Ann Coulter on Archaeopteryx
Over at Talk Reason, James Downard has been taking apart Ann Coulter’s arguments against evolution. Of course, it is kind of like watching a pitbull tear apart a chiuahua, but there is this interesting quote that he has pulled from Coulter’s book Godless,
For over a hundred years, evolutionists proudly pointed to the same sad birdlike animal, Archaeopteryx, as their lone transitional fossil linking dinosaurs and birds. Discovered a few years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, Archaeopteryx was instantly hailed as the transitional species that proved Darwin’s theory. This unfortunate creature had wings, feathers, teeth, claws, and a long, bony tail. If it flew at all, it didn’t fly very well. Alas, it is now agreed that poor Archaeopteryx is no relation of modern birds. It’s just a dead end. It transitioned to nothing.
But could Archaeopteryx be our one example of bad mutations eliminated by natural selection? Archaeopteryx can’t fill that role either, because it seems to have no predecessors. The fossils that look like Archaeopteryx lived millions of years after Archaeopteryx, and the fossils that preceded Archaeopteryx look nothing at all like it. The bizarre bird is just an odd creation that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, much like Air America Radio.
I find this particularly fascinating as it pertains to something I’m pretty interested in, dinosaurs, and in particular Deinonychus antirrhoppus, a relative of Archaeopteryx.
Coulter’s main problem is stunning ignorance of Archaeopteryx and its taxonomic history. Initially, it was thought to be the dinosaur Compsognathus a small dinosaur that looked quite a bit like Archaeopteryx, but was missing a finger on each “hand”. Now, this part might be hard to follow, Compsognathus was part of the Tetanurae clade that included many dinosaurs that had three fingers like Archaeopteryx, and it is not uncommon for theropods to lose digits during evolution. Hence Coulter’s claim that none of the predecessors looked like it is dubious at best. Also, witht he discovery of Sinosauropteryx, many paleontologist are coming around to the idea that feathery integument on theropods was more common that initially though. In fact, some now wonder if perhaps Compsognathus may have also had feathers as well since small feathers tend not to be preserved. And then there is my favorite dinosaur Deinonychus antirrhoppus, while it was known to have lived in the Cretaceous, there is the question of when did it appear and when exactly did Archaeopteryx appear? This is an important question in that both Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx are from the same family, Eumaniraptora. In other words, Coulter’s claim that the predecessor’s didn’t look like Archaeopteryx is based solely on ignorance. That is the entire basis for Coulter’s claim: paleontologists haven’t found fossils to tell us when various dinosaurs first appeared so therefore we can make statements about when various dinosaurs and birds appeared with certainty. Your standard variety creationist argument from ignorance. Downard covers all of this and more, but his discussion is a bit garbbled, IMO, with all of the asides to trash Philip Johnson, William Dembski and Jonathan Wells.
This is what Creationists often do and rely on the fact that figuring out the basis for the claims is pure ignorance requires a great deal of digging. I don’t think that Coulter realized her argument was based on ingorance. That gives Coulter far too much credit for having the intellectual apptitude to know this and/or dig up this kind of information. My guess is that instead she relied on guys like Dembski and/or Wells to provide the argument about ther being no predecessor that looks like Archaeopteryx. Downard makes this point as well when he writes,
What has confused Wells along with all of the antievolutionists in this area (including secondary addict Coulter) is something that should be obvious to anyone operating with a working map of Deep Time. The Cretaceous maniraptorans get highlighted because those are the fossils that have been found comparatively complete. That’s true for most of the Mesozoic, where the bulk of the taxa date from the Cretaceous because that’s where the deposits are. It’s the Bermuda Triangle Defense again.
But paleontology marches on, and the maniraptorans get pushed farther back with each new discovery.
Basically, the argument is just another God of the Gaps argument and with each new find in the maniraptoran group that gap gets smaller and smaller and soon it might be completely filled forcing God out of that gap he is currently living in.
As for Coulter’s comments about Archaeopteryx was a “poor unfortunate creature with wings, teeth, feathers, claws, and a long bony tail” are several of the aspects that make Archaeopteryx a transitional fossil. Yes Archaeopteryx looks like a weird mix of bird and dinosaur/reptile…because that is precisely what is expected with a transitional fossil. This kind of rhetoric would be really funny if it wasn’t both so ignorant and also so convincing to many people. On the one hand we have the Creationists saying, “Show us a transitional fossil…part bird-part reptile. You show them a fossil that meets their demand and they mock it for being part bird and part reptile! Same thing with hominid fossils. You show them an early hominid that also has feature similar to modern chimps and the Creationists rush to claim the fossil is either an ape or man. What is truly funny is that different creationists claim different things for the same fossil. For example, Talyor and Lubenow claim Java man is a human, but Gish, Cuozzo, Mehlert claim it is an ape. Similarly for Homo habilis, some Creationists say ape, others human.
Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow’s (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990’s, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape.–link
This is what makes the Creationists so hard to reply too. Replying to a couple of paragraphs of ignorance and dopey rhetoric requires a not so short trip through cladistics, dinosaurs taxonomy, geology and so forth. In short, by the time the Creationist has rattled off a litany of “problems” with evolution before dozens of audiences the scientists are just begining to answer the first item on the list and usually the answer is boring, boring, boring to the average person. Most people aren’t going to care enough about Sinosauropteryx to even try to figure out how to pronounce it let alone worry exactly when it appeared in time relative to other organisms of the time and about the number of fingers a given dinosaur had. Toss in a couple of claims that scientists are also liberals and atheists and who cares what the facts are, scrap teaching evolution and pray that H5N1 doesn’t mutate. Oh wait…I’m sorry it can’t mutate since evolution is just a liberal atheistic lie.
Great post explaining a complex subject in an accessible way, Steve. You neatly explain why, even though the Creationist model is out of gas it still continues to receive credence.
It looks to me like Coulter’s been cut-n-pasting her writing again.
Still, I’m waiting to hear regular OTB commenter Bithead explain why Coulter is a liberal, since in his self-confessed reality-map only liberals ever let sheer anger and regurgitated extremist talking points replace rational argument.
Regards, Cernig
When I see all the arguments piled up on either side, I’m left with the uneasy impression that we still have not learned enough to make the conclusion that Steve seems to have made long before he ever opened the editor.
Just recently, we made some pretty serious decisions based on information from the best information wonks in the world. Intelligence agencies from all over the world… not just the US… decided that Saddam Hussein had an active weapons program. And to a great extent that was true, but not as much as was thought. And think; we had that information live, and in real time in front of us, and not set in stone as it were. And a few billion years to the equation and tell me you can figure out what happened, here. I’ll call you a liar to your face.
I’m still left with the image of the several blind man examining the elephant and coming up with their own respective, and wildly inaccurate descriptions of it.
I’m also left with the single point that cannot be gotten over; even granted that evolution exists, (and schools still out, there) there doesn’t seem to be an awful lot of evidence pointing to a lack of an external hand in the design of it. Or, for that matter, in the day to day function of it.
Why is this discussion always posed as either creation or evolution, as if the two can’t exist together? Writers in particular should be familiar with first drafts followed by many rewrites, working on an initial script until it finally meets the writer’s original concept, even though the final product may bear little resemblance to the first draft.
I am always amazed that people will spend so much energy on an argument that can’t be won by either side.
Ah yes, Bithead, but people who take the bible literally have also made their own decisions prior to seeing any evidence. Regardless of what you think of Steve, evolutionists in general are open to modifying their view of the universe based on new evidence. Literalists OTOH, insist there can be no ‘new’ evidence, hence the borderline-sneering lack of respect they get from the scientific crowd.
Patrick,
You describe exactly the mindset that allows many scientists, even evolutionary researchers, to also be deeply religious people. It is possible to be both – it just doesn’t get much press 🙂
Belief in evolution by natural selection has become a handy touchstone for me–“is this person’s judgment generally trustworthy?”–and Bithead reinforces the hypothesis.
even granted that evolution exists, (and schools still out, there)
That is the dumbest comment posted to this blog since Zelsdorf said that Israel could impose the gov’t of its choice on Syria. *Evolution* was accepted by everyone except the crazies by the late 19th century. *Darwinian evolution* has been accepted by everyone except the crazies since the 1930s.
Funny, but I thought that this was the dumbest comment: “there doesnâ??t seem to be an awful lot of evidence pointing to a lack of an external hand in the design”.
Hmm, evidence for the lack of a hand….
Wonder what that could possibly look like.
Patrick makes the same argument I’ve made for some years.
And Anderson, it’s always amazed me how so many people who beleive in evolution have failed to do so. Your bandwagon seems to have a problem.
Why is this discussion always posed as either creation or evolution, as if the two canâ??t exist together?
Because people like Bithead pretend that evolution isn’t a well-established fact?
Bithead,
Oh brother, please. Of course, I made the conclusion long before I opened the editor. I’ve been actively studying dinosaurs on my own for about 6 years and ID/Creationism/Evolution for even longer. So I’m suppose to wait until I blog about something to make up my mind? For God’s sake.
Cute little bromide, but the scientists have been studying this elephant for well over 100 years and they know quite a bit about it. Not everything to be sure, but the evidence gathered is pretty amazing.
Evidence for the lack of something. So, if a murder is committed in my neighborhood by someone other than me, exactly what evidence is there that indicates I didn’t do it? Be careful here Bithead.
