Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

When I was first learning about evolution, one of the things that I really wanted to see was smooth, gradual transitions in the fossil record. I didn't want to see fossils based on part of a jaw bone, or a series of creatures very different from each other being displayed as relatives.

It's taken a lot of looking into the subject before I finally found these examples. I'm going to list examples, and then follow it with an article that explains the transition:

Hominid (Human) Evolution

Reptile to Mammal Evolution

Horse Evolution

Keith Miller discusses several transitional sequences (including the two above)

Whale Evolution Chart

Whale Evolution Article*

Ceratopsian Evolution

The Dilemma of the Horned Dinosaurs (Discuss the Ceratops)

Early Vertebrate Evolution

Several Misc. Examples of Smooth Transition

Early Amphibians

* Since the article on whale evolution was written, a more complete Pakicetid fossil was discovered:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html

Student of Dembski Leaves the Fold

I broke free from Christian fundamentalism in April 2006. I was a third year student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. This seminary is considered by many to be the intellectual hub of evangelical seminaries. The president of the seminary, Dr. Albert Mohler, has been called "the leading intellectual voice for evangelicals in America." He has been a frequent guest on Larry King Live, debating controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, religious tolerance, etc. Dr. William Dembski also teaches at the seminary, who is widely considered the world's leading proponent of Intelligent Design. Dr. Dembski was my professor in the fall semester of 2005.

But with one year left to complete a Masters of Divinity in Theology, I could no longer ignore the questions that were piling up in my mind. My questions and doubts troubled me to the point that I simply could no longer preach and teach something that I wasn't sure if believed any longer. I had become a member of a Southern Baptist church almost a year earlier. I absolutely loved this church, and all three pastors were also students at the seminary. The pastor was a Ph.D student, so I really enjoyed his sermons because they were really "deep" theologically. So when I informed them of my decision to leave the faith, you can imagine their reaction! Shortly after hearing of my decision, they held a Wednesday night service to excommunicate me from the church and "deliver my soul over to satan for the destruction of my flesh and the eternal flames of hell." Here is the email correspondence that took place after I informed them of my decision to leave the faith.

Click Here to Read More.

On Snake Evolution

The following is from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v5/i4/snake.asp

"No observed mutation can do anything like produce the special equipment in a snake, even if you started with a ‘soundly functional lizard’. Snakes have not evolved either slowly or rapidly from any other creatures we call reptiles. Not only is there no trace of transitional forms in the fossil record, but no one has ever seen a mutated lizard or snake which would give a clue as to how it could have evolved to become so legless, and yet so perfectly adapted to being a snake."

The second comment is just begging for photos of legless lizards and the long, snake-like lizards.
Now, as far as snake fossils go, there aren't many. But I managed to dig up a few anyhow:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060419_snake_hips.html
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070326_lizard_limbs.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5460/2010

A 95-million-year-old fossil snake from the Middle East documents the most extreme hindlimb development of any known member of that group, as it preserves the tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges. It is more complete than Pachyrhachis, a second fossil snake with hindlimbs that was recently portrayed to be basal to all other snakes. Phylogenetic analysis of the relationships of the new taxon, as well as reanalysis of Pachyrhachis, shows both to be related to macrostomatans, a group that includes relatively advanced snakes such as pythons, boas, and colubroids to the exclusion of more primitive snakes such as blindsnakes and pipesnakes.

Evolution for Creationists: Predictions Update

Pharyngula Author P.Z. Meyers wrote a wonderful article about the evolution of the vertebrate eye, and the verified predictions which the theory made concerning it. I added this to Part Four of my "Evolution for Creationists" series.

Update on Apologetics Press

I sent the following to Apologetics Press:

Our conversation was posted on my blog:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com

I think you are wrong for being unwilling to admit
you were mistaken,
and for decieving people.
This is going online for all to see.

Thanks,
Ryan

He sent this back:

Hey Ryan,
Thanks for writing. I have it
on my schedule to respond to
your email.
As for your blog, it is always exciting
for me to see the truth
presented.


I replied:

Hi Kyle,

I didn't expect a response, but I am willing to wait.
I do, however, think that you are wrong about
vestigial organs. Take a look at what Darwin wrote in
his famous book about the origin of the species:

"An organ serving for two purposes, may become
rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more
important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for
the other."

