Fossile Bridges Evolutionary Gap

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-04-05 01:45pm

The newly discovered fossile (the species has been named Tiktaalik roseae) has closed the gap between fish and four-legged land animals and is described as a "key transitional form". The study will appear in the April 6 issue of Nature:

LiveScience

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-04-05 02:23pm

Anybody care to take bets on when the cretinists will move those goalposts and insist upon demonstrating a transitional form between tiktaalik roseae and earlier marine creatures?

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-04-05 02:47pm

Martin Brazeau, a friend of mine and one of Per Ahlberg's grad students, blogs about the little fella here.

If anyone wants a copy of the PDF, ask and i'll email it.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-04-05 03:59pm

God Fearing Atheist wrote:Martin Brazeau, a friend of mine and one of Per Ahlberg's grad students, blogs about the little fella here.

If anyone wants a copy of the PDF, ask and i'll email it.

Is that Per Ahlberg of University of Uppsala, Sweden?

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-04-05 04:10pm

Mange the Swede wrote:
God Fearing Atheist wrote:Martin Brazeau, a friend of mine and one of Per Ahlberg's grad students, blogs about the little fella here.

If anyone wants a copy of the PDF, ask and i'll email it.
Is that Per Ahlberg of University of Uppsala, Sweden?

The very same. Leading light in basal tetrapod evolution. He and Jenny Clack have a News and Views article on Tiktaalik in the same issue.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-04-05 05:27pm

If species like Icthyostega and Eusthenopteron weren't good enough for them, nothing will be.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-04-06 11:40am

And the Goal post moving has already begun:

Duane T. Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story."

From this larger article in NYT.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-04-06 12:27pm

That's practically a concession for them. So what if prochordates aren't convincing? The invertebrate/vertebrate transition IS pretty fuzzy, but that's due to a woefully incomplete fossil record instead of a lack of workable hypotheses. He's already set himself up for a ginormous contradiction, because it's so much simpler to go from Australopithecus to Homo than from a fish to an amphibian.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-04-06 04:22pm

Darth Raptor wrote:He's already set himself up for a ginormous contradiction, because it's so much simpler to go from Australopithecus to Homo than from a fish to an amphibian.

Creationist response: "NUH-UH! They'd have to evolve a SOUL!"

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2006-04-06 04:48pm

It'll never be surprising for creationists and IDers to deny every and all fossil evidence. That's the whole point of them using the paradox of halves.

They might as well deny the color wheel and color relationships with that same tired ol' 'show me another transitional' routine, while they're at it.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-04-06 10:35pm

Utsanomiko wrote:It'll never be surprising for creationists and IDers to deny every and all fossil evidence. That's the whole point of them using the paradox of halves.

They might as well deny the color wheel and color relationships with that same tired ol' 'show me another transitional' routine, while they're at it.

I've posted a link to that article on a creationist blog.
The blogger's response? "It's just a lungfish."

LeftWingExtremist · Post by **LeftWingExtremist** » 2006-04-07 01:36am

We all know this is simply a species made up by satanic Evilutionists to turn us away from god.

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-04-07 05:45pm

The AIG 'tards issued this yesterday. About half-way down it reads (my emphasis):

No creationist to our knowledge has yet done a careful analysis on this fossil. Until one of our scientists or an adjunct AiG researcher has conducted a careful study, we will not issue a conclusive statement.

I take this as saying no conclusive statement will ever be issued.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2006-04-07 06:57pm

There's good coverage of this, and many other Cretonist/IDiot related stupidities at Pharyngula. It's a great site run by a professor of biology who's speciality is developmental biology (hence the name of the site, a name for an embrionic stage). It used to have a lot of actual science content, but lately it's started to focus more on political and science vs. fantasy content, but still good.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-04-07 07:52pm

Miles Teg wrote:There's good coverage of this, and many other Cretonist/IDiot related stupidities at Pharyngula. It's a great site run by a professor of biology who's speciality is developmental biology (hence the name of the site, a name for an embrionic stage). It used to have a lot of actual science content, but lately it's started to focus more on political and science vs. fantasy content, but still good.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

"Great site" is a stretch. Our blog has taken "PC" Myers (as we like to call him) to task on a number of occassions.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2006-04-08 02:44am

God Fearing Atheist wrote:
Miles Teg wrote:There's good coverage of this, and many other Cretonist/IDiot related stupidities at Pharyngula. It's a great site run by a professor of biology who's speciality is developmental biology (hence the name of the site, a name for an embrionic stage). It used to have a lot of actual science content, but lately it's started to focus more on political and science vs. fantasy content, but still good.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
"Great site" is a stretch. Our blog has taken "PC" Myers (as we like to call him) to task on a number of occassions.

Wow, you're a sad little man/woman for bringing up your little feud in this context. This thread is about a scientific discovery that Myers talks about and provides links to more information about. In light of that, I posted a link to his blog for those that are interested. Then, instead of actually adding the conversation, you have to be a blowhard and bring up your little grudge. That's really pathetic.

More to the point. You have a difference of opinion, great (that is one thing that makes science work, people having different opinions)! Hash it out all you want with Myers. Just don't use my post as an (off topic) opportunity to bash someone and as a plug for your own blog. That fact that there is a difference of opinion between the "two" of you doesn't negate the fact that Pharyngula is a quality science blog that has more information on this find. If you want to talk about your difference of opinion, do it in an appropriate place.

Have a nice day.
Miles Teg

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-04-08 02:52am

Stravo wrote:And the Goal post moving has already begun:

Duane T. Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story."

Well, that didn't take long. Won't be holding my breath for Gish's "evaluation".

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-04-08 03:54am

Miles Teg wrote: [Blah Blah, whine whine]

Heres a suggestion. If its so painful to see general criticism of Myers' website, you might not want to characterize it as "great." Someone might actually take issue!

You could also try and make your cheerleading appear more relevant by linking to this "good coverage" somewhere inbetween the CV and topical retrospective.

Have a nice day.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-04-08 03:59pm

Stravo wrote:And the Goal post moving has already begun:

Duane T. Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story."

Ahh, those crazy creationists and their "magic bullet" bullcrap. Didn't your mothers tell you that there's no such thing as magic?

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2006-04-08 04:10pm

Wyrm wrote:
Stravo wrote:And the Goal post moving has already begun:

Duane T. Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story."
Ahh, those crazy creationists and their "magic bullet" bullcrap. Didn't your mothers tell you that there's no such thing as magic?

Of course theres magic, the Bible says so.