Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Dr. David Menton is a liar.


(Jasper is out! It's time for a paddlin'! This post is in two sections. Recognizing the potential for it to drag on into lengthy details and scare readers away, I have chosen to put the main points up front and add a supplementary section at the end for those of you who are interested in some of the additional details of biology related to this post)

Dr. David Menton of Answers in Genesis has written the latest reaction to Tiktaalik roseae. Interestingly, the article makes almost no reference to the Tiktaalik fossils themselves, except where facts are made up.

In the article, Menton's only claims about the anatomy of Tiktaalik relate to the pelvic fins and girdles (i.e. the hips and legs) of Tiktaalik. There is no disucssion of the skull or shoulder girdle, and only tacit reference to the fin skeleton. Menton explains in relation to fishes and tetrapods that:
[t]he hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins.
Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I've seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin.

I took the time to go one step further. I emailed Ted Daeschler (of Colbert Report fame) who is one of the authors of the papers to drive this point home. Here's his reply which I got this morning [emphasis added]:
Regarding Tiktaalik pelvic fins . . . no pelvic fin material has been reported. Less for him to misrepresent!
I know this is like taking a whizz in the ocean, but chalk up another lie for AiG.

The article is replete with misinformation, and I will only take up a few of them here. There is a "supplement" below for those who are interested in the finer details of biology or the particularly vapid claims that Menton makes. The article has some subtle ways of using definitions as though they were arguments. For instance, Menton claims that "no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones." This is a "truth by definition". Tetrapods, by definition, have digited limbs. In other words, only tetrapods have true finger or toe bones by definition. If it has fingers, it ain't a fish! Menton's claim isn't even an argument, but it sure is misleading.

Edited to add. It gets worse and I can't believe I forgot to add it. Nevermind the rhetoric, Menton (who is an anatomy professor! states: "Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits". Rays are not in the place of digits. Rays are dermal bone, they develop in the skin like scales and skull bones. Thus, they are in the skin and form a "sandwich" over the internal, or endochonrdral/cartilage, skeleton. Digits are part of this internal skeleton. You cannot have "rays instead of digits". You may have one and not the other, but neither takes the other's anatomical place. Coming from an anatomist, this statement demonstrates first-rate incompetence. Tiktaalik does have jointed radials, a feature which is typically only in lobe-finned fishes. These are endochondral bones. Whether or not they are homologous to digits is a question of ongoing investigation which will require more fossils and involves gene expression work in lungishes.End of edit

The real problem is not even whether or not Tiktaalik has a tetrapod-like pelvic girdle. It's that Menton's attempt to discredit the claims of the authors is based on listing the fish-like aspects of Tiktaalik and ignoring the tetrapod-like aspects. An animal that is a fish-tetrapod transitional would be expected to have some properties of a fish, no?

Menton's use of quotations is also appallingly dishonest. In a section titled "So Is Tiktaalik a Missing Link?", he quotes the News and Views article by Ahlberg and Clack and states that it concedes a point he is trying to make.
In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”
But the whole quote reveals that Menton's own choice of word's ("missing link") is a loaded question (a particularly dishonest rhetorical trick such as asking somebody "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?").
The concept of 'missing links' has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative. But the concept has become freighted with unfounded notions of evolutionary 'progress' and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transitions. Much of the importance of transitional fossils actually lies in how they resemble and differ from their nearest neighbours in the phylogenetic tree, and in the picture of change that emerges from this pattern.
Ahlberg and Clack were saying nothing like Menton's implication.