Sincerely,
Ryan

Apologetics Press and Vestigial Organs

This is a few emails sent back and forth between myself and Kyle Butt (Yeah, that's his real name) at Apologetics Press. My words are in italics, his are in bold. At the time of writing, I haven't received any further contact from him. As a side, he is totally wrong about evolutionists saying vestigial organs had absolutely no function. Talk Origins has some definitions from the early 1900's which state vestigial organs can have function.

Hello,

I came across your website and stumbled on to the
following article:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3512

It says:

"These “useless” vestiges of evolution, however,
turned out to be nothing of the sort. Dr. Houts noted
that these organs were “useless” only in the sense
that scientists and medical doctors were ignorant of
their functions."

Vestigial does not mean totally useless. It means that
has lost most or all of its original function. The
appendix is homologous to the primate caecum, used for
digesting cellulose. While ours may have some
immunological function, it is still vestigial.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

It also says:

"So, we are told that the appendix is a useless
leftover, and that “fact” proves evolution to be true.
Then we are told that the appendix has a very
important function and that fact “makes evolutionary
sense.”"

Actually, if the appendix was totally useless, it
should have completely disappeared by now. But the
caecum did not, a small part of it stayed behind as
the appendix. It would make sense that this small
remnant stayed behind for some reason.

I believe this should be evaluated and corrected.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for writing. As you might imagine, I would
disagree with your conclusion that the appendix
is vestigial. In truth, those at talk origins are
forced to admit the multiple uses of alleged vestigial
organs. This is not, however, how alleged vestigial
organs are approached by all evolutionary thinkers,
and certainly not how they were approached
in the past
(please see, and notice the listing as useless

http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs.html) 

The reason talk origins folks were forced to change
is because so many uses and functions have been found
for the supposed vestigial organs. In order to prove
that something is an inadequate left-over of evolution,
the evolutionists would first be forced to prove
that humans actually evolved from a lower life form
(which they cannot do), then they would be forced to
prove that the organ was not specifically designed
for a special purpose as it currently is positioned
in the human body (which they cannot do).
The truth of the matter is, the more science studies
alleged vestigials, the weaker the argument
for evolution gets. Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,

Kyle Butt

Dear Kyle,

I'm not sure how vestigial organs were approached in
the past, they may have indeed been called useless.
But the fact is, there are many examples of
rudimentary structures that have lost most or all of
their original (key word: original) function, like the
hind limbs of the whale. 

Now, as for being "forced to prove that the organ was
not specifically designed for a special purpose as it
currently is positioned in the human body". Are you
joking? No offense, but their is no way to prove a
negative like that. That would be like me asking you
to prove that it hadn't evolved. Besides, appendixes
and such are taken out every year and with seemingly
little effect on the individual. Live Science states
that this causes over 300 deaths a year. Doesn't sound
like something "designed" to me. Now, as for proving
that man evolved from "lower" life forms, that's easy.
I have written a whole blog series dedicated to doing
just that. I have references linked to just about
everything I say, so you can check it out if you want.
Particularly interesting is the ERV's:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part-three.html

And By the way, if you read the Live Science Article
on Vestigial Organs, you will notice they report
whales being found with "feet and complete digits".
Just how does a creationist explain that?

I hope I haven't sounded hostile, hope to hear from
you soon, Sincerely,
Ryan

The Ultimate Answer to the Information Argument

I have just come up with the ultimate argument against the "Information" argument creationists use ("evolution cannot produce new information").

Here goes: Creationists believe that absolutely everything was created in just six days. Variation and micro-evolution could occur, but no macro-evolution and no "increases in information" would happen. They also believe that everything was created perfect, no thorns, thistles, and so on. So how did those things come about? Evolution is the only answer. God couldn't have created them, the bible says nothing of neither God nor Satan creating these things. It must have evolved and the only way to do that is through an increase in information.

Let's take an even greater case into mind: How did snake venom come about? Would it have possibly had a pre-Fall use? Let's look at their words about this problem:

The idea that the snake’s fangs may have been used to inject a fruit-softening substance pre-Fall has the same problem. That is, why, how, and when (if not by direct creation) did snakes change not only their diet but their behavior, which appears to be programmed in their genetic code and not a matter of conscious choice?⁷

In any case, snake venom contains complex chemicals that appear to be designed for purposes far removed from fruit-eating. One of these chemicals is highly specific in its attack on the central nervous system to arrest breathing; another specifically blocks the clotting mechanism so that the prey bleeds to death internally.

They took the words right out of my mouth.