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.

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.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Casey Luskin wrong about Tiktaalik but article raises some good points

In an article in Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin said,

. . . this week, Tiktaalik's status as an actual transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods has been called into question by the discovery of unambiguous footprints (with digits) of a full-fledged tetrapod that were made about 20 million years before Tiktaalik.

I disagreed with Luskin's contention that this earlier tetrapod -- 397 million years ago -- calls into question Tiktaalik's status as an actual transitional fossil. I dismissed this as perhaps just a case of "convergent" evolution -- the appearance of similar features in different lines of descent. However, Sleazy PZ's diatribe against Luskin's article prompted me to give Luskin's article a second look to see if it has anything of value. I decided that the important point raised by Luskin's article was the apparent failure of science to predict the discovery of this 397 million year-old fossil despite science's success at predicting discovery of the later Tiktaalik fossil -- I think that deserves some explanation. Finding Tiktaalik was touted as a triumphal demonstration of the predictive power of evolution theory -- scientists predicted where a fossil like Tiktaalik would be found (somewhere in the Arctic) and went there and found it. And what line of descent does this older 397 million year-old fossil fit into? As Luskin's article shows, many questions are being raised -- many of them by presumably Darwinist biologists.


Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Casey Luskin is evidently an old-earth creationist, and I get somewhat tired of his stress on apparently creationist arguments. There are plenty of ID proponents, such as Behe, who think that tetrapods did indeed descend from fish (and humans from ape-like ancestors); and I think so, too. It's fine that some ID proponents are creationists of various kinds, but I think the stress on ID blogs should fall on ID arguments in general, not on creationist arguments. Luskin is one of those who give ammunition to the Darwinists who love to falsely claim that ID is necessarily creationism, and that all ID proponents are creationists.

Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

different lines of dissent

I guess this blog must be a "line of dissent"?

Monday, January 25, 2010 12:34:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...


Fixed it.

Monday, January 25, 2010 4:38:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home