Creation

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

It’s a Long (Roundabout) Way from Amphioxus 02/23/2006

“Every solution breeds new problems” laments a Murphyism, and Henry Gee feels the pain. In Nature this week,1 he delved into the growing quandary about where to put the common ancestor of starfish, sea squirts and chordates, including the vertebrates and us human beings. His challenge is to prove the idiot’s sanity:

So, if lancelets really are close relatives of echinoderms, what are the implications for our picture of deuterostome evolution? The short answer is that the textbook scheme is turned on its head. Rather than the steady acquisition of progressively more chordate-like (and, by implication, human-like) features from an ancestor with nothing much to recommend it, the story becomes one of persistent loss. The last common ancestor of extant deuterostomes would have been a free-living, bilaterally symmetrical creature with a distinct throat region perforated by gill slits, segmented body-wall musculature and possibly a reasonably sophisticated brain and central nervous system. In a sentence, the ancestor would have looked like a cross between an amphioxus and a larger, brainier, tunicate tadpole larva. Crazy? Possibly. But possibly not. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Reporting on phylogenetic study by Delsuc et al. from fossils and genetics in the same issue,2 the senior editor at Nature tried to be upbeat about the latest proposal, but called it another exercise in humility. “Time and again,” he preached, “further work has exposed our prejudices for the parochial conceits that they are.”
Meanwhile, over in Science Now, Elizabeth Pennisi quoted some other evolutionists not quite ready to accept the new phylogenetic tree. Calling the tunicate an “ugly sister,” Pennisi quoted experts saying the proposal will turn some heads, and the jury is still out. She said they said, “Tunicates and larvaceans evolve rapidly and have gained and lost so many genes that it’s very hard to position them properly in an evolutionary tree.”

1Henry Gee, “Evolution: Careful with that amphioxus,” Nature 439, 923-924 (23 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/439923a.
2Delsuc et al., “Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates,” Nature 439, 965-968 (23 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04336.


Evolutionists could use a lot more humility. They should quit the parochial school of Pope Charlie that is producing a class of lemmings who cling to crazy ideas. What Gee is saying contradicts evolution. This new story line puts the advanced muscles, nervous system and mobility of Amphioxus before organisms that were assumed more primitive (in the old “progressive” evolution picture), and describes subsequent evolution as a story of persistent loss.
Meanwhile, Eugenie Scott and Alan Gishlick sit on a Grand Canyon beach trying to whoop up enthusiasm for their evening song service: “It’s a long way from amphioxus / It’s a long way to us. / It’s a long way from amphioxus to the meanest human cuss. / Goodbye fins and gill slits / Hello lungs and hair! / It’s a long, long way from amphioxus, / But we come from there” (10/06/2005 commentary). It’s even longer when you’re going backwards. Gee’s story gives them more food for cuss.


from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200602.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Jurassic “Beaver” Raises Fur02/24/2006
Another mammal has been found smack in the middle of the age of dinosaurs. Science reported the discovery of Castorocauda lutrasimilis, an aquatic mammal about 17” long, found in China and dated according to evolutionary reckoning to 164 million years old – some 40 million years older than the previous record holder (see also 04/01/2005 and 01/12/2005 finds). Though not a beaver (perhaps more like a platypus or echidna), it resembled beavers and otters in several ways, including having webbed feet and a flattened tail with various grades of real mammal fur. It’s name means “beavertailed otter-like” animal. The discoverers, Qiang Ji et al.,1 were amazed to find soft-tissue features, including webbing between toes, carbonized underfur and fur impressions. This pushes back the origin of fur by millions of years.
Thomas Martin put this find in context with other known mammal kin,2 and delineated the “unexpected diversity” of Jurassic and Cretaceous mammals. Not too long ago, TV documentaries were portraying even Cretaceous-era mammals as little shrew-size wimps scurrying underfoot the ruling dinosaurs. The aquatic adaptations of Castorocauda demonstrates that land mammals were already diverse and well-adapted to a wide variety of habitats. This implies that any common ancestor has to be pushed farther back in the evolutionary tale.
The story was picked up by MSNBC News, which said this fossil “overturns ideas about mammals’ lowly status in dinosaur era,” and by National Geographic, which said this “rewrites the history of mammals.” Finding fur and soft tissues on a mammal assumed this old clearly astonished all the reporters and experts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Ji et al., “A Swimming Mammaliaform from the Middle Jurassic and Ecomorphological Diversification of Early Mammals,” Science, 24 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5764, pp. 1123 - 1127, DOI: 10.1126/science.1123026.
2Thomas Martin, “Early Mammalian Evolutionary Experiments,” Science, 24 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5764, pp. 1109 - 1110, DOI: 10.1126/science.1124294.


