I came across an interesting article titled “Fossil redefines mammal history.” The title struck me as funny because, over the years, I've read about many fossil finds that overturn previously held beliefs about evolution. I wrote a post about it nearly 4 years ago called, “Rethinking Evolution.” It's curious how scientists will find something that proves they were completely wrong about some cherished theory but no evidence, no matter how damning, will ever shake their faith in THE theory (the theory of evolution). In this case, scientists “know” placental and marsupial mammals are descended from a common ancestor; they simply haven't found the supposed common ancestor and neither do they know when it supposedly happened. They thought it was about 125 million years ago, but this find is dated (by their dating methods) to be 160 million years ago. I guess a 28% margin of error isn't enough to raise any doubts about the theory.
Let me say in advance that I didn't miss the part of the story that says the new find “sits more comfortably with what genetic studies have been suggesting....” I know that if I didn't mention that, some critic would accuse me of missing an important point. However, I was more struck by something else mentioned in the article. It was that it said the fossil showed the split occurred “much earlier” than thought. Hmmm. I've heard that phrase before. In fact, I hear it all the time. Just for fun, I did a Google search on the phrase “evolved 'earlier than thought'”. Here are a few of the 1.5 million hits I got:
Complex vision evolved earlier than thought
Fossil Shows Ants Evolved Much Earlier Than Thought
Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought
New Evidence Shows Mobile Animals Could Have Evolved Much Earlier Than Previously Thought
"Lucy" Kin Pushes Back Evolution of Upright Walking?
Family tree of birds and crocodiles split earlier than thought
An earlier appearance for the first land plants
I wonder if any of these scientists ever stop to consider the bias their theory casts on the evidence. What if instead of saying, “evolved earlier than thought” we said, “existed much earlier than thought”? In the first headline above, try reading it as, “Complex vision already existed earlier than thought.” Does that cast a different light on the subject? I think it does. Let me show you:
From the first article, we read, “Scientists from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide examined several 515 million-year-old fossils from Kangaroo Island and found they had highly evolved 'compound eyes' with more than 3000 lenses each.” As you read the rest of the article, it really doesn't say anything about how such complex eyes evolved; it just says they did. Neither does the article say anything about more primitive eyes found in direct ancestors. Assuming for a moment that I agreed with the “millions of years,” I would see this as evidence that even very ancient creatures already had very complex eyes. There's no “obvious progression from simple to complex” in the fossil record as evolutionists have suggested. Even the oldest creatures were already highly complex.
Every time I hear that something in the fossil record happened “earlier than expected” it further demolishes the idea that things ever evolved to be the way they are. When I hear, for example, that “birds and crocodiles split earlier than thought,” I'm not surprised because I believe that birds have always been birds and crocodiles have always been crocodiles. It's my hope that someday scientists will push the separate lineage of birds and crocodiles all the way to the beginning of creation and realize they were never related at all. Ants evolved earlier than thought? No, ants existed from the beginning! People used tools earlier than thought? Duh!, people used tools from the beginning! Land plants appeared earlier than thought? God made plants in the beginning!
Scientists are so blinded by their theory that they can't see the obvious conclusion that's staring them right in the face. These “dates” keep getting pushed back because these things have always existed together. Even humans lived much earlier than thought. Wouldn't it be a hoot if someday we read the headline, “New find shows humans lived with dinosaurs!”?
9 comments:
The "genetic studies" mentioned in the article put the divergence between marsupial and placental (or eutherian) mammals 148 and 179 million years ago. A 160 million year old eutherian mammal is consistent with a split in that range. That Eomaia scansoria is forty million years younger has nothing much to do with the dating of the split (except, again, that it must have occurred before Eomaia, which is, like Juramaia, a eutherian.
Note that the "earliest creatures" are bacteria (or other single-celled prokaryotes -- simple cells without nuclei) dating to some 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossils of eukaryotes (cells with nuclei) are barely over two billion years old; the oldest known multicellular life is less than a billion years old.
The oldest suspected bilaterian animal (a group including everything from insects to mammals) is some 700 million years old (the controversial Vernanimalcula -- it's not certain it was even an animal, much less whether it had eyes); the oldest known chordates only about 600 million years old, barely before the Cambrian.
Now, in their own way, bacteria are "highly complex," but they don't have eyes, or nervous systems, or limbs. All these things show up much, much later than the earliest life. That progression in the fossil record is still there.
