Perspectives
Hazen and his team avoid taking taxa, not by merging two or more Panderichthys—a the evolutionary analogy further, taxa into one. By leaving things at although the ingredients are there! the shallowest level possible, Hazen fish with fingers? When claiming mineral species do not & Co. hope to blaze the trail toward change over time, he is only telling integration into either ‘geobiology’ or Shaun Doyle half of the story. There are minerals ‘biogeology’! known as structural polymorphs, an Is this a new challenge to nce more, fish-to-tetrapod example of which is the andalusite- 1–2 silimanite series.8 Although there young-earth creation models? Oevolution is paraded around, are several different minerals in this this time with a study suggesting Not really. If there is a challenge, the replacement of Tiktaalik, the series, they are all formed from the it’s mostly a methodological one. icon of fish–tetrapod evolution, with same three chemical elements: Al, ‘Integration’ seems to be the battle cry of Si and O in the empirical formula the evolutionary establishment but the the 90–130-cm-long Panderichthys rhombolepis. However, Panderichthys Al2SiO5. Temperature and pressure shallowness of this new idea provides control the structural layout of these excellent grounds for creationists to isn’t exactly new; it was actually chemical elements thus determining dismantle it and by consequence further named in 1941.3 And it’s supposedly the mineral species: distene or kyanite expose the fallacies of Darwinian older too: 385 million years (Ma) old ( Al2[SiO4]O ), andalusite (Al2[SiO4]O) evolution. As for the deeper meaning in comparison to Tiktaalik, which is and sillimanite (Al[AlSiO5] (figure 1). of all this, we have yet another proof supposedly 380 Ma old. However, This should have been proudly added of God’s integrated creation, all parts a recent study has suggested that by Hazen to his evolutionary analogies of it working together, from minerals Panderichthys’ fin may be closer as a case of homology. to humans: ‘For the invisible things to tetrapods in morphology than Hazen is actually wrong when of Him from the creation of the world Tiktaalik,4 although evolutionary affirming that mineral species don’t are clearly seen, being understood theory would predict that tetrapod change: minerals actually do change by the things that are made…’ over time if they are exposed to (Romans 1:20). characteristics would be more recent. different physical and chemical conditions. Muscovite—a mica— References Fishing for fingers
( K2Al4[Al2Si6](OH, F)4 ) in the 1. Hazen, R.M. et al., Mineral evolution, Boisvert et al. have based their presence of CO2-rich water loses K American Mineralogist 93(11–12):1693–1720, analysis on the pectoral fin of one and F and transforms into kaolinite 2008. particular Panderichthys fossil, which ( Al [SiO ](OH) ). Darwin initially 2. Hazen, R., Mineral evolution, Carnegie 4 10 8 they reconstructed from a CT scan called this idea ‘transformism’. But Institute for Science, Geophysical laboratory, study of the fossil, which they then by adding oxygen to an existing November 2008,
JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009 11 Perspectives
same bones in comparable proportions. than Tiktaalik. At any rate, it The problem is that neither of them are demonstrates that the fish–tetrapod anything like a tetrapod limb because transition was accompanied by the wrist morphology is all wrong.8 significant character incongruence As Luskin points out, there are a in functionally important number of things that need to radically structures.’4 change from Tiktaalik to get a proper However, there are no lin- tetrapod wrist/hand: eages—merely the comparing of 1. ‘Shrink Tiktaalik’s [and Pan- finished products to come up with the derichthys’] radius and reposition illusion of a lineage. it so that it articulates other bones They don’t know which of their further down the limb. smorgasboard of just-so evolutionary 2. ‘Evolve a radiale [a third bone ‘explanations’ they should use, so they alongside the ulnare and inter- leave the reader with a few possible medium that articulates with the ones to give the illusion that evolution radius]. has it all worked out, even if we don’t. 3. ‘Dramatically repattern, reposition, However, there are no lineages— and transform the existing radials merely the comparing of finished by lining them up, separating them products to come up with the illusion out to form digits. of a lineage. The story as Daeschler et 4. ‘Evolve metacarpals and phalanges al. described it remains true: so that there are real digits extending ‘Major elements of the tetrapod distally from the radius. body plan originated as a succession 5. ‘Evolve the “lotsa blobs”, i.e. of intermediate morphologies that evolve other carpal bones between evolved mosaically and in parallel the radius, ulna, and the now- among sarcopterygians closely aligned digits to form a real wrist. related to tetrapods, allowing them In other words, evolve the bulk of to exploit diverse habitats in the the wrist-bones.’8 Devonian [emphases added]’.12 Another important con- The problem of mosaic and sideration is function. Since these parallel evolution is that they occur Image by Boisvert et al ., ref. 3, p. 1. particular fins have never been seen to parts of organisms rather than the Figure 1. CT scans of Panderichthys’ in live operation, there is no reason to whole (mosaic) and that the same thing fin show that it has a fin structure like suggest that they provide evidence for evolves more than once independently Tiktaalik. fish–tetrapod evolution. Coelacanth (parallel). Both of these are excuses is a prime example. Before it was that are used when common descent are still very much components known that its limbs were used for fails, and are extremely unlikely to of a fin. There remains a large deft manoeuvring of the fin, the happen.9,13 morphological gap between them coelacanth’s limbs were thought to be and digits as seen in, for example, evidence of the fish–tetrapod transition. Conclusion Acanthostega: if the digits evolved 9 Now we know better. The situation is For all the complex 3D imaging from these distal bones, the process no different in Panderichthys. must have involved considerable that went into this paper, there really is not much in it. It further confirms developmental repatterning.’7 The illusion of evolution that Tiktaalik is an unequivocal fish, They do not claim that the Boisvert et al. are rather confused related to Panderichthys, and it tells us digits themselves in Panderichthys as to how and where to place that fish–tetrapod evolution is a mess. are any more advanced than Tiktaalik; Panderichthys in the evolutionary This is not a surprise from a biblical but they do claim that some of the series: perspective, because evolution fails features of the so-called ‘wrist’ and ‘It is difficult to say whether this to explain the evidence, and these fish the positioning of the digits are more character distribution implies were created fully functional. tetrapod-like. However, they also that Tiktaalik is autapomorphic,10 acknowledge that Panderichthys and that Panderichthys and tetrapods References 11 Tiktaalik are close in pectoral fin are convergent, o r t h a t 1. Primordial fish had rudimentary fingers, morphology, exhibiting largely the Panderichthys is closer to tetrapods PhysOrg.com, 22 September 2008.
