Feedback for June 2006

Apart from the cichlids, there are several "host-race" sympatric speciation events, the most famous of which is the Rhagoletis fruitfly speciation studied by Stuart Berlocher and his team [but see the cautionary note here].

The short answer is that it is still highly debated. My own view, for what it's worth, is that the entire debate is miscast - it isn't about location, but about gene flow, and if gene flow can be interrupted for long enough in situ, then that is enough for speciation. The question is whether we have any such examples.

In this case a partial skull found in England was named Hyracotherium by Sir Richard Owen (who also coined the name 'dinosaur') in 1840.

Later in 1876 American paleontologist Othanial C. Marsh (who named half the dinosaurs you've ever heard of) named a very similar fossil Eohippus (Marsh 1876). It was obvious to most paleontologists that these fossil were very similar but since the originals were on different sides of the Atlantic ocean it took some time for direct comparisons to be made. Finally in 1932 a third scientist, Sir Clive Forester Cooper, published a paper demonstrating that the two fossil types were so similar that placing them in separate genera could not be justified. Thereafter according to the rules of taxonomy Hyracotherium became the official name for all the fossils and the name eohippus became what is called a junior synonym of that genus.

A similar situation occurred with the dinosaur Apatosaurus which was at one time known by its more popular, and evocative name brontosaurus (which means "thunder-lizard"). Coincidentally this case also involved O. C. Marsh, however in this case he named both genera.

The current taxonomic rules for the naming of animals (fossil and living) can be found in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

And now to relate this to the claims of antievolutionists…

Owen's giving this fossil the name Hyracotherium (which means hyrax-like beast) has led many antievolutionists to claim that Hyracotherium either is hyrax or is at least "practically identical" to a hyrax:

There are actually some very good technical reasons for calling the so-called Eohippus (‘dawn horse’) Hyracotherium. It is practically identical to a modern Hyrax, which is why its discoverer, Richard Owen, gave it that name. - Jonathan Sarfati (from Answers in Genesis)

The claim that Hyracotherium either is a hyrax or is even "practically identical" to a hyrax is patently false as anyone who takes the time to compare the two can easily see.

However if antievolutionists cannot be bothered to actually compare Hyracotherium with hyraxes before claiming them to be the same animal they certainly can't be bothered to read what Owen said about naming this fossil Hyracotherium:

Without intending to imply that the present small extinct Pachyderm was more closely allied to the Hyrax than as being a member of the same order, and similar in size, I propose to call the new genus which it unquestionably indicates, Hyracotherium, with the specific name leporinum.

The Order Owen is referring to here is "Pachydermata" (after Cuvier) which is no longer considered a valid taxon. It included elephants (obviously), even-toed ungulates (cows, deer etc.), odd-toed ungulates (including horses), hippos, pigs, and the hyraxes. So his placing Hyracotherium in the same order as hyraxes wasn't really saying much for their being all that similar.

Further evidence that Owen did not see a particularly close resemblance between Hyracotherium and hyraxes came a few years later when he wrote a paper in which he attempted to refine Cuvier's classification of "Pachyderms". (Owen 1848) In this paper Owen divided the ungulates up into three different groups, the Proboscidia (elephants), the Artiodactyla (even- toed), and Perissodactyla (odd-toed), and he gave a list of examples of each of these, which is where it gets interesting.(ibid p.139)

In the list of Artiodactyls he lists Hyracotherium.

In the Perissodactyla he lists the hyrax (and of course the horse).

So Owen placed Hyracotherium in one branch of the order and hyraxes and horses in the other. If anything this would imply that he thought hyraxes and horses were more similar to each other than either was to Hyracotherium. He was wrong of course, but again, all he had of Hyracotherium was a crushed partial skull, so he can be forgiven. Modern antievolutionists, on the other hand, have no excuse except intellectual dishonesty.

References

• Forster-Cooper, C. (1932) "The Genus Hyracotherium. A Revision and Description of New Specimens Found in England", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 221:431-448
• Marsh, O. C. (1876) "Notice of new Tertiary Mammals", The American Journal of Science and Arts, 12(71):401-404
• Owen, R. 1840 "Description of the fossil remains of a mammal, a bird, and a serpent, from the London Clay." Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 3(66):162-166
• Owen, R. 1841. "Description of the Fossil Remains of a Mammal (Hyracotherium leporinum) and of a Bird (Lithornis vulturinus) from the London Clay." Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Series 2, VI:203-208, 1 plate.
• Owen, Richard (1848) "Description of Teeth and portions of Jaws of two extinct Anthracotheroid Quadrupeds (Hyopotamus vectianus and Hyop. bovinus)..." The Quarterly Journal Of The Geological Society Of London 4(1):103-141
• Romer, Alfred Sherwood (1966) Vertebrate Paleontology (3rd Edition), p. 265.

Links

• Fossil Horses FAQs in the Archive
• Fossil Horses in Cyberspace at the Florida Museum of Natural History
• Yale Peabody Museum History and Archives: Othniel Charles Marsh

A book which was designed as resource such as you request is Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction

It's curious you pose the question asking which one is the bigger fairy tale. No where in evolution do we have talking snakes or donkeys, imaginary creatures, warrior heros, or clashes of the gods. But we do in fairy tales and the Bible.

Hope this helps answer your question.

The short answer to your question is no. There have been no direct observations of say, fish, sprouting lungs or legs before our eyes or of fish without lungs or legs giving birth to offspring that do, and if our understanding of how evolution works is even remotely close to how it does in fact work, then we shouldn't see such things.

Your question illustrates a very common misconception about how evolution works and a source of a common antievolutionist attack on evolution (of a sort that is a special pet peeve of mine).

Time and again antievolutionists will wave away examples of speciation as simply being "variation within a kind" and demand to see documentation of much more radical changes as evidence for evolution, like a fish turning into amphibians in one or only a few generations.

The problem with this is evolutionary theory predicts that we shouldn't ever see such radical transformations within the lifetime of a human being. According to our understanding of genetics and the mechanisms of speciation all we should be able to see within our lifetimes are exactly what we do see, small changes from one species to another. For example a new, slightly different, species of guppy arising from an already existing species of guppy. The sorts of changes required for amphibians to evolve from fishes would take many hundreds of thousands, or more likely millions of years to occur, and through innumerable intermediate speciation events. For evidence of this we have to look elsewhere (the fossil record, genetic comparisons etc.).

So ironically antievolutionists demand to see as evidence for evolution something which evolutionary theory says shouldn't ever happen (heads they win, tails you loose).

In fact, if guppies ever did start giving birth to salamanders, that would be a miracle (creation?), not evolution.

The Bible would disagree with you:

Gen 7:18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. (NIV)

All the high mountains were covered, and that's all the Bible has to say about that.

I would love for mokele-mbembe to exist. Aside from the sheer thrill of it, evolutionary theory would surely advance with such a creature to study. Unfortunately, the evidence for its existence is impossibly weak.

Anyway, so far as the scientific community stands now, or at least those relevant aspects of it that don't include business degrees or theological qualifications or dentistry expertise, is concerned, the vote is in. Evolution happens.

On the other hand you should understand that even if the peppered moth had been observed to give rise to a new species (macroevolution) then it would only have been a new species of moth very similar to peppered moths. The observation of anything else would run contrary to our understanding of how evolution works.

To reiterate what I said in an earlier feedback response, if peppered moths started giving birth to beetles or mosquitoes that would be a miracle not evolution.