Grandma Ida?

Some declared the fossil Ida the "eighth wonder of the world" because it's the "missing link" to finally prove the common ancestry of apes and humans.  Here are a couple of calmer factual reports.

From CBS News:

While the fossil doesn't relate to the more heated debate over whether chimpanzees and humans share a common identity - the fossil is not the so-called "missing link" - the two factions will likely pounce on this new find with evolutionists claiming the skeleton adds to the limited fossil record.

From The Guardian:

The fossil evidence of primate evolutionary history is sparsely populated – more missing than link. So almost any major primate fossil at a significant point in our ancestral line could be referred to by that over-used phrase....

[I]n the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil he [Jørn Hurum, at the University of Oslo, the scientist who assembled the international team of researchers to study Ida is relaxed about using the phrase] is more circumspect. "Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past," the authors wrote.

"[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here."

The paper's scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.

One of those reviewers, Professor John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York state said that would be a judgment for the scientific community. "That will be sorted out or at least debated extensively in the coming years once the paper is published," he said.

The paper on Ida hasn't even been presented yet so has not yet met with peer review, an important step in the scholarly chain of establishing scientific evidence for any kind of claim.  Yesterday's headlines were based on press releases promoting the paper, not evidence from the paper itself since it hasn't been peer reviewed.  This is the beginning of the process, not the end so no time to hail Ida as final proof of evolution, which The Guardian points out is missing more than one link in the fossil evidence.  We'll see what comes of that process.

One question that has to be raised with any fossil evidence is the presupposition and interpretation imposed on the evidence placing it in the fossil chain of evolution.  Fossils don't come lined nicely in the strata in transitional order, as the pictures of fossils lined up in science books nicely illustrate.  Fossils are dated, which gives us their historical place, but that doesn't prove transition.  What is evident in the fossil evidence, and in Ida, is variation in species, which isn't at all remarkable.  Claiming those variations are proof of one species evolving into a new one is an interpretation of those physical features already with the assumption of evolution, not objective proof.

A transition is only a transition only if it occupies the space in the historical development that it needs to occupy, and no fossil can provide that proof without the presumption of evolution imposed upon it placing it in the transitional chain.  That's circular reasoning.

Dr. Fuz Rana from Reasons To Believe discusses Ida on the RTB podcast.  Rana points out that Ida can just as easily be interpreted as a "highly designed organism well-suited to its environment."  The factual evidence of Ida is just as available for a creation interpretation.  He observes that the tremendous enthusiasm and hype created by the so-called discovery of the "missing link" suggests the lack of evidence in the fossil record thus far, despite that evolution is claimed to be beyond dispute.  In fact, there is a dearth of evidence in the fossil record of evolutionary pathways between species and Ida doesn't appear to be that either.  Ida appears to be an ancient monkey, not a lemur, and is remarkably complete and well-preserved.  She shows a "mosaic of features" that are interpreted as being transitional, but only if evolution is assumed.

Comments

[Jesse]

"Many paleontologists are unconvinced. "

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/519/1

[David Hawkins]

>>"Fossils are dated, which gives us their historical place, but that doesn't prove transition."

"...This has led many competent, accredited scientists to object, as this poses a circular argument: how can evolution be the basis for geologic conclusions while geology is taught as the basic evidence for evolution? "Are the authorities maintaining on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" (Larry Azar, Bioscience, vol. 28).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." (J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science, vol. 276)

"The geologic time scale employs yet another circular argument. We determine the age of the rock by the assumed age of the index fossils it contains, then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same layer of rock, we look at the age of the layer of rock in which they are found. "…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." (R. H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10)

[David Hawkins]

Decent article w/pics

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php

[Matt Tennison]

Head....hurts...trying to make circular reasoning make sense...

But thank you for giving this a level-headed look, and thanks David for the quotes ;)

I'm not personally scared because the news told me i'm going to die of Pig Flu anyway.

[Joe]

David,

You should take a geology class before commenting on how things are dated.

[Joe]

...Or at least read Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters first.

[Matthew]

You seem to be assuming that the fossil record is our only line of evidence for evolution.

This is completely false. The weight of corroborating evidence breaks the supposed circularity.

[David Hawkins]

Joe,

The two different geology professors I've had made a priori ideological suppositions as to the interpretation of "evidence" as well. One admitted doing so. The other was a bit more close-minded.

Matthew,

You're assuming I'm making an assumption.

I would agree with you in part...the weight of the corraborating interpretations break the supposed circularity.
It has to. The conclusion has already been decided.

[Joe]

David,

And what were those "a priori ideological suppositions"?

Would you consider it to be an "a priori ideological supposition" if I said that in series of sedimentary layers, barring faulting or other well-known and well-understood layer-distorting phenomena, the layers at the bottom are older than the layers at the top?

[Jesse]

David offered a selection of quotes from a few people who have taken a geology class. Perhaps it can be shown that he took them out of context or that the people who said these things are wrong, but how does insulting David's education help here?

[Joe]

>No fossil can provide that proof without the presumption of evolution imposed upon it placing it in the transitional chain. That's circular reasoning.

Not quite. Fossils are not used to prove evolution, fossils are used to test the theory. Evolution is not a "presumption"; it's an explanation derived from observation. Before there was a theory, there were the observations. The theory was created to explain the observations.

But the theory is subject to disproof. It's not a presumption, it's a prediction generator. So, we take the predictions and seek out addtional data in several independent forms, including fossils. The addtional data are collected to test the theory. If life on earth is not the product of evolution, then we should be able to find plenty of fossils to disprove the theory.

Ida is just another test of the theory.

[Joe]

I wonder if Dr. Rana would like to explain why a highly designed organism, such as myself, has external testicles.

[Shame and Dishonour]

Joe, I think he has, honestly, lol. I forget, but i swear they went through it in a podcast once. I could be wrong though

[Jesse]

External testicles = temperature regulation for sperm. Beside, we wouldn't have quality shows like America's Funniest Home videos without the added pain susceptibility ;)

[Joe]

Well, he's gonna have a hard time convincing me (grimaces in pain at certain memories).

[Joe]

My apologies for questioning David's education.

[Joe]

External testicles = temperature regulation for sperm.

So, that explains why warm-blooded bird testicles are external. Oh, wait, bird testicles are internal. Hmm.

[Jesse]

And the body temperature of those birds vs. the optimal temperature for their sperm is.... ?

[Jesse]

My question is how could this have been an evolved trait? How could it be advantageous from a survival standpoint to have the key to reproductive systems hanging out in an unprotected location? We are supposed to be more highly evolved than those other primitive species that don't share this peculiar trait, right?

[Joe]

>And the body temperature of those birds vs. the optimal temperature for their sperm is....

And sperm survival temperatures could not have been adjusted by an intelligent designer?

I don't know that I was say that we are necessarily "more highly evolved". As group, it's hard to be the insects for evolutionary success.

As far as why inside in birds and outside for mammals, I honestly don't have a good answer off the top of my head. I'm not even certain that all mammals have external testicles. But I don't think that natural selection produces the best of all possible designs, instead, it just favors the best that exists at the time. And that produces oddities like the panda's thumb.

[Joe]

Whoa, got to watch the typos...

I don't know that I *would* say that we are necessarily "more highly evolved". As group, it's hard to *beat* the insects for evolutionary success

[Shame and Dishonour]

"And sperm survival temperatures could not have been adjusted by an intelligent designer?"

This isint my field so I cant really engage in this discussion, but as far as that statement is concerned, could not that simply be met with just as vague an answer as 'apparently thats not what he had in mind?'

[Joe]

>Could not that simply be met with just as vague an answer as 'apparently thats not what he had in mind?'

Actually, yes it could, and I can not prove that this didn't happen. And that's one of the basic problem with using "intelligent designer" as an answer. It's not vulnerable to disproof.

In theory, an intelligent designer can make things however he/she/it wants to make them. So, that means that any and all objects, biological or otherwise, can be said to be the product of an IDer.

Good design, bad design, it doesn't matter, it's all what the designer wanted. External testicles? That's what the IDer had in mind. Internal testicles? That's what the IDer had in mind. And I can't prove that he/she/it didn't have this in mind.

There is actually little point in Dr. Rana's comments that Ida can just as easily be interpreted as a "highly designed organism well-suited to its environment", because even if she wasn't, she could still be the product of intelligent design. It's impossible to prove otherwise. Any and every fossil species can be interpreted as "designed to suit its environment". As they say, the conclusion has already been decided.

[Shame and Dishonour]

I dont entirely agree, but I hear where your coming from. On the converse, "were here, so this is how it must be the case" is an equally frustrating statement to hear coming from an non ID standpoint. Whenever someone endorsing an ID standpoint uses, say, fine tuning (and im not making an argument here, just a small analigy) and tries to give the reasoning why its more probable that this was not the result of "chance" (or any other non-theistic conclusion), the non theist can respond with the quote I gave earlier.

So regardless of what presupposition you hold to your going to run into these nuances. Theist or not, the conclusion in both cases has allready been decided. I dont think either party is exempt from this sort of thing.

[ves]

I think we evolved from possums.
:-)

[Mike Westfall]

I think it would be neat to be a lemur! I mean, look at Zoboomafoo. He sure has a lot of fun!

[Jesse]

>> It's not vulnerable to disproof.

Aren't you demonstrating that you believe ID is in principle vulnerable to disproof by offering cases such as external testes, saying that surely a designer would not have done such a thing?

[Ron H]

Greetings,

The fossil evidence is nice but my favorite evidence for the common descent of primates, including us, is biochemical.

1) Endogenous retroviruses.
Sometimes the DNA of a virus gets spliced into the DNA of a sperm or egg cell belonging to the infected organism.
Once that happens, the viral DNA is passed from generation to generation - just as genes are.
The human genome contains the genomes of thousands of these 'endogenous retroviruses'.
The genomes of other primates contain some of the same virus genomes.
These remnants are in the exact same chromosomal location in the different species.
The best explanation: we and the other primates have inherited these viral genomes from a common ancestor.

2) Human Chromosome #2
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chimps, Gorillas, and orangutans have one more pair: 24.
Twenty-two of ours are almost exactly like twenty-two of theirs.
We have one left over called #2 because it is the second largest; they have two left over.
But, placed end-to-end, their two left-over chromosomes are just like our #2.
The best explanation: our chromosome #2 was formed when two ancestral chromosomes fused end to end making one chromosome out of two.

These simple descriptions leave out much detail all of which adds support to the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with the other primates. There is lots of other evidence for the common descent of all primates including humans: our cytochrom-c genes, our broken vitamin C genes, and vestigal human tails.

Ron

[Joe]

Not really. As I said, you can always say that the IDer wanted it that way. I understand that you can't use testicles to disprove ID.

I really just meant it, in a joking manner, as "evidence" that the IDer is "incompetent". I mean really, how hard would it have been to put them inside?

For another summary of incompetence, I recommend Monty Python's "All Things Dull and Ugly".

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/All_things_dull.html

[Jesse]

My favorite evidence for ID is biochemical. So... how did the cell come to be in the first place? Even the most simple cells are amazingly complex, with many interdependent systems. For instance, one of the simplest bacteria, Mycoplasma genitalium has a DNA sequence of about 580,000 base pairs, with 482 protein-coding genes. Of these, 382 were found to be essential. Remove one of these, and it's game over for our little friend. (Glass, et al. PNAS 2006)

Well, it's parasitic, and it's existence depends on other, far more complex host organisms but you get the idea. Paley's watch with its springs and cogs pales in comparison to this tiny little piece of machinery.

[Joe]

"One of the simplest bacteria" should read "one of the simplest bacteria known". There is good evidence that there many, many types of microbes out there yet to be cultured or characterized.

Further, the fact that there is today an interdependent system of, say, 400 genes, does not mean that the "ancestors" of these cells also required 400 genes. When a new gene and/or gene product is added to a system, that gene may well be "optional" at that point in time. That is, if the gene is lost by mutation, no big deal. Then, once the new gene exists, additional adventagous changes in other genes create systems in which the "new" gene and/or its products are now essential. So, if I find cells in which there 400 genes and in which the removal of one gene is fatal, that does not tell me that all of the "ancestral" cells in this lineage always required 400 genes for cells to be functional.

Nevertheless, yes, abiogenesis is a problem that currently has no good solution, in fact, I think it's one of the most interesting problems in biology. Maybe it will be solve and maybe it won't be; I'm no fortune teller.

But I am concerned that about the consequences of saying "God did it", because this can be a real research stopper. If God did it, what's the point of further study into the origins of cells? I have no idea if a materialistic mechanism for cell creation will be found, but I'm glad that there are those who are doing research and who are not ready to settle for "God did it" quite yet.

>My favorite evidence for...

But the question is, what possible observation could ever count against ID? If God didn't create the first cell, how can we know that the theory that God created cells out something non-cellular is wrong?

[Ron H]

Jesse,

Not knowing how people came to inhabit North America does not prevent us from knowing what happened during the Civil War.

