Two New Discoveries Answer Big Questions In Evolution Theory

"And transitional anamolies with partially functioning anatomies have always been fitter than their peers."

Who says they are *partially functioning*? That's just silly.

Evolution is just another concoction adhered to by those who want to BELIEVE that we evolved from apes, lizards or some such bottom feeder.

Wrong again. Where do you folks come up with this nonsense? It's hilarious, but I'm really dying to know what the source of all this goofy propaganda is.

If it were proven we evolved from algae, then what ?

Then your head would explode, most likely.

People believe what they want to believe.

Look, kid, just because that's the method *you* use, don't insultingly presume that the rest of us are similarly handicapped.

"Life is similar as it was designed that way..

Feel free to present your evidence for this proposition. If you can manage to produce any, you'll be the first IDer in history to be able to do so. The other have all come up empty-handed so far.
"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>........
as proof I offer all the references you posted..if life is not based on DNA a fundamental similar characteristic then I am deluded and DNA is nothing more than information-information given substance I might add- that information is of a higher order of intelligence than we have today , or man would have created life, =even as man had modified life for our purpose we reflect the truth of ID for all life in that simple act.

Maybe I'm misunderstaning you.

These "transitional" creates...What were they "transitioning" between?

Here's Creation-Evolution Headlines' commentary on this 'discovery':

Fish-o-pod ‘Missing Link’ Discovered: Media [and FRevolutionists] Goes Nuts

Fish-o-pod ‘Missing Link’ Discovered: Media Goes Nuts 04/06/2006
Evolutionists could hardly feel more relieved. Just when anti-evolutionary sentiment is on the rise, a new fossil has been announced that gives pro-evolutionists a missing link to run up the fishpole. Neil Shubin (U of Chicago) and two partners found a “tetrapod-like fish” fossil on a Canadian island. It helps fill one of the most puzzling transitions in the fossil record: the evolution from a fish to a land animal.
To hear the media frenzy resulting from this find, which some supporters are ranking with Archaeopteryx in importance, the war is over and evolution wins. Creationists have been complaining about gaps in the fossil record, and here is a perfect case of a transitional form. Here are just a few of the claims being made about Tiktaalik roseae, a new icon of evolution (emphasis added in all quotes):

EurekAlert: a “key marker in the evolutionary transition of fish to limbed animals.”
News@Nature: this is “the fish that crawled out of water” – a true ‘missing link’ that “it helps to fill in a gap in our understanding of how fish developed legs for land mobility, before eventually evolving into modern animals including mankind.”
BBC News: “Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals... giving researchers a fascinating insight into this key stage in the evolution of life on Earth.”.... Could “could prove to be as much of an ‘evolutionary icon’ as Archaeopteryx – an animal believed to mark the transition from reptiles to birds.”
Scientific American: “Newfound Fossil Is Transitional between Fish and Landlubbers.”
New Scientist: “IT WAS one of the most important events of the last 400 million years: the moment our fishy ancestors began hauling themselves onto dry land. Now a fossil from the very beginning of that crucial transition has been found in the remote Arctic.” Neil Shubin calls it a “a ‘fishopod’: part fish, part tetrapod.”
AP, via MSNBC: “Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light on one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals. Researchers have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they’ve had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.... ‘It sort of blurs the distinction between fish and land-living animals,’ said one of its discoverers, paleontologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago.”
National Geographic: “It’s our closest fish cousin, scientists say. Millions of years ago it apparently hoisted its croc-like head out of the water—and the rest is history.”
LiveScience: “Fishy Land Beast Bridges Evolutionary Gap.”

