Outside the Beltway

Two New Gaps in the Fossil Record Found!

Steve Verdon
23

Comments

The recent discovery of a link between fish and land animals might at first be seen as a set back for Creationists, but I say, “When life hands you lemons, make lemonade!” So, instead of a gap being filled, rejoice all you Creationists/anti-science types in that actually two new gaps have been created.

Seriously though, check out this picture over at the Commissar’s of the connection between fish (Eusthenopteron) and Ichthyostega, the first known tetrapod (a land animal). Seems pretty clear that what we see is evolution. Also note that Tiktaalik was predicted by evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicts that there will be transitional fossils between species and here we have one. Not that I expect this datum to be anymore persuasive with the anti-science crowd than all previous data points. For some people no amount of evidence will change their mind.

Categories

Tags

23 responses to “Two New Gaps in the Fossil Record Found!”

  1. Tano Avatar
    Tano

    “For some people no amount of evidence will change their mind.”

    Which is, of course, what makes them such good, loyal Republicans…

  2. Fersboo Avatar
    Fersboo

    Who cares if you change minds Steve? The important thing is that you are ecstatic with the news! Maybe you should go out and splurge today and buy yourself a new Darwin eating the Christian fish emblem for your motor vehicle. Or has your ego achieved enough mass to allow free movement through time and space?

  3. MrGone Avatar
    MrGone

    Fersboo, get a grip. Just imagine how ecstatic you’d be if they found evidence of ID.

  4. Ron Avatar
    Ron

    I keep hearing all this talk about evolution, and what I want to know is: When will the back of my skull get some curvature?

  5. Fersboo Avatar
    Fersboo

    McGone,

    I will do no such thing. You assume that I am either a creationist or an advocate for Intelligent Design. Your assumption is wrong, for I am neither. I too believe that the evidence points to an evolutionary process that is not acknowledged in any religious belief system. However, the need for some to rub their ‘superior’ beliefs on Christians is getting tiresome.

  6. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    However, the need for some to rub their â??superiorâ?? beliefs on Christians is getting tiresome.

    No more tiresome than the continued attempts to pass off the (literal) Christian view of creation as science.

  7. Fersboo Avatar
    Fersboo

    So, are you saying that you only feel threatened by the Christian creation myth? Do you feel just as threatened by the Moslem or Jewish creation myths? How about the Mayan creation myth? I take it the Scandinavian creation myth, with its giant tree, doesn’t bother you in the least?

    Maybe a little tact, huh? I rarely see creationists and ID’ers mobbing OTB. And the possibility of getting someone on the fence to come over to your way of thinking increases when you refrain from rubbing their noses in it.

  8. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    So, are you saying that you only feel threatened by the Christian creation myth?

    No, I’m saying that it is tiring seeing the same old piece of junkscience continually passed as good science.

    Do you feel just as threatened by the Moslem or Jewish creation myths?

    Just in case it didn’t sink in the first time. No, I’m saying that it is tiring seeing the same old piece of junkscience continually passed as good science.

    How about the Mayan creation myth?

    Hopefully the third (fourth?) time will be the charm. No, I’m saying that it is tiring seeing the same old piece of junkscience continually passed as good science

    I take it the Scandinavian creation myth, with its giant tree, doesnâ??t bother you in the least?

    Or maybe not. No, I’m saying that it is tiring seeing the same old piece of junkscience continually passed as good science

    Maybe a little tact, huh? I rarely see creationists and IDâ??ers mobbing OTB. And the possibility of getting someone on the fence to come over to your way of thinking increases when you refrain from rubbing their noses in it.

    That is truly funny considering the rather nasty stuff Dembski often publishes about his critics. Of course, Dembski’s nastiness isn’t justification to be nasty in return…but I’m not being nasty, just a tad sarcastic. It comes from having to point out the facts over and over and over and over again.

    Although on a positive note, so far no commenter has made the micro/macro distinction and how the former is possible, but the latter has never been observed. Hey…I’m going to treat myself to a glass of scotch tonight when I get home.

  9. Fersboo Avatar
    Fersboo

    Considering that the Christians, Hebrews and Moslems all share the same creation myth, maybe you should be attacking all three religions. My point I was trying to get at, through repitition, was that individuals whom believe in a creation myth should not threaten anyone of sound mind that can think for themselves. If some believes in the Mayan creation myth and truly believes that the 5th age will end in 2012, how does that belief threaten my existence?

    I am not excusing boorish behavior on the part of creationist/ID advocates. However, would it be appropriate for opponents of parole to celebrate whenever a parolee proves the worthlessness of parole (for example purposes only).