I’m a bit unclear on what you mean by Darwinian evolution, but, if you mean the idea of slow, gradual evolution, with changes occuring through adaptation over millions/billions of years, that idea has been largely abandoned by the scientific establishment. Instead, most evolutionists now argue for more abrupt change based on major mutations. (At least, that’s my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong, Steve.)
Addressing the point of the post, I’ll agree that Coulter’s argument is unconvincing. She’s preaching to the choir and knows it, so she goes for entertainment value rather than scientific accuracy…
However, the fact remains that lining up a series of distinct animal species and then deducing an evolutionary connection based on physical similarities is unpersuasive. If I lined up a tricycle, a bicycle, and a motorcycle next to each other, I could argue that they must be steps in an evolutionary progression, but I wouldn’t be convincing unless I could show evidence of actual transition. That evidence is lacking in evolutionary theory.
The human mind naturally wants to fill in the gaps between, say, an Archaeopteryx and the more “digitally advanced” Compsognathus, but a finger is an incredibly complex object in itself and its loss cannot be plausibly brushed off with the statement that it is “not uncommon for theropods to lose digits during evolution.”
The “fossil record” is still mostly holes, and all we have are distinct species with some similarities. This doesn’t disprove evolution, but neither does it provide compelling support.
David,
I’m not familiar with the rapid change you are talking about. If you mean punctuated equilbrium, I think you have been misinformed. The time periods are not rapid in terms of actual evolution, but the appearance in the fossil record could very well be.
As for the trike, bike, motorcycle example, that works for me. There is evidence of the progression (i.e., the development of the wheel, the development of carts with 2, then 3, then 4 wheels). The addition of an engine, breaks, head light, etc. Similarly we have morphological similarities…very, very strong ones. We also have evidence of genetic mutains, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection for living organisms.
Granted the analogy to trikes, bikes and motorcycles is not 100% accurate in that the trike, bike, motorcycle progression has artificial selection and there is likely little or no randomness (people weren’t randomly slapping wheels on, and other devices). But the process is in some ways similar.
But it isn’t uncommon. T. rex had only two digits, yet several progenitors had three. IIRC Dilophosaurus actually had 4 digits and was somewhat common to many ceratosaurs. Similarly with things like the disappearance of things like crests on the head of many Jurassic theropods.
My bad. The primary distinction I was attempting to draw was between the Darwinian emphasis on adaption through environmental pressures and more current evolutionary theory, which I understand to focus more on purported beneficial mutations.
Exactly. In other words, we have a creature with two digits, and a creature with three. Therefore, evolution assumes one stemmed from the other. However, it takes a whole lot of change to get rid of a digit, or add feathers/fins/wings/whatever.
It is easy to draw a neat progression in a high school textbook showing, say, the alleged evolution from dog-sized, toed Hyracotherium into modern-day Equus, but there are an inconveniently large list of transitional forms that must bridge each gap between major physical changes.
With an estimated 60,000 vertebrate species alone documented, and after decades of searching, it seems to undercut the theory of evolution that its proponents are still pointing to a collection of possible transitional forms that barely reaches the double digits.
Current evolutionary theory posits that organisms change via a number of processes some of with are mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, etc. Then natural selection is the process by which those changes are…well…selected. The time periods involved are still rather long, but we can see some changes that are often referred to as microevolutionary that are pretty quick.
Actually, when it comes to digits the view is that it isn’t that big of a change. If we go back to Dilophosaurus we have 4, then latter Theropods we get 3, then finally 2. These fossils occur in the right places for the lineage to be a pretty good fit.
This is basically an argument from ignorance and a lack of evidence is not evidence against a theory. The fact that there are transitionals (and that fossil formation is a rare event and finding also a tedious venture that also depends on luck) means we should increase our belief that current evolutionary theory is true and that the competing theories are less true. Simply showing that a theory is not complete in terms of evidence is insufficient as this is true of any and all theories. Should we jettison Einstein’s views simply because the exact nature of gravity is still to be determined? Should we posit an intelligent design for gravity? I think not. Same thing goes for evolutionary theory by logical extension.
Goes to show you the danger that comes from listening to only one side.
I’m much smarter than Coulter, but I’m no scientist either. As an impressionable youth, I was a creationist because that was the only side I really heard, and because it seemed to support my religious views. Even when we studied evolution in (public) school biology class, there was no effort at all to present the actual evidence for it, nor was there any effort to inculcate the basics of scientific thinking in our feeble young minds or explain the difference between science and non-science.
After I grew up and came to understand the fundamentals of how science works, and learned the bare basics about, e.g., what the fossil record really shows, I was gradually forced to conclude that evolution is a reality.
Coulter has clearly fallen into the same trap. She’s no dummy, but she obviously has no idea what science is (and is not), and didn’t bother checking out the creationist claims, since they reinforced what she wanted to believe.