I could not have said it better

Creationists (including Intelligent Designers!): * Do not understand evolutionary theory * Belittle genuine scientific discoveries * Offer no testable alternative explanations * Demand details from evolution that they do not provide in their own hypotheses

These fish are not intermediates, explain Discovery Institute scientists I queried about the find. Tiktaalik roseae is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics—these fishes have advanced characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features.

According to DI Fellows a number of these fishes—Ichthyostega, Elpistostege, Panderichthys—have been hailed in the past as the “missing link.” Maybe one is a missing link; maybe none are. What remains unexplained is how natural selection and random mutation could produce the many novel physiological characteristics that arise in true tetrapods.

“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design.” So says Discovery Institute senior fellow and leading intelligent design theorist Dr. William Dembski, adding: “Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity.

Dembksi said:

“Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity."

Any idea how to test that, Dembski? So far, just plain old evolution is what's been able to come up with the successful testable predictions. How can you figure out a test for "intelligence" vs. "purposeless material processes"?

As for our side, we only have to look at sub-optimal designs and parasitism, vestigial and atavistic organs, etc to support our side.

"They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features."

Uh, if a fish has "tetrapod-like features" what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a "true" intermediate"?

the information theoretician

What I wanted to comment on was the PT critique of Sal's foolish statement. Sal's article said:

In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it. Natural selection acting on noise cannot create specified complexity. Thus, information science refutes Darwinian evolution. The following is a great article that illustrates the insufficiency of natural selection to create design.

This is an entirely bogus statement. What concerned me, though, was the rebuttal from the Pim van Meurs at PT:

In fact, quite to the contrary, simple experiments have shown that the processes of natural selection and variation can indeed create specified complexity. In other words, contrary to the scientifically vacuous claims of Sal, science has shown that information science, rather than refuting Darwinian evolution, has ended up strongly supporting it.

Plenty of simple experiments have shown that evolution can create complexity, irreducible complexity, etc. But complex specified information is a meaningless quantity - it cannot be measured. It can only be described in informal, unquantifiable ways. By admitting to the validity of this thoroughly nonsensical concept, we give creationists like Sal an undeserved gift that aids their arguments. ...
So CSI can be either a meaningless term that includes all complex systems, or it can be a meaningless term that cannot include any systems at all. We shouldn't try to debate the IDists by arguing about whether or not CSI can be produced in any particular way, when the entire argument is predicated on nonsense. ...

Reynold Hall: Dembksi said: “Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity." Any idea how to test that, Dembski? So far, just plain old evolution is what's been able to come up with the successful testable predictions. How can you figure out a test for "intelligence" vs. "purposeless material processes"? As for our side, we only have to look at sub-optimal designs and parasitism, vestigial and atavistic organs, etc to support our side. "They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features." Uh, if a fish has "tetrapod-like features" what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a "true" intermediate"?

You could in fact have said it *much* better - by leaving out any reference to information theory. IDologists don't deal in information theory any more than they deal in biology.

Uh, if a fish has “tetrapod-like features” what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a “true” intermediate”?

I stand by my statement that Intelligent Design has absolutely no descriptive power whatsoever.

Come on, PvM: To call any ID advocate an "information theoretician" can be an oxymoron of the day.

Dr. Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains University has suggested that a "crocaduck" would be a good intermediate....I believe he has pictures

Flint:

Uh, if a fish has “tetrapod-like features” what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a “true” intermediate”?

Nothing. There are no intermediates. Evolution doesn't happen.

Ok, what would an intermediate look like in your opinion, if evolution were true?

Come on, PvM: To call any ID advocate an “information theoretician” can be an oxymoron of the day.

Flint wrote:

"Nothing. There are no intermediates. Evolution doesn’t happen."

Actually, Flint is exactly right. Since these people already "know" that evolution didn't happen, they have absolutely no need to examine any evidence. They already "know" that nothing you discover can possibly be a real intermediate form, so they will not accept anything as an example of an intermediate form. They then feel the need to place an unreasonable burden of proof on you by demanding that you produce their distorted version of a intermediate form such as a crocoduck, knowing full well that it is an unreasonable demand. They then claim victory when their demand is not met.