How many anomalies like this is it going to take? This completely-unexpected find pushes the evolutionary ancestry tale and timeline to the breaking point. Imagine finding a good-sized, well-adapted, aquatic mammal way back in the mid-Jurassic. You didn’t see these in Jurassic Park. LiveScience and the other Charlie-worshipping news outlets expect us to believe that this pushes back the origin of aquatic mammals 100 million years. How can you believe that? This critter pops out of nowhere, goes extinct, and a hundred million years later, the Beav pops up out of nowhere? LieScience also claims this animal was not a monotreme or a beaver, but a close relative, and achieved its lifestyle adaptations by “convergent evolution”. When are people going to get sick and tired of these cop-out excuses?
Darwin defenders have long claimed that it would be easy to falsify evolution: just show a vertebrate in the Cambrian. So we did. Or find a mammal in the Cambrian. We’re getting close. There has been a steady stream of discoveries that have push advanced life-forms farther back in time (e.g., next story), meaning that mucho evolution had to take place in poco tiempo. At the other end, the Cambrian explosion (02/14/2006) with its sudden emergence of all the major body plans in the blink of a geologic eye has gotten tighter. These problems arise even assuming the geologic timetable. Now, mix in the discovery of flexible, soft tissues in as much as half the dinosaur bones found (see 02/22/2006) and the Darwin storytelling machine is pushing past the red line.
Adding to the crisis from another angle, consider the situation in planetary science. At a public lecture at JPL today, the speaker described the huge puzzle of supersonic winds on Venus (driven probably by active volcanoes), and the completely unexpected discovery of water geysers on Enceladus (see 11/28/2005) – impossible to maintain for billions of years. He had no answers. He stressed how baffling Enceladus is in particular, because scientists can’t invoke tidal flexing or any of the other tricks used to explain Io’s volcanoes. These are just two samples among a number of recent anomalies that have scientists scratching their heads and scrambling to explain things that, in an old solar system, simply cannot be.
These problems each stem from trusting in a timeline that is no longer plausible. Lyell, the lawyer, was wrong about his quasi-eternal, steady-state earth. Like the other Charlie, he is dead, and the ideas of both of them have outlived their 15 decades of fame. Let them rest in peace, and let’s move on. Who in the science community will be first to state the obvious? That fur is not 164 million years old, and neither are those blood vessels in the dinosaur bones, or those geysers on Enceladus. They look young because they are.


from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200602.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Little Colorado Grand Falls Much Younger Than Thought 03/05/2006
The Little Colorado River makes a dramatic drop over a lava cliff in Arizona after going around a lava flow. Previous estimates dated the lava at the falls at 150,000 years old (150ka). Now, a team of geologists publishing in GSA Bulletin1 used multiple methods that dated it at no more than 19,600 years old (19.6ka) – one eighth the earlier age estimate. Here were some of their reasons for the revision:

