Rational Faith Online

Missing Links: Where Are They? Part 2

by admin on March 8, 2010

'Burbainiceney Afarensis'...latest study shows these creatures are actually modern humans.

Missing Links Part 2. (See the link to Missing Links Part 1 above if you haven’t already)

Today we’ll be a bit more specific, but you’ll still need to check out other resources (see the ‘origins’ section close to the bottom of the resource page) if you want to follow up with more detail.

Missing Links: Reptiles to Birds

Most evolutionary scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Many of you may have heard of a fossil bird called Archaeopteryx presented as a missing link between birds and dinosaurs. It has some features of reptiles as well as birds. The media was quick to promote it as one of the missing links scientists have been searching for. The truth is that there are no fossils I can find in any of my searches that evolutionary science agrees are true missing links.

Some of the reptilian features of purported missing link Archaeopteryx, are the long bony tail, clawed fingers, the shape of the legs, and its teeth. Teeth have also been found on a number of extinct birds. There are other debates on more specific structural areas like the spine, for example. Follow up with your own research if you are interested in these details.

On the ‘bird’ side, Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers, wings like modern woodland birds, wishbones (for muscle attachment for down stroke while flying), large cerebellum and visual cortex, and the upper and lower jaw both movable, like modern birds.

There is good reason to think these creatures were ancient birds, and not ’missing links’. This view is held by many evolutionary scientists as well. Several other possible dinosaur-to-bird ‘missing links’ have similar stories.

Other difficulties surrounding dinosaur-to-bird evolution is body type, heavy tail, bone, lung and heart structure, etc. that would make it very unlikely. An alternate proposal using gliding tree dwelling lizards as the starting point has been promoted as well, but this has even more links missing…it is my understanding that fossil finds of the supposed original ancestor for this theory are missing along with missing transitional links.

Missing Links: Where Are They? Part 1

by admin on March 1, 2010

Missing Link?

Missing Links. The search for the human missing link tends to overshadow the fact that millions of transitional forms of every species would have been necessary for all creatures to have developed as Darwinian evolution suggests.

I won’t be going into detail on individual examples, but today we’re discussing missing links in the fossil record. For further information on specific missing links, go to the Rational Faith Resources page and look to the bottom for some of the ‘origins’ resources. You can also go to www.Google.com and search ‘missing links‘.

Missing Links and Darwinian Evolution

One of Darwin’s problems with his own theory was the lack of missing links in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species he put it like this:

“Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

There would have to be countless examples of missing links in the fossil record if all species had developed gradually by mutations and natural selection. A major focus of paleontology over the last hundred years has been the search for these missing links. The problem is…even though there have been millions of fossil discoveries recorded…the links are still missing.

Missing Links: Problems with Transitional Forms

In order to find missing links in the fossil record, there would have to have been transitional forms between species that lived, died, and were fossilized. These are what we do not see in the fossil record. However, there are also big issues with the idea of transitional forms in general.

If a fish is to evolve into a land animal and fins have to change to legs…why would a transitional form with fins that are evolving into legs survive? Chances are much better that it would be disadvantaged with inferior fins…while the legs were still not developed to work as well as they should. The law of natural selection makes it difficult to believe that this transitional creature would survive. The same thing would be likely to happen as forelimbs changed to wings as a terrestrial animal transitioned into a bird.

These big transitional changes are difficult to imagine. How could transitional forms (missing links) have a survival advantage with such huge changes required?

The sheer volume of the number of changes needed would also mean that with any type of gradual evolution, there should be many, many more transitional links in the fossil record than there are ‘completed’ species. Instead we see many gaps, or ‘missing’ links.

The problem is not with natural selection. An example would be animals with thicker coats surviving better in colder climates, so they are naturally selected for their survival advantage. Similar changes may be found within species in the fossil record. The fact that changes like this do occur just doesn’t carry over to the huge changes required between kingdoms, phyla and classes…and those are the links that are missing in the fossil record.

