Evolution: If It Walks Like a Fish ...

Newsweek ^ | 17 April 2006 issue | Jerry Adler

[PatrickHenry]

Darwin predicted that the "missing links" of evolution—gaps in the fossil record between related species—would come to haunt his theory. He was right: even today, they're a major theme in the effort to discredit evolution with the public. Which is why there was such a stir about a paper in the journal Nature last week describing a 375 million-year-old creature dug from rocks in the Canadian Arctic.

[snip]

Given the Inuit name Tiktaalik, the specimen neatly splits the gap between fossil fish that lived about 385 million years ago and the four-legged amphibians that came 20 million years later.

[snip]

The Discovery Institute, which promotes "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwin, was quick to assert that Tiktaalik "poses no threat to [ID] ...

[PatrickHenry]

I regret posting only an excerpt, but we can't post the whole thing from Newsweek. It's a very short article.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[muir_redwoods]

All species are transitional species. All differences between even closely related species can be seen as evidence of some putative "missing link". At some point some creationist or ID-iot will demand to see the missing link between zebras and horses with stripes on just one side.

[jexus]

-Yes established science poses no threat to the the ID people. -No threat to the belief that snakes talk, or did at long ago.

-No threat to the belief that men lived to 300 years and had children at that age.

-No threat to the belief that a nuclear chemical pathway exists that can take a 100lb woman and turn her into NaCl without blowing a chunk of earth into space.

-No threat to the idea that all languages developed from a poorly designed tower that fell down because the "Intelligent Designer" got jealous of us scrapping against his home in the sky"

-No threat to the idea that infectious disease is caused by invisible bad unclean people moving into your body.

Yes, science poses no threat to these and other "intelligent ideas" - brought to you by the the the folks who worked very had to foist "Breathing Inanity" upon the schools and citizens of Dover PA, and who are just aching to bring that inanity to a comminity like yours.

[fizziwig]

"At some point some creationist or ID-iot"
___________________________________________

Is it impossible for a supporter of Darwin's theory to make an argument without some dismissive ad hominem attack against the opposition? It sure seems so here at FR and virtually everywhere else this debate is engaged.

[highball]

Is it impossible for a supporter of Darwin's theory to make an argument without some dismissive ad hominem attack against the opposition? It sure seems so here at FR and virtually everywhere else this debate is engaged.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of mud flying from both sides. Unless you have somehow missed the ravings of certain creationists who accuse scientists of trying to kill God and weaken Christianity?

If you have, kindly wait a little while. You'll see it on this thread soon enough.

[knarf]

All warfare against human life is a struggle of Good against Evil ... Evil being the initiator. They don't hate you ... they hate ME .. Jesus.

[redlenses]

Why don't we see this today? If there are "transitional" species, why wouldn't we see at least one fish today give birth to a fish with elbows in 2006?

Which brings up the next question...even if one species can create another species (which I believe has never happend yet), how is that new species supposed to propagate? After all...it's the first and only one of it's kind...it can't breed with anything else, right?

Sure, I know I'm told that this is a process that happens over millions of years. But that brings up another question. Since the world is supposedly millions of years old, we should be seeing this at least once or twice from processes that began millions of years ago?

Or does evolution only happen when we aren't watching?

[Erasmus]

I call it "Xeno's Paradox of the Missing Link."

< ]B^)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why don't we see this today? If there are "transitional" species, why wouldn't we see at least one fish today give birth to a fish with elbows in 2006?"

Because the X-Men is a comic book movie, and genetics doesn't work that way in real life.

"even if one species can create another species (which I believe has never happend yet), how is that new species supposed to propagate? After all...it's the first and only one of it's kind...it can't breed with anything else, right?"

Populations evolve; individuals don't. The whole population moves along until the individuals of the population can no longer breed with other populations of the parent species. Speciation doesn't occur when an individual of one species gives birth to a baby that is a new species.
You can see it happening today with ring species. Population A can breed with population B; B can breed with C. But A and C cannot breed. A and C are still technically the same species as long as B exists. If B goes extinct, then A and C are genetically isolated. Speciation.

"Since the world is supposedly millions of years old, we should be seeing this at least once or twice from processes that began millions of years ago?"

It's actually about 4.5 billion years old. And speciation has been observed.

[norwaypinesavage]

"speciation has been observed. "

Can you give me an example, where there is a chromosome count difference?

[muir_redwoods]

"Is it impossible for a supporter of Darwin's theory to make an argument without some dismissive ad hominem attack against the opposition?"

Yes.

[planetesimal]

even if one species can create another species (which I believe has never happend yet), how is that new species supposed to propagate? After all...it's the first and only one of it's kind...it can't breed with anything else, right?

Good job you're here to knock down these ridiculous postulates. Maybe you should take a moment to assess who is suggesting that occurs, and whether any of those people are arguing for evolutionary theory.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Can you give me an example, where there is a chromosome count difference?"

Why would there have to be a chromosome count difference?

[Physicist]

Is it impossible for a supporter of Darwin's theory to make an argument without some dismissive ad hominem attack against the opposition?

See whether you can find any ad hominem in the paper on Tiktaalik.

[Enduring Freedom]

Intelligent Design is not scientific heresy.

Evolution at the present time is the most likely process by which the Earth attained the richness and diversity of life.

Who among us can prove either way whether an intelligence beyond our comprehension set this in motion?

[KeepUSfree]

They do. Many species of fish can "walk"....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Who among us can prove either way whether an intelligence beyond our comprehension set this in motion?"

That's the main problem with ID, as science. There is no way to test it. It's not that it's false; it's that it can never be verified. It's claims are outside of the scope of science.

ID is philosophy/theology.

[I-ambush]

And who can demonstrate that mutations occur randomly?

Science can demonstrate changes in the genetic code that correspond to biochemical and morphologic changes, but cannot at all address metaphysical questions.

[bobdsmith]

And who can demonstrate that mutations occur randomly?

Who can demonstrate that a dice roll is random?