The Fossil Record is Indicative of Biological Evolution rather than Intelligent Design
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
BOP is shared evenly.
Fossil Record: history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock.
Biological Evolution: the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
Intelligent Design: the theory that life cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
"If the general mechanism of evolution is gradual changes over time leading to greater biodiversity, it would make sense that changes in diversity (small-scale) would happen first, which would accumulate over long-periods of time creating disparity (large-scale). "
- Pliohippus: 12-6 million years ago
- Dinohippus: 13-5 million years ago
- Equus: according to other sources, at least 3.5 million years ago-present day[1]
To test this hypothesis, one may analyze the morphological traits of these older organisms. In horses, the Pliohippus, Dinohippus, and Equus, all appear to be descended from the one before, respectively. The pre-orbital fossae of Pliohippus are deep, in Dinohippus, these facial depressions are shallow, while in Equus, the fossae are non-existent.
- We have not seen where the specific fossils were found, or if they are even from the same continent.
- We have not seen how old the specific fossils are that are being linked, especially since there is a time gap in the millions of years to choose from.
- Related to the previous point, we have not seen the specific layer that the fossil evidence was found in.
- We have not been told why a slight change in the depression of a single bone in the skull somehow shows an ancestral lineage of horses.
- We have not been told why a slight change in the depression of a single skull bone should be considered evidence of macroevolution.
A rudimentary form of the "stay apparatus" in modern horses, that allows them to conserve energy while standing for extended periods first takes shape in the Dinohippus fossils, further indicating an ancestral relationship between their populations.
We know the lobe-finned fish are from 390-380 million year old rocks. The first tetrapods appear around 363 million years ago. Common sense tells us that the transitional form must have arisen 380-363 million years ago.[4]
My opponent accepts upfront, short-term evolution, because that's the evolution that he can't deny. But to deny the logical conclusion of that concession is to accept the centimeter, and deny the meter. What the silver fox experiment demonstrates is that a selective pressure, such as humans wanting tame foxes, can produce tons of other morphological changes in a very short time. Evolution can happen rapidly, even in less than 100 years. With 30 million years, it is not unreasonable to expect morphological changes in organisms.
It's important to keep in mind that most cambrian and precambrian animals were soft bodied, meaning they would not be easily fossilized. So the 'suddenness' of the appearance of novel body forms in the fossil record is likely a side effect of the fossil record's incompleteness. However, even though soft bodied organisms do not often fossilize, we still have a number of precambrian fossils of Vendian Fauna.
Diversity would refer to small-scale differences, such as those between different species of similar animals. Disparity would refer to large-scale differences between animals with completely different body plans.If the general mechanism of evolution is gradual changes over time leading to greater biodiversity, it would make sense that changes in diversity (small-scale) would happen first, which would accumulate over long-periods of time creating disparity (large-scale). But this is not the case in the Cambrian explosion. Gould states, "Using this terminology, we may acknowledge a central and surprising fact of life's history - marked decrease in disparity followed by an outstanding increase in diversity within the few surviving designs." [5]Another study puts it even more clearly, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families...The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”[6]
"Could you please provide a link that shows the femur of Tiktaalik so we can observationally confirm that it actually had the features of a tetrapod?"
"The reason I accept "short-term evolution" is because it can be directly observed. I can see the morphological changes in Silver Foxes with no assumption needed. However, I cannot observe fish turning into land animals. That requires the assumption of extrapolation rather than observation. Extrapolation can be a useful tool, but it is ultimately a prediction or a guess, even if it is an educated one. I prefer the scientific method of observation over extrapolation. That is why I accept "short-term evolution.""
"While the technical name of "Irreducible Complexity" did not begin here, the very concept was expressed by Darwin, and it is an example of a testable prediction in the framework of Intelligent Design."
"One example is the transport system in a cell."
The stay apparatus and the skull depressions are just two of a wealth [1] of physical traits that transition smoothly through the horse lineage.
- We have not seen where the specific fossils were found, or if they are even from the same continent.
- We have not seen how old the specific fossils are that are being linked, especially since there is a time gap in the millions of years to choose from.
- Related to the previous point, we have not seen the specific layer that the fossil evidence was found in.
- We have not been told why a slight change in the depression of a single bone in the skull somehow shows an ancestral lineage of horses.
- We have not been told why a slight change in the depression of a single skull bone should be considered evidence of macroevolution.
