Roger, PLEASE! Read something other than Sungenis on evolution. GO TO THE LIBRARY and take out some books BEFORE you begin teaching anything on the creation-evolution issue. I asked what you meant by “both sides” – apparently you think it means “evolution happened” vs. “evolution didn’t happen.” That is not the two sides. You should be thinking more along the lines of theistic evolution vs. some sort of “intelligent design” (BOTH which accept the fact of macroevolution or common descent). All of your objections are answered on this page:
Index to Creationist Claims
Roger << What about the claim (yes by Sungenis, but also by others) that there really are no transitional fossils. >>
I will be updating
my page here shortly, but so far we have, at a bare minimum:
Transitions from fishes to first amphibians (tetrapods):
Paleoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis), Osteolepis (crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes), Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Tiktaalik roseae, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, Labyrinthodonts (e.g. Pholidogaster, Pteroplax)
Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia:
Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops
Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps:
Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others
Whale Evolution from land-dwelling artiodactyls to fully sea-going mammals:
Pakicetidae include: Pakicetus inachus, Pakicetus attocki, Ichthyolestes pinfoldi, Nalacetus ratimitus; Ambulocetidae include: Ambulocetus natans, Gandakasia potens; Remingtoncetidae include: Remingtoncetus harudiensis, Remingtoncetus sloani, Andrewsiphius kutchensis, Andrewsiphius minor, Dalanistes ahmedi, Attockicetus praecursor; Protocetidae include: Protocetus atavus, Eocetus schweinfurthi, Pappocetus lugardi, Babiacetus mishrai, Rodhocetus kasrani, Takracetus simus, Georgiacetus vogtlensis; Basilosaurids include: Basilosaurus cetoides, Basilosaurus isis, Basilosaurus drazindai, Basiloterus hussaini; Dorudontines include: Dorudon serratus, Dorudon atrox;
others are Pontogeneus brachyspondylus, Zygorhiza kochii, Saghacetus osiris, Ancalacetus simonsi
How Many More Do You Need?
A couple of definitions and distinctions to keep in mind (from Prothero, page 82ff, 124ff):
– while intermediate forms and transitional fossils between species are rare, there are many transitionals between larger groups (i.e. Classes such as Fish to Tetrapods, Reptiles to Mammals, etc);
– an important concept is the distinction between a lineal ancestor (i.e. direct ancestors such as father and mother, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc) and a collateral ancestor (uncles and aunts, great uncles/aunts, cousins or “close relatives,” etc), e.g. Archaeopteryx (front cover of Prothero) has many transitional features between living birds and Mesozoic dinosaurs, so if it was not direct it was certainly a collateral ancestor;
– there is really no such thing as a “missing link” : evolution is not about life climbing the “ladder of nature” or a “great chain of being” from “lower” to “higher” organisms; instead evolution is more like a “bush” with many lineages branching from one another, with “ancestors” living alongside their “descendants”; the classification of life forms a natural bushy or tree-like pattern;
– we do not need to have every single transitional fossil connecting several species to show evolutionary transformation; a sequence of related species that are stable through time nevertheless forms an evolutionary transformation series even though not every transitional fossil has been preserved, e.g. the evolution of sand dollars from sea urchins (Prothero, page 190), etc;
– creationists challenge “evolutionists” to present a “perfect 10” transitional fossil : this shows a misunderstanding of evolution and transitional forms since there is no general conversion of all parts of a transitional form at the same time; genetics does not produce a smooth gradation of all features, but characteristics of an intermediate will be mixed, a pattern of descendents called mosaic evolution (i.e. normally “cousins” of an ancestor, not lineal or direct descendants due to the “incompleteness” or spottiness of the fossil record and the multiple splitting off of species);
– since evolution is a bush, not a ladder, organisms evolve but they do not always “move up the ladder”; species may retain primitive features for hundreds of millions of years, and not every anatomical feature of an animal evolves at the same time; some parts may be quite “advanced” while others retain their “primitive” state; this is the idea of mosaic evolution and this is what we want for a transitional fossil.
Remember that you are teaching a
high school Religion class, what I have listed above is more for an introductory
college course in Paleontology and Evolution.
Phil P
…No. Wrong, and wrong.
