Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[atlaw]

The fossil record should be be composed almost entirely of transitional forms. It isn't.

How do you define transitional form? In other words, can you describe what you believe a transitional form would look like?

[Zavien Doombringer]

what is the "true" way to join two boards together at right angles?

The truth would be that the two boards can be joined, not in the how.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The principal of parsimony has not been empirically tested as a valid means of attaining objective knowlegde. IOW, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the truest one. Creationists have been accused of stifling scientific inquiry because they attribute the general organization and behavior of matter to an intelligent designer. In fact, it is evolutionists who throw up their hands and say "We don't know, and what cannot know, what is behind this mere 'appearance' of organization."

[dread78645]

Not sure why that applies to cows ~ that's why Jews eschew the consumption of cheeseburgers.

It's the mixing of milchig and fleishig.
Milk represents birth and life sustenance. The flesh stands for corruption and death.

McDonald's founder Ray Kroc mentions running into a Florida health ordinance that prohibited milkshakes and hamburgers from being prepared in the same room. In order to pass inspection, they ended up having to put the Mixmaster in a plexiglas 'booth'.
That upset Ray's carefully planned 'service ballet' that he was so proud of.

[William Terrell]

How does changing information in a database make the database more complex? How does a database become more complex if a copy of it is made? How does it become more complex if, following a copy, some records are changed?

Changes to a table in a database makes the record interaction with other tables more complex. If a copy is made, corruption of data is possible making it complex beyond use. See the first sentence.

Simplicity and complexity are dependent on the fixed program that processes it. Trans-species evolution depends on the process by which organisms survive, in other words, the programs that processes their ability to survive.

However, a database implies an intelligent creator. What does the set of laws and processes that would allow "survival of the fittest", in the context of moving from a one celled animals to a more complex organisms, imply?

[Quark2005]

No, but you have to have sufficient evidence that doesn't admit of more than one interpretation.

We do. Fossil evidence combined with biogeographical evidence, morphological evidence, and vast amounts of genetic evidence (the strongest of all) points to only one interpretation with consistent results: evolution.

The fossil record should be be composed almost entirely of transitional forms. It isn't.

It is. There are thousands of examples of transitional fossils. Every fossil that doesn't represent a lineage that immediately became extinct is a transitional form. And even representations of lineages that became extinct provide insight into closely related lineages that existed at around the same time.

Every single bit of evidence you have requires a presupposition of trans-species evolution.

Nope. Not when fossil evidence is cross-referenced with evidence from the other completely independent lines of inquiry I mentioned, all of which point to the same result: evolution. The result of several lines of inquiry painting a consistent picture of a theory is known as consilience, and is the primary means by which almost all scientific theories are given credence.

You have to know something for sure, and you don't.

We know a lot more about evolution than you think. Learn it or get left behind.

[King Prout]

No, scientists accept new models only through a process of attribiton where the old believers die off and are replaced with the new believers.

"only" is a big word, kid. like all absolute qualifiers, it is one requiring but a single counterexample to refute.

I am not one of the big dogs on the history of science in the 20th century, so I cannot easily give you one clear example of a scientist accepting a new model after strongly supporting an old one. However: I know there have been not one but many such, and am quite certain one of the big dogs I have included as recipients of this note can easily provide names of such examples.

What I don't know is whether:
1. they will consider it worth doing, or
2. whether you are capable of accepting a factual rebuttal.

[King Prout]

ant you meant "attrition" not "attribution" when you typed "attribiton", yes?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I do not question the existence of objective reality, nor do I question that certain parts of objective reality are accessible to human reason. But I do question my capacities as an observer. You and your evo buddies have it all figured out, and apparently remain convinced in your own minds that you are wholly without biases that would color your interpretation of the evidence.

Me? I can look at reality both ways: as a product of intelligent design or as a product of unguided forces of nature. I can even understand why both considerations ought to be allowed in school (perhaps not under the guise of science). You? You're afraid of the idea of an intelligent designer to the point you would invoke the law of the land to see to it that your subjective basis and assumptions reign supreme in the schools. I have been taught to despise tyranny of all kinds, and that includes the intellectual tyranny of evolutionary dogma.

[William Terrell]

Useless to further discuss this. Tired of arguing. Macro-evolution doesn't impress me. It lacks the ring of truth even without its lack of evidence, which is why the debate wasn't ended long ago.

Another time.

[js1138]

So you are saying that a database whose records are duplicated has significantly more information than one that doesn't? I wonder what Shannon would say about that?