Missing Links: Some Major Categories

Where are the links missing? The big categories are the most conspicuous. The media often pick up on stories surrounding some of the following areas whenever a scientist discovers something that has ANY possible potential to be classified as a missing link…and it often continues to be prevalent long after it has been disproved.

The biggest issues with the least evidence of any possible missing links:

The biggest would be non-living matter to living cell.
Single celled organism to multi-celled.
Invertebrates to vertebrates.

Some other examples that have theories and even fossils that some scientists argue could be missing links:

Fish to Amphibian.
Amphibian to Reptile.
Reptile to Mammal.
Reptiles to bird.
Primate to man.

For the first three categories simply do not have any good hypothetical models to explain them from an evolutionary perspective, and certainly no good examples of fossils that could be potential missing links, so there is nothing much to discuss. What we see in the fossil record is the sudden appearance, fully developed, of all animal classes.

There are, however, a few theories with corresponding potential transitional fossils…

I’ll discuss a couple of these next time, so stay tuned…and don’t forget to comment if you have something to say!

Share and Enjoy:

{ 3 comments }

The Geological Column: Putting the ‘Jurassic’ in Jurassic Park

by admin on February 22, 2010

Photo Thanks To AllMoviePhoto.com

The geological column… it’s a topic that must be understood if we want to discuss fossil evidence for evolution and the evolutionary trees that are described by evolutionary science. It is the basis for how contemporary science dates rocks and fossils and decides where samples are placed chronologically in the fossil record.

The geological column is a chronological representation of the Earth’s history. By examining and hypothesizing about layers of geological deposits on the Earth’s surface, scientists have come up with a hypothetical classification of 10 layers of rock that are considered to be deposited one after the other in chronological order throughout the world. ’Jurassic’ is the name of one of those layers in the geological column that represents a period of time when dinosaurs were plentiful.

The top geological layer is considered the youngest and the bottom geological layer considered to be the oldest rock. The geological column is the basis for how paleontologists and geologists date rocks and the fossils found within them. It is a hypothetical classification that was based on rock outcroppings in areas of Europe and applied as a classification system to classify rocks and fossils around the world.

Geological Column: Youngest to Oldest

Below are the names of the time periods from the oldest (deepest) layers of the geological column to the youngest (topmost) layers of the geological column. They are listed in chronological order according to the current understanding of most geologists.

1: Cambrian 2: Ordovician 3: Silurian 4: Devonian 5: Carboniferous 6: Permian 7: Triassic 8: Jurassic 9: Cretaceous 10: Tertiary (Paleogene and Neogene)

From Wikipedia.org

Problems with Concept of The Geological Column:

Geological Column Thickness

There are some places where all hypothetical rock layers in the column can be seen together. However, the thickness at the best of these areas is about 16 miles, or 25 km thick and the average worldwide thickness is only one mile. [Morris and Parker] According to the dates associated with this hypothesis, the thickness of the standard geological column should be about 100 miles, or 160 km thick, up to 200 miles or 230 km [Morris and Parker]…give or take.

The vast thickness would be due to the hypothesized times involved with the laying down of sediment through earth’s history. The 16 miles that is actually observed out of what should be 100 to 200 miles is very thin compared to what would be expected with a complete geological column.

Geological Column Overlapping Fossil Ranges

There are overlapping fossil ranges trough different periods of the geological column. ‘Index Fossils’ are those found only in a certain range in the column. T-Rex and Velociraptor fossils may be found in the Jurassic period, for example. [Stephen Spielberg ] They would be used to help define the Jurassic period when examining rock layers. If fossil ‘A’ is typically found in the Jurassic rocks, and fossil ‘A’ is found in a particular location, then the level in the geologic column where it is found will be classified as Jurassic.

The problem lies in the fact that index fossils are continuously discovered in other layers of the geological column. They overlap with other index fossils from other levels in the column, which widens their ranges. As this happens more often, many former index fossils have to be discarded as a means for classification of the rock layers in order to maintain the integrity of the geological column.