One gets the distinct impression they think this is an important fossil. Now that the parade has passed by, perhaps it would be a good time to delve into the original scientific papers and see what exactly was said. It was the cover story of Nature, and there were two papers inside by Shubin’s team, and a review article by Jennifer Clack, a leading researcher on tetrapod origins. In journal articles, where scientists talk to themselves, they are expected to be more formal, reserved and cautious about interpretations. Let’s see.
The research was first submitted to Nature in October, but released today. The fact that the mainstream media were all prepared with instant artwork, interviews and sound bites makes it likely they were clued in with plenty of time to make a splash. Though it is clear the authors all believe this is an evolutionary transitional form, the most interesting statements from scientific papers are usually the caveats and disclaimers. Most of all, the observational data must always take precedence over interpretations.
In the first paper by Daeschler, Shubin and Jenkins,¹ they begin, “The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.” That is a strange statement. It sounds something like, We know it’s true; we just lack evidence.

Here we report the discovery of a well-preserved species of fossil sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian of Arctic Canada that represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose. Although the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod conditions. The morphological features and geological setting of this new animal are suggestive of life in shallow-water, marginal and subaerial habitats.

Sounds like the popular press so far; now, into the details. They admit that “The evolution of tetrapods from sarcopterygian fish is one of the major transformations in the history of life and involved numerous structural and functional innovations, including new modes of locomotion, respiration and hearing.” In other words, many substantial changes had to come together in one animal to go from breathing through gills to breathing with lungs, developing feet that could support the weight, developing digits and ankles and toes and learning how to use them, and much more:

During the origin of tetrapods in the Late Devonian (385–359 million years ago), the proportions of the skull were remodelled [sic; implies intelligent design], the series of bones connecting the head and shoulder was lost, and the region that was to become the middle ear [sic; implies progress] was modified. At the same time, robust limbs with digits evolved, the shoulder girdle and pelvis were altered, the ribs expanded, and bony connections between vertebrae developed.

Few of these innovations are seen in the closest relatives of tetrapods, they say. They talk about Panderichthys, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, which have been discussed earlier in these pages (see 04/05/2004 and 08/09/2003, “Evolution of the Darwin Fish.”). Surprisingly, however, they dismiss them as fragmentary and of doubtful utility. This includes the earlier leading candidate:

Panderichthys possesses relatively few tetrapod synapomorphies [convergent features], and provides only partial insight into the origin of major features of the skull, limbs and axial skeleton of early tetrapods[. In view of the morphological gap between elpistostegalian fish and tetrapods, the phylogenetic framework for the immediate sister group of tetrapods has been incomplete and our understanding of major anatomical transformations at the fish–tetrapod transition has remained limited.

The disparagement of previous candidate missing links was the build-up to the new fossil, which “significantly enhances our knowledge of the fish–tetrapod transition.” (This should be taken with a grain of salt, considering that similar claims were made about Panderichthys earlier.) Proceeding on, they place Tiktaalik somewhere between Panderichthys and tetrapods. The paper provides the obligatory data for a new species: location found, taxonomy, nomenclature, description of the fossil, photos, drawings, etc. The head was remarkably well preserved, and three specimens were found. Naming and classifying an extinct species, however, provides the discoverers some leeway in placing it into the presumed evolutionary framework.
A technical description of parts ensues. Compared to the earlier known fossils, Tiktaalik has a larger this and a smaller that, etc. Side-by-side skull comparisons do not look that informative, especially when there are no soft parts and no videos of how the creature actually lived. It must be remembered, for instance, that Coelacanth was long considered a transitional form because of its bony fins, but when discovered alive, did not use them for walking or raising itself up in any way.
Without soft parts such as gills and organs, and without living examples, interpretation of bony parts is at best a subjective exercise in educated guesswork. They turn finally to the phylogenetic position of Tiktaalik. What features make them decide these specimens are transitional?