For example, the model predicts that if tetrapods are descended from lobe finned fish, then there should be an intermediate fossil, that ought to appear in a specific layer of the geologic column, between the earliest known tetrapods, and older lobe-finned fish.
We know the lobe-finned fish are from 390-380 million year old rocks. The first tetrapods appear around 363 million years ago. Common sense tells us that the transitional form must have arisen 380-363 million years ago.[https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik2.html]
Pre-cambrian animals were mostly soft bodied and did not fossilize well. The animals that fossilized in the Cambrian were overwhelmingly hard bodied, such as trilobites
The above study details a process by which the transport system very well could have evolved.
If you were to attempt to falsify or confirm the hypothesis that species X was ancestral to species Y, and you had only their bones and the knowledge that X is older than Y, what (morphological) traits would you look for?
The two most common errors in debates on this site at least, is to lose track of the resolution, and to forget to meet your burden of proof. Both were issues in the debate
For this resolution, both sides should show the fissile record is indicative of their respective explanation. It’s actually a fairly well balanced resolution.
Cons affirmative case appears to revolve around attempting to prove ID, to me thats irrelevant, and way too much ink was dedicated to this dead end; were I to accept it all as given, it doesn’t prove his aspect of the resolution. Pro allowed himself to be pulled down this path too.
Con doesn’t really provide an explanation of how The fossil record is consistent with ID (only that it is not consistent with evolution) con seemed only to imply that if evolution is false, ID must be true; which isn’t sufficient. In the absence of that; con cannot meet his burden of proof. And the best he can hope for is a tie.
Pro affirmative:
While pro attempts to show evolution matches up with the fossil record, only two examples are used. I felt the constructive was better suited to explain evolution, what it would produce; then drop a bomb of fossil data - and there is a lot of it. Without this, you’re talking bits and pieces and not the fossil record as a whole. That’s the part that is unclear from pro: how is it the fossil record indicates evolution as a whole, when I only have two examples?
Horses: pro makes a reasonable summary that evolution produces changes over time - and that horse fossils show changes over time specifically stay apparatus, and pre orbital fossae. That seems pretty open and shut - con should be arguing that they don’t show change over time, or showing some aspect about them aren’t indicative of ancestry- but they don’t. Con just asks a set of questions he even suggests don’t need to be answered - if con has answered any of those questions in a way that was detrimental to pros argument: or demonstrated why what was presented cannot be presumed to indicate evolution without an answer to at least one: this would have been different - but just questioning whether the evidence should be accepted is not enough for me - you have to do more. I find this approach to be a bit on the shitty side - as it tends to force an opponent into writing a whole bunch of stuff based on potential, rather than demonstrated issues.
So on this basis, I must grant that con has shown horse fossils are indicative of evolution.
Tiktaliik:
Pro argues that the finding lobe finned fish in one strata, and tetrapods in another allows a prediction of an indeterminate form in another; in a specific geographic location - a testable prediction - which was found to be true. This would be indicative of evolution.
The prediction part is contested by con - with another question. Pros source indicates this was a prediction - con gives me no reason why I shouldn’t believe this source - not even a bad one, which I would accept if uncontested.
Con does, however, do just enough with the challenging of date to question chronological progression; pro does point that exact chronology is unknown; and can be flexible but IMO doesn’t do enough here for me to accept as strong evidence. It’s not a total loss; in that con doesn’t explain why I shouldn’t accept this as a valid prediction of evolution at the time; but not enough on its own.
Cambrian explosion. So this one is a bit of a mess. There’s a lot of back and forth on gradualism, vs punctuated equilibrium - but bearing in mind the resolution - pro to me has to explain why the Cambrian explosion is indicative of evolution, there were hints - talking a little about creatures before or after; but were only two examples. The issue with it becomes while this point wouldn’t have been enough to disprove pros argument; the rebuttal is not enough to support it.
So in this respect pro hasn’t done enough to meet his burden here either.
As neither side has met their burden, I can only establish this as a draw.
From pros side; the hole that he dug himself was establishing a broad resolution, and attempting to justify it with narrow examples: I’m left with basically some information about horses to try and justify why fossil record justifies evolution - just not enough; why pro may have scraped through in the last round, the pseudo-forfeit prevented that.
Go right ahead
I actually quite like this topic; would you mind if I stole it?
Thank you for voting
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
I look forward to voting on this debate