The other possibility is that the rock layers don’t actually represent periods of time and were not laid down chronologically in the first place.

Geological Column Side-By-Side Fossil Classifications

Fossils classified as being found in older and younger rock layers in textbooks charts on the geological columnn are rarely found in side-by-side layers when actually on location. For example, Triassic is older than Jurassic. Fossil ‘T’ found in the Triassic layer is therefore considered older than fossil ‘J’ found in the Jurassic layer. The problem is that in most cases fossil T is found in one place in the world and fossil J is found in another location altogether. So T and J are usually found in places where the Triassic and Jurassic layers do not actually exist simultaneously. This makes the chronological relationship between the layers and fossils a murky at best.

Complete Geological Column

There are a number of places where the complete geological column can be said to exist, though it is much thinner than would be considered ‘complete’. These areas make up only about 1% of the earth’s crust. [Woodmorappe] We’ve already discussed the issues with the thickness of the ‘complete’ areas of the geological column, but these numbers show that scarcity is also an issue. Why is the 1% of the earth where the ‘complete’ geological column exists considered significant enough to be used as a proof for the geologic column? In 99% of places around the world it does not follow the completed pattern.

Defense of the Geological Column

Proponents of the geological column defend the lack of completeness and thickness of the geological column by blaming the missing geological periods in sample areas around the world mainly on two things:

Times of non-deposition of sediments.
Erosion.

The idea is that the missing periods would be expected because all the areas of the earth would not be depositing at the same time, or were eroded away. This sounds reasonable, but if this is the case, over the last several million years, how could anyone know when and where different areas were depositing sediment or eroding entire layers? Without knowing this, how could we develop a complete picture of the geological column?

Without the complete geological column as a tool to measure which areas are incomplete…there is no way to tell which areas are ‘non-depositional’ and which areas have eroded. An ‘a priori’ assumption that the current geological column structure is accurate is necessary before you can even evaluate whether there are times of no deposits or excessive erosion. According to Woodmorappe, there is little to no outside evidence that the non-depositional or erosive stages of the geological column occurred.

This takes a process that hypothetically could have removed layers in the geological column, then uses the layers that are missing as proof that the process actually did what was hypothesized.

It’s like saying that 1% of Canadians are millionaires, so it must be the way things should be everywhere in Canada (Geological Column). The lack of a million dollars in 99% of the population must be because someone stole their money (Non-deposits and erosion). The ‘proof’ that someone stole the money is that it is missing (Lack of complete geological column).

Not a good explanation for my lack of a million dollars…and not a good explanation for lack of certain layers in the geological column. Not to say that the geological column idea is a completely illogical hypothesis, just that it may be a hypothesis without good evidence.

Rocks Dating Fossils and Fossils Dating Rocks

There are radiometric dating methods that attempt to get accurate dates for rocks and fossils, but they are difficult to access at times and they can give different results for different samples of the same specimen.

They also make assumptions:

They assume a known starting amount of the element being measured.
That there were no outside factors affecting that amount other than it’s known rate of degradation throughout history.

Most labs require a palaeontologist’s date estimate based on where the fossil or rock was found in the geological column.

In practice much of the dating is done by dating the rock according to what fossils were found there…or dating the fossils by the rock layer in which they were found. The problem inherent in this system is self-evident: How can you use the rocks to date the fossils and at the same time use the same fossils to date the rocks? You would first have to be 100% sure the geological column is accurate with precisely known dates for each layer and then all the fossils found in each layer would have to be 100% exclusive to that layer. Neither of these things are close to certain…or even measurable with any kind of certainty.

OK, that’s enough rock and bone talk. I apologize for another long winded article! It’s tough to make this stuff any shorter and I’m still not doing a real thorough job. Next time we’ll discuss transitional fossils…transitions between different species. There should be lots of them to discuss if life evolved through evolutionary transitions…

Please leave a comment. I hope to see you back for the next post. If you haven’t signed up for email notifications, you can fill out the form below. It will also give you a report on historical evidence for the Resurrection of Christ. You will likley find that more interesting than talking about rocks!

