Darwinists Tie Themselves Into Knots Denying the Obvious

UD ^ | March 15, 2009 | Barry Arrington

[Hoplite]

It's all fun and games until the sharks figure it out.

[allmendream]

“Combined with fossil evidence from Tiktaalik and genetic evidence from sharks, paddlefish and the Australian lungfish, it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod.”

I wouldn't go around saying anything in science is ever “completely proven”; but your article authors tend to view Tiktaaik as a brilliant find that sheds much light on the subject of tetrapod evolution.

Do you disagree with this view of the authors of the article you sourced?

[valkyry1]

Sorry for your fantasy, but spiny fins or other fin based structures would not last anytime at all for sustained operation supporting and locomoting the fish about on hard dry land. The fish was a bottom and shallow water feeder thats all.

This example is not to far away from Darwin’s fantasy wherein he imagined the flying (Gliding) fish to evolving into a genuine flying creature fully capable of powered flight such as a bird or bat.

The mudskipper is still a mudskipper, the crawling catfish is still limited to his spiny fins and gills, and none of the gliding creatures have ever developed more advanced capability of flight.

[allmendream]

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. And to survive long enough to pass on its traits to its likely descendants, the amphibians.

[oldmanreedy]

"Both, because I think anything that is immoral ultimately does not work."

I dunno, the Democrat vote-stealing machine seems pretty effective to me.

More broadly, I agree: there are insurmountable ethical problems with eugenics, and near-insurmountable practical problems.

"I have not studied evolutionary theory exhaustively. It was taught to me and believed by me until I reached adulthood. That said, I thought a ‘good’ trait would be one that would enhance the survivability of a species. Diabetes, cerebral palsy, etc., do not. That is why I called them “undesireable traits.”

I'm sorry, this is simply incorrect. 'Goodness' of a trait (in evolutionary terms) is decided purely on an individual or genetic level. Rats, bats, wolves, fruitflies, roundworms and bacteria: none of these creatures have any awareness or concern for the 'survivability of [their] species', they are simply striving to pass on as much genetic material as possible. Ever wonder why Dawkins titled his famous book "The Selfish Gene"? This is why.

I think if you really believe that everyone in our species is equal before God, equally valuable, whether “defective” in some way or not, you’d be less inclined to be of a racist or eugenic mindset.

Similarly, if you believe we are the product of billions of random mutations with billions of random mutations in our future, with only the strong surviving, you might take a dimmer view of anyone who is handicapped or who you perceive to be inferior."

Argghhhh, you're still making the same mistake. No moral conclusions can be drawn from evolution. It's like trying to draw morality from the Krebs cycle, or tensor geometry. Evolution in a nutshell: in some particular environment, organisms with (heritable) trait X have more offspring than organisms without trait X. Therefore trait X will gradually spread throughout the breeding group of organisms, as long as the environment grants organisms with trait X a reproductive advantage. Do you see how crazy it is to try to use something this abstract and impersonal to justify moral decisions?

I can't say this enough: the evolutionary definition of what is a good or desirable trait is totally unlinked to the human definition of a good or desirable trait. Even using the words 'good' and 'desirable' to refer to evolutionary processes is probably unsound anthropomorphism, and if there were any evolutionary biologists posting here I'd expect a mild scolding for my phrasing.

[editor-surveyor]

When someone is too stupid to know how to post an active link, they would do well to shut their mouth re: ignorance.

If you want someone to follow your stupid link, make it work. (it isn’t likely to be worth the click anyway if an evo-groupie posts it)

[Natural Law]

"When someone is too stupid to know how to post an active link....

Sorry, I should have realized that you weren't just intellectually lazy. The silver lining is that those who are too damned dumb to cut and paste the link into their browser probably couldn't understand the content of the page it leads to anyway. Besides, how can you extrapolate a well the founded position in theistic evolution into "evo-groupie"?

(Does mommy know you are playing with her computer when she is at work?P

[oldmanreedy]

Man, maybe I should read other replies before composing mine.

Marie, you should read Reign’s post, it says what I wanted to say, only more concisely and with better examples.