    My 4 year old is getting ready to start T-ball soon and I am still trying to teach her two things: 1, taking turns & teamwork and 2, being a good sport, whether winning or losing. I expect my little girl to taunt and say “I win, you lose”, because she doesn’t know better and I need to teach her that this is wrong. However, I would expect someone who is old enough to drink scotch to already know better.

  10. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    Considering that the Christians, Hebrews and Moslems all share the same creation myth, maybe you should be attacking all three religions.

    I can see it hasn’t yet occured to you that I’m not attacking religion, but I’m instead attacking bad science. In this case, the bad science is predicated on religious views.

    My point I was trying to get at, through repitition, was that individuals whom believe in a creation myth should not threaten anyone of sound mind that can think for themselves.

    And my point is that I’m not threatened by anybody’s religious beliefs, but I do object to people trying to pass those religious beliefs off as science.

    My 4 year old is getting ready to start T-ball soon and I am still trying to teach her two things: 1, taking turns & teamwork and 2, being a good sport, whether winning or losing. I expect my little girl to taunt and say â??I win, you loseâ??, because she doesnâ??t know better and I need to teach her that this is wrong. However, I would expect someone who is old enough to drink scotch to already know better.

    It isn’t about winning, it is about what is good science and what is psuedo-scientific crap. Nobody ever wins in science like in sports. Whatever theory is currently dominant/on top, could some day be knocked off due to new data. The same holds for evolutionary theory. New evidence could pop up tomorrow that renders the current theory invalid. A new theory that addresses the new evidence would be proposed and science would march on.

  11. Bithead Avatar
    Bithead

    I state again for the record:

    * There is nothing in evolution that suggests life in whatever form, wasn’t created. HAve you changed, since YOU were created?

    * There is nothing in creationism that suggests man has not changed over time.

    And now, back to more exciting action on “Roller Derby”

  12. RJN Avatar
    RJN

    I have never seen any comments by anti-science types on your blog. I don’t think I have ever seen a creationist commenting either.

    The childish hand rubbing glee you show when thrown a tidbit does, however, serve to diminish ones opinion of you.

    From what I have seen many intelligent people, with a respect for science, have politely discussed Intelligent Design, which is not Creationism, here. But of course; they are chumps and one can’t disrespect them enough.

  13. floyd Avatar
    floyd

    it is possible understand how the clock works and still learn to tell time, these things are not incompatible.

  14. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    Bithead,

    * There is nothing in evolution that suggests life in whatever form, wasnâ??t created. HAve you changed, since YOU were created?

    Yes, I grew taller and so forth. I know this isn’t what you meant, and that you meant speciation. However, sudden speciation is precisely what you should be looking for as it would disprove evolutionary theory (and after all God can do anything like turn sticks into snakes). So this is a failure of your side of the debate.

    * There is nothing in creationism that suggests man has not changed over time.

    Depends on which form of creationism you are talking about. There are definitely forms of creationism that hold that species to not change into other species (or kinds). In fact, they call such study baraminology (IIRC).

    RJN,

    I have never seen any comments by anti-science types on your blog. I donâ??t think I have ever seen a creationist commenting either.

    Typically they come in the form of, “I believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.” It gets back the the notion of “kinds” in creationism. God created the various “kinds” of animals and variation within “kinds” is possible, but one “kind” cannot change into another “kind” no matter how much variation takes place.

    The childish hand rubbing glee you show when thrown a tidbit does, however, serve to diminish ones opinion of you.

    Oh lighten up. I was just being a little sarcastic. Geez, learn to take a joke.

    From what I have seen many intelligent people, with a respect for science, have politely discussed Intelligent Design, which is not Creationism, here. But of course; they are chumps and one canâ??t disrespect them enough.

    Intelligent design is Creationism. Creationism holds that at least some aspects of the nature that we observed were created. Example, any irreducibly complex biological structure. The ID argument is that such things could not arise via nature and were the product of design (i.e. somebody or something made them). In short these biological structures were created. Further, that there is a designing intelligence behind said designs. Creationism pure and simple.

    As for people being chumps, more like ignorant. When one says, “I believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution,” it is a sign of ignorance. The problem is that the very same processes are at work in microevolution as in macroevolution. So it is like saying, “I believe in X, but I don’t believe in X.” Logically it makes no sense. At all.

    Some people put forward the probability argument as: look at the sequence of events, form primitive early microbe to man, what are the chances of that? Hence evolutionary theory is wrong. However, that is precisely the samething is saying, look at that sequence of heads and tails I got when flipping a coin 1,000 times. The probability of getting that precise sequence in 1 ove 2^1000 (i.e., damn small). So that is impossible. But they just did it!