The ca. 150 ka age of the Grand Falls flow provided by whole-rock K-Ar analysis in the 1970s is inconsistent with the preservation of centimeter-scale flow-top features on the surface of the flow and the near absence of physical and chemical weathering on the flow downstream of the falls. The buried Little Colorado River channel and the present-day channel are at nearly the same elevation, indicating that very little, if any, regional downcutting has occurred since emplacement of the flow. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Many people might expect radiometric dating of lava to be straightforward, but the authors began by casting doubt on the most widely-used methods: “Dating Quaternary mafic volcanic materials has proven to be challenging in many cases,” they said. “K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are the most common dating methods, but results may be difficult to interpret because so little potassium is present in these rocks and because the rocks may also contain excess Ar from mantle or crustal sources.”
They employed four independent methods that more or less converged on the approx. 20,000 year figure. That would seem to settle the matter, but in their discussion, they said: “The question remains of how to decide what relative weight to apportion to each dating technique in trying to accurately define when the lava dam formed. Each technique includes its own set of assumptions and uncertainties.”
Perhaps eyeball dating should be given more weight. The authors took notice of how little erosion had occurred in this area. They estimated downcutting rates, but then said of four lava flows in the area, “These emplacement units lack evidence of physical erosion or chemical weathering, both within the stack of flows and at the basal contact of flows with underlying columnar basalt. The flows may simply represent overlapping lobes of a single lava flow.” Speaking of dust on top of the flow, they said, “All features not covered by eolian [wind-blown] sediment appear to represent original or nearly original surfaces of lava that have been little weathered or eroded, if at all, since their formation.”
Considering that whole cities have been embedded in dust in recorded history, perhaps even 20,000 years is too much. They ended by discussing possible reasons why the earlier estimate was so much older, and warned of misinterpretation because excess argon may be a bigger problem than previously realized. Even so, “However common excess Ar may be in lava of the volcanic field, caution is advised in all time-related generalizations about the growth of the field, including interpretation of the 100 m/m.y. rate of regional downcutting calculated from whole-rock K-Ar ages for samples from the two older lava dams along the Little Colorado River.” Does anybody really know how old this lava flow is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Champion et al., “Multiple constraints on the age of a Pleistocene lava dam across the Little Colorado River at Grand Falls, Arizona,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, doi: 10.1130/B25814.1, : Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 421?429.

Unless you subscribe to the Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research or the Creation Technical Journal, you may have been completely unaware of the quality of young-earth creation research that has been independently published for decades. Such research is so completely barred from the usual journals, creation geologists, astronomers and biologists have continually published their own work, with a few exceptions making it into the mainstream. Many of their papers are just as rigorous and scholarly as those in the secular journals. They would be indistinguishable except for the rags they’re printed in.
Recently, Carl Froede and Emmett Williams investigated the same Grand Falls area. This gives you an opportunity to compare one example of OEE (old-earth evolutionist) and one example of YEC (young-earth creationist) interpretations of the same spot. Publishing in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Froede and Williams found much more evidence for youthfulness of the area than admitted in the GSA paper. They found delicate structures, very little erosion of the basalt, and lack of evidence of substantial weathering. Their common-sense approach based on clear, observable features was supported by photographs and measurements. They challenged,


The flow appears to be of a recent origin by nature of its excellent preservation. This is empirical evidence. Why do uniformitarians force the time issue by adopting inappropriate age-dates?. Unfortunately, they are forced to interpret and skew data in an attempt to bolster an archaic, unrealistic, and nonscientific model of Earth history.

Note that the Grand Falls lava flow does not appear any older than lava flows known to have been emplaced within historic times.
One other thing. How many earth science students were told confidently by evolutionary geologists in the 1970s that this lava flow was 150,000 years old? Did any of the students question the Biblical chronology based on what is now known to be false? Should any of today’s students trust the new estimate of 20,000 years, when the authors admit that “caution must be exercised in interpreting” dating methods? When fallible experts cannot agree, when they keep changing their numbers, when they are forced into their positions by a priori assumptions about the age of the earth, and come up with conclusions that go against common sense, shouldn’t new ideas be given a fair hearing?


http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200602.htm
Last edited by Dark Knight on Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

Dear DK,

Question: In the previous three posts what exactly has been your contribution? I was vaguely under the impression that 'green' text signified your comments, but I'm now aware that they are also taken verbatim from the site you link to.

regards,

Omnituton.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

omnituton wrote:Dear DK,

Question: In the previous three posts what exactly has been your contribution? I was vaguely under the impression that 'green' text signified your comments, but I'm now aware that they are also taken verbatim from the site you link to.

regards,

Omnituton.
errr am.....ZERO......

When I post something, I do not have to make a contribution.....
I can just post articles and stuff, that I find intersting....I don't always comment...

and people read this stuff don't comment alot ether....also people will read the article here, but not read it on the site where I got the article....

In this topic I mainly post stuff from over sites....

At http://www.creationsafaris.com, they use blue and green colours and the default, so that is what I use.....usually I put the link at the end of the article, if I have something to say I would usually put it after the link, and offen in this topic put "DK" at the start of my comments....

Sorry for any confusion, but I never did say they where my comments....

Comment...on "Little Colorado Grand Falls Much Younger Than Thought"

DK: You just have to look at all the volcanic active that goes on around the place, how could anythink be untouch in 150,000 years.....

hows that.... :?:
Last edited by Dark Knight on Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

oh and by the way there are lots of natural distructions that goes on apart from volcanic.......

