The evolution of language

Via The Sensuous Curmudgeon, I read a letter to the editor that was typically terrible but also a good analogy for other arguments against the theory of evolution.

I began the study of linguistics in the autumn of 1968.
After nearly 50 years I can tell you, I still love linguistics. One day as an adult I read an article by a linguist who proposed a theory I had never considered. He suggested if Darwin were true, then language must have evolved from a grunt and a groan into the extraordinarily complex system of syntax, grammar and vocabulary which we speak today.
And if that were true, he continued, logically there must be evidence that somewhere, at sometime, in some place there once was a primitive language. After 50 years in linguistics I can tell you, for certain, there is no such evidence.

First, the claim it is a metaphor for. One thing this article at CreationToday gets right is that there are no simple life forms today.

Any living organism, even a single-celled amoeba, is more complex than the space shuttle!...Most biology textbooks these days teach that all life-forms evolved from “simple, single-celled life-forms.”
There are several things to consider here:
There are no “simple life-forms.” If it is alive—it is extremely complex.
Many single-celled creatures have been observed for thousands of generations with no significant change.
Single-celled creatures still exist and reproduce. Why aren’t any of them evolving?
There are no examples living or fossilized of two-, three-, or four-celled creatures.
After one-celled creatures, the “simplest” animals have about one hundred cells. How did the single-celled creatures become multi-celled? Be sure to ask for specific evidence, not just theories.

Alright, time to look at the letter to the editor and the claim that "[T]here must be evidence that somewhere, at sometime, in some place there once was a primitive language."

Why does the letter writer think that? Do the words from his mouth solidify and exist without human intervention for more than a few seconds? If you are curious about the 'few seconds' bit, I will do him the favour of imagining he speaks in an echo chamber and the words do carry and bounce for some time. But not a minute. Not an hour.

If there was a primitive language, if evolutionists and linguists were right, what does he think we would find? Here are some 'Unattested languages' from North American native peoples -"Several languages are only known by mention in historical documents or from only a few names or words. It cannot be determined that these languages actually existed or that the few recorded words are actually of known or unknown languages."

• Ais
• Akokisa
• Aranama
• Ausaima
• Avoyel
• Bayogoula  - There are 23 more at the link.

The key phrase for me is "cannot be determined that these languages actually existed". These names for possible languages can only be a few hundred years old as the words were recorded - possibly in error - by Europeans.

There is no reason to expect any evidence for ancient languages.
---
Alright. On to the Creation Today article and these statements and questions:

1 There are no “simple life-forms.” If it is alive—it is extremely complex.
2 Many single-celled creatures have been observed for thousands of generations with no significant change.
3 Single-celled creatures still exist and reproduce. Why aren’t any of them evolving?
4 There are no examples living or fossilized of two-, three-, or four-celled creatures.
After one-celled creatures, the “simplest” animals have about one hundred cells.

4 There are no examples living of fossilized of two-, three-, or four-celled creatures.  I don't know if this is true. Let's accept that it is. For now. There are also no examples of fossilized passenger pigeons. Fossils are formed when an object is surrounded by a material, typically silt or mud. With time, the object degrades and disappears and other material fills in the gap. This is obvious when looking at fossils of large dinosaur bones. But a dinosaur bone is much larger than a speck of silt. A creature of less than ten cells size is not much bigger than the silt surrounding it. Normally, the resolution is too poor to see an object that size. For another analogy, look at the beach in this satellite photo. Point out anything that you 100% certain is a human being. I can see the beach umbrellas and spots that might be anything. The satellite cannot zoom in sufficiently to see humans. And the silt is usually too coarse to show details of microscopic life.
Regarding the next point, the number of cells in the "simplest" animals. When we look at sponges, which can be quite large, were are looking at millions of cells but they are nearly identical in shape. If you were to break up a sponge and separate it into individual cells, it will reform into a new sponge. It does not have blood or organs; it is simply a large group of single cells working together. See here for some details. It has many cells but they are not differentiated cells.

3 Single-celled creatures still exist and reproduce. Why aren't any of them evolving?  The article writer imagines that diseases are not evolving. S/he needs penicillin the next time s/he is sick. Elsewhere I compared canoes to aircraft carriers. Canoes are like single-celled creatures and carriers are more complex. Both exist. An aircraft carrier, whatever other cool things it can do, cannot travel through Algonquin Park. Canoes are still canoes but are also very different from their origins.