While you're looking over recent fossil discoveries, you may have noticed that a controversy has arisen over whether Archaeopteryx is a deinonychosaurian or an avialan (that is, whether it shares a more recent ancestor with velociraptors or blue jays). There's not much controversy over whether Caudipteryx is an avialan or not (it's not: it's an oviraptorid theropod dinosaur), but it has clear, plumulaceous feathers (rather like those of modern ostriches) on its forelimbs and tail. As one goes back, it becomes harder and harder to tell whether something is a bird or just another feathered dinosaur.
Ditto for crocodiles: the earliest crocodile-like archosaurs apparently walked on their hind limbs, like many dinosaurs (which are, of course, thought to be relatives of crocodiles).
Ditto for humans: draw a line dividing the hominin fossils into "fully-formed humans" and "fully-formed mere apes," and you'll find another creationist who thinks it should be drawn elsewhere -- and you're likely to find a fossil skull plopped right atop the line, anyway. Chimpanzees use tools: rocks to break nuts, peeled sticks to fish for termites. It would not be shocking to learn that australopiths, with slightly larger-than-chimp-sized brains 3.5 million years ago, used tools of a sort.
Steven J,
You said, “The "genetic studies" mentioned in the article put the divergence between marsupial and placental (or eutherian) mammals 148 and 179 million years ago. A 160 million year old eutherian mammal is consistent with a split in that range.”
Yeah, I get it. This is why I had pointed out that fact in my post because I understand that it's an important point. You seem a bit cavalier about the role of Juramaia sinensis, though. The article claims it “redefines mammal history.” Nevertheless, my point was more about the frequency of the phrase “earlier than thought” more than this particular fossil.
You said, “Note that the "earliest creatures" are bacteria (or other single-celled prokaryotes -- simple cells without nuclei) dating to some 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossils of eukaryotes (cells with nuclei) are barely over two billion years old; the oldest known multicellular life is less than a billion years old... Now, in their own way, bacteria are "highly complex," but they don't have eyes, or nervous systems, or limbs. All these things show up much, much later than the earliest life. That progression in the fossil record is still there.”
This is not news but I like the way you worded it. I didn't invent the concept of “progression of life from simple to complex” in the fossil record. It's been foisted upon us for many years by folks in your camp. In one of my earliest blog posts, I quoted James Willmot as saying, “These kids are learning that despite a fossil record that clearly shows a progression of simple life forms becoming more complex life forms over billions of years…” Now you seem to be saying that the simple-to-complex phase of evolution was all pre-Cambrian. I guess everything afterward is ordinary “descent with modification”? I might have to explore this more in a future post.
You said, “While you're looking over recent fossil discoveries, you may have noticed that a controversy has arisen over whether Archaeopteryx is a deinonychosaurian or an avialan (that is, whether it shares a more recent ancestor with velociraptors or blue jays).... As one goes back, it becomes harder and harder to tell whether something is a bird or just another feathered dinosaur.”
The order of the fossil record is a major difference between our theories. I don't believe that the order of the fossils is an absolute indicator of time (except perhaps to say that all fossils were created before the present). Thus to say, “as one goes back” is a misnomer. Perhaps some animals have a mosaic of features that make them difficult to classify (though I don't believe Archaeopteryx should be difficult) but such animals are the exception and not the rule.
You said, “Ditto for humans: draw a line dividing the hominin fossils into "fully-formed humans" and "fully-formed mere apes," and you'll find another creationist who thinks it should be drawn elsewhere -- and you're likely to find a fossil skull plopped right atop the line, anyway. Chimpanzees use tools: rocks to break nuts, peeled sticks to fish for termites. It would not be shocking to learn that australopiths, with slightly larger-than-chimp-sized brains 3.5 million years ago, used tools of a sort.”
Birds also use tools so the use of tools is not a defining characteristic of humans. As a matter of fact, chimps are closer to birds than to humans in terms of intelligence. However, the Bible is clear that even the earliest generations of people had art and industry. We excel apes, birds, and any other animal by an order of magnitude. It would not surprise me if we someday found cave paintings dated by your theory as millions of years old. Actually, it would surprise me since such a display of advanced intelligence would force scientists to date the painting as much younger regardless of what other evidence was present.
Thanks as always for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK:
I'm actually baffled as to why this would be a problem at all for evolution, as it should be expected. What fossils show us is what existed at a particular time (the times given to strata are well justified, even if we stick only to relative dating) but that is only if we have the fossils to start with. With this in mind every fossil which appears to be the first of a group is really showing the latest time that group could have evolved by, not the earliest. Fossil finds will not alter the latest possible time, but the earliest is dependent on the fossils we have, so if we don't have them, we do not know about them.