    The problem isn’t stupid people, but people who are unfamiliar with the topics they are addressing such as evolutionary theory, probability, and so forth. Case in point: Bithead. He points out that no organism has morphed into another species. True enough. However, that is NOT what evolutionary theory implies. In fact, that would evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory. Watcing a cat give birth to a gerbil would be a big problem for evolutionary theory. But shockingly enough we’ve never observed such a thing.

    Now, Bithead often makes very good observations on other topics, and he is not stupid. But he is not familiar with evolutionary thoery, IMO. It gets very tiring to respond again and again and again to the same old strawman arguments. These things have all been shown to be lacking many times over. So much so, that there is not an index of Creationist claims. Take some time to read through the index, you’ll note that all the arguments that Creationist/anti-evolutionists use are there. For example,

    Macroevolution Has Never Been Observed.

    Variation is limited to within kinds.

    Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.

  15. RJN Avatar
    RJN

    ID is not Creationism. Your prattle doesn’t make it so.

  16. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    RJN,

    Your ignorance of the topic is showing. ID is Creationism by definition.

  17. RJN Avatar
    RJN

    This is Creationism, ID is different.

    http://www.meta-library.net/history/intro-frame.html

    Creationism History: Topic Index

    These history topics, provided by Dr. Ron Numbers, cover the comparitively recent science-and-religion issue of �Creationism��the view that the Biblical account of creation in Genesis 1 is in some respect a literal and historical description. A literal interpretation of the six-day special creation account in scripture is often hard to reconcile with current scientific theories on the origin of the universe and life on Earth. It seems as though they are in conflict. For some people this difficulty suggests that scripture is not a reliable source of knowledge (or at a minimum a poor source of scientific explanations) and for some it implies contemporary science must be in error.

  18. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    RJN,

    Please stop.

    Your own link casts doubt on your beliefs. Googling for the first thing that fits your preconcieved notion is not generally a good idea and always a poor replacement for more detailed research.

    Although ID theorists such as Behe and Johnson differed among themselves about the history of life on earth, they typically downplayed efforts to harmonize science and Scripture in favor of a concerted attack on naturalistic evolution. “When the Goliath [of naturalistic evolution] has been tumbled,” they reasoned, “there will be time to work out more details of how creation really did work.” On the spectrum of opinion regarding creation and evolution, they collectively occupied a position between theistic evolutionism (embraced by many members of the evangelical American Scientific Affiliation) and scientific creationism (promoted by the Creation Research Society).

    Note, even being a theistic evolutionists would make one a Creationist (a Creationists whose views on the evolution of life is congruent with modern evolutionary theory).

  19. Bithead Avatar
    Bithead

    There are definitely forms of creationism that hold that species to not change into other species (or kinds).

    Fine.

    Label the stages in a butterfly life cycle from egg to larva to pupa to adult. Explain to us, how each of the stages, would not be seen by the casual observer as a separate species.

  20. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    Label the stages in a butterfly life cycle from egg to larva to pupa to adult. Explain to us, how each of the stages, would not be seen by the casual observer as a separate species.

    Oh for crying outloud.

  21. RJN Avatar
    RJN

    Intelligent design is not Creationism. The best your extended look at my link can come up with is ID as a system of inquiry to establish what the truth is regarding origins of life on earth.

    I was over at Paul Nelson’s blog and I saw that he is not happy about your distortion of his remarks re: the Davidson paper.

  22. Steve Verdon Avatar
    Steve Verdon

    Intelligent design is not Creationism. The best your extended look at my link can come up with is ID as a system of inquiry to establish what the truth is regarding origins of life on earth.

    Uhhmmmm, no. It looks at the spectrum of Creationism, and places it between theistic evolution (a form of creationism) and Creation Science (another form of creationism). So, the conclusion is ID is a form of creationism. Is it Young Earth Creationism? Hard to say as some IDers refuse to answer questions about the age of the earth, while others (notably Behe) will. Is it Creation Science? Not the kind coming out of CRS. But the bottom line is that it is a type of Creationism.

    I was over at Paul Nelson�s blog and I saw that he is not happy about your distortion of his remarks re: the Davidson paper.

    Nelson got caught distorting what a scientist wrote, and I called him on it. He came up with some bullshit response about how it isn’t classical neodarwinism. Well no shit, Davidson, et. al. isn’t classical neodarwinism as that is a 50 year old area of study.

    In personal communications with Davidson, he was not happy with what Nelson wrote. IMO, It will be a cold day in Hell before Davidson ever talks politely to Nelson again.

  23. floyd Avatar
    floyd

    thunderbierd; interesting choice of words, do you know the origin of the term “crack-pot”

Latest Posts