References:

[Morris and Parker] Hayward, A., Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies, Triangle, London, pp. 117–119, 1985.
[Woodmorappe] The Geological Column: Does It Exist? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2): 77-82, 1999

Share and Enjoy:

{ 5 comments }

Natural Selection and Evolution: Mutant-X, Fact or Fantasy?

by admin on February 7, 2010

Picture Thanks to JustJared.com

Natural Selection and Evolution: Are Mutational Changes Sufficient To Start The Process?

Hi again folks! Before we get going I want to say this: I am not an expert on natural selection and evolution. I have an undergraduate science degree and I’ve done lots of reading, but that’s it. I will present some ideas and explanations as I see them, but make sure you follow up with our resources section if you want to learn more.

Natural Selection and Evolution…the terms are often used synonymously but they do not mean the same thing. We’ll start by giving a simple definition of natural selection and evolution and then talk a bit about the problems with evolution and the facts surrounding natural selection.

Evolution of the Darwinian Variety

There are many facets of evolution and various theories behind the idea, so I’ll give a simple definition focused on the most common way it’s understood in association with the evolution of life.

Evolution is the natural process by which:

Non living chemicals organized themselves into a living organizm.
Natural ongoing processes (natural selection) worked on this simple life form to create more complex decendants. These eventually led to all life forms that we observe in our world today.

The process of natural selection and evolution can be described like this:

Mutations create new genetic information that is then sorted by natural selection to develop more complex life.

This is considered ‘Macro Evolution’.

Natural Selection

Natural selection is the process by which traits that are advantageous to an organism’s survival are passed on to subsequent generations. They becoming more common in a population with each successive generation.

This can be considered ‘micro evolution’ and can involve changes within an individual organism or an entire species, but has not been observed to create an entirely different kind of organism.

Natural selection works only when a ‘functional change’ occurs. That is a change in something that makes a difference to how an organism or animal interacts with its environment. Thicker fur, for example can make a creature more adaptable to living in colder climates.

Natural Selection and Evolution: Facts and Ideas

First of all, natural selection is not promoted as a mechanism that can make non-living chemicals organize themselves into living matter. Natural selection works by selecting existing traits and is not a candidate to explain the origin of life. Presently, all attempts at coming up with a good solid explanation for how “chemicals-to-life” could have occurred by natural processes have failed.

Natural selection is undisputed as an observable process. Creationists and evolutionists agree that it can be observed in nature today. Many naturalists believe this process is responsible for evolution. However, many other scientists, both believers and atheists, see major issues with the idea that naturally selected beneficial mutations are responsible for the occurrence of evolution.

Dr. John C. Sanford discusses natural selection and evolution in his book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome and points out that:

The vast majority of observable mutations are damaging to the organisms in which they occur…and these are not somehow separated from potential beneficial mutations. This makes for an overall loss of genetic information over time.
Deteriorating mutations usually do not show up functionally. It is not realistic to think that a natural selection process can somehow negatively select mutations that degrade the genome but do not create a functional change. This also supports the idea of devolution of the genome rather than evolution over time.
There is a very tenuous connection between any mutation and a functional change. In other words, the vast majority of mutations don’t show up in any change that would help or hurt the organism’s chance of survival. This connection gets exponentially more tenuous with each step in a series of mutational changes that are necessary to result in a functional change. Dr. Sanford likens it to requiring the process of natural selection to select a specific soldier (mutation) based on the performance of his army (all functional systems).
‘Junk’ or non-functional DNA was previously thought to be a remnant from older mutational changes. Changes that were followed by natural selection and evolution. The amount of DNA classified as ‘junk’ is disappearing more and more as new discoveries are showing its true uses. Scientists are realizing that they don’t really know enough about how it works to classify large parts of the genome as ‘junk’ like they used to. Previously 97% of the human genome was classified as ‘junk’ or useless remnants of evolution. Since then, 30% has been discovered to actually be useful and new discoveries in the field are occuring every day.
The rate at which mutations spontaneously occur does not give enough time for the evolutionary changes required to result in the biodiversity of today.
Almost all mutations are recessive, which decreases the chance that they may be passed on during sexual reproduction. This makes natural selection and evolution difficult at best.
‘Fitness’ in relation to strength, intelligence, speed, etc. has more to do with environment than heritability. Height for example is about 30% inherited and 70% environmentally determined. Some scientists estimate that over 99% of natural selection for positive traits will be ‘wasted’ on selection of traits that were caused by environmental factors instead of genetic changes that can be passed on to the next generation.