What I don't understand is why this article had to be written by a professor of anatomy. There is no cogent discussion of anatomy that is relevant to the issue of Tiktaalik. There's a heck of a lot of really bad zoology (see the supplementary section), but not even a discussion of the anatomy of of Tiktaalik. Instead, the attack is a shameful distortion of definitions, quote mining, and outright lies. To give you an impression of what Ahlberg and Clack actually think about Tiktaalik here is the figure from their article. Compare especially the skull roofs along the left-hand side of the figure, an aspect which Menton completely ignores.
Figure caption: The lineage leading to modern tetrapods includes several fossil animals that form a morphological bridge between fishes and tetrapods. Five of the most completely known are the osteolepiform Eusthenopteron16; the transitional forms Panderichthys17 and Tiktaalik1; and the primitive tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. The vertebral column of Panderichthys is poorly known and not shown. The skull roofs (left) show the loss of the gill cover (blue), reduction in size of the postparietal bones (green) and gradual reshaping of the skull. The transitional zone (red) bounded by Panderichthys and Tiktaalik can now be characterized in detail. These drawings are not to scale, but all animals are between 75 cm and 1.5 m in length. They are all Middle–Late Devonian in age, ranging from 385 million years (Panderichthys) to 365 million years (Acanthostega, Ichthyostega). The Devonian–Carboniferous boundary is dated to 359 million years ago18.


I suspect I know why this article was written and where these comments stem from. When Tiktaalik was first reported in Nature nearly a year prior to this writing, Answers in Genesis published a screed co-authored by Menton. In response, I called out the authors for botching Vertebrate Anatomy 101. They seem to be clarifying their mistake, but I already covered that base:
On the other hand, if they're talking about the pelvic limbs, then Menton and Looy are just blowing smoke, because there is no report on the pelvic girdle here.
The problem that the creationists are facing here, and what Menton's reaction is symptomatic of, is that fossils like Tiktaalik are stunningly beautiful, articulated, their implications immediately obvious even at a glance, and information about them can be disseminated widely through the world wide web. Anybody with a computer can get high-res pictures of Tikaalik and see it for themselves. In response, big-money creationists like AiG have to go through extraordinary rhetorical acrobatics to keep fleecing the flock.



"Supplementary section"

Here I outline some detailed responses to claims in Menton's article but aren't necessarily related to Tiktaalik.

Part I: Fish breathing and circulation

Menton briefly discusses a number of teleost fishes that have specialized types of air breathing: mudskippers and climbing perch. Teleosts are ray-finned fishes and to put things in creationists terms: "Evolutionists" believe that all ray-finned fishes are more closely related to than they are to tetrapods. In other words, they form a clade. Conversely, there are lobe-finned or sarcopterygian fishes which "evolutionists" believe are closer to tetrapods than they are to any other fishes. Thus, they are said to form a clade with tetrapods. (Digression: It makes sense that Tikaalik is a bona fide lobe-finned fish. If it had been a teleost, that would have been a problem.) In discssing air-breathing teleosts, Menton concludes:
none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.
Isn't there a glaring omission here? Has Menton not heard of lungfishes? Lungfishes are, indeed, sarcopterygian fishes. They breathe air (hence lungfishes). In fact, not only do they breath air, but their circulatory system is connected to their lung in the same way as it is in amphibians. A review of vertebrate circulatory systems can be found here, and a particular reference to the lungfishes can be found here.

Here's a little review. Vertebrates have two main types of circulation: single and double (or undivided and divided). Fishes have the single (undivided) system, and the heart is relatively simple: it's basically a muscular series of chambers. Blood is pumped through the gills where it is oxygenated and passed through the body, collected back to a major vein (common cardinal vein) and delivered back to the heart. Repeat. In tetrapods, it gets complicated where the system is double or divided. In reptiles, birds, and mammals, the blood is first sent to the lungs where it is oxygenated, then back to the heart where it goes out to the body and back. Repeat.



Amphibians and lungfishes have a system that is somewhere in between. A pulmonary artery is linked to the lung from the systemic (or gill) arches and leads to the lung where it is oxygenated. A pulmonary vein then carries blood from the lung to the heart and it is pumped back to the body. However, the heart remains largely a simple structure like in fishes. The key difference is that the atrium, the chamber that receives the blood, is partly divided to separate the flows of oxygenated blood from the lung and deoxygenated blood from the body coming back to the heart (i.e. there is some mixing, but this is also controlled a bit). This partly divided system is lacking the air-breathing fishes he talked about. It is only known in lungfishes and amphibians.

