evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

quote:

---

The lobes give the fish a reptile like appearance and give the idea that the fish might actually be able to walk on its fins. These morphological features lead many scientists to believe the coelacanth lineage was the direct link to tetrapods, but recent molecular evidence suggests that lung fish might be more closely related to tetrapods.

---

"Wishful thinking? "I'd say it was a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence of the time. The lobe fins are more like legs than the fins of the ray finned fish, the subsequent links to the tetrapod have legs that are of a simliar form. Determining whether this is a "direct link" or a cousin of the actually tetrapod line isn't possible without the DNA information.With the new information the understanding of tetrapod evolution is modified. How is this "wishful thinking". It is based on what is known at the time, it is not unreasonable and it isn't far off from the current thinking. Unlike ideas that are based on no evidence this is actualy thinking rather than just wishing.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2005 18:50 AM

Perhaps I should have used the term speculate, rather than consider. I do not mean to imply deception or untruthfulness.I think a careful consideration of the evidence is often overruled by the desire to contribute something meaningful. The term "publish or die" did come from the academic community, or am I making another unwarranted conclusion?This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 01-19-2005 20:06 AM

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - The Missing Link
ARCHIVE FILM NARRATION: Meet Prof. Smith of Grahamstown, South Africa with a model of that famous fish the coelacanth.PROF. SMITH: Coelacanths are close relatives of the fish that scientists consider was the ancestors of all land animals.NARRATOR: Smith proclaimed the coelacanth a transitional form and as proof he announced that it would actually walk on the bottom of the sea.PROF. SMITH: I have no doubt that this fish crawls about on the bottom quite easily.ARCHIVE FILM NARRATOR: Yes, the Professor says the fish is a kind of ancestor of man. Poor fish.NARRATOR: But he knew he would have to find one alive and walking to prove the coelacanth was the elusive transitional form. He looked for 13 years until another one was found, and it didn't walk - it swam. It was just another fish.

Of course, there can be errors because of individual biases and the need to publish.That is exactly why the process demands the scrutiny of others and the need for replication in important cases.If you think that a careful consideration has been overriden then please give your detailed analysis of where this has occured. This, well done, is publishable in it's own right.However there seems to be a lot of willingness to make such charges and little to zero willingness to support such charges.

And how did that contribute to the issue exactly? And he knew that he needed evidence to support what he believed to be the case. He found out that it wasn't as he thought.It is not just another fish. Not by a long-shot.

Thank you, for the suggestion. Perhaps I shall undertake an ordered, systematic, examination and criticism of the problems I see.This has been a stimulating conversation but I don't feel that anything constructive has been achieved.

If you read the whole transcript you will see that the idea the coelacanth was a transitional between fish and tetrapods only lasted 13 years (1938 to 1951). No further candidate was found until 1981 - and the main thrust of the program was about how new theories on how the transition happened came about as a result of the new fossil evidence. Doubtless as more work is done and more fossils are found/examined the ideas on how fish moved onto land will continue to change.That's how science works.I think the crux of this is the quote from Percy I referenced in Message 183 about the theory of evolution being confused with reconstructions of life's evolutionary past. Quoting Percy again :

---

Confused ? You will be...

Of course, you will. And nothing constructive is achieved because you and about 95% of the "creos" that drop in here aren't willing to actually learn anything about the subjects at hand. Of course, that doesn't stop them from deciding that everything being taught about modern science is wrong.When asked to actually back up their assertions it suddenly becomes just too much effort.

quote:

---

Sounds like your daughter is receiving an excellent education.

---

Not if she wants to be a Biologist.Or a Population Genetecist.Wouldn't it be better if they actually learned all about the Theory of Evolution so they could understand it, unlike you?

No, they don't. The GLO gene doesn't work at all in humans, chimps, guinea pigs, and fruit bats. Because of the broken GLO gene, an entire metabolic pathway fails, preventing the production of vitamin C.So try again: Why would an intelligent creator put broken pathways in its creations?

quote:

---

So try again: Why would an intelligent creator put broken pathways in its creations?

---

Because He thinks it's funny to see humans suffer from scurvy?

Exactly - it is not that the evidence is not there. It is just that - for no apparent reason - you call it "inflated claims". Yet it is clear from this discussion that you are not even sure what the claims ARE yet alone how they are supported - or not - by the evidence.So what we can tell is that the evidence is there but you absolutely refuse to even consider it. Well what point is there in looking for it if you are just going to dismiss it out of hand ?

xevolutionist - You almost seem to have a problem with how science proceeds, rather than with the theory of evolution itself. You are by far not the first to imply that scientific findings are invalid because they are in a constant state of revision. Instead of seeing revisionism as a weakness, I see it as science's greatest strength - without it science wouldn't exist, and the progress of knowledge would stagnate. Without revisionism we'd likely still believe "Biblical science" - that pi = 3, the Earth is flat, the moon produces its own light, hares are ruminants, and all animals were created in "kinds" that have remain unchanged.It seems you considered yourself an "evolutionist" because you had some ideas about "missing links" in the fossil record - when you found out that there wasn't a specific, single fossil that proved evolutionary theory, you changed your mind and became an "xevolutionist." Or perhaps you rejected evolution when you heard that people were shown to be wrong about certain fossils ("shown" by themselves or other scientists).In any case, you seem obsessed with the fifty-plus year-old coelacanth story, and whether or not the fish "walks" with its fins. If all you want to see is a fish walking on its fins, all you have to do is go to your local pet store and check out the Goby fishes, which generally walk on their fins. The "mudskipper" is in the goby family, and is a fish that leaves the water and walks about and hunts insects on land for fairly lengthy periods of time - it also uses its fins to climb trees. It has a vision system that operates both underwater and in air. Check out how the mudskipper uses its fins to walk, crawl, lift itself up. Its fins even look like legs.Looks like a living "transitional" to me. What do you think?

Descent with modification is the evidence I believe is missing. I do not believe that there are any bona fide examples. And as Darwin theorized, there should be millions of examples of descent with modifications, or his term, transitional forms.I am now in the process of carefully and systematically reexamining the examples that have been presented as evidence of macroevolution, and will resume this conversation when I complete this research. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion.

I don't believe that everything being taught about modern science is wrong. Yet another incorrect assumption.I certainly seem to have touched a nerve by questioning the apparent lack of evidence critical to the theory of evolution.When an outright fake is accepted for 44 years as convincing evidence, with over 500 papers written by the scientifc community lauding and expounding on the falsified evidence, what is a critical thinker to do? [Eanthropus Dawsoni]The tactic of attacking everyone that disagrees with you is wearing a little thin. Perhaps just providing actual evidence would be more effective.