Evolution theory suggests you can take mutations…add natural selection…and evolution occurs. This is unlikely given the limitations of mutation as an agent of positive change.

Is mutation a means for generating new genetic material?

Natural selection has been observed to create positive survival features in a variety of cases. These are often pointed out as examples of ‘evolution in action’. The problem with this idea is that natural selection is not an example of macro evolution, but micro evolution.

Evolution in a broader sense can be described as ‘change’. In that sense, we all evolve. However, naturally selected change in an organism is not macro evolution. It is change within a species, it happens all the time, and would be classified as ‘micro’ evolution instead. Much like artificial breeding programs can ’select’ for certain traits in dogs or cattle.

There is no good evidence that the processes of natural selection is a mechanism for creation of more complex genetic material. Nor that it could drive the evolution of simple to more complex life forms.

Evolution (macro) in the sense we described earlier requires an overall increase in genetic information from a simple to a more complex organism.

Natural selection involves ’selecting’ from already existing genes to pick the one that works best for the individual’s survival.

In almost every example you can find of natural selection in action, it involves the overall LOSS of genetic information. A trait, such as a larger beak in a bird (Galapagos finches are common examples) is naturally selected because it does better with larger seeds. There is no new genetic information created. Instead, it would be an example of a decrease in the genetic information…loss of the gene that would code for a smaller beak. It’s a great example of natural selection, but not evolution.

What you have is a reshuffling of existing genetic information. If the conditions were right and remained that way for a period of time, this could cause permanent change in the species. The large beaked birds being the only ones that survive to pass their genes on to their offspring…making for a shallower gene pool with an overall loss of the genetic information for smaller beaks.

In the Galapagos finches, the beaks actually change back and forth at a fairly rapid rate due to environmental conditions and food supply, so the genetic information has not been lost…and can change fairly quickly.

I did an experiment in high school biology where my partner and I artificially selected for shorter life spans in fruit flies. We changed our little drosophila population by selecting for already existing genes. We eliminated the genes that made for a longer life. Natural selection and evolution? Sure, if you mean micro evolution that creates changes within a species. There is no way to extrapolate the possibility of creation of new genetic material by this kind of experiment or by similar observation in nature.

Natural Selection and Evolution In Bacteria

There are a couple of examples in bacteria that may show a positive genetic mutation which adds genetic material and benefits the bacterium. Many bacterial changes, however, are actually a natural selection of pre-existing genes. Genes that are resistant to antibiotics is one exapmle.

Theories of natural selection and evolution cannot be ‘proven’ on a handful of examples of positive mutational change in bacteria while there are millions of examples of mutations that degrade rather then build up the genome in all organisms.

I personally do not believe the evidence points to evolution…at least not by the mechanism of ‘mutation – natural selection – evolution’ that is taught in popular science today. I think the evidence points to the existence of a God who created life.

If God somehow used an evolutionary process to develop the life He created, we have yet to discover a natural mechanism that could drive that process. If the evidence for a creator is true and he can create the universe from nothing…the possibilities are endless as to how he decided to create and develop biological life.

If you believe in a God who is the creator of the universe, naturalistic explanations for life like natural selection and evolution are only one of the possibilities for life’s creation and development. Naturalistic science, no matter how it defines itself, does not have any evidence that it holds exclusive knowledge of the truth.