Why was this information not important enough to be included and discussed by Menton?

Part II: Air breathing "crossopterygians"?":

It gets even more deceptive where Menton notes:
Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapods—even though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water. [Original emphasis]
Very clever. "Crossopterygian" is a dated term showing that Menton has read nothing about the study of tetrapod origins or lobe-finned fish systematics from the past 20 years. Although I have a particular affection for the term, nobody uses "crossopterygian" anymore. It's Menton's convenient use of an outdated typological term that excludes lungfishes by it's definition that is particularly misleading. The term "crossopterygian" referes to a sub-group of lobe-finned fishes that included coelacanths and "osteolepiforms", the latter including the iconic Eusthenopteron frequently seen crawling out of the water in children's dinosaur books (though few scientists think it actually did this). The term is largely discarded today because it assumes that lungfishes and tetrapods are not simply modified "crossopterygians". By using this term, Menton can safely ignore lungfishes, even though most palaeontologists (and a significant number of molecular biologists) now think lungfishes are a closer living cousin than is the only living "crossopterygian", the coelacanth Latimeria. I hesitate to comment as to whether this was done on purpose by Menton, but it is rather convenient that he should choose to dig up such an old term that specifically excludes lungfishes whilst simultaneously neglecting them in a discussion of air-breathing fishes.

However, let's accept Menton's use of "crossopterygian" for the moment. Coelacanths are the only living crossopterygians. They do not have a lung, but rather an oily swim bladder. This swim bladder has a little trachea (the tube that connects the lung to the throat) and a very small version of a vein that corresponds to the pulmonary vein.

What's even more deceptive is Menton's comment that there are no crossopterygians known to breathe air when, in fact, most things that are called "crossopterygians" are extinct. While there is one living genus of coelacanth, hundreds of other genera of "crossopterygian" are extinct. Rhizodontids, "osteolepiforms", porolepiforms, onychodonts, are all "crossopterygians" and have very distinct from coelacanths and may have anywhere from half a dozen to hundreds of sub-taxa with different adaptations and, presumably, different modes of life. Of these, it is impossible to observe air-breathing. At best, some functional and/or bone histological studies might give clues to different respiratory physiology. But, at best, conclusions about air-breathing would be inferential, and thus excluded from phylogenetic analysis (i.e. interpretations of how organisms are related to each other). That said, it is yet another truism that Menton should claim that no crossopterygians are known to breathe air.

30 comments:

Rupert Goodwins said...

This reminds me of a classic exchange recently on either Pharyngula or Panda's Thumb (or somesuch), which I paraphrase:

Creationist: "Come on! If land animals had evolved from fish, you'd expect to find FISH WITH LUNGS!"

Evo:"There is. It's called a lungfish."

Creationist: ""

Alex said...

Nice post Martin. It's always good to hear how you're doing down there at the other end of the vert family tree. I look forward to the second half of the topic.

Jeffrey said...

Thanks so much for taking the time to deal with this creationist nonsense. If only more scientists would follow your example, we'd be winning the battle against them.

Mike Haubrich said...

One of the good things that have come out of the Creationist movement is that it has given me a great interest in the details of evolution.

From talk.origins to Pandasthumb.org to pharyngula, I have picked up a lot of information that I never would have if not for those bozos. Thnkas for this article. Now I want to learn more about tiktaalik.

As Jeffery said, as more scientists clarify how evolution works, the GP will start to see what shams creationism/ID are, but more importantly we will take the effort to learn more about science.

Also, school districts generally have curriculum committees and this is a great place for scientists who don't actually want to get into the politics of school board elections to help shape education in their communities and build science education.

Jordan said...

Another well-dealt blow from Martin. These creationists are an embarassment to the Christian faith.

dogscratcher said...

Masterful.

Anonymous said...

