Manatees: Darwin's new mascots

The Best Example of Macro-Evolution: ManateesExcellent video can be watched here. Once you watch the video, be sure and check out some of the arguments which I anticipate creationists will make in reguards to this evidence:

1. The Vestigial hip sockets in manatees probably serve a good purpose. How many times have evolutionists been wrong about these "useless" features.

This is one of the most misunderstood issues in evolutionary biology. Vestigial organs are not totally useless (this is not even what the word means). A vestigial organ is a remnant of something which is specified for another function. An example is the ostrich's wing: Wings are specified for flying, but the ostrich simply uses its wings for a lesser function (balance). A vestigial organ is sort of like using an old van as a clubhouse: It works, but the car definitely was not originally built for that purpose, just as the manatees' hipsocket was not originally evolved for the functions (if any) it may have now.

2. Homology is evidence of common design.

I have addressed this argument at a more general level here. But let me just give a simple answer: Is the arrangement of bones and muscles in the manatee's flipper the most optimal for what it does? If it does just as good a job as any other arrangement, then why did God choose that pattern over all the others? Be sure to give a detailed, falsifiable and testable answer.

3. You can't prove those fossil manatees are the ancestors of modern day manatees!

No, I cannot prove that the fossils found even belonged to the species which evolved into modern manatees. But creationists are missing the point: Evolution predicts that fossils showing intermediate characteristics must be found in the fossil record if evolution did in fact take place. Sure enough, we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to transitional fossils. Creationism, on the other hand, predicts that animals must have been created in distinct and separate 'kinds' and therefore nothing that even appears intermediate should be found. Even if one admits that manatees did evolve from land mammals and wants to call them the same 'kind' they must acknowledge that homological and vestigial structures are very distinct causes of evolution. You must be consistent and accept the homological/vestigial structures that all living things have and acknowledge common descent.

'Ants from Mars' ruin the creationists' picnic

One of my fellow bloggers (named Evan) wrote a very devastating piece about the latest ant species to be discovered and AiG's reaction to it. You see, genetics indicates that this ant branched off from the ant family tree, oh, about 120 million years ago. Evan summed the magnitude of this creationist problem (the words in italics are quotes from 'Answers in Genesis'):

[W]hile it is clear that this ant is quite different from many other ants, we don’t buy the logic that difference proves something about evolution. For one thing, the different structures of this ant explain why its DNA is so different; for another, its differences show it has adapted well to its environment.

Yet AiG does NOT use this argument when it suits them. When DNA is different, AiG decides that this is due to different structures. Yet when DNA is similar, like in chimps and humans, AiG believes this is due to common design. The facts are that multiple lines of evidence show that modern ants have been descended from a common ancestor who arose around 120 MYBP. The DNA evidence that this ant is a representative of an unrelated branch of this lineage that branched off very early from the original common ancestor of ants is extremely compelling. There is anatomic, physiologic and DNA evidence to support this. But AiG uses one of its arguments that can never be wrong.

This is because God created the original ant kind—or a larger kind from which ants, wasps, and bees have all devolved—with enough information to adapt to numerous environments.

Really?

I mean, really?

Is it the position of AiG that all extant wasp, bee and ant species descended from ONE common ancestor who was on Noah's ark? Is it really their contention that bees evolved from this ancestor within 2000 years of the ark's landing, so that Palestine could be a land flowing with milk and honey? Do they really want to back that up?

Creationists take another kick in the shins with the advance of science

One of the major arguments against dinosaur to bird evolution goes something like this:

"[S]cientists believe that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs. But theropod dinosaurs have lost digits IV and V from a primitively five-fingered hand, leaving them with digits I, II, and III. Birds, on the other hand, have digits II, III, and IV, having lost digits I and V. It is almost impossible for the two groups to be closely related with such a significant anatomical difference."

Biologist P.Z. Myers wrote an excellent article about this a while back and answered this criticism thusly:

"Anatomists initially assigned digit numbers I, II, and III to bird limbs on the basis of their form, but later had to revise that to II, III, and IV on the basis of embryology. Dinosaur digits are assigned numbers I, II, and III on the basis of their adult form (which is admittedly much less ambiguous than adult bird digits!)…but what about their embryology? If we had access to information about expression of molecular markers and early condensations in the dinosaur limb, would we have to revise their digit numbers?"

He goes on to talk about the hypothesis that dinosaur fingers 2,3, and 4 began devoloping as digits 1,2, and 3 due to a mutation in the genes that control development. This was scoffed at by creationists as being a "baseless speculation to try to save the dino to bird theory from reality". Well, now creationists are once again the ones who need saving from reality. Scientists have been doing some work on the gene expression in the alligator (the closest living relative of birds) and have found that a a gene called "Hox D-11" is not expressed in digit 1 of mice and alligators and is also not expressed in the second digit of birds. This means... Dah-dah-dah-dah! The digit 2 in birds is really just digit 1 developing as digit 2. Just what the "baseless speculation" mentioned earlier predicts.

Dino/Bird Transitional Fossils:

The Classic: Archaeopteryx

Sinosauropteryx: The Dino with Protofeathers**

T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers

A Giant Turkey-Like Dinosaur

The '7 Foot Turkey'

Velociraptor Had Feathers

Microraptor: The Four Winged Dinosaur

NOVA: The Four Winged Dinosaur

Bird Fossil Transitions

** I have addressed a criticism of the Sinosauropteryx fossil here.

The Great Resurrection Debate

I'm not going to make this blog all about religion, but I think I can indulge myself in a post or two from time to time.

Soooo, I have been looking into the evidence for the existence of Jesus as well as the evidence for the resurrection. Here are two debates (one is still going on, the other is complete) which I think are helpful for understanding this issue:

Carrier vs. O'Connell: Did Paul Believe in a Physical Resurrection?

Bart Ehrman vs. William Lane Craig: Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Two books I am looking forward to reading (which have not been released yet):

The Jesus Puzzle (Second Edition) by Earl Doherty

On the Historicity of Jesus Christ by Richard Carrier

Feel free to leave a comment on what you think of these resources and any resources you find helpful for researching this issue (for or against Christianity).

Charlie's Playhouse

Here is a site with toys and games inspired by Darwin:

http://www.charliesplayhouse.com

Funny site

Next time you hear a creationist say, "There are no transitional fossils!" try sending them to this site:

http://www.transitional-fossil.com/

LOL.

Two things...

I know I have been slow to update the blog lately, its just that I've been working and also that I haven't seen much to write about. Anyway, here are two awesome articles I found today:

New fossil that shows dinosaurs and birds breathed alike

Cells coordinate gene activity with FM bursts