[ReignOfError]

The evidence is strong, and totally refutes evolution to all honest, respectable scientists.

"Honest, reputable scientist" is the "true Scotsman" of the creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Summary: The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is a tautology; No true Scotsman would do x, therefore someone who does x is not a true Scotsman.

[ReignOfError]

Erm, substitute “well into the 20th century” instead of “well into this century.” I was apparently a decade or so behind ...

[Moonman62]

I’m certain that 90 year old publications will change the hearts and minds of the scientifically educated. Why didn’t someone think of that 90 years ago?

Those on a crusade against the truth have to try everything. Apparently, GGG thinks posting frequency helps too.

[Natural Law]

"Apparently, GGG thinks posting frequency helps too."

GGG apparently also believes that name calling and ad hominem attacks will work where poor logic and unsubstantiated assertions facts fail.

[Marie2]

“So, using your phraseology, “do you think there is a danger in someone who embraces creationism to, as a result, have racist tendencies?”

Dr. Morris in your quoted section seems to be lauding the inventions and abilities of the descendants of Ham. I don’t think he is insulting them. Of course I don’t know anything about his personal opinions, beyond this, anyway.

Yes, I do think that if a person believes that a descendant of Ham is necessarily a black man, and that God’s curse of Ham is to be applied by us, not by Him, to all his descendants forever, I could see where that could lend itself to racism.

Scripture is adamant that all men are free in Christ “. . . there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” (Col 3:11) and countless other passages prohibiting stealing life, property or labor from our fellow men, and commanding the preaching of the gospel to all men. The campaigns against human slavery - Wilberforce comes to mind - have come from a Christian mindset. So I don’t think a racist attitude is supported by the Bible. If someone just wants to sit on the curse of Ham, though, and ride it without any other Biblical input, it could be done.

[Marie2]

“Both, because I think anything that is immoral ultimately does not work.”

“I dunno, the Democrat vote-stealing machine seems pretty effective to me.”

Short term, sure. Long term, no. Evil never gets the ultimate win.

[Marie2]

“The sin that Eve, then Adam, committed did not bring evil, death and disease, into the world.”

Romans 5:12:

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. . .”

[Marie2]

“Actually I regard it as neither literal nor allegory, but simplification. When I was four of five years old, I asked my mother where babies came from. My mother said it was the result of a “special hug” between a husband and wife.”

I understand the illustration, but, God’s detailing of His act of creation is quite specific and literal. It is not given in an allegorical, prophetic, or poetic form. It is given as literal history, and it is referred to as literal history by the prophets and by Jesus.

[Fichori]

“A fish with legs.” [excerpt]

Oh come on!

You can do better than that!

Ok, maybe you can't...

Here is what a real fish with real legs looks like:

[valkyry1]

While Tiktaalik appeared superficially to be a triumph for evolutionary biologists, the specimen still did not provide a clear picture of how a soft anatomy suitable for life on land could have evolved. The coelacanth- the fish that Daeschler and colleagues called, "the closest living relatives of tetrapods" (Ref 3), for example, has been found to have a soft anatomy far removed from what would be expected for a terrestrial ancestor (Ref 8). Biologist Paul Ciesieleski from the University of Florida, has reviewed some of the enormous barriers to survival that a fish-like tetrapod would have faced in its initial stages of life on land (Ref 9). Such an animal would have had to have found new ways of obtaining food and water, as well as novel mechanisms for preventing body water evaporation, and specialized structures for breathing oxygen (Ref 9). In short, many of the changes in the way that animals supposedly adapted to a terrestrial form of living would have had to have occurred concurrently if survival in the new habitat were to have been possible.

=====

=====

Clearly in the absence of soft anatomy data in support of structural transitions, evolutionary biologists are free to let their imaginations wonder where they wish and to assert what they like about what evolved from what and how natural selection played its role.

[Dog Gone]

I have five different high school biology texts, covering 30 years

After 29 years, I would have given up trying to graduate.

[editor-surveyor]

Hope springs eternal...