"These creationists are an embarassment to the Christian faith."
The Christian faith is an embarassment to the Christian faith.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this article, and the incisive and sure-footed analysis of interlaced gotchas by these dishonest people.

One wonders why creationists have no problem wasting so much of their time inventing history and science with words than actually spending it doing real work.

Good quote rerun Goodwins, it's a classic exchange. ;)

Jordan said...

"The Christian faith is an embarassment to the Christian faith."

I just want to go on record as saying "I disagree."

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this article. I will forward it to AIG so they can look into taking legal action for your slanderous accusations.

Because if you cannot prove what you claim beyond a reasonable doubt, you can be sued for calling someone a liar. Whether they lied or not.

I hope you have more than your opinions about what you claim here. Otherwise your on a sinking ship.

Martin Brazeau said...

Well, the absence of any reports on the pelvic fin of Tiktaalik is not a matter of my opinion but a matter of the historical record.

Martin Brazeau said...

As regards a lawsuit: In defamation cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant.

Sarda Sahney said...

Thanks for the interesting (and humorous) posting. Tiktaalik is a beautiful fossil and amazing example of evolution. It is unfortunate that some people do not appreciate it.

Per Ahlberg said...

Hello Anonymous (and anyone at AiG who might be reading this)!

I'm Martin's boss and PhD supervisor. Further to your threat of legal action I would just like to point out a couple of salient points in American libel law, lifted from that wonderful web resource ExpertLaw. You creationists show a certain fondness for cut-and-paste, so you may appreciate this approach, but unlike (just to grab a random example out of thin air) the quotes of my work in Dr Menton's tendentious little Tiktaalik article, these quotes do NOT misrepresent the general content of the text.

So, from the section headed "What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?":

"The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation."

'Nuff said, I think. As Martin says, the absence of preserved pelvic fin material in Tiktaalik is a matter of historical record. So, by the way, is Dr Menton's blatant misrepresentation of the Ahlberg & Clack article.


Next, from the section "Public Figures":

"Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan , where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

and

"The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. ... A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest."

Clearly Dr Menton qualifies as a Public Figure by virtue of the fact that he published articles at AiG. Thus, he would have to prove that Martin's statement was made with "actual malice", which would be kinda hard to do given that the statement is demonstrably true.


In short, your boat leaks like a sieve and I would sincerely recommend you not to put to sea in it. In case you're still considering taking action, I leave you with the following quote from "Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Always A Good Idea":

"Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true."

Yours faithfully,

Per Erik Ahlberg
Professor of Evolutionary Organismal Biology
Uppsala University

Andrea J. said...

Oh, dear. I always get a knot in my panties when reading things like this. I'm passing the AiG article onto Jason, though, mainly because I want to see my dipnoan-worshipping fiance with an aneurysm.

Er, point of clarification, though -- are rhizodonts included with the "crossopterygians"? I was under the impression that the rhizodonts are considered the sister clade to the tetrapods, with Dipnoi as the sister group to rhizodonts+tetrapods, and coelacanths as the sister group to dipnoi+tetrapoda. Am I right in this?

Cheers. :)

Martin Brazeau said...

All: Thanks for the comments, they are much appreciated. Even the attempt at legalese from our creationist friend was much amusing.

Andrea J., hah, indeed, but I'm certain that Jason has already seen it. Give him my best, despite my being a dink over at IIDB. I just really don't think that creationists are going to respond to "crown-group" definitions. I put my bits in.

Crossopterygians? The term isn't phylogenetic, and classically rhizodontids have been termed "crossopterygians" (e.g. Andrews 1985). It's a grand ol' name, and I would love to save it (along with "Rhipidistia"), but alas, it may not stand the test of time and carries too much definitional baggage to be of use.

Andrea said...

Your best? I'll pass it on, although I doubt he needs it. In his words "Martin is awesome. No, seriously, Martin is awesome."

And thanks. J's explanation was, at best convoluted, and went off in odd loops. You know.

