A fish story: Your Fishy Inner Fish
For larger image, click on picture
From an article in Evolution News & Views.
=========================================
For larger image, click on picture
Pectoral fins of: a, Eusthenopteron; b, Panderichthys; and c, Tiktaalik. d, Limb of Acanthostega. H, humerus; Int, intermedium; R, radius; U, ulna; Ure, ulnare. Scale bar, 1 cm. a is redrawn from ref. 17, c from ref. 4 and d from ref. 11.
From an article in Panda's Thumb.
==========================================
A new controversy has flared up over Tiktaalik, the much ballyhooed fossil that is supposed to be a transition between fish and land tetrapods. Tiktaalik is the subject of a book titled "Your Inner Fish." I previously reported a controversy over Tiktaalik's alleged "wrist" bones.
Casey Luskin of Evolution News & Views reported that scientists are now claiming that the limb bones of another fossil, Pandericthys, are more tetrapod-like than the limb bones of Tiktaalik. See above pictures. However, as Casey's article points out, the "digits" of Pandericthys look more like bone fragments than digits. The Darwinists are always grasping at straws in their desperate efforts to "prove" that Darwinism is true, but we are not supposed to question their claims.
.
However, Casey Luskin misrepresents the Darwinists when he repeatedly flatly says that Tiktaalik is "poor" as fossil evidence of an evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. The Darwinists are not admitting that Tiktaalik is "poor" in general as fossil evidence of such evolution but are only admitting that Tiktaalik is poor as evidence of an evolutionary transition from fishes' radial fin bones to tetrapods' digital bones. Tiktaalik still has a lot of tetrapod-like features: a flat, crocodile-like head; a neck that can bend, a rib cage, and ear notches. The admission by Darwinists that Tiktaalik is poor evidence of a limb transition is certainly a big deal if they are making it for the first time, but Luskin should be clear as to exactly what they are admitting.
Answers-in-Genesis also has an article criticizing Darwinist scientists' conclusions about Tiktaalik.
.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/22/2008 03:02:00 AM
14 Comments:
Luskin is grabbing at straws to try to support the unscientific theory of Intelligent Design. For those who don't know, he is the chief IDiot.
I like this comment (posted at PT) :-):
tresmal | October 5, 2008 9:39 PM
You have to understand that tiktaalik, panderichthys, ichthyostega et al were all different kinds. The problem was that they were too aquatic to haul themselves onto the ark, but not aquatic enough to survive the flood.
Hmm, typical creationist logic - complain (erroneously) that there are no transitional fossils, then, when something is pointed out that appears to have features in a fish fin that look digit-like, complain that can't be the case, as the fin doesn't have the fully-formed proper digits seen in later fossils.
Essentially, Luskin is trying to twist the fact we have fish fossils with fins that have some features of the feet of tetrapods into some kind of proof of the absence of transitional fossils.
Darwinists who ramble on about "creationists," about "the flood," etc., when talking about ID, are making a display of their ignorance; or else of their inability to think in abstract, logical terms.
ID is simply the view that an analysis of the evidence indicates a role for some sort of intelligence or intelligences in designing some features of all living things. Hence ID is compatible with both creationist and non-creationist views.
Many ID proponents, including Behe, quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff, and myself, believe that we have ancient monkeys and, yes, fish, among our ancestors: that new species have descended from old. Hence the "fish story" in question has relatively little interest to us.
Luskin may well be a creationist, personally; and we non-creationist ID proponents have nothing against creationists. We agree with them in many ways about the causes of the appearance of living forms, although not about the historical details. Darwinists, however, profess to be somehow unable to understand that.
Firstly, Jim, even if I were to entirely accept what you say ID is, what you have is an incredibly weak conjecture with very little, if any, evidence backing it up. Yet, despite this, ID proponents seem to think that this is worth the same sort of consideration as a very solid theory with a great deal of evidence backing it up (evolution), and rejecting ID due to the absence of evidence is 'oppressing scientific freedom'.
Secondly, in order to conclude that the ID movement is not the creationist movement with a new name, you have to wilfully ignore quite a bit of evidence, such as that brought up in the Dover case. However, ignoring evidence is nothing new to 'cdesign proponentsists', so I shouldn't really be surprised.
