Evolution Media News

Attenborough, read your mail: Evolution is messier than TV

Spread the love

Remember Tiktaalik (“Early tetrapod (“fishapod”) sheds light on transition to land—maybe ”), where post-hoopla, it turned out that other creatures’ tracks on land were found from 20 million years earlier?

The point was made that

The Polish trackways establish that Tiktaalik wasn’t anywhere near the first tetrapod, so the most important information about the transition to land doesn’t even include Tiktaalik at present. We need to find the creatures that made those tracks.

Some fish today routinely spend time out of the water, using a variety of mechanisms. But there is no particular reason to believe that they are on their way to becoming full time tetrapods or land dwellers. So we would need to be cautious about assuming that specific mechanisms that might be useful on land are definitive evidence of a definite, permanent move to full-time land dwelling.

A friend writes to point out a modern-day examples that illustrates this, the walking shark:

Walking shark

If this fish were found as a 500 mya fossil, it would be hailed as a transitional, but it is actually just occupying a niche from which it has no apparent intention of giving notice.

Of course there were transitionals, but the problem is, there are so many niches along the way that it’s going to take far more information than we have now to identify them with anything like the certainty that the popular science media affixes to any given find.

The Attenborough version simply assumes that Tiktaalik (tic-TALL-ik) is “the first” of a long line of something special.

Really? Maybe Tiktaalik was the last instance of a failed lineage. Maybe it was the duck-billed platypus of its time, a survivor but unique. Maybe it was doing something unusual, and that how it got fossilized when other life forms didn’t. This Atten-free version is messier and leaves us with lots more questions, but it is more like histories we are personally familiar with: messy and leaves us with lots more questions.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

36 Replies to “Attenborough, read your mail: Evolution is messier than TV

  1. 1
    wd400 says:

    If this fish were found as a 500 mya fossil, it would be hailed as a transitional,

    Transitional to what? That hyperdiverse clade of land sharks?

    More to the point, it’s quite liekly Tiktaalik has no descendants, which is precisely how most fish-a-pod trees are drawn. But a species doesn’t have to have descendants to be transitional. It certainly isn’t a “unique survivor” (nor are platypuses really, they’re highly derrived).

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    If it doesn’t have descendents then it isn’t a transional. In that case it just “looks like” a transitional.

  3. 3
    TSErik says:

    But a species doesn’t have to have descendants to be transitional.

    Wait, what? If there aren’t any descendants, what it is “transitional” to? If you mean it was transitional to something that never was due to the species’ not surviving, that’s simply speculation.

  4. 4
    PeterJ says:

    Reminds me of this absolute bosker 🙂

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQug8l702A

  5. 5
    Box says:

    Every once in a while one stumbles upon a terrifying level of wishful thinking among Darwin supporters:

    WD400: (..) a species doesn’t have to have descendants to be transitional.

  6. 6
    wd400 says:

    You guys are thinking in chains, not the trees that evolution makes. A fossil like tiiktalik allows to reconstruct the characters in the common ancestor of fishapods and extant tetrapods. Becuase that ancestor is considerably older than the common ancestor shared by all mdoern tetrapods, and also younger than the common ancestor shared by tetarpods and lobed-finned fishes tiiktalik helps us reconstruct the transistion to land – whetehr or not Tiiktalik istelf is an ancestor of modern tetrapods.

  7. 7
    drc466 says:

    News:

    Of course there were transitionals,

    Asserted, not proven. I’m sorry, I thought ID was about what you could prove, not what your naturalistic assumptions about common descent lead you to believe?

    wd400:

    A fossil like tiiktalik allows to [us] reconstruct the characters in the common ancestor of fishapods and extant tetrapods

    Translation: It gives us something to build a just-so fairy-tale around, because a clear indisputable transitional chain consisting of more than 2 or 3 proposed “transitions” between common ancestor and modern forms doesn’t exist in the fossil record.

  8. 8
    Joe says:

    wd400:

    A fossil like tiiktalik allows to reconstruct the characters in the common ancestor of fishapods and extant tetrapods.

    You would think with the imagineers of evolutionism, you wouldn’t need that.

  9. 9
    lifepsy says:

    wd400:

    You guys are thinking in chains, not the trees that evolution makes. A fossil like tiiktalik allows to reconstruct the characters in the common ancestor of fishapods and extant tetrapods. Becuase that ancestor is considerably older than the common ancestor shared by all mdoern tetrapods, and also younger than the common ancestor shared by tetarpods and lobed-finned fishes tiiktalik helps us reconstruct the transistion to land – whetehr or not Tiiktalik istelf is an ancestor of modern tetrapods.

    Nobody’s thinking in chains. What you wrote is just ambiguous nonsense and could be applied to any Devonian fish.

    Meanwhile evolutionists are misleading the public with iconic stories, leading them to believe Tiktaalik represents an actual branch off of the group transitioning to land walkers, and standing by silently as it gets parroted everywhere. (Heck, Bill Nye told 5 million people this just the other day and I don’t see any evo’s correcting him.)

    I guess this is how it works: let the popularized myths saturate the public mind unchecked until you get caught, and then bring out the legalisms. “Well, technically we didn’t actually say….

  10. 10
    wd400 says:


    Nobody’s thinking in chains. What you wrote is just ambiguous nonsense and could be applied to any Devonian fish.

    Expect it absolutely couldn’t be said of almost all devonian fish, because they don’t share derrived traits with tetrapods. Perhaps you aren’t thinking in chains, but you ceratinaly haven’t understood what I said (which may, of course, be my fault)

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400, instead of you imagining that creatures in the fossil record can magically transition, all by there unguided random self, into other creatures in the fossil record, and drawing imaginary lines between the groups on paper so as to give your Darwinian imagination some voice, perhaps you would be so bold as to actually show us an example of one creature transitioning into another creature?,,,

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    ,,,Of perhaps wd400, if that is too hard for you, you could just give us an example that such a transition that you imagine did happen is remotely feasible in reality?

    More Darwinian Degradation: Much Ado about Yeast – Michael Behe – January 2012
    Excerpt: “It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis. The authors did not analyze the genetic changes that occurred in the cells, but I strongly suspect that if and when they do, they’ll discover that functioning genes or regulatory regions were broken or degraded. This would be just one more example of evolution by loss of pre-existing systems, at which we already knew that Darwinian processes excel. The apparently insurmountable problem for Darwinism is to build new systems.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55511.html

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows “Overwhelmingly Negative” Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution – Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
    Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn’t run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47151.html

  12. 12
    lifepsy says:

    wd400, maybe you don’t fully understand what you said.

    A fossil like tiiktalik allows to reconstruct the characters in the common ancestor of fishapods and extant tetrapods. Becuase that ancestor is considerably older than the common ancestor shared by all mdoern tetrapods

    Your criteria refers to an unknown common ancestor, and an unknown number of descendent groups. You could throw tiktaalik as well as hundreds of other species into this ambiguous lump.

    It’s a weak attempt to try and smooth over the failed hype surrounding Tiktaalik for the last decade. Is it really that hard to just admit “We jumped to conclusions that turned out to be wrong.” ???

  13. 13
    wd400 says:

    Your criteria refers to an unknown common ancestor, and an unknown number of descendent groups. You could throw tiktaalik as well as hundreds of other species into this ambiguous lump.

    No. Beacuse very few species have a mixture of derrived tetrapod traits and ancestral fish traits.

    It’s a weak attempt to try and smooth over the failed hype surrounding Tiktaalik for the last decade. Is it really that hard to just admit “We jumped to conclusions that turned out to be wrong.” ???