A phylogenetic analysis of sarcopterygian fishes and early tetrapods (Fig. 7) supports the hypothesis that Tiktaalik is the sister group of tetrapods or shares this position with Elpistostege. Tiktaalik retains primitive tetrapodomorph features such as dorsal scale cover, paired fins with lepidotrichia, a generalized [sic] lower jaw, and separated entopterygoids in the palate, but also possesses a number of derived [sic] features of the skull, pectoral girdle and fin, and ribs that are shared with stem tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Tiktaalik is similar to these forms in the possession of a wide spiracular tract and the loss of the opercular, subopercular and extrascapulars. The pectoral girdle is derived [sic] in the degree to which the scapulocoracoid is expanded dorsally and ventrally, and the extent to which the glenoid fossa is oriented laterally. The pectoral fin is apomorphic [i.e., derived, more developed] in the elaboration of the distal endoskeleton, the mobility of segmented regions of the fin, and the reduction of lepidotrichia distally.

In summary, they think that Panderichthys, Elpistostege and Tiktaalik represent a “paraphyletic [partially evolved] assemblage of elpistostegalian fish along the tetrapod stem that lack the anterior dorsal fins and possess broad, dorsoventrally compressed skulls with dorsally placed eyes, paired frontal bones, marginal nares, and a subterminal mouth.” However, “Some tetrapod-like features evolved independently in other sarcopterygian groups,” while other two other fossils seem to have features shared with basal tetrapods by convergent evolution (homoplasy).
That’s basically all that was claimed in the primary announcement. Their second paper² discussed the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik, which they claim is “morphologically and functionally transitional between a fin and a limb.” They think the front fins allowed the creature to hoist itself up and drag its tail behind. The “wrist,” however, lacked five digits (fingers), and represents a “mosaic” of features found in more “basal” taxa. Though additional “wrist” bones extended distally are new features of this fossil, the presence of five digits is inferred on their diagram by dotted lines. Lacking living representatives, they also are unable to tell for certain what the fin bones actually were used for.
While acknowledging that the transition from water to land would require “major shifts in developmental genetics, skeletal structure, and biomechanics,” the most telling aspect of the fin is the angle of the putative “wrist” homolog, though there is no evidence any true digits for locomotion later evolved from the fin bones of this animal. Since they might have, though, reporters were probably more tuned to the confident conclusion:

The pectoral skeleton of Tiktaalik is transitional between fish fin and tetrapod limb. Comparison of the fin with those of related fish reveals that the manus [hand] is not a de novo novelty of tetrapods; rather, it was assembled in fishes over evolutionary time to meet the diverse challenges of life in the margins of Devonian aquatic ecosystems.

OK, now what do other experts think? In the same issue,³ Erik Ahlberg and Jennifer Clack gave their analysis. It is unknown whether Clack, who has been in the forefront of research into tetrapod evolution, was scooped by this discovery, or whether any personal feelings or rivalries were involved. She did, however, with Ahlberg, put a few brakes on the interpretations, though acknowledging the significance of the find. First, a little sermonette on missing links:

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.
We raise these points because on pages 757 and 764 of this issue are reports of just such an intermediate: Tiktaalik roseae, a link between fishes and land vertebrates that might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird [sic[ Archaeopteryx.

Though this fossil goes “a long way” to filling in the gap, it does not go quite all the way, they say. Its closest match is Elpistostege, a fragmentary fossil thought to be closer to tetrapods than Panderichthys. They admit, “the authors demonstrate convincingly that Elpistostege and Tiktaalik fall between Panderichthys and the earliest tetrapods on the phylogenetic tree. End of story?
Though impressed, they raise some issues. Of the fin bones, they say:

Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning. The implication is that function changed in advance of morphology.

Though each fossil seems to represent a mosaic of characteristics rather than a straight line of evolution, the two are ready to agree that the creature was “evidently an actual step on the way from water to land,” and that “it seems, our remote ancestors [sic] were large, flattish, predatory fishes, with crocodile-like heads and strong limb-like pectoral fins that enabled them to haul themselves out of the water.” Nevertheless, this is just one specimen, and many more are needed. This one creature must be seen in context. Perhaps the most important transitional forms are found in the future:

Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes, or about what happened in the following Early Carboniferous period, after the end of the Devonian, when tetrapods became fully terrestrial. But there are still large areas of unexplored Late Devonian and Early Carboniferous deposits in the world – the discovery of Tiktaalik gives hope of equally ground-breaking finds to come.