Perhaps an analogy might be useful. Let's say you have a friend who lost a limb in their childhood. For some reason you are investigating your friend's life and cannot consult him directly, you must do it all from photographs and documents. The earliest picture you find of him is at ten years old and he has a missing arm in the picture. You can confidently say that he lost his arm by the time he was ten. If you later find a photograph of him at seven years of age and his limb is missing, then you have pushed back the date of the amputation. Does this mean that you are wrong to believe that he lost his limb at all?
Because the fossils show us roughly what happened, it does not make any difference to the theory as a whole. You would need to find some examples which messed up our whole understanding of the fossil record and that is unlikely to the point where it is scarcely worth entertaining. New finds fit neatly with evolution, they simply often change our understanding of the exact events. The outcome is the same, but the events in the journey might surprise us sometimes.
We should expect surprises, that's how science progresses. But you should not muddle up theories within evolution (such as the timing of divergences) with the theory of evolution as a whole. The theory of evolution is concerned with mechanisms, not timings of events.
TP,
Thank you for your comments. I haven't heard from you in a while.
A fatal flaw in your (that's “you” collectively) theory is the view that the geological column represents a progression of time. Most of the geological record was formed during the time of the Flood and its aftermath – a relatively short period of time. The arrangement of fossils represents the order in which the creatures were buried. Bottom-dwelling marine animals, for example, were buried at the bottom. Duh! Keeping this in mind, we can see that the idea that creatures lower in the fossil record indicate “older” creatures is merely an illusion.
Birds have always been birds. Dinosaurs were always dinosaurs. They lived contemporaneously. It would be no surprise to a creationist if a bird fossil were found in much “older” strata. This was the point of my post. Evolutionists continuously rethink their theories and push back the dates certain groups evolved based upon new finds that completely upset their previously held theories. That is, “Such and such evolved earlier than expected because we found an older fossil of it.” It's not an “older” fossil. It's merely lower in the geological record.
As secular scientists are rethinking their theories, it's unfortunate that they refuse to consider another possible explanation for the new evidence – namely that the creationists have been right all along.
I hope this has cleared it up a little for you. Thanks for visiting. Don't stay gone for so long next time.
God bless!!
RKBentley
RK:
All we need to assert with the geological column is that it is sequential in deposition; a fossil higher up was deposited later. This is something you seem not to dispute. The dates can be ignored despite their accuracy and the geological record is still a problem for creationists. Bottom-dwelling marine organisms are found throughout the fossil record, not just at the bottom. Limestones, which form slowly in shallow marine environments, are found throughout the fossil record as well. The illusion is the creationist idea which you presented. Looking from lower strata to higher shows an increase in the spread of complexity.
Birds and non-avian dinosaurs did live side by side, but what you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that there are fossils which are difficult to classify, having a mixture of bird and theropod characteristics, such that we cannot place them as purely one or the other as creationism would require. It is no surprise that such finds are in strata which are above the first dinosaurs and below the first unequivocal birds.
The creationist explanation just cannot fit the data. This has been obvious for over 200 years and it was creationists who first recognised it. The data, as it stands, is easily explained by evolution. Just because we might get timings wrong now and again does not mean the theory is flawed; it means we did not have enough data for such confidence. We should expect dates to be pushed back, for solid reasons which I gave, but the chances of them changing to the extent which you require are so slim that it should be ignored as a possibility.
I was surprised at how long I had been gone too haha. I'm not sure how active I will be from now on though. Take care!
PB,
You said, “All we need to assert with the geological column is that it is sequential in deposition; a fossil higher up was deposited later. This is something you seem not to dispute.”
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “later.” If it includes days apart then I might not dispute it. It would be like filling a glass with ice cubes; technically, those on the bottom were laid down first but really all of them were put there about the same time.
You said, “The dates can be ignored despite their accuracy and the geological record is still a problem for creationists. Bottom-dwelling marine organisms are found throughout the fossil record, not just at the bottom.”
The fact that marine animals are found literally everywhere on earth is evidence that all the earth was once covered with water. But something like trilobites, which are considered very old according to your dating method, are at the bottom merely because they started at the bottom – not because they are older. They existed the same time as people existed only people didn't exist at the bottom of the ocean.
You said, “Looking from lower strata to higher shows an increase in the spread of complexity.”
Steven J and I were just having a discussion about this. There is no increase in complexity in the fossil record. In my post I included a link to an article that discussed “complex vision” in even very “old” fossils.
You said, “Birds and non-avian dinosaurs did live side by side, but what you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that there are fossils which are difficult to classify, having a mixture of bird and theropod characteristics, such that we cannot place them as purely one or the other as creationism would require.”