    It’s not accurate to say that. Every tree I’ve seen tiktaalik on has the species placed without ancestors. And tiktaalik tells us a lot about the evolution of tetrapods and (first, vertebrate) transition from water to land.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400, seeing as you are so easily (willingly?) misled by phylogenetics, I though you might appreciate (or disdain) this recent article by Casey Luskin:

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” that “well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.”
    In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt – (pp. 122-123)
    ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html

  15. 15
    wd400 says:

    Second section should say “descendants” rather than “ancestors”, of course.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400??? you state,,

    ‘Second section should say “descendants” rather than “ancestors”, of course.’

    in regards to this I assume,,,

    ‘implies inheritance from a common ancestor.’

    Please do walk me through that if you will! 🙂

  17. 17
    JGuy says:

    Should we expect sharkzards start crawling out of the water anytime soon?

  18. 18
    wd400 says:

    BA, I was referring to the mistake in my own comment. In general, you can be confident any comment I make is not in response to anything you link/copy.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400, that’s why I love exposing you as a liar. No lip in responce!

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    wd400:

    Beacuse very few species have a mixture of derrived tetrapod traits and ancestral fish traits.

    That begs the question as it hasn’t been established that fish can evolve into fishapods. And it definitely hasn’t been established that fishapods can evolve into tetrapods.

    And tiktaalik tells us a lot about the evolution of tetrapods and (first, vertebrate) transition from water to land.

    Evolutionary imagineers are awesome.

  21. 21
    franklin says:

    That begs the question as it hasn’t been established that fish can evolve into fishapods. And it definitely hasn’t been established that fishapods can evolve into tetrapods.

    It isn’t really begging the question if one applies the explanatory filter to the available evidence it then becomes a rather well defined inference that this is what happened. Let’s see we have the presence of a true lung in ‘fishapods’ (some extant species being obligate air-breathers…imagine a fish that will drown if you hold it underwater…even well oxygenated water at that) species, developing skeleton structure for weight support and joint flexibility out of water, development of pulmonary circulation in extant ‘fishapod’ species, as well as ciliated larvae (also coincidently(?) found in amphibians….can you name any fish species (outside of lungfish obviously) that have ciliated larvae? This is only a small subset of the evidence available for the transition from water to land by vertebrates classified as being fish.

  22. 22
    JGuy says:

    Oop(s). 800,000yr old footprints:

    http://news.yahoo.com/scientis.....52260.html

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    franklin states:

    ‘It isn’t really begging the question if one applies the explanatory filter to the available evidence’

    And which explanatory filter would you happen to be talking about? Dembski’s?

    Dembski’s Design Filter
    http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....hp/id/1186

    There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs — intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter — a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer.
    William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference – video
    http://vimeo.com/32148403

    Infographic – Intelligence is the most causually adequate explantion for irreducible complexity and specified complexity (functional information) in biochemistry
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77191.html

    “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

    To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:

    Dembski’s value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

    How many bits would that be:

    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits

    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology – Kirk Durston – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236
    Entire video:
    http://vimeo.com/1775160

    (A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012
    Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse
    This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search.
    http://powertochange.com/wp-co.....Myers_.pdf

    i.e. Darwinism cannot even account for a single gene or protein using Dembski’s Design Filter, must less a new creature!

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ –
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    franklin states:

    ‘It isn’t really begging the question if one applies the explanatory filter to the available evidence’

    And which explanatory filter would you happen to be talking about? Dembski’s?

    Dembski’s Design Filter
    http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....hp/id/1186

    There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs — intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter — a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer.
    William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference – video
    http://vimeo.com/32148403

    Infographic – Intelligence is the most causually adequate explantion for irreducible complexity and specified complexity (functional information) in biochemistry
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77191.html

    “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”

    Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
    “our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

    To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:

    Dembski’s value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

    How many bits would that be:

    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits

    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology – Kirk Durston – video
    http://vimeo.com/1775160

    (A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012
    Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse
    This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search.
    http://powertochange.com/wp-co.....Myers_.pdf

    i.e. Darwinism cannot even account for a single gene or protein using Dembski’s Design Filter, must less a new creature!

