Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Missing Link in Bird Evolution Has Been Found!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199695,00.html

Those of us with room-temperature IQs are perpetually assured that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. So, after reading the news release linked above, I asked myself, “Self, why is this big news?”

I guess I just don’t get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?

Sigh. I’m apparently too stupid to understand Darwinian logic.

Comments

DS,

1) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html

2) Even if there was no presently known application, this has little to do with whether it is science or not.

I seem to have touched a nerve. Fossil collecting is at best a harmless hobby. What you found above is commonly called "the exception that proves the rule". Thanks for playing. It was brave of you to try for surely you knew I was right all along. Addendum for GCT at ATBC: The given example is a practical application for oil drilling in being able to easily date some strata with quick microscopic examination of the drill tailings. The subject of this article is a bird fossil and the practical application was in modern biology. Please explain how bird fossils millions of years old have any practical application that would vault their collection from harmless hobby into worthwhile science. Good luck. -ds

bdelloid
June 18, 2006
June
06
Jun
18
18
2006
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Gil, you summed it up perfectly in comment #34. Well put.Scott
June 18, 2006
June
06
Jun
18
18
2006
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
"...On the other hand, had researchers understood that the organ was designed that way, they might have been more inclined to discover its purpose." Comment by garyj — June 16, 2006 @ 8:58 pm Gary, are you arguing that NDE is a "science stopper"?russ
June 17, 2006
June
06
Jun
17
17
2006
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Quoting from "Coming to Peace with Biology." Darryl Falk 2004 "Biologists believe that there were hundreds (perhaps thousands) of similar species that existed between 100 and 200 million years ago, and most would have been members of little side branches. Perhaps even one day somebody will discover a fossil of a species that REALLY WAS in the direct lineage to birds"idnet.com.au
June 17, 2006
June
06
Jun
17
17
2006
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
RE:#32 "it is a critical piece of learning the evolution of birds and thereby will enable us to make more accurate predictions about the behavior of a bird disease" Trying to analyze biological systems on the basis of the TOE has sidetracked medical research more than a few times. Consider the many so-called vestigial organs that have been found to have important functions. Supposedly evolution would leave in its wake tissues and organs that once served a purpose but no longer are useful and may be removed safely. That prediction of evolution didn't work out too well. I don't hear scientists talking about vestigial organs any longer so hopefully such an interpretation of evolution is out of vogue. On the other hand, had researchers understood that the organ was designed that way, they might have been more inclined to discover its purpose.garyj
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Avian evolution is a powerfully disconfirming challenge to Darwinian speculation on many levels. Michael Denton, in his first book, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis," devotes a great deal of prose and evidence to the problem of evolving the avian lung, which is a continuous-flow, circulatory respiratory system, as opposed to the bellows-type respiratory system of its presumed reptilian evolutionary ancestors. There is no conceivable gradualistic pathway between these two types of respiratory systems that would not guarantee the immediate death of a transitional form. Denton identified (IDed) irreducible complexity at a high level before Behe identified it at a low level. Life is irreducibly complex from top to bottom, and in every detail. An then there are the complexities of flight. Everything (muscles, feathers, reprogramming of the central nervous system for flight control) must be modified simultaneously if transitional forms are not going to crash and burn in the process, and therefor leave no offspring. Was all of this engineered by cosmic rays zapping nucleotides in the DNA molecule, or by genetic copying errors? The Darwinian proposition as an explanation for all of this is absurdity, raised to a very large power.GilDodgen
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
"This is total nonsense. This adds very important information about the evolution of birds. If you are not interested in the evolution of birds, then you might say that this contribute little. However, many people are curious about bird evolution, scientists and laymen alike, and to them, this is very interesting." - ftrp11 Perhaps it is interesting to experts and fossil hobbyists that birds have basically been birds for 100 million years. But the tone of the article implies the opposite about bird evolution. That's why someone said this article belongs in a dusty science journal, not a popular publication or media outlet.russ
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT

Two comments:

For kvwells, if you are suggesting that SETI is rooted in propaganda, why then do proponents of ID turn to it for support?

https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/541

For DS, if paleontology (fossil collecting) is a "harmless hobby," then why devote such effort to marginalize this news report? And why so many comments from both sides of the argument? It seems to me that if paleontology were as trivial as you assert, no one would bother to report on it at all (have you recently seen any news stories about new discoveries in phrenology?)