2 Many single-celled creatures have been observed for thousands of generations with no significant change. Many, but I note not all. What is a 'significant change'? Bacteria are now capable of digesting nylon. The Long-Term Experiment has run for around twenty or thirty years and the E coli bacteria there can now digest citrate, something that no other E coli bacteria can do.

And now the reason I  have done this in reverse order: 1 There are no “simple life-forms.” If it is alive—it is extremely complex.
I think analogies fail at this level. We don't know how life began. There is no reason to expect evidence of the first life forms - see the first several paragraphs of this post. Anything alive today that we see and study or experience must be able to live in modern conditions.

One possibility for the first cell was that it formed in a microscopic gap in porous rock near a volcanic vent. It would not have needed much as it was both constrained by the space it lived in and was supplied with diffusing nutrients by the rock around it. There is no evidence to support or disprove this idea so it cannot be a theory, only a hypothesis. The point is, we don't expect evidence and there are workarounds for most objections.

Why do evolution proponents continue to claim there was a Universal Common Ancestor? Because of shared similarities across all domains of life that are best explained by one.

Three types of creationist arguments

These types of arguments might be common in many fields but creationist/evolutionist discussion is where I spend my leisure time so that's where I know they are.

"Find a few pieces of evidence that fit your argument

and ignore all the others."

I've seen this image many times.  I saved the above from Twitter but when I searched for "the data how scientists see it how creationists see it", this was the first result. No idea who to properly attribute it to.
The best example of this type of argument for me is Carl Wielands's Glacier Girl article that shows how snow falls rapidly on the coast of Greenland so inland Greenland's ice sheets are young. In doing so, he ignores - and does not offer locations -the fact that the two locations are hundreds of kilometers apart and in different climatic zones.  He also ignores all the ways the ice core layer ages are confirmed - two layers=one year, volcanic ash deposits match historic eruptions, isotope ratios...

---

"We can't trust the experts!"

This argument definitely crosses borders.  I was reminded of it on Twitter by arguments over Brexit.

#Gove's battle against the experts. Explained. https://t.co/QmBGNloenS pic.twitter.com/oKIiZFaFmn

— Christian Odendahl (@COdendahl) July 2, 2016

The link goes to: Britain's greatest enemy, the experts
In creationism circles, this argument often displays itself in strawmen arguments. but it also a common place to find lists of supposedly unanswerable questions.
This claim is made about the eye in various forms (the claim is given in various forms, the different forms of eyes is usually ignored). From Harun Yunha

For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components which make it up need to be present at the same time and work together perfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such as the cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present and functioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye will shortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function. In the same way, if all the subsystems exist but tear production ceases, then the eye will dry up and go blind within a few hours.
The theory of evolution's claim of "reducibility" loses all meaning in the face of the complex structure of the eye. The reason is that, in order for the eye to function, all its parts need to be present at the same time. It is impossible, of course, for the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation to give rise to the eye's dozens of different subsystems when they can confer no advantage right up until the last stage.

An expert, even an interesed bystander, will see the problem. Fish, some amphibians and some reptiles don't have eyelids.  Clearly the specific example given is one of poor research and eyes are not irreducibly complex.

I spent ten minutes looking for this argument in the form of a list of fifteen or so questions for students to ask their biology teachers.  The question about eyes had, probably not 40 parts, but ten or so. It went something like, "5 Eyes need to be fully formed to work. a) When did the nerve to the eye form? b) When did the eyelids form? c) When did the cornea form?.... x)What did the animal with half formed eyes do?"  Couldn't find it.

I guess the "Why are there still apes?" attempt at a stumper question fits here, too.

---

We don't know, therefore Creationism

Or in this case, therefore Intelligent Design:

...none of them have the slightest clue as to how it actually happened, and (B) The obvious and most significant conclusion that can be drawn from all their splendid work in the lab is that the only reasonable explanation for the emergence of life is Intelligent Design!

---
Are there arguments that fall outside these categories?

irreducible complexity takes a hit.

This is seven years old but it is important to note that when Dr Behe used the blood clotting system as an example of irreducible complexity, he was mostly depending on God of the Gaps. Step by Step evolution of blood coagulation.

As for vertebrates, although the jawless fish have genes for generating the thrombin-catalyzed conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, they lack several clotting factors, including two thought to be essential for the activation of thrombin in mammals. Fish in general lack genes for the "contact factor" proteases, the predecessor forms of which make their first appearance in tetrapods. The full complement of factors known to be operating in humans does not occur until pouched marsupials (opossum), at least one key factor still absent in egg-laying mammals such as platypus.

Via Pharyngula, uh, via csicop.

Behe's other example, the flagellum of certain bacteria, has also taken a beating since the Dover Trial.

Darwinism Refuted tells us*:

The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution's assertion of "step by step development." In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum although a few tried to do so.

DR is correct in that no one has described step-by-step evolution of the flagellum.  Molecules don't leave much in the way of fossils so there is no trail heading back.  If someone walks across a muddy field, we expect footprints and similar evidence.  If someone swims a similar distance, no one expects to evidence of such a thing.
DR is incorrect in stating, "If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium."

Nick Matzke at Panda's Thumb shows that many molecules can be removed. A screenshot of only some of the proteins involved and how necessary they are:

He summarizes with:

Total number of proteins listed: 42
(this table excludes the chemotaxis proteins; there are ~10 chemotaxis proteins in standard E. coli, but the number can range from 0 to 10+ in various bacteria)
Total number thought to be indispensable in modern flagella: 23 (55%)

If you noted that 55% is still pretty high, I agree.  Still, 45% is plenty reducible.

More at Panda's Thumb:

The relevance to flagellum evolution? Variants of at least seven T3SS proteins are also found in the flagellum, within a subsystem called the protein export system. This sits within the basal body and funnels replacement flagellin subunits to the filament, using a mechanism remarkably similar to the T3SS. In fact, the two systems are so similar that the flagellar protein export system is now considered to be a subclass of the T3SS (Trends in Microbiology, vol 14, p 157).
Such similarities, or “homologies”, are strong evidence that the two systems evolved from a common ancestor - analogous to the way that the arrangement of bones in the limbs of horses, bats and whales reveal their common ancestry despite their very different outward appearance and function. Similar homologies can be seen in the DNA sequences of genes, and in the amino acid sequences and 3D structures of proteins - all are clear evidence of shared descent.

A good video of the evidence.

Ken Miller - quoted in the video above - discusses the subject at his website.

---
* Defeating Darwinism also considers the eye an example of irreducible complexity:

For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components which make it up need to be present at the same time and work together perfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such as the cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present and functioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye will shortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function.

DR seems unaware of all the animals that exist without eyelids.  Someone should tell them about fish, lizards and snakes.

Evidence for evolution, an overview

There is no proving in science. Below I am offering evidence or support for evolution.  No single point 'proves' the theory of evolution but they all support it.  At the end of this essay, I will offer an explanation for gaps in the evidence.

Evidence for evolution:

Linnaeus

 "In Linnaeus's original system, genera were grouped into orders, orders into classes, and classes into kingdoms. Thus the kingdom Animalia contained the class Vertebrata, which contained the order Primates, which contained the genus Homo with the species sapiens -- humanity. Later biologists added additional ranks between these to express additional levels of similarity."

Linnaeus was not an evolution proponent, having died eighty years before Darwin publicized his theory.  But his classification system offers great support for the theory of evolution and a universal common ancestor. A designer who made every species as one-offs, with no required connection to each other would not have included such similarities. Sure, in the smaller classification levels - Genus or maybe Family - two animals that live in similar ways can be expected to look similar.  This explanation falls apart at the higher levels,though.  Fish and cephalopods both live in the ocean, at a wide variety of depths. They are both cold-blooded although their bloods are very different.  Of interest here, we mammals, and all vertebrates all share the same kind of eye as fish while squid, which live in the same conditions as fish, have a different architecture for their eyes.
Some creationists want to see "Croco-ducks" or "Fronkeys" (frog-monkeys).  It is possible that a creator could have made such things but they would destroy the theory of evolution because attributes specific to different classifications would be mixed.

Recent additions and descriptions of the Tree of Life

"The tree of life is one of the most important organizing principles in biology," said Jill Banfield, a UC Berkeley professor of earth and planetary science and environmental science, policy and management. "The new depiction will be of use not only to biologists who study microbial ecology, but also biochemists searching for novel genes and researchers studying evolution and earth history."

As the Sensuous Curmudgeon says, 

But we can’t help wondering what people like ol’ Hambo [Ken Ham of AiG] make of this. Did all those species somehow appear in the 4,000 years since Noah’s Flood? Why does every species — including our own — fit into its proper place in this one hierarchy — as if they were all related? Why aren’t there any unique outliers that don’t fit anywhere?

The Daily Mail has a great slideshow. After finding the best images I could, I have -as usual- shrank them a little.  If you want to see them full size, follow the link.

 In the image above, you can see Animalia, which includes us, at the top right-hand side.  Note the whole tree above is the small, narrow set of branches on the bottom of the image below.  Animalia is not a large part of life's diversity - it includes us but it not therefore a prominent group.

---

Fossils

Fossils offer two forms of support for evolution. First, various groups of fossils are always linked and found together and these groups always exclude other fossils.  Humans are never found with dinosaurs and rabbits are never found in the Cambrian.
Second, transitional fossils are only snapshots in time and have limited value, but they do show that a transition from fish to amphibian is at least possible.  When a creationist claims there is no way  fish could evolve into land animals "How would it walk? How would it breathe? It's impossible!" these transitions -and there are a great set of seven transitions from fish to amphibian - show it is at least possible.  They don't prove a universal ancestor but they do show it is possible.
---
Bio-geography: As Pope John Paul II wrote, "The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."  The very distribution of animals on the Earth supports the Theory of evolution.  This is a convergence of age of the Earth, plate tectonics and evolution.  This support also specifcally argues against the view some creationists hold of a Global Flood and resettlement of the Earth originating from the Middle East or Turkey.
---

Vestigial organs

"Charles Darwin was familiar with the concept of vestigial structures, though the term for them did not yet exist. He listed a number of them in The Descent of Man, including the muscles of the ear, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tail bone, body hair, and the semilunar fold in the corner of the eye. Darwin also noted, in On the Origin of Species, that a vestigial structure could be useless for its primary function, but still retain secondary anatomical roles: "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.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."[8]"

Cave Fish are a great example - some are blind and appear to have no eyes, but in fact have eyes that are overgrown by flesh and skin.  This would seem to show they are a new species that originated from one that had functioning eyes.  It would be hugely difficult to suggest that the Designer accidentally included them in building this specific animal.  Again, this does not 'prove' there was no Designer or 'prove' evolution true, but evolution and the generation of new species has to be seen as the most reasonable explanation.

From AiG:
"The Definition of Vestigial Organs Has Been Changed
As the list of “functionless” organs has grown smaller and smaller with advancing knowledge, the definition of vestigial organs has been modified to include those whose functions are claimed to have “changed” to serve different functions. But such a definition removes the burden of proof that vestigial organs are a vestige of evolution. Thus, the evolutionist might concede that the human coccyx (“tail bone”) does indeed serve an important function in anchoring the pelvic diaphragm—but still insist, without evidence, that it was once used by our ancestors as a tail."
This has to be seen as dishonest as Darwin himself stated that secondary functions are possible.  If the originator of the theory specified this in his definition, it cannot be said to have changed.
---

DNA

I have not dug into the arguments whether chimps and humans share 98% of our DNA.  Creationists seem to suggest that all English books use a lot of 'e's so stating that two separate books both have more 'e's than any other letter is silly. I would agree with this simple statement but I don't think geneticists use such a simple argument.  I haven't bothered to look.
However, we do share inserted viral DNA in ways that best support a common ancestor.  Also, we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps have 24.  The thing is, we have a chromosome pair that shows two pairs got stuck together in historic times.  This does not mean that we share an ancestor with chimps, but offers support.
--- 

Gaps in the evidence

We will never have the entire picture.  We will never have the original cell that evolved into all life as we see it today.  We do have hundreds or thousands of arrows all pointing to the same place so we don't need an 'X' to mark the spot.

Why are we lacking in evidence?
Fossils: There were 5 billion passenger pigeons alive at one time.  We have zero fossils of them.  There are a few hundred thousand chimpanzees alive now and probably more in times past.  We have fossils of fewer than ten individuals.  There are places near the border between Eastern Canada and the US where the tides are phenomenally fast.  Paleontologists go out at low tide and try to recover some fossils, working quickly because they know the next cycle of tide will wear them away to nothing -and display new ones.
As chimps and passenger pigeons show, few animals actually fossilize.  As the tidal rocks show, many fossils are destroyed before they are ever seen.
With organic chemicals, the traces or fossils are even less enduring.  We don't know how a bacterial flagellum evolved and don't know what every individual step would have looked like but we do have a halfway point.
---
More than enough evidence points to the Theory of Evolution and none contradicts it.

Happy Darwin Day! And Creationist agrees that the evidence points towards evolution

It's the 13th here in Korea, but still the 12th in many countries, so I think I'm in the clear and don't have to add an embarrassed 'belated' to the title.

Nice work, Mr President.*

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky offered remarks about the discovery of gravity waves - I really should learn what their significance is.

Mohler said Christians believe the universe is telling a different story: as the psalmist puts it, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

Mohler said part of being created in God’s image is an innate desire to understand and know the cosmos around us. At the same time, he warned, much of what is presented as scientific proof is at odds with the Bible, including the historical account of creation recorded in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. 

“Now to be candid, I don’t believe that the world is 1.3 billion years old, certainly not billions of years old,” Mohler said. “I don’t even believe that is actually millions of years old. But one of the interesting things we need to note here is that the scientists who believe that believe it because they are looking at certain patterns that, to their observation, tell them that. And what we need to note is this, if we ourselves were operating from a simply materialistic and naturalistic worldview, we would probably come to the very same conclusions.”

Does this say that Mohler agrees the evidence, as viewed objectively, supports evolution?

“And we also understand that we are fallen, fragile, fallible thinkers and so as we look at this, if we’re operating from a basically secular worldview, if we believe the universe is going to have to tell us the story all on its own, then there’s no way we’re going to come up with the right story.”

It think it does.
Via the Sensuous Curmudgeon.
---
*Thanks, photofunia.

Fossil evidence

In a previous post, I wrote about what evidence we should expect to find and whether gaps in the evidence were deal-breakers.  in brief, I tried to show there are places where we shouldn’t expect a lot of evidence (Smaller plants and animals are generally less likely to fossilize, as are soft bodied plants and animals.  Soft body parts, such as organs are less likely to fossilize.  Chemical traces are similarly fragile and their lack does not mean they never existed).  This isn’t to mean that there is no evidence for evolution or that we should accept evolution, or any scientific theory, on bad evidence.  Only that pointing out a lack of evidence in one area does not mean other similar areas are also lacking.

Here’s an example.  I personally don’t know what transitional fossils there are between dinosaurs and mammals.  Similarly, I don’t know what early carnivore might have transitioned into canines, felines and mustelids (the group containing weasels, otters, wolverines and more).  Partly, this may be due to my own ignorance as I have not dug into evidence or fossils in these areas.  On the other hand, there is excellent, finely graduated evidence for transitions between fish and amphibians. There are good transitionals between an ancient land mammal and whales.  There are so many fossils showing a transition from dinosaurs to birds that I personally don’t know which ones best show bird ancestors.

I blamed my own ignorance above but I also see ignorant people on Twitter claim there is no evidence for fish to amphibians.  I wish they would investigate where they lack knowledge before proclaiming it wildly to make a claim.  I have admitted my own ignorance above but not as a claim or to promote a conclusion.

Alright, to the evidence!

1: Fossils

First, it should be noted that fossils are found in assemblages that support an ancient Earth and evolution over a long period.  There are (very few) fossils of soft bodied organisms that pre-date the Cambrian Explosion.  In 2014, in the Cambrian fossil beds, a vertebrate fish was found, the Metaspriggina. This early fish was jawless.  Another, similar fish existed: Haikouichthys. The Pikaia, a chordate, also lived during the Cambrian.

I have heard and read the claim that all phyla were present during the Cambrian so they must have been created.  Again, there are fossils older than the Cambrian era and a phylum is a big group.  I have given examples of a chordate and two vertebrate fish but there are no jawed fishes, no amphibians, no reptiles, no birds, dinosaurs, mammals, crocodiles, or turtles.  Sharks don’t have bones the way other vertebrates do so I am uncertain on this point, but I believe there are no examples of them, either.

So, we have a period of sealife only, a period where, among vertebrates, only amphibians existed.  A period of dinosaurs, a period of giant mammals, then a period, continuing now, with humans.  There are animal groups that bridge some of these eras - sharks, turtles and crocodiles existed with and even before dinosaurs- but the groups I first named are discrete.  In one group of fossils, there are no land vertebrates.  In another group, there are dinosaurs but no large mammals or people.

We don’t need to stick to vertebrates.  Another famous group of animals that existed at one point and not with animals of other periods are the Ammonoidea.

The evidence I have given is, I would say, weakly supportive of evolution.  This is a broad strokes, a long distance look, at the evidence and at this scale we can only say that a primitive group of fish existed, then more advanced fish, then amphibians, then other terrestrial vertebrates.

While it offers only weak support to evolution, it seems, ah, the first nail in the creationist coffin.  Comparing the broad strokes of the fossil record to the creationist claim that all creatures were created in one week and that specimens of all such species died in a single year during the flood shows great conflict.

I’m describing it thus to emphasize the difference between support for one explanation with conflict for another.  If a piece of evidence appeared that conflicted with evolutionary accounts, that would not mean that creationism must then be correct.  On this blog I primarily deal with Biblical Young Earth Creationists, but Hindus have their own creation beliefs as do other religions and there are probably other propositions as well.

Transitional Fossils

What is a transitional fossil?

It is:

• A snapshot of the existence of a single individual of a population
• It has features of two distinct groups
• Almost entirely lacking in organic molecules.
• Without DNA, it is impossible to say if it is the direct ancestor or not (a grandfather or a great-uncle)
• What they show is that a transition from group to group is possible .

In finding one, or a few, specimens, much can be determined of how the creature ate and lived, but not the range of its species’ survival.  Statistically, a fossil is likely to be made when the species is at peak population and geographic spread.  But when did the first individual of this group appear?  When did the last go extinct?  We can’t know.  This means that the fossil Archaeopteryxs, which are found later in the geological records than true birds appear, might still be the ancestor to true birds.  To my knowledge, scientists do not think so but the placement of the fossils is not definitive.   Archaeo has feathers but also a long bony tail and teeth.  there are other features which belong to one group or the other but are a little technical for me. Since Archaeo, many dinosaurs have been found with feathers.  Yet another new feathered dinosaur was recently found.

Some fossils do contain some organic molecules but these have so far been too degraded to run any tests suitable for identification or DNA comparison.

To be completely fair, transitional fossils do not mean that creatures must have transitioned from one species to another, but only that it is possible. Many creationists plaintively ask, "What good are feathers on an animal that can't fly?" From Creationtoday:

Reptiles have four legs, while birds have two legs and two wings. If the front legs turned into wings, the evolutionist has to believe that somewhere in the evolutionary spectrum they had to be half-leg, half-wing. This means, during that time, the creature couldn’t run or fly, and had a serious survival problem.

In this post, I am discussing evidence here, not arguing against specific claims, but briefly: Dinosaurs are not reptiles, many dinosaurs move on two legs.  One of the most famous dinosaurs has tiny, nearly uselessly small arms (T rex) which might be good evidence for evolution on its own.  There are lots of birds that have wings and run well but cannot fly.

Dr Kevin Padian, at the famed Dover Intelligent Design Trial, displayed some remarkable presentation slides on bird evolution that even show how the feathers evolved. His other slides are at the same site and show more transitions. The Fish to Amphibian transitional series is wonderful at least partially due to a creationist joke.

Creationist: There is a huge gap between A and Z.Evolutionist:  We found fossilized M.Creationist: There are now two big gaps.Evolutionist: We found fossilized F.Creationist: There are now three big gaps.

….

Padian’s slides show a full five or more transitional fossils between fish and amphibians.  Around the time of the trial, a new fossil was found, Tiktaalik, which filled in even more of the space between fish and amphibians.

Just last year, researchers raised a group of Senegal fish, bichirs, out of the water to see how they would adapt.  They already possessed gills and lungs and learned better how to walk and wriggle around out of water.

I should have a post on DNA evidence for evolution soon.