the temptation of making a dishonest argument that judgement clouded by bias would dictate. With this option, you will already have considered most, if not all the arguments and evidence for the other side and honestly rejected it (if it can honestly be rejected) or honestly accounted for it. While your bias causes you to study the other side, your intellectual integrety and balanced knowledge will force you to dismiss any bias that is based in ignorance, and alter your views accordingly. This is assuming that your own bias isn't formed from uninformed ignorance to begin with.

These two options are really a discription of the opposite ends of the spectum. Most people are somewhere in between the two options. Even someone who is tremendously objective will occasionally let their bias cloud their judgement, and the most intellectually dishonest, and biased person in the world will still have moment where their judgement isn't clouded by their bias and unobjective.

Anyway, back to Dr. Wells...
Wells chose the second option. What Tommy forgot to mention was that, when Wells decided to attack darwinism, he was already a college graduate. His views on darwinism going into that decision were hardly uninformed or ignorant. Wells finished his doctorate in Religious Sudies at Yale in 1986, then went to UC Berkeley where in 1994 he was recieved a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology. Wells worked to make himself an expert on Biology and darwinism.

I can't say conclusively weather Wells allows his bias to cloud his judgement for the most part or not. I have read some of his stuff and I don't see any indication of that, but you would have to judge for yourself. What you can't do is reject him out of hand simply because of his bias; that would be ad homenum reasoning. You should judge his credibility by the actions he takes, namely in regards to the arguments he makes. Is it an honest argument (regardless of weather you agree with it or not), or is it dishonest in any fashion?


..what's a "thesaurus"? Some type of dinosaur? :p

For someone that loves to accuse others of fallacies, you sure do Argumentem Ad Nauseam (or Proof by assertion, pick your flavour) at every chance, just saying.

I was following ID to it's probable conclusion. If ID is just about saying 'okay, an intelligence had a hand in life on Earth' and truly nothing else, then what have you? Great, an unidentifiable entity did something, but lets leave it at that and not take it further. Yeah, let's all rejoice.

You also love to accuse "Darwinsint" (and Athiest by default it seems) of having a selfish agenda, yet you absolutely refuse to point that accusing pendulum on ID proponents, not even a possibility of it, eh... could it be bias on your behalf? Na, not you.

Yes, a dinosaur that ancient humans once rode, never heard of it?
 
and, since you blow off my links and don't like to read.

hrmwrm, you're acting like a c/p troll. Nobody's going to read that horrific wall of text. The fact that you didn't even edit it tells me that you're just trying to be a d!ck.

Shag's already admonished you to summarize and make your own (succinct) arguments. You've demonstrated that you are intellectually lazy because you will only either link or copy/paste. You're wasting everybody else's time and you aren't convincing anybody.

And we know you haven't seen the movie. :rolleyes:
 
hrmwrm, you're acting like a c/p troll. Nobody's going to read that horrific wall of text. The fact that you didn't even edit it tells me that you're just trying to be a d!ck.

Shag's already admonished you to summarize and make your own (succinct) arguments. You've demonstrated that you are intellectually lazy because you will only either link or copy/paste. You're wasting everybody else's time and you aren't convincing anybody.

And we know you haven't seen the movie. :rolleyes:


I think you pretty well said it.
 
For someone that loves to accuse others of fallacies, you sure do Argumentem Ad Nauseam (or Proof by assertion, pick your flavour) at every chance, just saying.

The Ad Nauseam thing? I could see where you could think that, though I am just trying to be clear and thorough. If you wanna challenge one of my points, I try to break it down (maybe too much) and show you where your critique is wrong. Ad nauseam is somewhat subjective, really. Either way, I am not doing it as a means of proving my point; it simple happens in an attempt to make my point clear. For contrast, look at hrmwrm's two previous posts, which I think unquestionably qualify as an example of an intentional and dishonest attempt to prove a point through an ad nauseam argument.

The proof by assertion thing....not so much. Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. If someone critiques my claim, I address it and attempt to counter it; I don't just ignore it, which would be neccessary for my argument to be proof by assertion.

I was following ID to it's probable conclusion. If ID is just about saying 'okay, an intelligence had a hand in life on Earth' and truly nothing else, then what have you? Great, an unidentifiable entity did something, but lets leave it at that and not take it further. Yeah, let's all rejoice.

I understand your thinking; following it to is probable conclusion and all. But is wasn't a logical conclusion. ID is simply one piece of the puzzle in the bigger picture, just the way darwinism fits with the big bang. You can't get the entire picture from one piece of the puzzle.


You also love to accuse "Darwinsint" (and Athiest by default it seems) of having a selfish agenda, yet you absolutely refuse to point that accusing pendulum on ID proponents, not even a possibility of it, eh... could it be bias on your behalf? Na, not you.

Never claimed I didn't have a bias. I have one as do you, and most likely everyone else who has posted in this thread.

Your statement isn't exactly what I was saying, or what the film says for that matter (kinda a straw man argument, actually); let me correct it:

The Darwinist community (which is dominated by the Athiests in it) is conducting a dishonest smear campaign against ID (refusing to debate, personal attacks, blackballing professors and scientists, etc..) that is influenced by its bias.

It isn't a refusal to point an accusing finger at IDer's and their bias, it is simply judging how that bias effects their judgement based on their actions. Have you heard the phrase "actions speak louder then words"? That is basically my view. The actions you take in the debate (what argument is being made, honest or dishonest tactics, etc.) demonstrate how your bias does or doesn't effect your intellectual integrety.

If you take out (or ignore) the basis for judgment in how darwinists and IDer's argue and frame the debate [actions], then you are mischaracterizing my position.

I made my position on this clear in my previous response to you, I thought.
 
I kinda wonder if hrmwrm even understands 70% of what he posted in his last two posts. :rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top