"PROOF" OF THE MISSING LINK!
Did you guys see this headline from the New York Times?
FOSSIL CALLED MISSING LINK FROM SEA TO LAND ANIMALS
(I had to condense this article. Please trust me that I didn’t select excerpts that would twist the meaning around.)
“Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
“The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles, and dinosaurs, mammals, and eventually humans.
“In the fishes’ forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows, and shoulders.
“Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin’s theory.
“The discovery team called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition.
“The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik (the newly discovered fish).
“In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.”
Previous discussions in our Blogworld triggered my interest in this article. I have stated my concerns about the extremist views of both parties when it comes to teaching evolution as fact and teaching creation in public schools. This article raises questions in my mind about the kind of “science” that is being done and the kind of “science” that is being taught in our schools and universities.
1) “telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals.” How do they use the word “telling” here? “Evidential?” How can they say something so old “anticipates” anything? What if it was just what it was? A giant fish that was different from the fish we know in the world today? You know the old saying, “You can make statistics say whatever you want?” If you base “what you know” on a theory then all you can come up with is a theory. You can make the “evidence” say whatever you want!
2) “found evidence of limbs in the making.” If something is in process, then you don’t know what it will turn out to be. You can guess, but you can’t know. So to say it is evidence of limbs in the making is a non sequitur.
3) “most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition.” See point 2. There is no evidence that this animal was at the cusp of anything!
4) “The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration…” This is science? Talking about what “probably” happened? Isn’t this the definition of guessing?
5) “In all likelihood Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore…” Proto-limbs? In logic we call this begging the question. This animal may well have walked on the floor of streams. It may even have pulled itself up on shore. And this proves what?
I don’t want to argue Carbon 14 dating. I don’t want to make one’s view of origins the watershed for faith or orthodoxy or anything else. I don’t want to get into an argument trying to prove what I think is right. What I do want is for people to differentiate between good science and lousy science. It’s happening on both sides of the debate and the people who do lousy science ought to be embarrassed that a non-scientist like me can see through their transparent efforts.
I do welcome your comments. Thanks for stopping by.
FOSSIL CALLED MISSING LINK FROM SEA TO LAND ANIMALS
(I had to condense this article. Please trust me that I didn’t select excerpts that would twist the meaning around.)
“Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
“The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles, and dinosaurs, mammals, and eventually humans.
“In the fishes’ forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows, and shoulders.
“Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin’s theory.
“The discovery team called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition.
“The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik (the newly discovered fish).
“In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.”
Previous discussions in our Blogworld triggered my interest in this article. I have stated my concerns about the extremist views of both parties when it comes to teaching evolution as fact and teaching creation in public schools. This article raises questions in my mind about the kind of “science” that is being done and the kind of “science” that is being taught in our schools and universities.
1) “telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals.” How do they use the word “telling” here? “Evidential?” How can they say something so old “anticipates” anything? What if it was just what it was? A giant fish that was different from the fish we know in the world today? You know the old saying, “You can make statistics say whatever you want?” If you base “what you know” on a theory then all you can come up with is a theory. You can make the “evidence” say whatever you want!
2) “found evidence of limbs in the making.” If something is in process, then you don’t know what it will turn out to be. You can guess, but you can’t know. So to say it is evidence of limbs in the making is a non sequitur.
3) “most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition.” See point 2. There is no evidence that this animal was at the cusp of anything!
4) “The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration…” This is science? Talking about what “probably” happened? Isn’t this the definition of guessing?
5) “In all likelihood Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore…” Proto-limbs? In logic we call this begging the question. This animal may well have walked on the floor of streams. It may even have pulled itself up on shore. And this proves what?
I don’t want to argue Carbon 14 dating. I don’t want to make one’s view of origins the watershed for faith or orthodoxy or anything else. I don’t want to get into an argument trying to prove what I think is right. What I do want is for people to differentiate between good science and lousy science. It’s happening on both sides of the debate and the people who do lousy science ought to be embarrassed that a non-scientist like me can see through their transparent efforts.
I do welcome your comments. Thanks for stopping by.
12 Comments:
"Don't know much about history
don't know much biology - Don't know much about a science book
don't know much about the French I took - But I do know that I love you and I know that if you love me, too what a wonderful world this would be."
The one person who could clear up this mystery for us, Perry Mastodon, isn't talking.
Thanks you guys. You brought me a smile this morning. OG, you also remind me of another prank from college days. I actually know a way we could make Perry Mastodon say whatever we want him to say! Which would be the ultimate example of manipulation of scientific "evidence"! Do you think mastodons lived back when animals could still talk?
And you are reading the NY Times why? Even the Detroit Free Press is better than that! Follow Og's example and read the Washington Times. Wes Pruden will make you laugh at all things political.
As for me, I'm on pins and needles awaiting Katie's debut on CBS, the champagne of bottled networks. Could a new hairstyle be imminent?
Love to you all,
BS
Dear Brenda,
Since I don't know you I can't possibly know if you read Shilohman with any degree of regularity. If, perchance, you have been reading for the entire month that I have been writing, then you will remember one of my earliest postings had to do with Katie. In my humble opinion, she is the most overrated personality on television and the sooner she leaves the Today show, the happier I will be! Matt has carried her long enough! She'll need far more than a new hairstyle. Perhaps, credibility?
Thanks for your newspaper recommendation. Did you by any chance mean the Washington Post?
Your true friend,
Shilohman
Shilohdude,
Now you're getting personal. Leave Katie alone!
Mrs. Yak
Mrs. Yak,
Sorry. Didn't mean to offend you, just Katie.
I couldn't agree more with Shilohman. What IS the big deal abut Katie? Believe me I've tried, but just could not stand her. (Her coverage of the Olympics was painful to watch.)
SYS
OK, OK...so the real story is that my high school boyfriend and I doubled dated to our Junior prom with Katie. We grew up together. I had a crush on her older, tall, dark and handsome brother John. If you think she's bubbly and perky now - you should have seen her at 17. Actually, come to think of it, she was exactly the same as she is now.
I'm hoping that if I say only nice things about her I'll be able to convince her to do a "60 Minutes" piece on the Smoking Christian and his impact on the rest of the world. He'll be discovered and get his own reality show.
No? Well, how about a late night talk show in his garage? He could have the guest celebrity sit in front of the water heater, and the band could be under the vacuum hoses on the wall.
It could happen! If they gave Conan O'Brien a show...I mean really!
Mrs. Yak
How did this conversation go from the Missing Link to Katie Courek?
(I for one give five stars to Brenda Starr for "CBS-the champagne of bottled networks. But, that's besides the point.)
I suppose Katie is the actual Missing Link between one insufferable show to the next. I'm pretty sure, until she comes to my garage, she'll never have the edge Sam Donaldson has. He practically lives here. I designed his toupee for him. It needs constant adjustments.
Dear SC,
Sam Donaldson in the missing link!
Thanks for getting us back on the subject. Amazing what a little Glenmorangie will do for a blog site!
Hey there Shilohman. Glad you remember the talking Perry Mastodon prank. That got me in the official history of Wheaton College! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home