Thursday, April 06, 2006

Let the ass-paddling begin!

I was searching around looking to see if any of the creationists have started to comment on Tiktaalik. I haven't seen anything yet, and I'm really wondering how they're going to spin it. It should be rather hilarious.

However, I did find ´this. It's a Q&A from John Morris at the Institute for Creation "Research", answering the question "what's a missing link?"

With almost prophetic timeliness, Morris gives the following example:
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today.


Okay...

does this count:

a, Left lateral view; b, dorsal view with enlargement of scales; and c, ventral view with enlargement of anterior ribs. See Fig. 3 for labelled drawing of skull in dorsal view. Abbreviations: an, anocleithrum; bb, basibranchial; co, coracoid; clav, clavicle; clth, cleithrum; cbr, ceratobranchial; ent, entopterygoid; hu, humerus; lep, lepidotrichia; mand, mandible; nar, naris; or, orbit; psp, parasphenoid; ra, radius; suc, supracleithrum; ul, ulna; uln, ulnare. Scale bar equals 5 cm. From Daeschler et al. 2006

?

Hee hee, just wanted to do that one more time.

Apart from that, however, Morris is still making a ridiculous caricature of evolution that's couched in his own typological thinking. In other words, as opposed to recognizing that there are probably about 35,000 species of things we call "fish", all of them quite different from one another in many ways, he thinks there's a "fish kind" and an "amphibian kind" and one should morph into the other, with something that's an "average of all fish" and an "average of amphibians". The reality is that some lineages of fish, very distinct in their own right, ought to acquire progressively more tetrapod-like features, as we see presented in an animal like Tiktaalik.

So, I'll wrap it up with this little prediction from Dr. John
Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.


Well, does that settle it then?

Somehow, I think I can hear the sounds of distant goalposts scraping...

2 comments:

dolphin said...

Frankly, I was astonished by the level of ignorance that the creationist have shown in the Nature newsblog....

Anonymous said...

No, no, no you completely misunderstood him. It’s the half a wing argument, a 90/10 split means 10% (probably the head) starts off as an amphibian and the rest is a fish. This proceeds to 20% amphibian 80% fish, etc along the body. Through time you develop the shoulder and front limbs useful for lifting you out of the water and looking around. Then later a pelvic girdle and hind limbs for finally crawling out of the water. The type of intermediate he wants to see is a fish with amphibian head, front limbs, and no scales followed by a scaly fish body.

When you present organisms with structural changes in many different body parts they find that confusing.