No you, being a reasonable person, cannot figure out if they are really that igonorant or they are just lying to you. So you patiently take the time to explain the difference between the tree of life and their distorted view of the ladder of life. You explain the significance of the combinations of ancestral and derived characteristics and how the expectations of real evolutionary science are met in the evidence. They respond that yes they understand all that sciency stuff, but you still haven't produced a crocoduck so they still win! Now you still don't know for sure whether they are lying or just plain stupid, but you have ceased to care, so you give up. That is of course when they claim ultimate victory and declare that the evidence was always on their side.

Honestly, I once say some preacher claim that a spork was an intermediate between a spoon and a fork and that this revelation somehow proved evolution wrong! All I can add is, in the immortal words of Lisa Simpson: "Don't let the butt heads win."

As far as informatioin theory goes, perhaps someone should ask Sir Issac if six is intermediate between eight and five (in tetrapod evolution), or if three is intermediate between five and one (in equine evolution). Perhaps BD (aka Issac) will be able to develop a proper equation for those questions.

According to DI Fellows a number of these fishes—Ichthyostega, Elpistostege, Panderichthys—have been hailed in the past as the “missing link.” Maybe one is a missing link; maybe none are.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Of course IDiots have to resort to parroting the party line which involves a lot of handwaving and mumbling of magical words without biological context...

This reminds me of a tradition started in my family many...weeks ago. We have sleighbells hanging on the door for Christmas, and every time someone jingles them, they have to recite: "Every time a bell rings a paleontologist finds a transitional fossil." (apologies to Mr. Capra)

"These fish are not intermediates, explain Discovery Institute scientists I queried about the find. Tiktaalik roseae is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics—these fishes have advanced characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features."

Translation: Its intermediate. Its just not intermediate enough.

I saw Gish give his speel several times and his whale intermediate was a cow with the tail of a whale. No joke, that is what he had up on his slide

What's most interesting to me about the DI's approach to Tiktaalik (and all extinct species for that matter) is this: They are all completely convinced that it is not "intermediate" or "transitional" (whatever they mean by that). And at least one of them, Michael Behe, will tell you with just as much confidence that it lived 375 million years ago and is nevertheless our biological relative. Yet ask other DI members if they agree with Behe and watch the self-proclaimed experts magically become too "humble" to answer.

Neither Behe nor Dembski has explained to me in private e-mail correspondence how Intelligent Design is a better, more viable, alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the origins, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity. I have the utmost confidence that I will never receive such an answer from either one.

The example of the crockaduck illustrates a point most posters here never quite notice - our blind spot in this sense. The creationists do more than simply deny that evolution happens and therefore transitionals are impossible. What we need to understand is how deeply they have internalized the notion of kinds.

In their view, all critters alive today are as they always were. In their world, change does not happen. In this static world, the only *possible* "intermediate" is something halfway between one current kind and another current kind. Because current kinds are as they always have been and ever shall be. Extinction is permitted. But how could some extinct kind be halfway between two current kinds?

And this is why every hominid fossil must be categorized as entirely human, entirely ape, or insufficient evidence to decide. Present forms didn't develop out of past forms. Present forms ARE past forms. And just because some kind was killed in the flud (or however) is bafflingly irrelevant to how evolutionists claim one current kind morphs into another. SHOW me, dammit! Extinct kinds aren't "transitional", they're DEAD. Sheesh.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pretty much every fossil ever found a transitional fossil between two somethings?

ifeelfine72: Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pretty much every fossil ever found a transitional fossil between two somethings?

Information theory is a very real science that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the babbling nonsense coming out of the Discovery Institute. Can we PLEASE be more careful about slagging a legitimate field just because a few nitwits keep calling themselves "information theorists?"

Flint sez: "And this is why every hominid fossil must be categorized as entirely human, entirely ape, or insufficient evidence to decide."

What do you mean there is insufficient data to decide? You mean there *is* some ambiguity because of the sheer number of anatomical characters shared by the two primate species? We're not talking about trivial similarities like bilateral symmetry, but widespread similarities in the details of the skeletal structures.

Why should there even be such similarities if they are divinely created "kinds"? Why shouldn't there be an unambiguous gap between human and non-human primates if they were independently created? Is the creative capacity of the deity limited in some way, so that the creator has to resort to repetition? Or is this an example of the divine trickster at work, making species seem to be related when they are not? KInd of: IM IN UR GROUND, TESTING UR FAITH?

God is subtle but he is not malicious.

"Present forms didn’t develop out of past forms. Present forms ARE past forms."

And so why don't we ever find whales and trilobites in the same strata? More work of a cosmic prankster?

Jeh, Flint was being sarcastic, in that he's describing how creationists compartmentalize reality in order to make it fit their strict, literal interpretation of the Bible.

What do you mean there is insufficient data to decide?

Even if Flint is being sarcastic, these questions still have to be answered by the creo-IDists.

Their approach to theology is approximately the same as their approach to science: figure out a way to fit the "data" to your pre-existing notions, ignore everything that does not conform, treat everyone who does not agree as a heretic.

With this kind of thinking, anything is possible. Ask them about divinely-ordered genocide in the Old Testament, and they will end up justifying the murder of men, women, children, and animals as a good thing--even though it goes against their "pro-life" stance. Or in the present sense, if innocents die in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are just collateral damage, an acceptable loss in their pursuit of a higher purpose.

The example of the crockaduck illustrates a point most posters here never quite notice - our blind spot in this sense. The creationists do more than simply deny that evolution happens and therefore transitionals are impossible. What we need to understand is how deeply they have internalized the notion of kinds. In their view, all critters alive today are as they always were. In their world, change does not happen. In this static world, the only *possible* “intermediate” is something halfway between one current kind and another current kind. Because current kinds are as they always have been and ever shall be. Extinction is permitted. But how could some extinct kind be halfway between two current kinds? And this is why every hominid fossil must be categorized as entirely human, entirely ape, or insufficient evidence to decide. Present forms didn’t develop out of past forms. Present forms ARE past forms. And just because some kind was killed in the flud (or however) is bafflingly irrelevant to how evolutionists claim one current kind morphs into another. SHOW me, dammit! Extinct kinds aren’t “transitional”, they’re DEAD. Sheesh.

This is such a classic example of what a science stopper IDC is. Lick on the link given http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ and look at all the rich information about Tiktaalik, evolution, fossils, etc. It's amazing stuff. Compare that with what the DI and their creationist cranks offer. It's pretty obvious IDC is a science stopper with zero content.

In fact had an IDCer discovered Tiktaalik they would have likely concluded "it doesn't prove anything" and thrown the fossil in the trash while babbling about it is not their job to connect the dots (while reminding us the intelligent designer could be a space alien wink-wink).

Tards, all tards!

PS Has Behe ever weighed in on Tiktaalik?

If you find a species that is transitional in form,
You need to closely follow the I-D olator's norm:

I've often seen them, and this is what they do,

They stick a finger in their ear
And sing "Dig-a-ling-a-doo!"

Is it true Billy Dembski studied information theory under Benny Hill?

Dembski studied under Benny Hinn, not Benny Hill.

Um, hello. I have a completely random question: is there an evolutionary explanation as to why humans only use 10% of their brain?

"Um, hello. I have a completely random question: is there an evolutionary explanation as to why humans only use 10% of their brain?"

Um, you might want to google that 10% thing. In short the notion that humans only use 10% of their brain is a popular myth. You might ask an IDist though, from bible codes to intelligent little green space aliens they fall for anything/everything.

Ask William "it could be a winged humanoid from a reality far more meatier than our own" Dembski about the 10% thing.

Izzhov: Um, hello. I have a completely random question: is there an evolutionary explanation as to why humans only use 10% of their brain?

Keep digging. Those missing links have got to be there somewhere.

Thomas the troll: Keep digging. Those missing links have got to be there somewhere.

"Thomas said: Keep digging. Those missing links have got to be there somewhere."

Thomas you're actually right in your assessment. That is one of the biggest differences in legitimate science and ID creationism/scam. Real scientists dig and they look for evidence. They spend years in the field looking for new evidence for which they hope to glean better understanding.

When was the last time you saw or even heard of an IDCer making ANY kind of fossil find or ANY kind of a scientific discovery or breakthrough. When was the last time any IDer even provided a testatble scientific theory? Never. That's because ID is not science, it's not even related to science.

Which ID "theorist" is currently doing any sort of fossil work? What site are ID "scientists" currently digging through, looking for evidence of their space alie..I mean intelligent designer? Can you tell me of one single site in the entire world where IDers are digging up fossils in an attempt to better understand our origins? Name just one please.

What biological ID tests is Behe currently doing in his lab? How about Wells? What fossils has Dembski recently written about? In fact can you name ONE single scientific contribution ID has made? Just one?

Um, yeah Thomas, science will continue to dig (and dig and dig and dig and dig) and IDers will continue to make farty videos while claiming their WADerloo is just around the corner.

science will continue to dig (and dig and dig and dig and dig) and IDers will continue to make farty videos while claiming their WADerloo is just around the corner.

Um, hello. I have a completely random question: is there an evolutionary explanation as to why humans only use 10% of their brain?

They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features.

Mr_Christopher: This is such a classic example of what a science stopper IDC is. Lick on the link given http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ and look at all the rich information about Tiktaalik, evolution, fossils, etc. It's amazing stuff. Compare that with what the DI and their creationist cranks offer. It's pretty obvious IDC is a science stopper with zero content. In fact had an IDCer discovered Tiktaalik they would have likely concluded "it doesn't prove anything" and thrown the fossil in the trash while babbling about it is not their job to connect the dots (while reminding us the intelligent designer could be a space alien wink-wink). Tards, all tards! PS Has Behe ever weighed in on Tiktaalik?

Be sure to click the link to the actual “fossil” and not just the drawing of the half-crocodile, half-fish on the home page superimposed upon it. You can find all kinds of discoveries like this made by faux Native American hippies at craft fairs and flea markets worldwide! Some pieces of discarded industrial plastic and twine to string them together and you make a transitional form too!

That's not exactly true, Popper's...

Some creationists are extremely intelligent.

The hallmark of creationists is that they enshrine and worship their own ignorance as "faith."

Pole-Greaser's unamusing parodies provide a glorious example.

Popper's Ghost:

Be sure to click the link to the actual “fossil” and not just the drawing of the half-crocodile, half-fish on the home page superimposed upon it. You can find all kinds of discoveries like this made by faux Native American hippies at craft fairs and flea markets worldwide! Some pieces of discarded industrial plastic and twine to string them together and you make a transitional form too!

The hallmark of creationists is that they are massively stupid.

The hallmark of creationists is that they are massively stupid.

Information theory is a very real science that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the babbling nonsense coming out of the Discovery Institute. Can we PLEASE be more careful about slagging a legitimate field just because a few nitwits keep calling themselves “information theorists?”

Er, that should be "heard of Dembski", of course, though I'm sure it holds for Behe et alia as well.

It's a little too early to celebrate. Tiktaalik comes too late in the controversy to be of any significance. It might be just a minor victory for the scientists, but it will hardly win the war. Do we have any other proofs except Tiktaalik that are unquestionably in favor of evolution? Not too many, at least not too many that are not challenged by the creationists. It is ultimately a political battle, and apparently we are on retreat there.

Monet: It's a little too early to celebrate. Tiktaalik comes too late in the controversy to be of any significance. It might be just a minor victory for the scientists, but it will hardly win the war. Do we have any other proofs except Tiktaalik that are unquestionably in favor of evolution? Not too many, at least not too many that are not challenged by the creationists. It is ultimately a political battle, and apparently we are on retreat there.

Since when is someone on a long legal and scientific winning streak described as "on retreat"? I guess per that view the Patriots are in a slump?

Monet: It's a little too early to celebrate. Tiktaalik comes too late in the controversy to be of any significance. It might be just a minor victory for the scientists, but it will hardly win the war. Do we have any other proofs except Tiktaalik that are unquestionably in favor of evolution? Not too many, at least not too many that are not challenged by the creationists. It is ultimately a political battle, and apparently we are on retreat there.

Monet says,

"Do we have any other proofs except Tiktaalik that are unquestionably in favor of evolution? Not too many, at least not too many that are not challenged by the creationists."

Leaving aside the fact that all of the creationist challenges have failed, I don't think Monet has his or her facts straight here. From what I've seen, creationists haven't even touched the great body of work supporting evolution. When they add a new argument (which is infrequently-- most of their arguments date from the 1960's or earlier) their information almost invariably comes from a short article in the popular press. The masses of studies advancing the theory of evolution which are published every year in peer-reviewed journals are left untouched by the creationist spin doctors.
There certaily is a political battle, but it's about what goes on in high school science classes, not what goes on in research labs and field studies.

Pole (Troll) Greaser:

Mr_Christopher: This is such a classic example of what a science stopper IDC is. Lick on the link given http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ and look at all the rich information about Tiktaalik, evolution, fossils, etc. It's amazing stuff. Compare that with what the DI and their creationist cranks offer. It's pretty obvious IDC is a science stopper with zero content. In fact had an IDCer discovered Tiktaalik they would have likely concluded "it doesn't prove anything" and thrown the fossil in the trash while babbling about it is not their job to connect the dots (while reminding us the intelligent designer could be a space alien wink-wink). Tards, all tards! PS Has Behe ever weighed in on Tiktaalik?

Be sure to click the link to the actual "fossil" and not just the drawing of the half-crocodile, half-fish on the home page superimposed upon it. You can find all kinds of discoveries like this made by faux Native American hippies at craft fairs and flea markets worldwide! Some pieces of discarded industrial plastic and twine to string them together and you make a transitional form too!

This discovery only proves one thing in particular and that one thing is this creationists are a bunch of brainwashed and brain dead idiots and lairs. I mean come on you would have to go and be a complete and total moron to go and believe that evolution is just a hypothesis. Let's all go and face it creationists don't have a clue of what they are talking about when it comes to any discipline of science especially evolution and biology and that is not ever gonna go and change period. Darwin was so right and we know it creationists just do not want to go and admit that.

Stanton:

Izzhov: Um, hello. I have a completely random question: is there an evolutionary explanation as to why humans only use 10% of their brain?

Among other things, not all of the cells in the brain are neurons. Most of the brain cells form tissues that help nourish and protect the neurons. Furthermore, we use all of our neurons, just not all at the same time: the only time when almost all of the neurons fire off at once is when you have a grand mal seizure.

Creationists don't understand that ID is not a legitimate science and they think that evolution is just an oddity. The fact is that evolution is a real science and preachers are not scientists nor are they real experts in anything except their book of fiction The Bible and that is only fiction. Look scientists actually go and do things that actually matter in the world and preachers only sit and preach their lie called ID/creationism and they only view things through their lie called God and religion.

To all of you brilliant evolutionists who think you are not also brainwashed:
Tiktaalic had eight "digits" in its fin-legs, not five. The fin-legs were too short to allow it to walk on land. So how did it dis-evolve three digits, and how did it's non-legs turn into legs? If you guys tripped on a dead seal, you would celebrate a great "transitional" find.
Here is just one of thousands of question you might ponder: Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can't procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time? How did this actually take place.
Me: I don't go for Genesis or Darwin in case you have a great urge to call me names, which is the modus operandi of most evolution believers.

Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can’t procreate with other species.)

a great urge to call me names

did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time? How did this actually take place(?)

Tiktaalic had eight “digits” in its fin-legs, not five. The fin-legs were too short to allow it to walk on land. So how did it dis-evolve three digits, and how did it’s non-legs turn into legs?

To all of you brilliant evolutionists who think you are not also brainwashed:

Tiktaalic had eight “digits” in its fin-legs, not five.

If you guys tripped on a dead seal, you would celebrate a great “transitional” find.

Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can’t procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time?

Stephen Thomas: To all of you brilliant evolutionists who think you are not also brainwashed: Tiktaalic had eight "digits" in its fin-legs, not five. The fin-legs were too short to allow it to walk on land. So how did it dis-evolve three digits, and how did it's non-legs turn into legs? If you guys tripped on a dead seal, you would celebrate a great "transitional" find.

Here is just one of thousands of question you might ponder: Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can't procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time? How did this actually take place.

Me: I don't go for Genesis or Darwin in case you have a great urge to call me names, which is the modus operandi of most evolution believers.

Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can’t procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time?

they always remind me of a five year old, armed with an empty peashooter,

... and of course another problem with the Rare Earth hypothesis is that possibly planets forms in protoplanetary disks where they can. (I.e. where they find stable orbits.)

It is a possibility, since the hypothesis allowed the first real verified planet detection since Neptune in the 1840's. Caveat: There has been a lot of similar searches since that time, so there really need to be more confirmations at this time. But it is an intriguing development.

Also intriguing is the possible observation of planetary formation in old systems, where star collisions and their subsequent novas throw off new protoplanetary disks with possible planet formation before the surviving stars calms down again. Some stars may have several different periods of planets. (I leave this piece of recent news for googling.)

Think of the exciting implications for planet search and life search. Possibly the next time a creo parades this old argument, the Rare Earth hypothesis is buried beneath the evidence.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Think of the exciting implications for planet search and life search. Possibly the next time a creo parades this old argument, the Rare Earth hypothesis is buried beneath the evidence.

:-)

That is what I call "weight of evidence"!