[William Terrell]

Useless to further discuss this. Tired of arguing. Macro-evolution doesn't impress me. It lacks the ring of truth even without its lack of evidence, which is why the debate wasn't ended long ago.

Another time.

[William Terrell]

Useless to further discuss this. Tired of arguing. Macro-evolution doesn't impress me. It lacks the ring of truth even without its lack of evidence, which is why the debate wasn't ended long ago.

Another time.

[William Terrell]

Useless to further discuss this. Tired of arguing. Macro-evolution doesn't impress me. It lacks the ring of truth even without its lack of evidence, which is why the debate wasn't ended long ago.

Another time.

[js1138]

Selection is not random.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I do not question the existence of objective reality, nor do I question that certain parts of objective reality are accessible to human reason."

Ok.

"But I do question my capacities as an observer."

Ok.

"You and your evo buddies have it all figured out, and apparently remain convinced in your own minds that you are wholly without biases that would color your interpretation of the evidence."

No, but as I live in a world where I need to make decisions based on imperfect data, I look for methods that will give me the best chance of making the correct decision. That method is science.

"Me? I can look at reality both ways: as a product of intelligent design or as a product of unguided forces of nature."

"You? You're afraid of the idea of an intelligent designer to the point you would invoke the law of the land to see to it that your subjective basis and assumptions reign supreme in the schools."

You have it a%^-backwards. You want the law of the land to recognize your clearly subjective claim (ID).

" I have been taught to despise tyranny of all kinds, and that includes the intellectual tyranny of evolutionary dogma."

Science is not tyranny. Subjective/post-modernism will lead to tyranny though.

[Quark2005]

Macro-evolution doesn't impress me. It lacks the ring of truth even without its lack of evidence, which is why the debate wasn't ended long ago.

The real debate has ended a long time ago. Scientists (so-named because they actually understand science) almost 100% unanimously accept the theory of evolution on its strong merits, and have for many decades. The fact that the debate persists in the general public only makes a statement about the pervasive and unsettling lack of understanding of science among the general population.

[atlaw]

Like the introduction of a aimless random force that bring organization from disorder?

What "aimless force"? The aimless force underlying hurricanes? Or salt crystallization? Or formation of oil droplets on water? Or any biological mass accumulation (from human growth to tree growth to red tides)? Or self-assembled island growth in highly-mismatched semiconductor heterostructures?

Or do these occurrences too require for an explanation the introduction of a supernatural agency?

I'm sorry, but "turtles all the way down" is not synonymous with Occam's Razor.

[TXnMA]

...what is the "true" way to join two boards together at right angles?

Interesting point!

The "true way" is that which results in the final position of the boards being at exactly 90 degrees (at right angles) to each other. The "truth" is in the observable result ("at right angles -- as specified"). Nothing need be said about the method -- or "process" -- to make the statement "true".

Indeed, in Genesis, the Creator said next to nothing about the processes He used; all He mentioned was the truth of the results. ("And God said, "Let there be light.")

As a scientist and a Christian, I am greatly offended by simpleminded and dogmatic "Creationists" (yes, I am talking about you!) who insist that they can dictate the process (and timescale) of creation based on a scriptural "outline" that does not describe process. Even mor offensive is their penchant for "dissing" the works of anyone who uses their Creator-given intellect to try to "fill in the blanks" with understanding of how the Universe has reached its present state.

OTOH, I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".

Neither have a corner on "truth" -- especially those who stake their "faith" on medieval-minded misinterpretation of a 1611 multi-mis-translation and who sneer at others who rejoice in the revealed truths of actual observation.

...listening for the "hit dogs" to whine... ;-}

[Lurking Libertarian]

after reading the reports of new species listed mainly plants and fly..Any intelligent person would laugh. a fly is a fly, a maze is a maze.

You are confusing species with genus with order with phylum, etc., etc. If two types of fish cannot interbreed, they are different species. They are both "fish," in the same way that wolves, dogs and coyotes are all "canines" and that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are all "primates," but they are indisputably different species. Because they cannot interbreed, any genetic change that happens in one species cannot possibly spread to the other, and therefore, over time, the differences between them will only grow greater.

when you show a true change from fish to mammal well then your hypothesis that evolution is leading to new species could hold water , otherwise birds that cannot interbreed are still birds, not fish. no?

You are mistaken as to what the theory of evolution predicts. No scientist who accepts evolution ever predicted that a fish would become a mammal in one generation or even in a thousand generations. Evolution works in small steps, which eventually lead to new species (something we have observed in the wild and in the lab) which eventually (over tens of thousands, or even millions, of years) produces entirely new types of creatures.