Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Intelligent Design Creationism Trial Exhibits

VIEWS: 346 PAGES: 104

									Intelligent Design Creationism: Why it is standard, anti-evolutionist special creationism
1. Misleading definitions of evolution: the straw man 2. Distortion of commonplace scientific concepts: sowing doubt 3. Incorrect, incomplete presentation of scientific evidence: Undermining legitimate science to ridicule it 4. Direct (but disguised) origin of ID claims in discredited, frankly religious arguments of “scientific creationism” 5. Illogical conclusion that alleged “evidence against evolution” (99% of ID arguments) is evidence FOR “intelligent design”

Pandas on Macroevolution Macroevolution is called “the origin of new types.” (p. 11) “It is a mistake to claim for macroevolution the status of fact.” (p. 26) “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact –” (pp. 99-100) The formation of new species cannot lead to macroevolution, because in isolation a population will have less genetic variability than in its species as a whole, and so the new species will have too little variability to create “new types.” Speciation can only represent “limited change.” (p. 12)

An empirical view of speciation and macroevolution
-- speciation is when new lineages are formed by diverging from parent populations; this may be done in many ways -- populations that adapt to new environments may shift the range of variability in some features, but this does not consequently reduce variability in new species -- speciation may occur as the result of only a few genetic or morphological or behavioral changes -- macroevolution is the study of the patterns and processes of evolution above the species level -- speciation is the “raw material” for the patterns and processes of macroevolution; “macroevolution” is not itself a process, and it does not mean the origin of new forms

Pandas, 1993, p. 85

SO, according to “intelligent design,” -- natural selection only decreases variation -- some species have not changed “since their beginning” -- speciation can occur, but it does not involve new innovations -- known natural mechanisms are too limited to account for important biological change and adaptive diversity

The creationist pedigree of “intelligent design”: “Ever since Darwin first put forth his theory, creation scientists have maintained that at best natural selection could only be a conservative force, weeding out the unfit, but would be powerless to generate increasing complexity and to originate something new or novel and thus powerless to change one kind of animal into another. “Creationists insist that at best such a process could only produce variants within an established kind and could never produce new and novel structures, and, furthermore, no random process, genetic drift, mutations or otherwise could produce millions of complex creatures from a single-celled organism in three billion years, or even in millions times three billion years.”
-- Duane Gish, Institute for Creation Research, Impact #43

Classification, Ancestors, And Relationships

Intelligent Design proponents do not understand (or accept) how scientists establish relationships among organisms. Establishing relationships is not a never-ending search for the direct ancestors of all other living and extinct forms. Paleontologists are not searching the rocks for the “missing links” that are the “direct ancestors” of other forms. The relationships of ALL organisms, living and extinct, are assessed on the basis of shared characteristics, not on notions of “direct ancestry” or “missing links.” Establishing the relationships of organisms is not a matter of “transitional forms,” but of transitional features, the shared characteristics that indicate common ancestry.

Lineal Ancestry

Collateral Ancestry

Great Great Grandparents

Great Great Grandparents

Great Grandparents

Great Grandparents

Grandparents

Grandfather

Grandmother

Grandfather

Grandmother

Parents
Father Mother

Aunts Uncles Cousins

You

You

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Jaws

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

Reader SM and KN Laland. 2002. PNAS 99(7): 44364441. Hamrick MW. 2001. J. of Human Evolution 40(4): 339-351. Rilling JK and TR Insel. 1998. Brain Behavior and Evolution 52(6):308-314.

4 true limbs

Jaws

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

Allin EF. 1975. Journal of Morphology 147(4): 403437.

4 true limbs

Jaws

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

Luckett WP. 1993. Journal of Experimental Zoology 266(6): 514-527. Mossman HW. 1991. Placenta 12(1): 1-5. Simpson GG. 1945. B. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 85: 1-307.

4 true limbs

Jaws

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Jaws

Oftedal OT. 2002. J. of Mammary Gland Biology & Neoplasia 7(3): 225-252. Sidor CA and JA Hopson. 1998. Paleobiology 34(2): 254-273.

