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] ...

[bobdsmith]

that is quite interesting

[bobdsmith]

When these tests of the various fossils in the supposed evolutionary chain were conducted, there was an expection that a gradual progression of complexity in the proteins of organisms as they progressed from simple to complex starting with ape and ending with the human fossil record would be shown, which would show genetic similarities between apes and humans.

So you say. I am quite sure that these tests weren't done, because DNA of earlier homnids simply isn't available. Plus evolution is not a progression of complexity so no such prediction would have been made.

But this critical piece of evolutionary evidence never materialized. Only similar proteins were found, which is not unusual given the tens of thousands of proteins in the human body that exist, and the fact that similar proteins would be found in most creatures if enough testing was done.

Fact is that genetically we are closest to chimpanzees than any other creature on earth today. Another fact is that neandertal DNA is far closer to our own than chimpanzees.

[shuckmaster]

why wouldn't we see at least one fish today give birth to a fish with elbows in 2006?

LOL!!! Well, they make elbow macaroni. That ought to be close enough for people who prefer fairy tales to science!

[shuckmaster]

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

Like they teach in 1st grade. - act ignorant and you'll be treated ignorant.

[Quark2005]

Like they teach in 1st grade. - act ignorant and you'll be treated ignorant.

Not these days. Now act ignorant, and we'll lower the standards until your self-esteem is okay.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

jexus,
you're not real up on the details of these biblical accounts, are you?

ampu

[PatrickHenry]

The article at the head of this thread is from Newsweek, so this is the thread to link an article from Time about the same subject:
Darwin Would Have Loved It.

[andysandmikesmom]

Good article...what it shows, is that as time goes on, as more and more places are giving up their fossils, as more and more discoveries are being made, the process of evolution has remained steadfast, rather than being discredited...indeed, Darwin would have grinned...

[Junior]

This is the age of the internet; instant karma, dude...

[Zeroisanumber]

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.

But ID isn't about religion, right?

[fizziwig]

"Like they teach in 1st grade. - act ignorant and you'll be treated ignorant."
____________________________________________

The truly ignorant are those unwilling to listen to a different opinion than their own, a trait which usually reveals itself quickly when the ignorant jump headlong into the logical fallacies, foregoing even any rudimentary trait of critical thinking.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The truly ignorant are those unwilling to listen to a different opinion than their own, a trait which usually reveals itself quickly when the ignorant jump headlong into the logical fallacies, foregoing even any rudimentary trait of critical thinking."

But we have pity on anti-evos nonetheless.

[Stultis]

Is this a bad time to point out that mules are sterile?

True. But see my #87 for multiple chromosomal races (incl differing chromosome numbers) within a single species, indeed a single subspecies: the house mouse of Northern Italy. There are varying degrees of reduced fertility among various pairings, but if I recall the article correctly, most (all?) combinations are interfertile, i.e. do produce viable offspring.

[ScottfromNJ]

"Fact is that genetically we are closest to chimpanzees than any other creature on earth today."

Not as close as evolutionists originally thought, from 'New Scientist' article:

"We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2833

[Stultis]

proteins of organisms ... genetic similarities between apes and humans

True enough. Many proteins are not similar in apes and humans. They're identical. (All the ones that aren't identical, however, are similar.)

[knarf]

"But ID isn't about religion, right?"

Sure it is. No one was around to see it and the same is true with evolution ... no one can prove it.

They are both religions ... One recognizes (a) God, the other recognizes chance.

Believers in Creation claim empirical knowledge, Evolutionists claim 'it could be' knowledge.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure it is."

ID's major proponents insist it's not a religious claim.

" No one was around to see it and the same is true with evolution ... no one can prove it."

Problem with that is there is no evidence at all the a designer designed the life we see, while there is plenty of strong evidence that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life we see. It can't be *proved* because science doesn't deal with proof. ID makes no testable claims.

"They are both religions ... One recognizes (a) God, the other recognizes chance."

No, one is religious (ID) the other is scientific (evolution). Natural selection is not random.

"Believers in Creation claim empirical knowledge..."

But can provide none.

"Evolutionists claim 'it could be' knowledge."

No, they actually provide solid physical evidence. Can it be proved like you prove a mathematical theorem? No, that is not possible in science.

[Dimensio]

Sure it is. No one was around to see it and the same is true with evolution ... no one can prove it.

Apparently you are unaware of means by which past events can be determined through evidence that those events have left behind. It is incorrect to suggest that it is impossible to have knowledge of events that no one has witnessed.

They are both religions ... One recognizes (a) God, the other recognizes chance.

This statement is incorrect for multiple reasons. The first is that "Intelligent Design" does not inherently recognize God. The "desinger" of "Ingelligent Design" is unspecified by the explanation, and is not specifically stated to be a deity. Proponents of Intelligent Design acknowledge that the "designer" could be a deity, but they also concede that it could be a non-divine designer of some sort. It should also be known that evolution is not inherently atheistic -- that is, not all who accept evolution lack belief in a deity. Finally, your claim of "chance" is inaccurate. Evolution does not function through chance.

Believers in Creation claim empirical knowledge, Evolutionists claim 'it could be' knowledge.

The key difference, however, is that those advocating the teaching of evolution actually have evidence to support their claims.

[ScottfromNJ]

Good reading:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_02.html

[hawkaw]

Good post and well said!