¹Daeschler et al., “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature 440, 757-763 (6 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04639; Received 11 October 2005; ; Accepted 8 February 2006.
²Shubin et al., “The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb,” Nature 440, 764-771 (6 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04637; Received 11 October 2005; ; Accepted 8 February 2006.
³Per Erik Ahlberg and Jennifer A. Clack, “Palaeontology: A firm step from water to land,” Nature 440, 747-749 (6 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/440747a.

You didn’t get this much detail from the major news media. You didn’t hear the discoverers hedge their bets and admit that this fossil is just a tiny piece of a huge puzzle that is mostly not understood. You didn’t hear the AP (Associated Preach) tell the truth that the fossil record is characterized by large and systematic gaps between groups, not isolated and questionable transitional forms. No, you got hype and bluster and far-fetched exaggeration, where the actual bones were incidental to the true goal of making Charlie not look as dead as he is. Meanwhile, an explanation of the origin of all the genetic information required for such a transition was completely glossed over; and, of course, not a single credible non-Darwinian paleontologist got a word in edgewise in the din of the mainstream media’s Charlie pride parade. If you got mad last time (04/05/2004) it’s time to get mad again – for the same reasons.
A reader writes: “Dear Staff... The April 6, 2006 article on the ‘Fish-O-Pod’ found in Canada is great news... Now we know where all the Walking Catfish in the lakes in Orlando, Florida came from... They actually walk up on the interstate and get eliminated by cars! FISH-O-POD is nothing new, we have been squashing them for years!”

["And transitional anamolies with partially functioning anatomies have always been fitter than their peers."]

Who says they are *partially functioning*?

The creationist pamphlets say that, because, frankly, they're idiots, and don't have the first clue about the subject they're attempt to "lecture" us on.

That's just silly.

Yes, it is.

I suppose this would be the time to repost my response to someone else who was also led astray by the creationist crackpots:

So, a legbone will become a bad legbone before it becomes a good wingbone.
Uh huh. Sure, whatever you say, kid:

Theropod dinosaur to bird evolutionary transition:

The cladogram for the evolution of flight looks like this:
(Note -- each name along the top is a known transitional fossil; and those aren't all that have been discovered.) Here's a more detailed look at the middle section:

Fossils discovered in the past ten years in China have answered most of the "which came first" questions about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
We now know that downy feathers came first, as seen in this fossil of Sinosauropteryx:
That's a close-up of downy plumage along the backbone. Here's a shot of an entire fossil
Sinosauropteryx was reptilian in every way, not counting the feathers. It had short forelimbs, and the feathers were all the same size. Presumably, the downy feathers evolved from scales driven by a need for bodily insulation.
Next came Protarchaeopteryx:
It had long arms, broad "hands", and long claws:
Apparently this species was driven by selection to develop more efficient limbs for grasping prey. One of the interesting things about this species is that the structure of the forelimb has been refined to be quite efficient at sweeping out quickly to grab prey, snap the hands together, then draw them back towards the body (mouth?). The specific structures in question are the semilunate carpal (a wrist bone), that moves with the hand in a broad, flat, 190 degree arc, heavy chest muscles, bones of the arm which link together with the wrist so as to force the grasping hands to spread out toward the prey during the forestroke and fold in on the prey during the upstroke. Not only is this a marvelously efficient prey-grabbing mechanism, but the same mechanism is at the root of the wing flight-stroke of modern birds. Evolution often ends up developing a structure to serve one need, then finds it suitable for adaptation to another. Here, a prey-grasping motion similar in concept to the strike of a praying mantis in a reptile becomes suitable for modifying into a flapping flight motion.
Additionally, the feathers on the hands and tail have elongated, becoming better suited for helping to sweep prey into the hands.
Next is Caudipteryx:
This species had hand and tail feathers even more developed than the previous species, and longer feathers, more like that of modern birds:
However, it is clear that this was still not a free-flying animal yet, because the forelimbs were too short and the feathers not long enough to support its weight, and the feathers were symmetrical (equal sized "fins" on each side of the central quill). It also had very reduced teeth compared to earlier specimens and a stubby beak:
But the elongation of the feathers indicates some aerodynamic purpose, presumably gliding after leaping (or falling) from trees which it had climbed with its clawed limbs, in the manner of a flying squirrel. Feathers which were developed "for" heat retention and then pressed into service to help scoop prey were now "found" to be useful for breaking falls or gliding to cover distance (or swooping down on prey?).