Vertebral column

Novacek MJ. 1997. Current Biology 7(8): R489-491. Meng J and AR Wyss. 1997. Nature. 385: 712-714.

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Reisz RR. 1997. TREE 12(6): 217-222.
Jaws

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* T. rex Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Jaws

Novas FE. 1996. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16(4): 723-741.

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Jaws

Shubin N, Tabin C and S Carroll. 1997. Nature 388: 639-648. Shubin N. 1995. Evolutionary Biology 28: 39-86. Ahlberg PE. 1991. Nature 354: 298-301.

Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Jaws

Forey P and P Janvier. 1993. Nature 361: 129-134.
Vertebral column

Vertebrate Cladogram
Lamprey Shark Frog T. rex* Bird Marsupial Lion Cow Human Gorilla

Prehensile hand Hole in hip socket Big brain Stirrup-shaped ear bone Mammary gland Placenta

Amnion Hair Synapsid opening

4 true limbs

Jaws

Forey P and P Janvier. 1994. American Scientist 82(6): 553-566.
Vertebral column

Creationism and the Fossil Record

I. “Irreducible Complexity” and the evolution of major adaptations

The “adaptational packages” of ID creationists -- characterize major groups of plants and animals -- represent major adaptations to new conditions of life -- cannot be separated into simpler components without destroying the functional advantage to their possessors These “adaptational packages” can only represent “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY” … meaning that they cannot evolve by known natural means, and so must be specially created by a Designer

IDC proponent Michael Behe claims that “irreducible complexity” applies only to cells and molecules, not to adaptive features in organs or major groups of organisms. This is a false statement. In Of Pandas and People the implications of “IC” are repeatedly extended to adaptations and whole organisms. Michael Behe is listed as a “critical reviewer” of Pandas, but he also wrote the sections on biochemistry that deal with blood clotting proteins (2nd edition). To believe what Behe says, we must accept: (1) Behe had no knowledge that his co-authors misappropriated his concept above the molecular level; OR (2) “IC” is not only a molecular concept.

Pandas: IC applies to levels above molecules (contra Behe) ► “multifunctional adaptations, where a single structure or trait achieves two or more functions at once. … is taken as evidence by the proponents of intelligent design of their theory.” (p. 72) ► “… proponents of intelligent design maintain that only a consummate engineer could anticipate so effectively the total engineering requirements of an organism like the giraffe.” (p. 71) ► “But it has not been demonstrated that mutations are able to produce the highly coordinated parts of novel structures needed again and again by macroevolution.” (p. 66) ► “Design theories suggest that various forms of life began with their distinctive features already intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” (p. 25)
(Of Pandas and People, 1993)

The “adaptational package” of the giraffe
(Of Pandas and People, p. 69-70)

Creationism and the Fossil Record

II. The “Cambrian Explosion”

The Cambrian “Explosion”
“… some organisms appear with adaptational packages intact at the Cambrian boundary where multicellular life first “flowers,” with no evidence whatsoever of fossil ancestors. … only an intelligent designer has the ability to coordinate the design requirements of multifunctional adaptational packages.”
(Pandas, pp. 71-72)

“… the great majority of the animal phyla … appear … in a remarkably brief period of time … 10 to 30 million years…, and are not connected by evolutionary intermediates. … there is an unexpected lack of fossils bridging the evolutionary distance between the phyla to document evolutionary origins for them.” (Pandas, pp. 94-95) “… categories of classification are largely artificial, human groupings.” (Pandas, p. 78)

The Origin of Pandas from Scientific Creationism:
‘‘[A]ll the kingdoms, phyla and classes in the organic world have been essentially unchanged since life began, and . . . even the orders and most of the families, genera, and even species appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no incipient forms leading up to them. . . . [W]hile there may have been changes within the kinds (as provided by creative forethought) [i.e., a designer] . . . the kinds have apparently not varied since the beginning, except for those that have become extinct.’’
(Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp. 87–88)

“… some organisms appear with adaptational packages intact at the Cambrian boundary where multicellular life first “flowers,” with no evidence whatsoever of fossil ancestors. … only an intelligent designer has the ability to coordinate the design requirements of multifunctional adaptational packages.”
(Pandas, 1993, pp. 71-72)

“In the Cambrian geological strata there occurs a sudden, great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. In the Cambrian rocks are found billions of fossils of animals so complex that the evolutionists estimate they would have required one and a half billion years to evolve. Trilobites, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish, in fact every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian. What is found in rocks supposedly older than the Cambrian, that is in the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks? Not a single indisputable fossil! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction, the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found. “ – Duane Gish, Institute for Creation Research, Impact 4

Pandas (pp. 25-26)

Pandas’ depiction of the Cambrian “Explosion” (p. 95)

Figure 4-2. A generalized schematic of the fossil record, designed to show the Cambrian origins of nearly all animal phyla in relation to the overall time scale of the history of animal organisms. Dotted lines represent the presumed existence of phyla, not the fossil record.

What the Pandas authors neglect to show students: -- no time scale -- no names of animal groups -- no Precambrian record -- no indication of relationships

Yellow = metazoan “classes”; Blue = metazoan “orders” Thick bars = known fossil record; grey = putative record; thin = inferred record Red numbers = molecular phylogenetic estimates of divergence times Purple squares = fossil occurrences (compare to molecular divergence times} (Peterson et al., Paleobiology, 2005)

Geologic Time Scale
Millions of years ago

http://gpc.edu/~pgore/gore.htm

Burgess Shale biota, Canada 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 Fossil metazoan embryos
Xiao et al. Nature, 1998 Steiner et al, Geobios, 2004

Maotianshan biota, China

Cambrian “explosion” of skeletonized animals Evidence of bioturbation
Cambrian boundary
Babcock et al, GSA Today, 2001

“small shelly fauna” begins (e.g. Cloudina) Fossilized animal burrows

Ediacaran (soft-bodied) biota

Creationism and the Fossil Record

III. How vertebrates gained land
(the “fish-amphibian” transition)

Pandas (p. 22)

Pandas, p. 104

Ichthyostega (an “amphibian”)

Eusthenopteron (a “fish”)
(Pandas, p. 103)

Pandas, pp. 103-104

Pandas version (above) Scientific version (below)

Creationism and the Fossil Record

IV. The Origin of Birds

The Origin of Birds

- Pandas, p. 106

- Pandas, p. 22

Origin of Feathers

Stage 1

Sinosauropteryx (a compsognathid)

Origin of Feathers

Stage 2

Dilong (a tyrannosauroid)

Origin of Feathers

Stage 3
Protarchaeopteryx

Origin of Feathers

Stage 4

Caudipteryx (a oviraptorosaur)

Origin of Feathers

Stage 5

Microraptor (a dromaeosaur)

What good is half a wing? How feathers were used before flight evolved -- insulation -- color patterns: camouflage display species recognition -- sheltering eggs when brooding All examples of evolutionary exaptation

Additional Evidence

Additional Evidence

Additional Evidence

Creationism and the Fossil Record

V. Fossil Mammals

The Evolution of the Ear in Mammals
For over a century it has been understood by anatomists that the incus and malleus (“anvil and hammer”) bones in the ears of mammals correspond to bones that previously made up the jaw joint (quadrate and articular) in the other vertebrates. The Pandas authors claim this correspondence is false:

(Pandas, p. 121)

The following sources, dating back as early as 1969, beg to differ

The following sources, dating back as early as 1969, beg to differ

The following sources, dating back as early as 1969, beg to differ

Transition to Dual Articulation (Quadrate-Articular and Dentary-Squamosal)

Procynosuchus

Probainognathus

Morganucodon

possum
Figures modified from Carroll, 1988

Transition to Dual Articulation (Quadrate-Articular and Dentary-Squamosal)