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

Dear Dk,

Thank you for the reply. I should note first that I by no means meant to suggest that you were claiming authorship for work which was not yours. My mistaken impression was due primarily to the fact that no author is acknowledged in the articles you post.

Indeed, creationsafaris.com, acknowledges no author that I can readily find. Perhaps this sounds like pedantic nitpicking. Yet, I can't help but refer to a frequent comment, both by you, and by the creationsafaris website. This is namely that creationists are real scientists, doing real research. I will not dispute the claim but in this context I believe the following observations are salient.

Anyone who has undertaken even the most elementary of research is familiar with the conventions of referral and citation. One of these conventions is that at the end of the day a citation must culminate in an authors name.

This is not just a curtesy, but an acknowledgement that the corpus of knoweldge which constitutes science (or indeed any body of knowledge) ultimately refers to the assertions of individual investigators. 'Knowledge', as such, is not out there in the world...but is 'inside' persons in terms of their acceptance/denial or their belief/non-belief in a given assertion.

Where scientific method differs somewhat from other knowledge based paradigms is upon its insistence (rightly or wrongly) upon a principal of verifiability that it holds to be person neutral. So while, for its bread and butter, science still depends upon individual commentators and their individual assertions for the material it works upon it also accesses those assertions in terms of a verifiability principal. A corner stone of this principal ( indeed of science) is that we can name accurately whose assertions we are trying to verify. Hence citation.


I might also add, if we do not insist that individual authors stand up and take responsibility for their own work then we do not insist upon integrity and honesty of endeavour in the search for knowledge. Any old assertion may do because no one has to account for it. None of this is to say that the articles, as you have presented them, lack genuine merit - perhaps they do. What they do lack, however, is proper, verifiable and scientific citation.

As always, Kind regards,

Omnituton

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

My mistaken impression was due primarily to the fact that no author is acknowledged in the articles you post.
If you look back though the whole topic, there are authors for most of the articles that don't come from creationsafaris.com. It is usually right after the heading. Not all articles are from creationsafaris.com, but the recent ones are....If not give in the post, then follow the link and you will usually get the author.....
Indeed, creationsafaris.com, acknowledges no author that I can readily find.


I can find no author ether....this is mainly a problem at creationsafaris.com as I poited out.
Anyone who has undertaken even the most elementary of research is familiar with the conventions of referral and citation. One of these conventions is that at the end of the day a citation must culminate in an authors name.
I always try to remember to post the link, and if it is not from creationsafaris.com, then usually the author is given in the post as well, or can be find by clicking the link....if I remember the link....
This is not just a curtesy, but an acknowledgement that the corpus of knoweldge which constitutes science (or indeed any body of knowledge) ultimately refers to the assertions of individual investigators. 'Knowledge', as such, is not out there in the world...but is 'inside' persons in terms of their acceptance/denial or their belief/non-belief in a given assertion.
Interesting...

One thing of course, if I do write something, like my currect topic in DK talks which is writen by me, based on my knowledge and my believes, while you know I write it, you don't really know who I am..... :wink:

Of course that is not science, but it is knowledge and belief....

Of course you are right they should say who the author is...
Where scientific method differs somewhat from other knowledge based paradigms is upon its insistence (rightly or wrongly) upon a principal of verifiability that it holds to be person neutral. So while, for its bread and butter, science still depends upon individual commentators and their individual assertions for the material it works upon it also accesses those assertions in terms of a verifiability principal. A corner stone of this principal ( indeed of science) is that we can name accurately whose assertions we are trying to verify. Hence citation.
Yes I agree.....
I might also add, if we do not insist that individual authors stand up and take responsibility for their own work then we do not insist upon integrity and honesty of endeavour in the search for knowledge. Any old assertion may do because no one has to account for it. None of this is to say that the articles, as you have presented them, lack genuine merit - perhaps they do. What they do lack, however, is proper, verifiable and scientific citation.
Thankyou for pointing that out and you are right, however it will not stop me from posting articles from: http://www.creationsafaris.com/index.htm

However I did find this:

Creation Safaris (tm) are nature excursions founded and directed by David F. Coppedge, as a ministry of Master Plan Productions and the Bible-Science Association of the San Fernando Valley.

However still no author....