Next time we’ll discuss the fossil record and the evolutionary trees that naturalistic science creates to explain the evolutionary history of modern species.

See you next time…Make it a great day!

Roderick MacKenzie

Rod MacKenzie

Share and Enjoy:

{ 4 comments }

Problems With Evolution: Science, Religion, Facts and Bias

January 22, 2010

Problems with evolution…not a simple topic to start off the new year. Nor one without debate in scientific and religious circles alike. Today we’ll discuss some issues with facts and bias from both sides of the evolution issue.
Before I get into today’s post about evolution, I just want to say I hope all of you [...]

Share and Enjoy:

Read the full article →

DNA, The Digital Code, and The Birth of Information

December 7, 2009

DNA: A Digital Code Filled With Information…Where did that information come from?
Hello Again Everyone,
I came across an interesting video by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer when I was doing a bit of research for my last post about DNA and Information and thought I’d share it with you.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the [...]

Share and Enjoy:

Read the full article →

Information Theory and DNA…The Medium IS NOT the Message.

November 26, 2009

Does the DNA Information Code Point to Design?

DNA Double Helix from Wikipedia

I hope this post finds you well!
I started this site with the intention of expressing the reasons I believe in the Christian worldview…and that it’s not an unreasonable or illogical position given the evidence we have to work with…I hope it has been helpful [...]

Share and Enjoy:

Read the full article →

Intelligent Design…Is There Any Other Kind?

November 10, 2009

Signs of Intelligence : Specified Complexity

Hi Again, Rational Faith Readers!
I hope all is well since the last time you visited Rational Faith Online.
If you’ve been part of the discussion since the beginning, you recall that the reason I decided to start this project, whether you agree with my conclusions or not, was to show that [...]

Share and Enjoy:

Read the full article →

Argument from Design: The Existence of God.

October 26, 2009

Did the beauty of nature and life on earth evolve as an accident of nature, or is there reason to think there’s something more behind it’s finely tuned design?

Share and Enjoy:

Read the full article →

Personal God or Jedi Master?

October 17, 2009

Impersonal? Impossible! …A Creator God must be a personal Being, Not an Impersonal ‘Force’.
The cosmological argument we discussed last week is a sound one. The universe began. This is backed up by both science and philosophy. Something had to cause that beginning. That something, the ‘First Cause‘, had to be timeless and eternal. Since its actions created [...]

Share and Enjoy:

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries

Exploring the rationality of the Christian worldview.

Missing Links: Where Are They? Part 2

Missing Links: Reptiles to Birds

Other Missing Link Issues

Transitional Soft Tissues

Missing Links: Ape-To-Human

Missing Links Explained by Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium?

Missing Links: Where Are They? Part 1

Missing Links and Darwinian Evolution

Missing Links: Problems with Transitional Forms

Missing Links: Some Major Categories

The Geological Column: Putting the ‘Jurassic’ in Jurassic Park

Geological Column: Youngest to Oldest

Problems with Concept of The Geological Column:

Geological Column Thickness

Geological Column Overlapping Fossil Ranges

Geological Column Side-By-Side Fossil Classifications

Complete Geological Column

Defense of the Geological Column

Rocks Dating Fossils and Fossils Dating Rocks

References:

Natural Selection and Evolution: Mutant-X, Fact or Fantasy?

Natural Selection and Evolution: Are Mutational Changes Sufficient To Start The Process?

Evolution of the Darwinian Variety

Natural Selection

Natural Selection and Evolution: Facts and Ideas

Is mutation a means for generating new genetic material?

Natural Selection and Evolution In Bacteria

Problems With Evolution: Science, Religion, Facts and Bias

DNA, The Digital Code, and The Birth of Information

Information Theory and DNA…The Medium IS NOT the Message.

Intelligent Design…Is There Any Other Kind?

Argument from Design: The Existence of God.

Personal God or Jedi Master?

Categories

Extensive Resources Can Be Found Here:

Make a Loan ~ Change a Life

Blogroll

Follow Rational Faith On:


First Name:
Email: