EHRC Homepage | New Category | Your Questions

Muchos ejemplos han sido puestos adelante como ejemplos que unen las generaciones entre existencia y taxa fósiles. Antes de que consideremos nada de estodebemos regresar a evaluar la pregunta filosófica de origenes y generaciones.

Ninguna persona que tenga conocimiento puede preguntar la naturaleza extendida y dominantede generaciones entre taxas, modernidad o fósiles. Esto es lo normal. Para proponer un fósil o forma existente para ser un evolucionario intermediario entre dos fósiles o taxa moderna, uno debe establecer primero el criterio que puediera permitirte reconocer las formas como intermediarias. ¿ Qué características debe una intervención evolucionaria válida exhibir antes de que consideremos esto ser una verdadera forma trancicional entre dos taxas disyuntivas?

1. Si "A" es un taxon presumiendo ser ancestral, y "C" es un taxon creyendo ser derivado, luego "A" y "C" deben diferir el un o del otrosolo con respecto a las características en las cuales "B" es intermediaria. Si "A" y exhibenotras diferncias que no estan representadas en "B", luego una debe mirar adonde sea por un intermediario.

Uno siempre puede discutir que el poder de resolución de los registros de fósiles es inadecuada para la preservación de todos los intermediarios entre dos formas terminales. Per si esto es verdad, debemos abandonar la seguridad de que todo muy frecuente intenta la afirmación de que cualquier forma particulares un verdadero intermediario evolucionario.

Si limitamos nuestra consideración a solo una condición particular (i.e. longitud de una cola, o cualquier otra característica medible) e ignorar otras características, no podemos nunca hacer el intento que la condición es un intermediario. Puede ser un ejemplo de evolución paralela o en otras relaciones de las formas derivadas, preferiblemente que en un linaje directo.

Cuando intentamos incluir todas las características en cualquier consideración de intermediario (análisis When we attempt to include all characteristics in any consideration of intermediates (cladistic analysis), we end up with some conditions that are appearing in the right order (the ones evolutionists traditionally would concentrate on), and a suite of other conditions, some of which are ancestral, and some of which are derived, and some of which appear not to fit any evolutionary lineage. Although the cladistic approach is often said to support evolution, such an assertion is tautologic, since cladistic analysis depends upon evolutionary assumptions in its constructions. Evolutionary cladists (there are some cladists who refuse to assume evolutionary relationships as a premise) are forced to invoke the "principle" of "parsimony" (choosing the path with the least number of falsifying characteristics) in order to maintain their evolutionary view of relationships. But these are hardly the attributes one would wish to push as evidence for intermediate status.

2. If "A" is found earlier in the fossil record than "C", and "B" is intermediate, then the stratigraphic criteria for "B" as an intermediate are satisfied. If "B" is found either earlier than or at the same time as "A" or later than or at the same time as "C", the intermediate status of "B" is compromised.

If a fossil form meets these two criteria, namely intermediate characteristics and intermediate stratigraphic position, it would seem to represent a plausible intermediate form.

 Unfortunately, few if any fossil forms meet these criteria for intermediates. Thus evolutionists who wish to represent forms as intermediates are forced to invoke other criteria for their claims. Unfortunately, as a result, the concept of an evolutionary intermediate has degenerated to include any creature having any features deemed intermediate between posited ancestral and derived forms, that occurs at an appropriate stratigraphic interval between "A" and "C". It is also used to refer to stratigraphically intermediate forms which share any features with "A" and "C", and of course the more features they share, the better. Sometimes creatures that are NOT stratigraphically intermediate are also branded as intermediate. In these cases it is assumed that they must have been, and that the evidence has just not come in yet. However, is it really useful to debate whether any given proposed intermediate is really an intermediate or not? The problem of gaps in the fossil record is really a much broader problem for evolutionists. Rather the crucial question is: When we evaluate the fossil record as a whole, disallowing evolutionary bias, does it look the way it should if the evolutionary explanation is the correct one? Here, one would want to concentrate on the records that are most complete, such as the fossil record of marine invertebrates. In this case, even using the most liberal assumptions about what constitutes an intermediate, evolution, as an explanation for the hard data, comes down, failing to explain the observed stratigraphic patterns in these most complete fossil sequences. The fossil record remains a record of gaps between recognizable taxa that will not be palliated by further exploration, and will not be bridged by the proposal of new intermediate forms, regardless of what the criteria are for proposing an intermediate. ______________________________________________________ Ó 2010 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.