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ –
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

  25. 25
    sixthbook says:

    I find it absolutely amazing how many times people misunderstand Wd400. It’s just shocking actually. In fact it happens so much that it makes one wonder whether the fault is truly in the reader!

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    franklin,

    Once one understands that there aren’t any known mechanisms that can produce a tertapod from a fish the explanatory filter says your “explanation” doesn’t match the available evidence. And the fish of today don’t explain the fish of many years ago.

  27. 27
    franklin says:

    And the fish of today don’t explain the fish of many years ago.

    Why not? What is the problem with using comparative anatomy between fossil evidence and extant species or is that somehow ruled out in ID research?

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    “What is the problem with using comparative anatomy between fossil evidence and extant species or is that somehow ruled out in ID research?”

    The problem, as Casey Luskin pointed out yesterday, is that Darwinists only imagine they see evidence for their theory and never allow for the possibility of falsification:

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt:,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html

    i.e. They never question if their theory is true in the first place!

  29. 29
    lifepsy says:

    wd400,

    No. Beacuse very few species have a mixture of derrived tetrapod traits and ancestral fish traits.

    So you’re using anachronistic mosaics as evidence for transitions. Talk about creative license.

    It’s not accurate to say that. Every tree I’ve seen tiktaalik on has the species placed without ancestors. And tiktaalik tells us a lot about the evolution of tetrapods and (first, vertebrate) transition from water to land.

    No evolutionary trees identify ancestors because there aren’t any to identify. And Tiktaalik doesn’t “tell” you anything like what you described. This is purely theoretical imagineering.

    It’s amazing this kind of stuff gets out to the public disguised as scientific positions.

  30. 30
    franklin says:

    lifepsy:

    So you’re using anachronistic mosaics as evidence for transitions. Talk about creative license.

    What characteristics/anatomical features does ID predict should be found in a transitional species? In other words how would we identify a transitional feature from a ID paradigm? What will it look like and why?

  31. 31
    wd400 says:

    Lifespy,

    How would you spot a transitional fossil, if not thorugh a combinatoin of ancestral and derrrived characters?

    sixthbook,

    Personally, I’m amazed by the number of creatoinists who will dedicate their time and a whole post to nothing but a snide remark. But that’s the internet, I guess.

    Though it’s quite possible my own posts aren’t crystal clear, recent failures to grasp basic poitns remind me of David Hull’s quote “Evolution is so simple almost anyone can misunderstand it”. People are so comitted to their own misunderstanding of evolution it’s oven hard for them to give it up. After the last couple of days I’m not sure why I bother trying.

  32. 32
    Barb says:

    JGuy @ 17:

    Should we expect sharkzards start crawling out of the water anytime soon?

    What about Sharktopus?

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    “People are so comitted to their own misunderstanding of evolution it’s oven hard for them to give it up.”

    Spoken by a true believer who will never ‘give it up’.

  34. 34
    sixthbook says:

    Wow Bornagain, you must be one of the “creatoinists who will dedicate their time and a whole post to nothing but a snide remark”!

  35. 35
    Joe says:

    wd400,

    It has been my experience that it is the evolutionists who do not ubderstand evolution. Many think that natural selection is an actual selection process. They don’t realize that it is eliminative. Also most, if not all, think that because NS is non-random (because not all individuals have the same probability of survival) it means that NS is some sort of guiding process- it isn’t.

    And finally most evolutionists deny the fact that evolutionism posits blind and undirected chemical processes as a mechanism- natural selection is blind and mindless and the mutations are undirected- ie they just happen.

    So perhaps you should get your camp in order first…

  36. 36
    wd400 says:

    Joe,

    THere are certinaly plenty of internet atheists who, like most creationists, see evolution as nothing but a weapon in their culture war and in fact not very little about evolutionary biology. I do try and straighten such people out, but they’re not “my camp” by any means.

Leave a Reply