Darwinists Tie Themselves Into Knots Denying the Obvious

UD ^ | March 15, 2009 | Barry Arrington

[Diamond]

Yes, I do disagree with the view of the authors that fingers evolved from distal radials already present in fish. I am aware of the conclusions of the authors that I excerpted, and I included them to show that it really doesn't matter when evolutionists contradict one another on the very details that are supposed to constitute evidence for the fish to tetrapod transition; the original sea-to-land presumption never, ever gets questioned. The intractable contradictions still will somehow always manage to "shed light on the subject of tetrapod evolution." For me, presuming a linear evolutionary relationship and then presenting that presumption as evidence of evolution does not inspire a lot of confidence in the validity of such conclusions.

I asked you to show me the feet on Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik had no digits. It had non-digit radial bones, i.e. fins.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Who said Tiktaalik needed “sustained” locomotion on dry land? All it needed was to walk well enough to confer an advantage over its non walking cohorts.

How could Tiktaalik walk when its fins were not attached to its backbone?

Cordially,

[valkyry1]

Exactly.

[valkyry1]

//How could Tiktaalik walk when its fins were not attached to its backbone?/

The evolutionists are always so smug and secure in their supposed academic credentials, but it does not take a PHD to see the glaring problems like this in their evidences.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

Darwin was a firmly committed racist.

I stopped reading at this point.

Note: if the author had raised issue with the writings of Herbert Spencer (beginning in 1852) then I would have continued reading.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

if the author had raised issue with the writings of Herbert Spencer (beginning in 1852) then I would have continued reading.

Darwin was a great admirer of Herbert Spencer.

[Fichori]

“Darwin was a great admirer of Herbert Spencer.”

The more I learn about the original promoters of Darwinian Evolution, etc, the more they look to me like one big happy family.

A big happy family of nut cases, that is.


Of course people stop reading when, for all practical purposes, it appears that their sacred ox is about to get gored.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The more I learn about the original promoters of Darwinian Evolution, etc, the more they look to me like one big happy family.

One big happy inbred family.

[gondramB]

>>Who said Tiktaalik needed “sustained” locomotion on dry land? All it needed was to walk well enough to confer an advantage over its non walking cohorts.

How could Tiktaalik walk when its fins were not attached to its backbone?

Cordially,<<

Are legs ever attached to backbones? Its not my area but I think mine are attached to hips and a dog’s front legs are attached to shoulders etc...

[Diamond]

Are legs ever attached to backbones? Its not my area but I think mine are attached to hips and a dog’s front legs are attached to shoulders etc...

Well, yes, this goes without saying. You are a tetrapod.

In fish, though:

The vertebrae of the trunk (the main part of the body) and the skull support a number of additional sets of bones, all of which may be present in varying degrees in different fish species. Extending sideways are the ribs which protect the visceral cavity (the space where the guts are). Reaching up are a series of dorsal spines which maybe, but usually are not, in actual contact with the vertebrae. The pelvic and pectoral fins are supported by simple pelvic and pectoral girdles which are attached to the skull. The dorsal fin or fins and the anal fin are supported by spines that may, or may not be connected to the vertebrae. The tail is supported by the caudal vertebrae (the Hypurals, Epurals and the Urostyle). The Urostyle is the calcified unsegmented final portion of the old notochord. In those sharks which have highly asymmetric caudal fins cartilaginous end of the vertebral column often extends into, and supports the larger upper lobe.http://www.earthlife.net/fish/skeleton.html

Cordially,

[alstewartfan]

Evolution may well be a dead idea, but as in the cases of Obama as Messiah and global warming, evolution will survive in the minds of people who think of themselves as little gods. They wish it to be true; therefore its veracity is unquestionable. Bob

[BrandtMichaels]

Well it is a known fact that most all of higher education has a definite tilt to the left...

[valkyry1]

evolution will survive in the minds of people who think of themselves as little gods. They wish it to be true; therefore its veracity is unquestionable

Thats pretty much the place they operate from 

[allmendream]

And it is a well known fact that creationism has a definite tilt to the uneducated and ignorant.

The more educated someone is the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.

[alstewartfan]

There are countless folks among the “uneducated” who have more common sense than the intelligentsia. Case in point: All those Obot college professors who cut their own throats and those of their posterity by voting for the intransigent Marxist. Best, Bob

[allmendream]

Understanding science isn't a matter of common sense or political ideology, it is a matter of knowledge and understanding of how the evidence fits the theory.

Thus the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to accept scientific findings on the age of the Earth, the descent of species, and ongoing evolution in response to selective pressure.

[alstewartfan]

I’m saying that just as with Obama and global warming, believers in evolution massage negligible evidence to fit a belief system which flies in the face of mountainous contradictory data. And it seems the more credentialed the individual, the more strident he is. Best, Bob

[allmendream]

The mountains of data are on the side of the science of evolution.

Creationists have only one data point. A blind adherence to literalism of the Bible.

[ChessExpert]

“All we get are paragraphs, sketches, discovery channel animations and newspaper editorials.”

You have a point there. Don't forget to throw in the known and unknown frauds (Piltdown man, Haeckle embryos) that successfully advanced the theory. Also, the intimidating hyperbole about mountains of evidence.

I find this to be a fascinating topic. As with manmade global warming, the debate is not settled.

I am struck by the fact that Darwin, Gould, and Eldredge thought the fossil evidence supported stasis - not gradual evolution. Yet so many people are certain that the fossil record proves evolution. Many have thought it to be the very best support for evolutionary theory.

It seems that evolutionary theory was the basis for scientific racism, eugenics, and some sentiment and effort to eradicate particular ethnic/"racial" groups. This does not, in itself, invalidate the evolution hypothesis. However, it should serve to remind people to be somewhat humble when making supposedly scientific claims. People have insisted in the past that they spoke with the authority of science, when in fact they were advancing junk science or pseudo science. That is part of evolution's checkered past also.