Morganucodon

possum

Probainognathus

ONLY dentarysquamosal joint BOTH quadrate-articular AND dentary-squamosal joints

Procynosuchus

quadrate-articular joint ONLY

stapes

Ear bones in early mammals

Pandas version …

relocation as incus and malleus, not stapes

scientific version

the stapes is here

The origin of whales

(Pandas, pp. 101-102)

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Oldest known whales from Pakistan

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Oldest known whales are quadrupedal

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Oldest known whales are quadrupedal

Living Cetacea

Isotopes demonstrate semiaquatic lifestyle

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Large paddle-like hands

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Large paddle-like hands

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Hips decouple from backbone

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Nostrils move backward along skull

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Ankles still like an artiodactyl

Living Cetacea

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Additional vertebrae in backbone

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Nostrils move further back along skull

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Legs atrophy – fully aquatic existence

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Ankles still like an artiodactyl

Early Eocene artiodactyls Hippos

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Protocetids

Basilosaurids

Living Cetacea

Total loss of hind limbs

The origin of whales

(Pandas, pp. 101-102)

Creationist misrepresentations of Homology and Analogy

dog

wolf
(Pandas, p. 117)

marsupial “wolf”

Pandas on homology: the real wolf and Tasmanian “wolf”

-- Pandas, p. 29

Tasmanian wolf Of Pandas and People: “Notice the skull of the North American wolf is somewhat similar to the dog's, which is said to be related to it, but nearly identical to the Tasmanian wolf, which is allegedly only distantly related to it.”

Dog

North American wolf

Dog NO 4 premolars NO 2 molars

Para-occipital process present

Ear bulla present

YES N.Am. wolf

Carnassial tooth Cheek bone & jaw joint NO

NO 2 molars

4 premolars

Tooth formula

YES Carnassial tooth

Lacrimal bone visible from side

N. Am. wolf NO 4 premolars NO 2 molars Ear bulla present YES Carnassial tooth Cheek bone & jaw joint Tasmanian wolf YES 3 premolars Tooth formula Para-occipital process present

YES

4 molars

NO

Lacrimal bone visible from side

Dog

N. Am. wolf

Pinched nasals

Pinched nasals

3 incisors

3 incisors

N. Am. wolf

Tasmanian wolf

Pinched nasals

Wide nasals

3 incisors

4 incisors

Dog

N. Am. wolf

Tasmanian wolf

No palatal holes

Palatal holes

Dog

N. Am. wolf

Tasmanian wolf

4 premolars 4 molars 3 molars

3 premolars Reflected lamina

Kangaroo

YES Para-occipital process present

YES

4 molars Ear bulla present

NO Cheek bone & jaw joint Tasmanian wolf YES 3 premolars Tooth formula

YES

4 molars

NO

Lacrimal bone visible from side

Virginia opossum Para-occipital process present YES YES 4 molars NO Cheek bone & jaw joint Tasmanian wolf YES 3 premolars Tooth formula 3 premolars Ear bulla present

YES

4 molars

NO

Lacrimal bone visible from side

Tasmanian wolf Wide nasals

Kangaroo Wide nasals

Virginia opossum Wide nasals

4 incisors

5 incisors 3 incisors

Tasmanian wolf

Kangaroo

Virginia opossum

Palatal holes Palatal holes Palatal holes

Tasmanian wolf

Kangaroo

Virginia opossum 3 premolars Reflected lamina 4 molars

3 premolars

4 molars

Reflected lamina

4 molars Reflected lamina

1 premolar

Genetic similarities

Not just the pouch
Similar traits among the Tasmanian wolf and other marsupials:
!Para-occipital process !Do not have ear bulla !Cheek bone meets jaw joint !General tooth formula !Lacrimal is visible from the side !Wide nasal bones !Holes in palatal bones !Reflected lamina !Nuclear DNA !Mitochondrial DNA !Ribosomal genes

IDCers prefer the explanation of special creation over descent:

(Pandas, p. 125)

IDCers prefer the explanation of special creation over descent:

(Pandas, pp. 124-125)

(Pandas, p. 122)


								
To top