In addition, by claiming as "good science" research into a cure for avian flu and improved egg laying (I agree with you on both counts), doesn't it stand to reason that the genetic makeup and history of birds would be essential to that research? While this discovery isn't "proof" of anything on its own, it is a critical piece of learning the evolution of birds and thereby will enable us to make more accurate predictions about the behavior of a bird disease.

I would like you or any other proponent of ID to describe, in detail, how ID would address the problem of Avian Flu, based on the assumption that birds were "designed" at some point in the past much as they are today, do enlighten me.

Leo S

For DS, if paleontology (fossil collecting) is a "harmless hobby," then why devote such effort to marginalize this news report?

Such effort? I spent 60 seconds on it. You must mean such little effort.

It seems to me that if paleontology were as trivial as you assert, no one would bother to report on it at all

Filler

doesn't it stand to reason that the genetic makeup and history of birds would be essential to that research?

Not one tiny bit.

it is a critical piece of learning the evolution of birds and thereby will enable us to make more accurate predictions about the behavior of a bird disease.

You can't be serious.

I would like you or any other proponent of ID to describe, in detail, how ID would address the problem of Avian Flu, based on the assumption that birds were "designed" at some point in the past much as they are today, do enlighten me.

Straw man. How on earth did you ever get out of moderation? No matter, you're back now. Addendum for GCT at ATBC: It's a straw man because ID does not speak to virology. Duh. -ds

Leo1787
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT

DS,

Your definition of important science seems to include only science that has a currently knowable and specific practical benefit to humanity rather than simply the satisfaction of answering a question. However, time and time again, important science according to your definition has been pursued without a direct connection to practical application.

Do you think Albert Einstein pursued relativity because he thought that one day we could harness this work for nuclear power ?

This comment shows that you do not have a serious view of how science works. Applied science, maybe, but not basic science.

Fair enough. I'll give you an opportunity to present examples of practical value in any fossils from many millions of years ago. Have at it. -ds bdelloid
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT

ftrp11 said:

"People have to realize that this is a big deal not because of the scientific merit of the finding. It is a big deal because of the socio/political conflict over evolution. Scientists always hear about the lack of “transitional forms” in the fossil record so when they find one they feal obligated to say “see, here is another example of a transitional form.” The discovery itself adds little to science."

and many others have said this adds nothing to science outside to the evolution debate.

This is total nonsense. This adds very important information about the evolution of birds. If you are not interested in the evolution of birds, then you might say that this contribute little. However, many people are curious about bird evolution, scientists and laymen alike, and to them, this is very interesting.

In fact, you folks are putting it in a political context more than any one else. This finding stands alone on it's scientific merit as something important. Many of you have shown a fundamental lack of curiousity here by dismissing it.

Fossil collecting is at best a harmless hobby. To call it important science is trivializing science. Important science to do with birds is finding a cure for bird flu or getting chickens to lay bigger eggs with less feed. -ds bdelloid
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Ticiturnus: "But of course it isn’t. The fossil fills the gap perfectly only in the sense that the gap is so huge that just about anything could fit in it. It’s like saying a stone thrown into the Grand Canyon perfectly fills the gap between its sides." Well said.bFast
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Now if we could only find a rabbit in the Cambrian.Mung
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
--taciturnus: … what other scientific enterprise propagandizes like this?-- NASA, perhaps? "Water water everwhere, must be life, ya think?"; The Global Warming Research Funding Industry seems the most pernicious. SETI seems in the worst predicament, what do you publish when you can't hear anything but crickets chirping (or maybe old Osmond Show reruns).kvwells
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
"Previously there was a gap between ancient and modern species of birds, and "Gansus fits perfectly into this gap," added Jerald D. Harris of Dixie State College in Utah." This is the sort of misleading statement that ends up making people open-minded to alternatives to evolution like ID. I've heard many, many variations of it over the last 25 years. It makes it sound like the most recent fossil find is the last piece in an elaborate jigsaw puzzle, a piece so "perfectly" matched to the hole it fills that it completes the whole story of bird evolution. There was only "a gap" between ancient and modern birds, and now that gap is perfectly filled and the story complete. But of course it isn't. The fossil fills the gap perfectly only in the sense that the gap is so huge that just about anything could fit in it. It's like saying a stone thrown into the Grand Canyon perfectly fills the gap between its sides. It's this overblown rhetoric that has always made me suspicious of TOE... what other scientific enterprise propagandizes like this? Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT

2 other things of interest in this article. The first is, based on the age of the fossil, Gansus seems to be contemporaneous with Hesperornithiformes, which were previously considered 'primitive' and transitional.

Also I noted in the Science Daily article on the same subject, a quote by Peter Dodson, professor of anatomy at Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine and professor in Penn's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences saying, "Gansus is very close to a modern bird and helps fill in the big gap between clearly non-modern birds and the explosion of early birds that marked the Cretaceous period, the final era of the Dinosaur Age". I wonder how many 'explosions' there were in prehistory marking the appearance of various new forms of life, and how evolutionary mechanisms account for them?

jhudson
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT

Its a "transitional form" because it is the earliest bird with something very close to modern avian bone structure. The first "birds" were around at least ten million years earlier.

ftrp11
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a dinosaur lol. think someone was just a bit too eager with their prediction on this one. CharlieCharliecrs
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT

People have to realize that this is a big deal not because of the scientific merit of the finding. It is a big deal because of the socio/political conflict over evolution. Scientists always hear about the lack of "transitional forms" in the fossil record so when they find one they feal obligated to say "see, here is another example of a transitional form." The discovery itself adds little to science.

If there really isn't a lack of transitional forms they could say "see, here are all these transitionals we've already found". Why isn't there a thick book filled with pictures of fossil transitionals they can point to? Surely someone would put one together if they could because, as you say, scientists always hear about the lack of transitionals. Your argument is specious. You're right about one thing though, the discovery itself adds little to science. Close to nothing, really. -ds ftrp11
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Well, according to Creation Safaris the Science paper doesn't include any claims of this being a missing link (but I haven't read it myself). The other articles I've read don't provide much clarification on this either...but it seems safe to say it's "just the date" until further information is known.Patrick
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
All creatures are transitions between earlier and later creatures. At the time this creature lived, as is true for every craeture that has ever lived, it just was a complete living thing. Things stand out as transitional only because they fill in gaps in our present knowledge, not because they have some quality that in and of itself makes them more transitional than anything else. As I said in a post on this written elsewhere this morning, all "links" are missing until they are found - "missing" is an adjective describing the state of our knowledge, not an inherent characteristic of the creature itself.Jack Krebs
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT

I just read the story a couple of more times, and I don't see anything in it that says WHY it's a transitional form. Is it just the date? Is there something else about it that these scientists think MAKES it a transitional form?

rmagruder
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Crandaddy, "I wonder if they found another way of proving the roundness of the Earth if it would be just as big of a story." In light of recent statements by the biological community that NDE has been more thoroughly established than the big bang, I would have to agree with you. By now some ancient bird should not be headline news. If an old bird proves that birds liked water earlier than expected, it may merit a writeup in a dusty old journal somewhere, but not top billing on major news outlets. jHudson, "I am not sure how a bird can be considered a ‘missing link’ for birds. This is like my grandfather being considered a missing link between myself and my great-grandfather." I agree.bFast
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
#13 > Apparently almost everyone missed the point of my sarcasm. I don't understand why. It was quite apparent and based on mere facts. K.kairos
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Agreed. It's just a bird with "modern" features discovered in ancient rocks. I imagine that if the dating results had been different no one would claim it as a missing link...but since it was dated at 110 million years it HAS to be a missing link in order to fit into the NDE narrative's timeline. Which brings us to:
Because evolution predicts gradual transitions, this is not THE missing link, but A missing link, which of course there will be an almost a limitless amount of, due to the gradual nature of change predicted by the ToE.
You do realize this find would require that "modern" avian features evolve very quickly, don't you?Patrick
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
RE:#10 I'm sorry, but how again does this find confirm any prediction of Darwinism? From my understanding, they found an ancient water fowl. I guess I'm just missing how this is "a missing link" other than the fact that it is: 1) a bird and 2) very old. Is it a "transitional" form of some sort? Or just an ancient bird? Just being a bird in the "right place at the right time" doesn't qualify you as a transitional form, IMO. It only does if you assume an evolutionary history in the first place. If you don't make that assumption, you are not left with any real evidence for Darwinism or even common descent. Maybe there's something I'm missing?Atom
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT

Apparently almost everyone missed the point of my sarcasm.

The evidence for Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record is LOUSY -- essentially nonexistent. That's why a big deal has to be made about every new "transition" or "missing link." When the evidence on your side stinks, make a lot of noise.

It was this phenomenon that first clued Phillip Johnson that Darwinism was really materialistic philosophy masquerading as science.

Barry doesn't miss the point and neither do I. If there are a plethora of missing links, which is what the chance worshippers always claim, it wouldn't be big news when an ostensibly unique transition fossil is found. Addendum for GCT at ATBC: lack of transition fossils doesn't argue against common descent. It argues for saltation and against gradualism. If you were able to construct a coherent thought you could have figured that out for yourself. -ds

GilDodgen
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
It was said to be a missing link not the missing link. That is a crucial difference. This post seems like more of a semantic game than an argument. Certainly there are many "missing links" in the fossil record, as is so often pointed out here. When evolutionists say there is clear evidence of evolution in the fossil record they are referring to the chains of development that we can see fairly clearly. Horses and whales are probably the two most often touted examples. But this is really evidence for common descent and the general process of evolution and says nothing concrete about its mechanisms.ftrp11
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT

I am not sure how a bird can be considered a 'missing link' for birds. This is like my grandfather being considered a missing link between myself and my great-grandfather.

jhudson
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
I'd still like to know if all they've found is fossilized impressions of soft tissues or if it's another example like that T-Rex sample. Unfortunately, the below links don't make it completely clear: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs.html
Soft tissues were also preserved, including flight feathers and webbing—like a duck's—between the bird's toes.
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060615_early_ducks.html
Also preserved were the remains of foot webbing and feathers. The webbed feet and features of the leg bones indicate the bird paddled like a modern duck and dove for its prey much like today's loons, although probably not as adeptly.
Although I imagine that if this were indeed actual soft tissues then they'd be making a big deal about it. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5780/1640 Unfortunately I don't have a subscription so I cannot read the source paper. While googling I did find this viewpoint: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.htm#20060616bPatrick
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
GilDodgen wrote: "I guess I just don’t get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?" I think the problem with your understanding is that you read into the article with a slight prejudice... Notice you have said "Why has THE missing link in bird evolution just been found..". Because evolution predicts gradual transitions, this is not THE missing link, but A missing link, which of course there will be an almost a limitless amount of, due to the gradual nature of change predicted by the ToE. And just because these scientists got very excited about this find does not mean that they have finally found the one piece that was missing, therefore "Solving" the enigma of bird evolution, as you have mentioned. They say no such thing in this article. This find simply appears to fit in the expected chain of forms predicted by the ToE, and simply adds one more piece of evidence supporting that theory. Or, you could still look at it as one more spcifically 'designed' form of bird, and one that just happens to fit into the framework of that 'other' theory. I guess the designer's mechanism was to slightly modify forms through time, very gradually changing his design from something primitive into what we see today. This is just more proof of that. But that would require asserting something about the mechanism of design, which of course ID does not do...it's not a mechanistic theory, right? Or, more likely, this is just another Piltdown hoax. Darn attention-seeking media hound scientists! RobCrobc
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply