<i>Gogonasus andrewsae</i>

Try a reality check. John Wesley wrote, "There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape" (COMPENDIUM OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.) Cuvier got palaeontology onto a solid footing and established extinction as an aspect of the fossil record. Owen was known as "the English Cuvier". Darwin would have been seriously inconvenienced had not Owen, his superior, assisted him with his palaeontology. Cuvier and Owen seem to have been of the opinion that Darwin solved all but nothing. If so, I think they may have missed a valid point that Darwinism makes.

The rigorous biological science as practiced by its founders should be maintained at the same standard. I am not referring to the descriptive aspect, but to keeping the true meaning of scientific terms, and attempting to explain the engine behind that which is described. Had this been done, organizations such as AIG wouldn't right now be collecting little old ladies' savings and making solid advances. Not that anyone need be concerned about that. At least they don't attribute Nature with non- describable powers. They do have a bit of trouble with some rather non-essential aspects of the Bible.

Even a biologist's bootlace (which I don't claim even to be) knows that you can have two organisms of close bone structure and size that can't together reproduce (different species) whilst two organisms of substantially different size and appearance can reproduce together (same species). Talking up missing links whilst ignoring the Species Problem faced by palaeontologists and by some biologists working in certain fields, biases the topic.

I thank you for highlighting the closeness of life-forms in evolutionary sequence. The more, the better. This close similarity in size and form is one pillar of the Theory of Signalled Evolution, and I invite contributions to it. Cuvier, Owen, & Darwin have already contributed to it, and I sincerely hope Wesley himself would have looked upon it with favour. New research regularly helps build the picture, right now. Hopefully it meets the requirements. If one cannot bear to look at publications mentioning Creation and the Bible, there are always publications such as NEW SCIENTIST, PHYSICSWEB, SCIENCEDAILY, and SPACEDAILY, which do at times touch on these same new developments - because they deal, some more than others, with empirical science. We are beginning to glimpse the real mechanisms of speciation.

Give me a W.

I.

..N.

....G.

......N.

........U.

..........__bonus points await those who can supply the last letter.

Or maybe just three letters suffice to get the concept across. I'll spot you the P and the B.

Yes, but if Gogonasus is a transitional species, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

Sorry.

Please explain. What are you sorry about? Even an amateur knows there can be as much variation in size and shape within a species as there is between species. The fossil record has its moments when things seemed to go loco. Dwarfs and pygmies have nothing on it. The whole point of a species is invisible information, which can express visibly in weird ways - except that the principle of reproduction according to "kind" is not violated.

There are no gaps. And they're getting smaller all the time.

Every new organism creates a gap between itself and it's parent(s), unless it reproduces asexually with no mutations (don't know if that's possible). Add up the changes over many generations and you get bigger gaps. Reminds me of calculus, where you sum up small slices of an object to calculate area or volume. No magic function to integrate tho, otherwise we could predict where evolution is headed, and derivation would give us the rate.

Owen was known as "the English Cuvier". Darwin would have been seriously inconvenienced had not Owen, his superior, assisted him with his palaeontology.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

As I mentioned recently in another thread, Newton was also renowned for being a jerk, who stole credit for ideas, used his power to punish his opponents for disagreeing with him, and generally behaved very badly.

Gravity still seems to work, however.

Gravity still seems to work, however.

Gravity still seems to work, however.

— Michael Suttkus, II

Please explain. What are you sorry about? Even an amateur knows there can be as much variation in size and shape within a species as there is between species. The fossil record has its moments when things seemed to go loco. Dwarfs and pygmies have nothing on it. The whole point of a species is invisible information, which can express visibly in weird ways - except that the principle of reproduction according to "kind" is not violated.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Gravity still seems to work, however.

— ben

That is, until the DI succeeds in reversing "the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview," at which time you godless evilutionists better hang on tight!

Michael, I believe you are referring to Bishop George Berkley who accepted Newton's equations as correct descriptively but rejected the physical interpretation of these as forces exerted by matter. This was a reaction to what he percieved as materialistic determinism, where natural events were merely the responses of matter to the blind and uncaring forces of nature for no apparrent purpose. To him "matter" was a metaphysical concept with no proven reality of independant existance. What is ironic is that Newton believed his equations Proved the existance of God.

Here's a quote from an article by Joseph Phillips in the Reader's Digest's GREAT LIVES GREAT DEEDS (1966). "At a dinner in his honour, speaker after speaker spoke glowingly of his genius. Einstein squirmed. Finally he turned to author Fannie Hurst and abruptly brought her down to earth with, "You know, I never wear socks".
I recall one technical publication addressing the question of whether Newton and Einstein suffered from Asperger's Syndrome (difficulty conducting oneself in various settings with other people). It might be surprising to discover how many people who contribute to science or even who contribute to this site, suffer from various personality hurdles. As someone sensibly pointed out, personality doesn't influence scientific laws. This business of bashing people because you don't agree with them wouldn't itself be a sign of a personsality disorder? Intellectual road rage?

There are scientists who literally should have been jailed. There was a fellow called Broom, who was a rake, and if he came to your place you would be wise to get out the shotgun and keep the wife in view. I believe he has his name to some species descriptions, and we hope his descriptions are o.k.. Hey, we live in a real world.
Concentrate on telling us just what happened to bring G. ANDREWSEA into reality. A fish like G.A. had babies and they changed a bit, and they had babies and they changed a bit, and some of them went away a little and they changed, and enough offspring all changed in the same direction so two of them found they had (somehow)changed enough in EXACTLY the same direction so that they could have offspring that couldn't interbreed with the other offspring. They had new DNA, immune system programming, sex cells, what have you. AND IT WAS COMPATIBLE BETWEEN THEM! This all happened in the same neck of the woods, as the fossil record shows.
That breaks just about every law of nature, and leaves a dozen honest questions unaddressed.
That's how it happened, best beloved? Owen was sceptical, to his dying day.
You could say he shot himself in the foot. He had family tragedy.
They had something approaching science road-rage, even back then. Give a man some space, and usually the road-rage abates. At least he didn't initiate something that became a dampener on open, cool-headed enquiry. He kept an open mind. In his way, he served Science.

By way of a balancer, here is Arthur Mee, (CHILDREN'S ENCYCLOEPEDIA, roughly 1950): "His work in anatomy and palaeontology is included in over 400 publications, and some of his discoveries were, each by itself, sufficient to immortalize an ordinary man, though he, in his modesty, made light of them. He was a delightful character, artistic, merry, a great boy at heart to his dying day, and a prince of good comrades." Remember, Mee presumably got this (sanitized) account from people who worked alongside Owen. We expect he saw through the fog of professional jealousy.
Anyone here care for an orbituary like that? Owen's approach to species origin stands vindicated.

Everyone knows things fall down, so the only thing holding the planets up could be angels, not these mythical orbit things.

Re "Zeus could zap it, if we prayed to him."

Wasn't Zeus' death documented on that TV show about Hercules? ;)

Henry

By way of a balancer, here is Arthur Mee, (CHILDREN'S ENCYCLOEPEDIA, roughly 1950): "His work in anatomy and palaeontology is included in over 400 publications, and some of his discoveries were, each by itself, sufficient to immortalize an ordinary man, though he, in his modesty, made light of them. He was a delightful character, artistic, merry, a great boy at heart to his dying day, and a prince of good comrades." Remember, Mee presumably got this (sanitized) account from people who worked alongside Owen. We expect he saw through the fog of professional jealousy.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I recall one technical publication addressing the question of whether Newton and Einstein suffered from Asperger's Syndrome (difficulty conducting oneself in various settings with other people).

— Philip Bruce Heywood

It might be surprising to discover how many people who contribute to science or even who contribute to this site, suffer from various personality hurdles.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

As someone sensibly pointed out, personality doesn't influence scientific laws. This business of bashing people because you don't agree with them wouldn't itself be a sign of a personality disorder? Intellectual road rage?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

There are scientists who literally should have been jailed.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

There was a fellow called Broom, who was a rake, and if he came to your place you would be wise to get out the shotgun and keep the wife in view. I believe he has his name to some species descriptions, and we hope his descriptions are o.k.. Hey, we live in a real world.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Concentrate on telling us just what happened to bring G. ANDREWSEA into reality. A fish like G.A. had babies and they changed a bit, and they had babies and they changed a bit, and some of them went away a little and they changed, and enough offspring all changed in the same direction so two of them found they had (somehow)changed enough in EXACTLY the same direction so that they could have offspring that couldn't interbreed with the other offspring. They had new DNA, immune system programming, sex cells, what have you. AND IT WAS COMPATIBLE BETWEEN THEM! This all happened in the same neck of the woods, as the fossil record shows.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Well, we do. I'm not sure about you. Hey, you know, since Newton stole Calculus from Leibniz, we should suspect gravity doesn't work, right?

— Michael Suttkus, II

I think Heywood is agreeing with you (in his own inimitable way)

Here's another tetrapodomorph fish to consternate the creationists.

1. LiveScience: Discovery Points to Our Fishy Heritage Evolutionists are excited this week over the latest piscine "transitional form." Scientists led by Australian John Long are reporting on the first complete fossil of an extinct fish called Gogonasus, discovered by Long's team last year. Gogonasus is being hailed as a transitional form because it "had more advanced features than previously thought," including middle ear structures and limbs that "resemble those of land vertebrates" (emphasis added). When resemblance is seen by a person wearing evolutionary glasses, the inevitable result is the claim that something is a transitional form, even though there is usually no other evidence to indicate such status. Even with the hubbub surrounding this fossil, scientists caution that its limbs---reputed to be similar to those of land vertebrates---are actually "less advanced" than those of Tiktaalik, another alleged transitional form. We reported on those exaggerated claims in Gone fishin' for a missing link? (A preliminary response). And a more indepth article on Tiktaalik is being prepared by Dr. David Menton, soon to be published in The Journal of Biblical and Scientific Studies on this website. Ultimately, it's best to remember the evolutionary claims that have risen to a din and then abated in the past, such as with the coelacanth. For years, the coelacanth (which is found in fossil layers allegedly 70 million or more years old) was believed to be an extinct transitional form, one of the "proofs" of evolution because of its fleshy, lobed fins. But those claims died after a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938---using its meaty fins to swim like a normal fish, and not to "transition" to land life.

Ah, PBH, with his intensive research into the cutting-edge scientific literature: Reader's Digest and Children's Encyclopedia (circa 1950).

That the rest of you fellows have the temerity to go up against a fellow bearing that kind of intellectual horsepower is astonishing...

Try a reality check

Ah, PBH, with his intensive research into the cutting-edge scientific literature: Reader's Digest and Children's Encyclopedia (circa 1950).

Obviously you didn't read thid part "However, Jennifer Clack, an expert on the fish-tetropod transition of the Devonian, cautions that these tetrapod-like innovations may be an example of parallel evolution, and that this lineage developed them independently of the lineage that led to tetrapods."
There are several lineages of sarcopterygian fish that developed tetrapod like adaptations according to evolutionists.

Parrallel Evolution. What a miracle.

Steve:
There is no such third part. However, National Geographic says on Long's paper:

""This Gogonasus fish shows similar adaptation for air breathing that we see in creatures much closer to tetrapods," said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist and tetrapod expert at the University of Cambridge in England. Clack was not involved in the new study. ...

The early tetrapod-like fish could have swum around the world, Cambridge's Clack adds.

However, Gogonasus may have evolved its tetrapod-like features independently of the first fishes to crawl out of water onto land, she says.

"It's possible the features we are seeing in Gogonasus---the air breathing and limb characters---are in fact evolved in parallel, in fact have nothing to do with those in tetrapods. They perhaps derived similar mechanisms quite independently," she said.

"We'll need a lot more work to sort that one out."

( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061018-fossil-fish_2.html )

I'm not a biologist, but that suggests to me that Clack may contest the new cladogram. This is science in the making we see. Isn't this exciting, or what?

If you read the linked post, you can see that Gogonasus in the old position is still in the tetrapod lineage. In that case, what is lost is a ready explanation for tetrapod dispersal to the southern hemisphere, and the suggestion that some tetrapod features are more rooted in fish-like functions. No biggie.

But then, since I doubt very much that Mr Blitherer sits around reading fifty-year old magazine articles, I'm guessing that he found these quote-mines on some creationist crapsite somewhere, and just brainlessly cut-and-pasted them as regurgiquotes.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

what makes you think anybody is following you around, Larry?

a lot of us post on various blogs.

only a paranoid schizophrenic would think people are following him around the blogosphere.

you're losing what little grip on reality you have left.

Children's Encyclopedia (circa 1950)

"Dwarfs and pygmies", yes, got that. We're all equally HOMO SAPIENS, anyway, even those of us with Asperger's. I wasn't excluding myself from that possibility, nor from the possibility of having other hurdles. I certainly wasn't attributing symptoms of mental difficulties to anyone else. I have seen mental sickness in action and I assure you, to say or suggest that someone is mentally ill by way of an insult is at the very least a sign of knowing little or nothing of the real world.

Since we are all equally human, then, by definition, both Common ("blood")Descent and Incremental Speciation are impossible. But that has been pointed out ad infinitum.

Regarding the weight of professionalism and character on the side of caution, moderation, due process, and respect for personal beliefs, in the Darwinism vs Non-Darwinism case? - No contest. Linneaus, Pasteur, Mendel, Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz .... take them away, and take away biology and palaeontology. Neither does the story end with the advent of Darwinism. Hoyle and Crick, for instance. What was it Hoyle suggested - 50,000 exact same consecutive throws with a dice, and then we haven't begun to address the Entropy Barrier. (Hoyle to my limited knowledge claimed to be an atheist, as did Crick.) Attacking proponents of theories personally is weird.

Honest mistakes are understandable. At T/O, it seems, factual accuracy only need be practised and pursued if one is not a proponent of Common Descent with Modification? Newton developed calculus as an undergraduate. He described it to his professor of mathematics. I.e., witnesses. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his professor should have taken steps? I wasn't there. Leibnitz independently developed something the same in Germany. Leaving aside questions of personal character or conduct, on which we pass no judgement, Newton developed calculus either before or concurrently with Leibnitz. When an independent umpire put them to the test, Newton in one day solved two problems that Leibnitz was threatening to take a year to solve.
If the science history here is this poor, what is the science itself like?

Cheer up, I've got a story. In keeping with the thread, it's a fish tale. John Reader, a common descent man who, like many genuine researchers, doesn't actually cook the books, in 1986 wrote this: "One might imagine that among the vertebrates flourishing in the oceans some species must have perceived the advantages awaiting any that managed to find their way ashore. ... such a wealth of vegetation.. ready to feed the adventurous ... " (THE RISE OF LIFE). Here, succinctly, is this honest man's mechanism of speciation. It's along the lines of Mr.Ed and his Talking Horse. Conference driven adaptive change. The fish decided to go after that vegetation. To do this, they had to get educated, so they could talk at conferences. Hence the term, Schools, when speaking of fish. School was in for two terms. (Hack, Cough) I've just developed a head cold. First, Ostracoderm, followed by Placoderm. Den dey hab summer hobidays.
This is how we got the terms (my cold is improving) school, and term.
Note my strict derivation from the original Hindustani & Bulawayan Sanskrit.

I was going to introduce aspects of physics that render this contoversy obsolete, but I think a fish tale is more appropriate. I've just got to make sure that no-one actually believes it!

Is "blithering" a regurgiquote?

I say we get PBH and Glen Davidson to go head-to-head and market the result as a cure for insomnia. We'll make millions!

I say we get PBH and Glen Davidson to go head-to-head and market the result as a cure for insomnia. We'll make millions!

PZ seems to be the levelheaded person here. Contrary to what Larry says he was not blocked on the thread, PZ disemvoweled his comments as he does with other abusers.

PZ seems to be the levelheaded person here. Contrary to what Larry says he was not blocked on the thread, PZ disemvoweled his comments as he does with other abusers.

Bye Larry.

Larry, your brother Dave says you really need to get back on your meds right away.

Your credibility is crumbling daily.

actually, it's your sanity that seems to be crumbling ever more on a daily basis, Larry.

If it were me, I'd seriously reconsider the benefit of posting on sites where I've been banned.

but, that's just me I guess.

It is agreed. PYGMIEs AND DWARFS?! get the facts straight before publishing an incorrect source.

Re "I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning."

Well in case that - shut the *bleep* up about it, already. Sheesh.