Skip to main content

Andy McIntosh - What about the Fossils - Part 7 (Giraffe)

This is part 7 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well.

For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ

Evil-utionists

Persuasive speeches often employ subtle techniques to influence the audience.  When listening to the video, one thing that immediately stood out to me was the way McIntosh pronounced "evolutionists". It sounds like he is saying "evil utionists".  I only bring this up in case anyone else has that reaction. The way McIntosh pronounces this is the proper pronunciation for the UK.

Old Mouse

At 5:56 McIntosh states:
"[...] you can find a huge number of mammals displaced from the region where the evolutionists would say that they should be.  We do actually find mammals even down [...] in the Jurassic [period]"
McIntosh does not elaborate why he stated that evolutionary biologists would not expect mammals in the Jurassic period.  The earliest date for a mammal I could easily find was for the specimen Tikitherium, which is dated to 225 Ma (million years ago).  This puts it in the Triassic period, prior to the Jurassic.

It should also be noted that this does not mean that the theory of evolution states that mammals evolved 225 Ma.  It means it happened sometime before that.  New fossils are constantly being found and refining the timeline.  The timeline is always subject to refinement based on evidence.

No Change in The Giraffe


Around 7:08 McIntosh starts discussing the Giraffe.  He states:
Giraffes are exactly the same in the fossil record as today.  The only possible difference is the size of the skull.


Self-Presented Contrary Evidence

If the size of the skull is different, they aren't the same.  Environmental changes resulting in different body sizes doesn't help here.  He is claiming that the necks are just as long, but the skulls are different sizes.  A genetic change would be required.  The evidence presented is contrary to the claim.


New Contrary Evidence

The giraffe's closest living relative is an okapi.  They are both pictured, the giraffe on the left, the okapi on the right.


Evolution is a theory.  Theories are always open to new evidence.  Before something is a theory, it already has a very large body of evidence.  So the odds of a theory being completely wrong are low, more likely it will get revised.  This is one of the strengths of science.

On November 25, 2015, a new study was released:  


This study is an analysis of a new find that broadens our evidence base for giraffe ancestry.  You've got to be careful though.  There are a lot of scientific journals, and just because you find something on the internet, doesn't make it valid.

The very next step should be pubmed.  If you go to pubmed and search for articles about this fossil, you find multiple articles, in multiple journals.  Not as many as I'd like, but this is a very new find.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Samotherium

From the conclusion of the study:
In analysing morphological features and cervical measurements, we find the neck of S. major to be intermediate between O. johnstoni and G. camelopardalis. In the extinct taxon, the cranial (C2–C3) vertebrae demonstrate a mosaic of characters and dimensions that closely resemble either the okapi or the giraffe. The caudal region of the neck (C5–C7) appears more transitional between the two extant taxa. The C6 of S. major is exceptionally unique in that it has a partially excavated ventral lamina, and a ventral ridge that is developed cranially and yet absent caudally. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, we find the S. major neck to be truly intermediate between the okapi and the giraffe.
Reading that last sentence, we see that this is a fossil that is transitional between the giraffe and the okapi.  It is a giraffe ancestor with a shorter neck.  The study provided the following diagram.  (a) is a giraffe, (c) an okapi, and (b) this find.  Ignore the head.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

39

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man. When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family....
8 comments
Read more

Critique: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3, Ken Ham and Roger Patterson

In reference to:  The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3 Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used. Abiogenesis and Evolution [Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom. ... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ... Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.   Evolution  is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.   Abiogenesis  is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct. Advocating Evolution as Religious An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolut...
1 comment
Read more

Andy McIntosh - What about the Fossils - Part 8 (Stasis)

This is part 8 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ Stasis One of McIntosh's main points is the concept of stasis .  This means that things don't change for a long time (things like feathers and turtles).  It seems the point here is: "so evolution is wrong". He seems to be saying that either everything evolves by changing constantly, or his version of young earth creationism is true.  There are many other options of course. It could be that evolutionary theory can explain this.  It could be that aliens made life on earth.  If this were indeed evidence against the current theory of evolution, that would not make it evidence for young earth creationism.  Maybe if every species coul...
3 comments
Read more