12 JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009 Perspectives
2. Bowden, R., Discovery of fish with fingers Dancing tail drag marks in the world). One gives evolution new twist, The Tech Herald, of the most conclusive evidences is 21 September 2008. dinosaurs? that the tracks line up to form straight 3. Gross, W., Über den Unterkiefer einiger trackways—practically all moving devonischer Crossopterygier (About the lower jaw of some Devonian crossopterygians), in a west-southwest direction. The Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie Michael J. Oard holes are of the correct size and are der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1941 (Treatises concentrated on one bedding plane at of the Prussian Academy of Sciences eologists from the University of about 12 impressions per square metre. Year 1941). GUtah recently announced finding a There are probably a few thousand 4. Boisvert, C.A., Mark-Kurik, E. and Ahlberg, remarkable array of dinosaur footprints impressions all together. Because P.E., The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and on the Arizona-Utah border in the USA of the number of tracks, the authors the origin of digits, Nature, doi:10.1038/ (figure 1).1 They described their find as referred to the surface as a ‘dinosaur nature07339, Published online: 21 September ‘a dinosaur dance floor’ and said it was 2008. dance floor’. The dinosaurs would located alongside an oasis in a sandy thus be ‘dancing dinosaurs’, an obvious 5. Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution 2, Master desert 190 million years ago. Books, Green Forest, AR, 2002. See chapter 6: flight of imagination given the straight Dinosaur tracks in sedimentary Argument: Common design points to common trackways. But the case is strong that ancestry. rocks are no longer unusual. They are found all over the world,2 especially in the impressions are modified dinosaur 6. Holding, J.P., Not to be used again: homologous tracks, although one anonymous review structures and the presumption of originality the Rocky Mountains and High Plains as a critical value, Journal of Creation of the western United States. Millions of the Palaios paper still believed that 1 21(1):13–14, 2007. of tracks are now known, some of them the holes are erosional features. 7. Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., Palaeontology: forming large areas with a huge amount A firm step from water to land, Nature of tracks. In some cases there are so Interesting dinosaur features 440(7085):747–749, 6 April 2006. many tracks that the strata are greatly Besides the strongly preferred 8. Luskin, C., An ulnare and an intermedium a mixed up or ‘dinoturbated’. orientation and the rare tail drag marks, wrist do not make: a response to Carl Zimmer, Discovery Institute, 1 August 2008. a few other features are worthy of note. Circular impressions It is claimed that there were four types 9. Jaroncyk, R. and Doyle, S., Gogonasus: a interpreted as dinosaur tracks fish with human limbs? Journal of Creation of dinosaurs including carnivores and 21(1):48–52, 2007. Once in a while a new find will herbivores. It is interesting that such 10. Autapomorphy is a cladistic term for a have some unusual features. This enemies traveled the same path at characteristic that is unique to the group, new dinosaur track site, actually a new probably near the same time. Also, found neither in the groups said to be closest interpretation of an old site, displays the small tracks are interpreted to be relatives nor in their supposed common a few unusual features. Pothole-like the tracks of babies, a most unusual ancestor. Features supposedly derived from an autapomorphy in a common ancestor are impressions in the Navajo Sandstone discovery if the small impressions are called synapomorphies. had previously been interpreted as really tracks, since tracks of babies are 11. I.e. their common features cannot be explained weathering pits. But now it is believed very rare. by inheritance from a common ancestor with the circular depressions were made Also of interest is the author’s such a feature, which would then have been by dinosaurs.3 The impressions are contradictory interpretation. The an autapomorphy; such common features are located within the Navajo called homoplasies, which are ubiquitous in Sandstone of the Paria many alleged transitional series. Plateau of the USA at the 12. Daeschler, E.B., Shubin, N.H. and Jenkins Utah/Arizona border. Jr, F.A., A Devonian tetrapodlike fish and the The impressions, evolution of the tetrapod body plan, Nature 440(7085):757–763, 6 April 2006. which range in size from 3 cm to 50 cm, do 13. ReMine, W.J., The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory, St Paul Science, St look like simple holes Paul, MN, pp. 289–290, 344–346, 1993; and in the ground, but they review: Batten, D., Journal of Creation (CEN have features that lend Tech. J.) 11(3):292–298, 1997. themselves to having been formed by walking vertebrates assumed to be dinosaurs. For instance,
there are claw and toe
JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009 13