Not knowing how the cell came to be does not prevent us from knowing the more recent history of life.

"Remove one of these, and it's game over for our little friend."

So we know that the last step in the evolution of Mycoplasma genitalium was not the addition of the 382nd to the other 381. What's your point?

Ron

[Jesse]

>> Not knowing how the cell came to be doe
>> s not prevent us from knowing the more
>> recent history of life.

So? Doesn't the question of whether there is a designer or not have to deal directly with origins?

>> So we know that the last step in
>> the evolution of Mycoplasma
>> genitalium was not the addition of
>> the 382nd to the other 381.

So it's not enough to have added a single protein, a mutation which would have been rather rare to begin with? What's the probability of a set of simultaneous mutations producing enough new information to encode a single additional protein consisting of a number of amino acids, anyway?

[Jesse]

>> If God did it, what's the point of
>> further study into the origins of
>> cells?

I sure am glad that 100% of the Christians involved in scientific research don't share this awful attitude.

[Joe]

Now, I am referring specifically and only to the origins of cells question here, and NOT to scientific questions in general...

But if you think that the origin of cells is essentially a miracle, an supernatural act by a non-material being, what is the point of further study into the origin of cells? I honestly don't see why anyone would waste their time. Again, I'm just talking about this particular scientific research question, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic in the least.

>What's the probability of a set of simultaneous mutations producing enough new information to encode a single additional protein consisting of a number of amino acids, anyway?

Apparently, it's not as unlikely as you appear to think that it is.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Evolutionary-scrap-heap-challenge-3A-Antifreeze-fish-make-sense-out-of-junk-DNA-2914-1/

[Ron H]

"So? Doesn't the question of whether there is a designer or not have to deal directly with origins?"

So we know primates, including humans, have a common ancestry even if we don't know the ancestry of the first cell - which, by the way would be as hard to identify as the boundary between life and non-life is today. Virus, prion, plasmid: alive or not?

"So it's not enough ..." One way new information comes into a genome is via (DNA) duplication followed modifications on either the original, the duplicate, or both. The copy can be of part of a gene, multiple genes, whole chromosomes, or even the entire genome. This has happened many times.

[Jesse]

If I had asked what the probability is of drawing the ace of spades from a deck of cards, one might have answered "one out of 52," not "there is an ace of spades in there," right?

[Shame and Dishonour]

"Not knowing how people came to inhabit North America does not prevent us from knowing what happened during the Civil War.

Not knowing how the cell came to be does not prevent us from knowing the more recent history of life."

This is essentially what I was Getting at earlier Joe. With respect to the poster (and I mean that), this is the "God did it" equivelant.

[Shame and Dishonour]

The Question then becomes, is it possible that despite our lack of current evidence on how this could have unintelligently came to be, is it more possible that this indeed came about unintelligently, or with the aid of a designer? And then you interpret the evidence with your conclusion in mind. At some point, this almost requires you step outside of the field of strict biology and science. Not dismiss, but consider otherwise. Im sure im not telling you anything new though *

[Shame and Dishonour]

I should add,

"is it more possible that this indeed came about unintelligently, or with the aid of a designer?"

With respect to that question, to say "well we have no way of knowing how probable it is", well, then I would say only if you are incapable of atleast entertaining the thought that life may be the result of agency and not happenstance. That statement, IMO, comes from an inability to consider otherwise. It has nothing to do with the abandoment of the "scientific method".

[A Very Silly Kiss]

oh!

[ves]

Well, let's see.......the way I shaped the legs on this table works perfectly. The same leg shape will work perfectly for the chairs.

[ToNy]

ya I don't think this fossil is all that interesting. But, We forget that to disprove genesis, we need only prove common ancestry.

And the erv and chromosome data, cited above by ron h, do a pretty good job at that.

Not enough to kill id. But enough to defentstrate the bible.

[ves]

It's all relative isn't it?

[Prince]

Ida hasn't even convinced a mass of palientologists yet or their peers. They are jumping the gun right now. I personally don't think it will prove to be anything other than an animal. I surley doubt that it will show your so called "missing link"!! It will be debated for years and then forgotten by most...

[Jesse]

>> to disprove genesis, we need only
>> prove common ancestry.

>> Not enough to kill id. But enough to
>> defentstrate the bible.

How does it follow that disproving the creation account in Genesis is a fatal blow to all 66 books?