I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Living "missing link" discovered

There was a lot of hoopla recently over the discovery of the "missing link" fossil named "Tiktaalik", a fish with legs, that supposedly proved Darwinism to be true. Well, a living shark species that walks on fins has recently been discovered. A picture of the shark is here (it is the second picture in the series at the top of the article).

Labels:

14 Comments:

Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

This is obviously the Intelligent Designer's protective camouflage response to the popularity of shark fin soup in the Orient. Japanese fishermen will see these fins and consider them unappetizing, inauthentic, or better yet, not shark fins at all. ;-)

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

I congratulate you for showing both sides. This "missing link" is one more bit of evidence for evolution.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:24:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Well, a living shark species that walks on fins has recently been discovered.<<<

Well, as long as you consider 182 years ago "recent." This species of shark was first discovered in 1824.

However, the sensational media is to blame for this - not Larry.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

I should also point out that AOL misspelled the scientific name of the fish (Hemiscyllium freycineti is the correct spelling - AOL spelled it Hemiscyillum). Poor thing. I happened to recognize it from the photo.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:25:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Oh, and finally, this is not a "missing link" - rather, it is an example of convergent evolution.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund said --

>>>> Well, as long as you consider 182 years ago "recent." This species of shark was first discovered in 1824.

However, the sensational media is to blame for this - not Larry. <<<<<

Why blame the media for this? The media was probably just repeating what the scientists said.

>>>>> Oh, and finally, this is not a "missing link" - rather, it is an example of convergent evolution. <<<<<<

It was just a joke, Kevin. I am sure that if Darwinists considered this shark to be a "missing link" (not missing since 1824, you say, long before the idea of missing links was invented), we would have heard from them by now. Still, though, I am surprised that this shark has apparently not been compared to Tiktaalik (not that I am aware of, anyway).

According to Wikipedia, the legs are not the only transitional features of Tiktaalik.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Why blame the media for this? The media was probably just repeating what the scientists said. <

The odds against the media reporting a scientific finding accurately are astronomical. There used to be a science editor with the Los Angeles Times named Dr. Irving S. Benglesdorf. He was a complete idiot.

I remember one byline telling us that they had discovered "a new type of star, farther away than the sun".

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:34:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

After a bit of investigation, it turns out that two new species within the genus Hemiscyllium were discovered. The media either mislabeled the picture with an extant species name, or confused a picture of the previously known species with the new species. Members of the genus are commonly known as carpetsharks, and have long been known to "walk" as well as being able to survive anoxic conditions (lack of oxygen) - the first species in the genus was described in 1788.

BTW, the previous comment about missing links was directed at ViW as well as Larry. According to Wikipedia, the legs are not the only transitional features of Tiktaalik. This is an important observation - as you seem to be hinting, transitional status is almost always based on a number of features, not just one.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:13:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

According to Wikipedia, the legs are not the only transitional features of Tiktaalik.

Not only that, but Tiktaalik's location was predicted. The researchers were looking for a fish -> amphibian transitional, and they knew where to look.

Also, AFAIK no one has ever suggested that sharks were on the ancestral line for land animals.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:31:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

>> Oh, and finally, this is not a "missing link" - rather, it is an example of convergent evolution. <<

< It was just a joke, Kevin. >

Do you mean that the whole post was a joke, Larry(?)?

If so, I guess that is a good sign; perhaps you are recovering from irony-deficiency anemia. :-}

It's a little hard to tell when you're joking.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Fake Dave --

>>>>>>Do you mean that the whole post was a joke, Larry(?)? <<<<<<

No, only the "missing link" part was a joke. I am really seriously wondering why this shark has not been compared to Tiktaalik.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< No, only the "missing link" part was a joke. I am really seriously wondering why this shark has not been compared to Tiktaalik. >

That's simple -- there's little of interest or relevance there. Convergent evolution is common. And Tiktaalik was a semi-land animal (he had both gills and lungs, and a land animal's skeleton in several aspects), whereas the shark is still very much a fish.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:33:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Fake Dave said --

>>>>>> I am really seriously wondering why this shark has not been compared to Tiktaalik. >

That's simple -- there's little of interest or relevance there. Convergent evolution is common. And Tiktaalik was a semi-land animal (he had both gills and lungs, and a land animal's skeleton in several aspects), whereas the shark is still very much a fish. <<<<<<

I disagree -- the walking-on-limbs feature is an unusual feature that both of them share. Having gills and lungs is not all that unusual -- amphibians have gills as young and lungs as adults. What is unusual is having both gills and lungs in the adult stage. BTW, I was wondering how it was determined that Tiktaalik had both gills and lungs -- these are soft tissues and would not have been preserved in a fossil. Also, according to the pictures in Wikipedia, the fossil was badly fragmented, which would make analysis especially difficult.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Perhaps the blogger here is an example of a missing link. He seems to fit in the family "Not So Great Apes".

Friday, September 22, 2006 9:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home