Need feedback... Is this a good way to explain intermediary fossils to creationists?

Question

I'd like feedback on this.

We have two groups of lines -- long and short with no intermediary lines. There is "variation" inside of a group, but a short line does not become a long line:

Short:
_
___
__
_____
____

Long:
_______
_________
______
________

But, if I take the above lines and sort them by length, here's what I get:

_
__
___
____
_____
______
_______
________
_________

A cockatoo is intermediate between a larger parrot and a smaller parrot -- as such, a fossilized cockatoo would be an intermediary fossil.

That said, about 99% of species we've found fossils for are no longer living -- including, for example, Neanderthal fossils. So all fossils are intermediary fossils, including our own.

Answer 1

I have to admit, I'm not really sure that I know what you mean.

Intermediary fossils are intermediate in morphology, as well as intermediate in when the "species" (=morphotype) first appears in the geological record.

With some of the most abundant fossil species (eg. some fossil plankton), at any one stratigraphic horizon, there is a range in morphology within the species (like there is variation in people alive today). Sometimes, you can see this range in morphology change over time, through arbitrary cut-offs that split it up in to several "species". There are good well-known examples of this continuous change among planktic foraminfera, for example, but I've looked before and can't find much (especially pictures) on the internet.

Most fossil species however, cannot be traced like this. Because the fossils are too rare (eg. vertebrates) or too patchy in distribution, and because of the way most speciation is observed to occur - in an isolated subset of the population that you can never hope to find recorded in the fossil record.

Thus, if something is called an "intermediary fossil" it does not mean that it is definately the direct descendant and direct ancestor of two other fossils. It means that it has detailed anatomical features that are intermediate between earlier and later forms. It could be a "cousin species" of the real direct-descendant/direct-ancestor.

It's an interpretation (a very reasonable one), and when you put it all together, the fossil record is overwhelmingly consistent with evolution. But it should not be used as evidence on its own.

Importantly, be careful when using modern species as examples - remember they may be descendants of intermediary forms, but they have evolved since then too (eg. see link).

Answer 2

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to arrive at, but when it comes to the fossil record, it's not a matter of what fossils are where. It's how you interpret the fossils based upon your starting beliefs, or presuppositions. A creationist will interpret the fossil record based upon what Genesis says about origins, and an evolutionist will interpret it based upon the belief that life spontaneously generated and has been evolving ever since. And it's not just the fossil record. There are no neutral facts, because they're all interpreted in a certain way.

Answer 3

Not all fossils are intermediary.

Some species just die out.



Most creationists are forced to accept 'micro' evolution. It is too easy to demonstrate it .

The next question to ask is why can there not be 'macro' evolution?

This is like saying it is O.K. for me to take a couple of paces and move 5' in a few seconds. But it is totally impossible for me to walk 20 miles in a day.

I keep trying to get them to tell me what this limiting mechanism in evolution is, that keeps all species within a 'kind'. Hopefully thinking about it will make them realize that there is no such limit.

Answer 4

You should simplify it even further.

I am an intermediate "fossil" between my parents and my children. I posses genetic features unique to me, and some shared with my parents. My children also have unique features, and share features with me and their grandparents.

If I die and my skeleton does not fossilize does that mean my children were created by magic?

We can compare the genetic, phenotypic, and even behavioral characteristsics of modern creatures (offpsring), against fossilized organism in the past (ancestors). Although each generation may not be fossilized we can determine relationships based on similarities and differences. Just as you can determine that my children are more closely related to me than my grandparents, or a complete stranger.

Answer 5

Personally, I think it's a brilliantly simple way to explain it. I can't say how it will be received, as I already understand intermediary fossils, but it looks great.

Answer 6

I doubt it. I ask them about fossil succession all the time. They can't get a hold of the fact that a single event could not possibly sort all the fossils layer by layer. So they aren't going to get that.

Answer 7

Just thought I would add this:

Our ape-like predecessors kept their stout figures for 2 million years because having short legs ironically gave them the upper hand in male-to-male combat for access to mates, finds a new study.

Early hominins in the genus Australopithecus, which lived from 4 million to 2 million years ago, are considered immediate predecessors of the human genus Homo, and had heights of around 3 feet 9 inches for females and 4 feet 6 inches for males.

Until now, the squat physiques of australopiths and other human predecessors were considered an adaptation for climbing in tree canopies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2585...

Answer 8

The real question is what do you mean by "intermediate"? Do you mean intermediate in size or do you mean intermediate as in development/evolutionary stages? This is an important assumption to clarify for your argument to work.

Answer 9

Well, ok, I can see your explanation.
However you did change the lines order so to suit your explanation.
No further explanation required.

Get A Grip

Answer 10

Sounds fine. But why not leave them alone in their beliefs? Why is it so important to convince fundies of their errors as you see them? It seems odd to have such a preoccupation.