EGarrett said...

Hi Martin. Do you have an account on James Randi's Forum?

I tracked down the complete phone call debate between you and Hovind, and posted it on the JREF forum and you have quite a few fans there.

-Ernie

mps said...

Bravo, Brazeau! Thanks for taking the time to expose Menton's piece for what it is. I liked your Hovind calls too -- it's a treat to hear urbane and well-informed puncturing of his thought-bubbles. Please keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this post! Peer review in response to creationist statements is far too thin, in opposition to true science. Menton's mockery of evolutionary studies, under the guise of his own work in cell biology, is pitiful to anyone who's had the misfortune to listen to him speak. This man knows shamefully little about geology or paleontology to be making any professional statements about evolutionary theory.

Joe G said...

If the following is true:

The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle.

Then all claims that this is a transitional from water to land are also lies. That is in the same sense that Menton "lied".

Anonymous said...

Martin said something like this:
"Crossopterygians? The term... may not stand the test of time and carries too much definitional baggage to be of use."

In my humble opinion, evolutionists redefine things when their original assertions that 'such and so is an evelotionary FACT!', get shown clearly to not have been the facts at all. -Such as when the coelacanth was discovered alive, and disproved (in it's soft parts), what the evo's had been saying all along about what they expected.
Perhaps most of the information about a critter is found in it's soft parts, and not in it's fossil.

Nice speculation Martin, about what the tiktaalik MAY have been! (Still my opinion here) Sounds just like the Hesperapithicus to me.

Or maybe the Coelacanth.

Dale Husband said...

Joe G assumes too much, just as Menton did. Fossil skeletons are often incomplete, so if the pelvic fins or girdle are missing in Tiktaalik, there are surely other features that indicate its transitional status.

The more Creationists talk, the dumber they sound!

Anonymous said...

Dale Husband
... you sound like the "expert" that knows nothing other than the other person is wrong... :-)

They are talking birds here but the concept is consistent.
http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsletters/200709/200709.pdf

BubbaCoop said...

"These creationists are an embarassment to the Christian faith."

Interesting. By his recorded words, Jesus was a young-Earth Creationist (in fact, He was present at Creation!), so does that make Jesus an "embarassment" (sic) to the Christian faith? That seems rather ironic.

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網


情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室

Sandy said...

It seems to me that Menton has substantially revised his writing on Tiktaalik because what is to be found on the AIG website differs quite a bit from what Martin comments on. The link given by Martin shows nothing about Tiktaalik, but Menton's presumably new opinions are to be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish
or else just google tiktaalik Menton and you'll find it easily.
Martin, I'd very much appreciate it if you are willing to comment on Menton's new attempt. Thanks
Sandy

wasblindnowsee said...

Mr. Martin, ask Mr. Menton to have a public debate with you. I'm sure he would be happy to. I'm equally sure you won't ask. Evolutionist seem to be afraid of debating creationist. I've read the best of both views. I also would avoid at all cost a debate with creationist if I held your view. It truly is sad that you can not and will not admit a creator

Martin Brazeau said...

If you've already seen the best arguments from both sides and made up your mind, why do you need me to have a public debate with Menton?

wasblindnowsee said...

Thank-you for reply. Debate would not be for my benefit. I'm now convinced of creation. I do believe it would benefit you and those who follow you. Public debate is a lot different than blogging. I constantly hear people say that no reputable scientist believe in creation. I thought that was a true statement just by the sheer numbers who said so. Upon investigation I found that was an outright lie, yet is still stated by those who know otherwise. I found out that that was just the tip of the iceberg of the lies told by evolutionist. I'm not saying this applies to you, I've not read enough of your blogs. Would like to know your thoughts concerning Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. No evolutionist will debate this man. Please take an honest look at what he has to say. He seems to show that evolution as proposed by Darwin(chance molecular combinations are the cause of all that we see)violates several known laws. Thank-you for your time sir. Respectfully, wasblindnowsee.