Next is Sinornithosaurus:
Similar to the preceding species, except that the pubis bone has now shifted to point to the back instead of the front, a key feature in modern birds (when compared to the forward-facing pubis bone in reptiles). Here are some of the forearm feathers in detail:
Long feathers in detail:
Artists' reconstruction:
Next is Archaeopteryx:
The transition to flight is now well underway. Archaeopteryx has the reversed hallux (thumb) characteristic of modern birds, and fully developed feathers of the type used for flight (long, aligned with each other, and asymmetrical indicating that the feathers have been refined to function aerodynamically). The feathers and limbs are easily long enough to support the weight of this species in flight. However, it lacks some structures which would make endurance flying more practical (such as a keeled sternum for efficient anchoring of the pectoral muscles which power the down-stroke) and fused chest vertebrae. Archaeopteryx also retains a number of clearly reptilian features still, including a clawed "hand" emerging from the wings, small reptilian teeth, and a long bony tail. After the previous species' gliding abilities gave it an advantage, evolution would have strongly selected for more improvements in "flying" ability, pushing the species towards something more resembling sustained powered flight.
Next is Confuciusornis:
This species had a nearly modern flight apparatus. It also displays transitional traits between a reptilian grasping "hand" and a fully formed wing as in modern birds -- the outer two digits (the earlier species had three-fingered "hands") in Confuciusornis are still free, but the center digit has now formed flat, broad bones as seen in the wings of modern birds.
Additionally, the foot is now well on its way towards being a perching foot as in modern birds:
It also has a keeled sternum better suited for long flight, and a reduced number of vertebrae in the tail, on its way towards becoming the truncated tail of modern birds (which while prominent, is a small flap of muscle made to look large only because of the long feathers attached).
From this species it's only a small number of minor changes to finish the transition into the modern bird family.
(Hey, who said there are no transitional fossils? Oh, right, a lot of dishonest creationists. And there are a lot more than this, I've just posted some of the more significant milestones.)
There's been a very recent fossil find along this same lineage, too new for me to have found any online images to include in this article. And analysis is still underway to determine exactly where it fits into the above lineage. But it has well-formed feathers, which extend out from both the "arms" and the legs. Although it wasn't advanced enough to fully fly, the balanced feathering on the front and back would have made it ideally suited for gliding like a flying squirrel, and it may be another link between the stage where feathers had not yet been pressed into service as aerodynamic aids, and the time when they began to be used more and more to catch the air and developing towards a "forelimbs as wings" specialization.
So in short, to answer your question about how flight could have developed in birds, the progression is most likely some minor refinement on the following:
1. Scales modified into downy feathers for heat retention.
2. Downy feathers modified into "straight" feathers for better heat retention (modern birds still use their body "contour feathers" in this fashion).
3. Straight feathers modified into a "grasping basket" on the hands (with an accompanying increase in reach for the same purpose).
4. Long limbs with long feathers refined to better survive falls to the ground.
5. "Parachute" feathers refined for better control, leading to gliding.
6. Gliding refined into better controlled, longer gliding.
7. Long gliding refined into short powered "hops".
8. Short powered flight refined into longer powered flight.
9. Longer powered flight refined into long-distance flying.
Note that in each stage, the current configuration has already set the stage for natural selection to "prefer" individuals which better meet the requirements of the next stage. Evolution most often works like this; by taking some pre-existing ability or structure, and finding a better use for it or a better way to make it perform its current use.