>>>>>>> Yet, despite this, ID proponents seem to think that this is worth the same sort of consideration as a very solid theory with a great deal of evidence backing it up (evolution), and rejecting ID due to the absence of evidence is 'oppressing scientific freedom'. <<<<<<
"Same sort of consideration"? LOL. The courts have not begrudged criticisms of evolution even a crumb of consideration -- evolution disclaimer statements were banned by the courts in three cases: Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, Selman v. Cobb County, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. Decisions in the first two cases came close to being reversed and Kitzmiller was not even reviewed by a higher court.
>>>>>> Secondly, in order to conclude that the ID movement is not the creationist movement with a new name, you have to wilfully ignore quite a bit of evidence, such as that brought up in the Dover case. <<<<<<
ID is not creationism with a new name -- there is nothing in the bible about irreducible complexity, DNA, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, etc.. And there are also non-ID criticisms of evolution (a post label in the sidebar of the homepage) -- this blog discusses some of these, particularly criticisms concerning co-evolution.
There is a lot of evidence for design in nature but Darwinists say that design is an illusion. Well, maybe evolution is an illusion despite being supported by a lot of evidence.
>>>>>>>> However, ignoring evidence is nothing new to 'cdesign proponentsists', so I shouldn't really be surprised. <<<<<<
Of Pandas and People is not the only ID book, and it is an obsolete book -- the last edition was published in 1993, which is ancient history in the modern ID movement. How would you Darwinists like it if evolution were evaluated on the basis of a single outdated book?
'Nonymous said (Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:50:00 AM) --
>>>>>>> I like this comment (posted at PT) :-):
tresmal | October 5, 2008 9:39 PM
You have to understand that tiktaalik, panderichthys, ichthyostega et al were all different kinds. The problem was that they were too aquatic to haul themselves onto the ark, but not aquatic enough to survive the flood. <<<<<<
Well, then how do you explain what happened to the dinosaurs, saber-toothed tigers, mammoths, etc.?
> ID is not creationism with a new name <
The courts have wisely found otherwise.
> Well, then how do you explain what happened to the dinosaurs, saber-toothed tigers, mammoths, etc.? <
There was a sign next to the Ark much like the ones that used to be at the Disneyland Autopia but in reverse. The dinosaurs and mammoths were too tall to get on the ride. As for the saber-toothed tigers, a pair did get on the ride but the female caught the male flirting with a sexy female cougar and she tore him apart.
As usual, Larry weakens his own case.
"it is an obsolete book -- the last edition was published in 1993, which is ancient history"
Fifteen years ago is ancient history?
The Origin of Species is still considered a classic, despite having a few errors. And it is not ancient history -- it's rather recent.
It's a complete waste to talk to these Darwinist-true-believers. By their tortured "logic," even quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff would be a "creationist," since he is an ID proponent; even though he thinks that all species have descended from common ancestry, is not a Christian, and doesn't appear to even be a theist. And then they absurdly argue that in philosophical and scientific matters, a ruling by some judge has weight!
A biologist, of much repute,
Declared, "I'll fully refute
All heresy, and show
MY DARWIN would know
Quite well how species transmute!
"It happened like this: in a bird
Or a beast, mutations occurred
By chance, and through these,
In gradual degrees,
Arose a Darwinist nerd:
"For, in a process of slaughter,
Selection has simply 'got ter'
Prefer any geek,
Or Darwinist freak,
Who's a fully scatterbrained rotter."
The damn Blogger for some reason won't accept my password, so I have to publish in another format. But the question of how and why Darwin-addicts emerge is an interesting one. Fred Hoyle held that conventional "evolutionary biologists" are "in a sense mentally ill;" but that doesn't explain exactly what causes their highly illogical and fanatical point of view, i.e., their "mental illness," if that is a reasonable term for it?
From any point of view, including my entirely non-creationist, intelligent design point of view, there IS something very "fishy" about this story: and that is the fishy urge of the "orthodox," conventional "evolutionary biologists" to jump to conclusions based upon scanty and wholly inadequate evidence. Hence the people would have to be very stupid to take them seriously, even when they arguably may be right.
So why are they in the business of holding to arbitrary materialistic dogmas, and indulging in mere fantasies?
Perhaps because it's an easy way to make a living. The government hands them research grants, for their silly, useless, pseudoscientific activities: they feed relentlessly at the "public trough." And "to Hell with the public interest!" is their apparent motto.
A Darwin-professor: "It's crass
That Darwin's been knocked on his ass!
Since his theory's decaying,
It goes without saying
That my grants are in danger. Alas!"
Post a Comment
<< Home