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

Dear DK,

Thanks once again for taking the time to respond to a post which I'm sure seemed a little off topic to you. I'm glad we're both in agreement that creationsafaris.com is slightly careless in its citation method. Thank you also for the information regarding those ultimately responsible for the site. It helps.

I also hope you understand that I am not intrinsically opposed to either your endeavour or intelligent design per se - but it does seem to me that much of what comes out of creationsafari consists solely of accusing the scientific community of a lack of intellectual rigour and groundless assertion.

This would be well and good if creationsafari itself were not so careless in there own methods - citation being a case in point. I would think that if one wants to rattle the foundations of generally accepted science one should first display firmer foundations. Beat them at their own game, as the saying goes.

As you correctly point out
One thing of course, if I do write something, like my currect topic in DK talks which is writen by me, based on my knowledge and my believes, while you know I write it, you don't really know who I am
But I should add that this is precisely why I pointed out the citation issue. To know someone, in the intellectual sense, is to be familiar with the assertions they make...to hear and acknowledge that this person here holds this assertion to be true.

So while I insist upon citation for the reasons outlined above I also recognise that it is possible to hide behind citation. Many academics have been doing it for years- writing papers filled with worthy analysis and citation but which lack anything like the punch of a personal judgment. In other words they do not put their personal selves on the line by standing up and saying 'this is what I believe'.

It would seem there are two extremes then - an over abundence of personal opinion without reference & an over abundance of reference without personal opinion. Is there a happy medium I wonder?

As Always,

Kind regards,

Omnituton

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

What, Exactly, is Nothingness? let's read the actile below and findout....

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 2006 - 5[4]:16-R

What, Exactly, is Nothingness?
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Q.

What do scientists mean when they speak of “Nothingness”?

A.

That seems like a simple question. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines “nothing” as: “something that does not exist b: the absence of all magnitude or quantity” (“Nothing,” emp. added). To the average American mind, “nothing” is an understandable and understood concept. Yet those in the evolutionary community are attempting to redefine nothing. In a recent article about the theoretical branch of physics known as string physics or string theory, Dr. Michio Kaku suggested that string theory can explain the existence of the Universe. Dr. Kaku said that “a string is concentrated energy from which everything else is made. A string is so tiny that it can’t be seen with any of our instruments” (“In Tune...,” 2006, p. 30). Dr. Kaku also suggested that string theory could inform us about the events that allegedly happened before the Big Bang. These strings certainly seem to contain a wealth of potential.

In the article, he was asked, “if strings create everything, what created the antecedent space and time?” His response to this question was that “the probable answer is that space, time, and everything around us comes from nothingness” (p. 30, italics in orig.). Dr. Kaku was then asked, “Nothingness is actually filled with physical reality?” To which he matter-of-factly responded, “That’s right. We think nothingness is actually chock-full of interactions” (p. 30).

Observe the sleight of hand that took place in Dr. Kaku’s answers. If there ever were a time when nothing (zero matter or energy) existed, then nothing would currently exist. Knowing that, Dr. Kaku and many of his fellow string theorists say that the Universe came from nothing. Yet, when asked to define nothing, they simply say that nothing was actually filled with something. Let’s get this straight: the Universe came from nothing, but nothing is really something? One is reminded of Alice’s encounter with Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland in which Humpty stated: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Simply changing the definition of nothing to something will not overcome the problem that atheists have for explaining the existence of matter. In truth, string theory, the Big Bang, and every other materialistic theory falls woefully short of explaining the existence of the Universe. The most accurate statement that has ever been made on the subject was written some 3,500 years ago: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

REFERENCES
“Nothing” (no date), Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, [On-line], URL: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nothing.

“In Tune with ‘Strings’” (2006), Advance, Winter.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?
Apr 11, 2006

by Frank Sherwin

With the continued invalidation of the corrupt theory of neo-Darwinism in the eyes of many, and school boards nation-wide taking a favorable look at intelligent design, it is not surprising that evolutionists are scrambling to enact damage control. Enter an alleged “missing link” that some are saying reveals one of the greatest changes in the field of zoology.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans” (Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.” (Owen 2006). But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]” (AP 2006).
Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may” be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate” the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.