You're mistaken on a couple of things. First, I don't deny some animals are difficult to classify. However, if your theory were true, I would expect FAR MORE blurring of the lines between various creature then we actually see. Secondly, a mixture of characteristics is not a problem for creation at all. Some features define groups of animals (like hair on mammals). However, some features are shared among different groups (like eyes or teeth). Today, we consider any creature with feathers to be a bird. Of course, there's no reason God could not have created feathers or some feather-like feature on some dinosaurs.
You said, “The creationist explanation just cannot fit the data.'
Creation/Flood is the much better explanation of the evidence.
You said, “The data, as it stands, is easily explained by evolution.”
Evolution is so plastic that it could be stretched to explain a rabbit in the Cambrian. It's more of an ad hoc collection of just so stories than science. For example, one thing I've notice is that terrestrial fossils are often found associated with marine fossils. To accommodate this into their theory, evolutionists invariably invoke some nearby sea or beach environment. I wrote a post a couple of years ago discussing this phenomenon. While researching that, I remember that no matter where I looked geographically, I could find a source that claimed it was once covered by an ancient sea.
You said, “I was surprised at how long I had been gone too haha. I'm not sure how active I will be from now on though. Take care!”
Stop by any time.
RK:
"I suppose it depends on what you mean by “later.” If it includes days apart then I might not dispute it. It would be like filling a glass with ice cubes; technically, those on the bottom were laid down first but really all of them were put there about the same time."
It does include days apart, but deposition rates differ between organisms and sediment types. Sorting by density and other factors occurs on a localised scale, within individual beds, but not in the geological record as a whole, but I suppose I should save that info for when you do your post on it. I would be particularly impressed if you could explain the distribution of trace fossils.
"The fact that marine animals are found literally everywhere on earth is evidence that all the earth was once covered with water. But something like trilobites, which are considered very old according to your dating method, are at the bottom merely because they started at the bottom – not because they are older. They existed the same time as people existed only people didn't exist at the bottom of the ocean."
Yet when we follow strata laterally and apply Walther's law to vertical successions, we find that there was no point where the whole world was underwater. Trilobites occupied pretty much every marine niche, yet there are organisms they are never found along side; the explanation is time, not habitat. Steve's example on another post is a good one, as he compared the distribution of Mesozoic marine reptiles to marine mammals; they should be found together using yr model, based on habitat and physiology, but are not.
"Steven J and I were just having a discussion about this. There is no increase in complexity in the fossil record. In my post I included a link to an article that discussed “complex vision” in even very “old” fossils. "
There is an increase in complexity in the fossil record (I said "spread of complexity", which is important). There are fossils which precede those with complex eyes and guess what, they lack complex eyes. Many of which have been discussed in my own blog (the Ediacaran forms are a passion of mine).
Continued...
...
"You're mistaken on a couple of things. First, I don't deny some animals are difficult to classify. However, if your theory were true, I would expect FAR MORE blurring of the lines between various creature then we actually see. "
When we delve into the fossil record the lines blur together more and more. Your subjective expectations are not really very useful.
"Secondly, a mixture of characteristics is not a problem for creation at all. Some features define groups of animals (like hair on mammals). However, some features are shared among different groups (like eyes or teeth). Today, we consider any creature with feathers to be a bird. Of course, there's no reason God could not have created feathers or some feather-like feature on some dinosaurs. "
Focussing on single features allows for such a dismissal. Have you looked at the transitional forms in any level of detail? Just the other day I was looking at some casts of Archaeopteryx alongside some theropod specimens and the skeleton of a bird, what would you classify it as? As to me it seemed to be far closer to theropods based on a whole suite of features.
"Evolution is so plastic that it could be stretched to explain a rabbit in the Cambrian. It's more of an ad hoc collection of just so stories than science. For example, one thing I've notice is that terrestrial fossils are often found associated with marine fossils. To accommodate this into their theory, evolutionists invariably invoke some nearby sea or beach environment."
Palaeoenvironment can be based on the sedimentology because many features only form in particular environments. Shoreline environments are common and quite obvious in the rock record, often before analysing any fossils. Terrestrial animal remains are often found out at sea, often miles away, and carcasses are often found on beaches; we find the fossil record reflecting these observable phenomena.
"I wrote a post a couple of years ago discussing this phenomenon. While researching that, I remember that no matter where I looked geographically, I could find a source that claimed it was once covered by an ancient sea. "
The Earth has changed an incredible amount, it is quite fascinating to learn about, especially from the rocks themselves.
Post a Comment