Now, where in there did you see "a legbone becoming a bad legbone before it becomes a good wing"? Oh, right, it didn't -- it kept *increasing* in utility throughout the sequence.
And if, as you confidently assert, having a body part modified into a not yet fully functional wing capable of powered flight necessarily causes the body part to go "bad", how exactly do you explain the fact that the following creatures all get along just *fine*, contrary to your claim?

Your ignorance of biology is staggering, as is your arrogance in your belief of being able to "refute" an entire field of science without actually knowing the first thing about it.
In short, you're a run-of-the-mill anti-evolutionist. Just about ALL of them are like that.

Show me something like this then I'll listen.

"These "transitional" creates...What were they "transitioning" between?"

Other forms.

Here's Creation-Evolution Headlines' commentary on this 'discovery':

Thanks for giving us a look at their desperate "spin" -- its pathetic lack of substance only makes more clear the bankrupt and empty ideology of the anti-evolutionists, and the fact that they have no substantive defense against such stunning confirmations of evolution.

as proof I offer all the references you posted..

Sorry, those confirm evolutionary origins, not "ID". I'm sorry you're so confused that you can't even understand the question.

if life is not based on DNA a fundamental similar characteristic then I am deluded and DNA is nothing more than information-information given substance I might add- that information is of a higher order of intelligence than we have today , or man would have created life, =even as man had modified life for our purpose we reflect the truth of ID for all life in that simple act.

Come back and try again when you can remain coherent and make a cogent argument, backed up with actual evidence.

Evolution is by man's design to make untruthful claims that the Heavenly Father did not create flesh beings, exactly as we see evidenced on this day.

Now you do know that Genesis does NOT literally say this earth is YOUNG, yet I never never see you point to that fact in your supposed mountains of evidence.

*snicker* Lack of substance? Let's let the lurkers decide, shall we? We already *know* where you stand.

... adherents of ID call the fact that scientists are studying reducible-complexity at all a victory for their side. "We're delighted they're engaging in a debate that they say doesn't exist," ...

Touche'

So, between one "form" and the next "form" there's a "nonform"?

We had separate threads on each of these discoveries during the past few days, but those threads are now too old, and too big.

I've heard of beating a dead horse
but I can't recall beating a dead fossil.

"Evolution is by man's design to make untruthful claims that the Heavenly Father did not create flesh beings, exactly as we see evidenced on this day."

Or, it's Man's best explanation for the diversity of life we see around us.

"So, between one "form" and the next "form" there's a "nonform"?"

No. Another silly statement; you're full of them. :)

“This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man.

"The authors are conveniently defining 'irreducible complexity' way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as anywhere near irreducibly complex. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their 'system', on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex." - Dr. Michael Behe

Darwinists have essentially two tricks in their magic hat: 1) weak science propped up with endless conjecture and overblown rhetoric (every discovery, without fail, is touted as "the answer that answers all remaining unanswered questions) and 2) outright deceit (Haeckel's farcical drawings and musings, for example).

This two-trick act is getting awfully old and tedious to watch, PatrickHenry. Find a new trick, for entertainment value if nothing else.

"Darwinists have essentially two tricks in their magic hat: 1) weak science propped up with endless conjecture and overblown rhetoric (every discovery, without fail, is touted as "the answer that answers all remaining unanswered questions)"

Name ONE discovery that has been touted as "the answer that answers all remaining unanswered questions". Just one.

"2) outright deceit (Haeckel's farcical drawings and musings, for example)."

Which haven't been accepted for over 100 years. Is that the best you can do?