What will the Creationists say now?
It is significant that most of the news stories immediately mention creationists and the problem this discovery presents for their model. NYT author, J. N. Wilford takes a swipe at “religious creationists” by stating that the Tiktaalik discovery is a “powerful rebuttal” to creationists’ insistence that the transitional forms that would otherwise validate Darwin’s strange theory remain undiscovered. He continues to marginalize the debate by referring only to “conservative Christians” while ignoring a sizable portion of the population who are not Christians or “religious” but nonetheless remain skeptical of Darwin’s fish-to-philosopher idea. Furthermore, Wilford quotes evolutionary paleontologist M.J. Novacek as gleefully stating that “creationists are flatly wrong” (Wilford 2006). Wilford continues to quote Novacek who makes the mistake of listing only two alleged transitional forms! If macroevolution has been taking place for 4.6 billion years, the sedimentary rock units should have billions of undeniable transitions. Novacek only mentions Archaeopteryx (it had wings, feathers, and it evidently flew quite well based on the robust wishbone), and a suspiciously vague reference to “an early whale that lived on land.” If this whale were a true missing link, paleontologist Novacek wouldn’t hesitate to list its name plus other specifics to make his case.
Is Tiktaalik really 375 million years old? These long ages have always been suspect, especially in the light of the discovery of living fossils (e.g. ICR Impact #394), the ICR RATE project, and recently, soft dinosaur tissue discovered in eastern Montana allegedly 70 million years old (Yeoman 2006).

A lobe-finned fish
We are reminded of the history of a lobed-finned fish called the coelacanth considered by evolutionists to be an index fossil that would date sedimentary strata to millions of years (the Devonian, a period in the Paleozoic Era). However, in 1938 a coelacanth was discovered alive off the coast of South Africa. Since then, others have been filmed and coelacanths have recently appeared in the South Pacific. Tiktaalik had lobed fins like the coelacanth and it “would have breathed like a lungfish”, says senior assistant curator Jennifer Clack of Cambridge's University Museum of Zoology (Owen 2006).
Evolutionist Michael Denton states

If the case of the coelacanth illustrates anything, it shows how difficult it is to draw conclusions about the overall biology of organisms from their skeletal remains alone. Because the soft biology of extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be insecure. The coelacanth represents yet another instance where a newly discovered species, which might have provided the elusive evidence of intermediacy so long sought by evolutionary biology, ultimately proved to be only another peripheral twig on the presumed tree of life (Denton 1985).

In his description of this fossil, evolutionist Shubin states the front fins look basically “like a scale-covered arm” with “bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist” (AP 2006). Shubin is speaking of an unstable macroevolutionary cornerstone called homology. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology defines homology as, “the fundamental similarity of a particular structure in different organisms, which is assumed to be due to descent from a common ancestor" [my emphasis] (Allaby 1992). The word assumed means supposed or taken for granted. The whole theory of homology assumes macroevolution to be a fact.
One should note that the bones in Tiktaalik’s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers.

Conclusion
Evolutionist Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, who was not involved in the study, said it’s impossible to tell if Tiltaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates (AP 2006), and the NYT states Tiktaalik is still a fish (Wilford 2006).
As always, creationists adopt a cautious wait-and-see attitude. The scientific jury is still out. As yet, many zoologists—creationists and evolutionists—have been unable to examine the fossils or their cast impressions first-hand. Stories that shout “one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals” (AP 2006) have traditionally been a flash in the evolutionary pan.

References
1. Wilford, J.N. 2006. Fossil called missing link from sea to land animals. New York Times, April 6, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html ?r=1&oref=slogin.
2. Owen, James 2006. Fossil fish with "limbs" is missing link, study says. National Geographic News, April 5, 2006. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/ 04/0405_060405_fish.html.
3. Associated Press. 2006. Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land. MSNBC.com, April 5, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265.
4. Yeoman, Barry. 2006. Schweitzer's dangerous discovery. Discover, April.
5. Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A theory in crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler
6. Allaby, Michael, ed. 1992. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology, s.v. “homology.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.

from http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=new ... view&ID=63

User avatar
Magus
Writer Extraordinaire
Writer Extraordinaire
Posts: 10536
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Post by Magus »

So, Dark Knight, you've probably mentioned this before, and if so I'm sorry, but do you support Evolution or Intelligent Design?

I was just doing research on an English project of mine about the 1840's, and it turns out that 1840 was when Darwin published his book on Evolution. I juts thought it warranted a mention.

Post Reply