The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

The continued rise of ignorance

Posted 5 October 2008 by PvM

On evolutionnews.org, lawyer Casey Luskin, 'argues' that Tiktaalik as an evolutionary icon is poor, in a retrospective confession of ignorance. Let's see how he reached such a 'conclusion'.

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance

— Casey Luskin
How did Luskin reach this 'conclusion'? Because he read an interview with the lead-researcher who made the following claim:

Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.

— Boisvert
A logical conclusion would be to accept the observation that the quality of the specimen was 'poor' regarding the details of 'distal radials', but instead Luskin decided to mine the statement to mean that the quality of Tiktaalik was poor.

The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was "poor"? When did we see Darwinists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

— Casey Luskin
But in fact, the 'Darwinists' had already admitted that the fossil specimen for Tiktaalik poorly resolved the distal radials. Anyone interested in the issue would have done a search of Tiktaalik to determine the nature of the fossil and quickly come to realize that, contrary to Luskin's statements, science already had admitted that the well preserved fossil did in fact poorly resolve the nature of distal radials while also preserving details of important features such as the neck, shoulder and front fins.. From the University of Chicago Tiktaalik website we learn for instance that "Tiktaalik's head, shoulders, front fins and body are very well preserved for a 375 million year old body" and from the article which described Tiktaalik we learn

Unfortunately, the distal region of the best-known pectoral fin of the elpistostegid Panderichthys is covered by lepidotrichia and the complete distal endoskeleton is unknown

Source: New technologies show Panderichthys and Tiktaalik on the way to living on land Non Discovery blog In other words, Tiktaalik lacked complete distal radials and in case of Panderichthys, the fossil hard to separate from its surroundings Using a CT scan, the authors, Boisvert et al, allowed a reinterpretation of the Panderichtys and the formation of digits. In fact, even though Tiktaalik lacked a complete set of distal radials, they already looked 'digit like'.

Our reinterpretation of the distal fin endoskeleton of Panderichthys removes the final piece of evidence supporting the formerly popular hypothesis that tetrapod digits are wholly new structures without homologues in [lobe-finned] fish fins. This hypothesis ... has already been called into question by the discovery of digit-like radials in Tiktaalik and the fact that Hox gene expression patterns closely resembling those associated with digit formation in tetrapods occur in the distal fin skeletons of paddlefish & Australian lungfish.

— Boisvert
Now I understand that Luskin has do deny any evolutionary role for Tiktaalik and more recent fossils, but the mental gymnastics that caused Luskin to reach his conclusions seem to me a bit pathetic Yet, what else is an Intelligent Design proponent but to do than reject scientific knowledge, since his own position is one of ignorance. In the mean time, science progresses to unravel these minor mysteries

"The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik," Boisvert wrote. "Combined with fossil evidence from Tiktaalik and genetic evidence from sharks, paddlefish and the Australian lungfish, it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod."

Now that is science for you. Ask yourself, what has ID done to contribute to our knowledge of science, other than to attempt to trivialize it? Source(s): Boisvert et al. The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits, Nature advance online publication 21 September 2008
Fig. 3.: Pectoral fins of: a, Eusthenopteron; b, Panderichthys; and c, Tiktaalik. d, Limb of Acanthostega. H, humerus; Int, intermedium; R, radius; U, ulna; Ure, ulnare. Scale bar, 1 cm. a is redrawn from ref. 17, c from ref. 4 and d from ref. 11.
Now ask yourself, is this the kind of 'controversy' you want your children to be exposed to in schools? As a father of two children, I am incredibly concerned about the lack of scientific content in "Intelligent Design", as a Christian I am even more concerned about its flawed theology. As such I have to agree with Philip "Godfather of Intelligent Design" Johnson who observed

I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Philip Johnson
Source: Michelangelo D'Agostino, In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley, Berkeley Science Reviews, (10), Spring 2006 But in addition to a lack of positive contributions, Intelligent Design also relies on maintaining a status of ignorance amongst its followers, since knowledge would undermine Intelligent Design. Protect our children from such ignorance I say.
Postscript: Per Ahlberg describes in more detail his statement that "finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik"

In Acanthostega (d below), which is a very primitive tetrapod, the radius is still longer than the ulna but all the other characteristics seem to be there. Now, in Panderichthys, we find that the ulnare is much shorter than the ulna and really looks like a wrist bone. Furthermore, the ulnare is the last axial element, and beyond it the distal radials are arranged in something of a fan shape. But in Tiktaalik the ulna and ulnare are equal in size, there are two more axial elements beyond the ulnare, and the distal radials are arranged bipinnately (i.e. like the leaflets of a palm leaf) on either side of this distal axis. In all these respects Tiktaalik's fin skeleton (c) is less limb-like than that of Panderichthys (b) and compares more closely with lobe-finned fishes (e.g. Eusthenopteron, a): The interesting question is whether this means that: The detailed similarities between Panderichthys and tetrapods are convergent, or - The seemingly more primitive fin skeleton of Tiktaalik represents an evolutionary reversal, or - The current phylogenetic hypothesis is wrong and Panderichthys is actually more closely related to tetrapods than Tiktaalik. One of these three explanations must be correct, but it is not yet possible to tell which one. Sadly, we don't have any data at all on the limb structure of Ventastega. A reasonable guess is that they resembled those of Acanthostega, because the limb girdles are similar, but no limb bones have been found.

Others seem to point out yet another possibility

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers. For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said. "Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped." The structures are so peculiar, they might just be fragments of damaged bone, he added.

70 Comments

PvM · 5 October 2008

See also RBH's exposure of much similar ignorance by AIG

Dale Husband · 5 October 2008

PvM wrote:

Now ask yourself, is this the kind of ‘controversy’ you want your children to be exposed to in schools? As a father of two children, I am incredibly concerned about the lack of scientific content in “Intelligent Design”, as a Christian I am even more concerned about its flawed theology.

Two questions arise here: 1. How do you respond to those non-Christians, including hard-core atheists who support evolution, that Christianity itself is a flawed theology? 2. What are the theological flaws in Intelligent Design? Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

PvM · 5 October 2008

Simple, how does ID define 'design' versus how religion has come to accept the same concept. Bait and switch my dear friend
Dale Husband said: PvM wrote:

Now ask yourself, is this the kind of ‘controversy’ you want your children to be exposed to in schools? As a father of two children, I am incredibly concerned about the lack of scientific content in “Intelligent Design”, as a Christian I am even more concerned about its flawed theology.

Two questions arise here: 1. How do you respond to those non-Christians, including hard-core atheists who support evolution, that Christianity itself is a flawed theology? 2. What are the theological flaws in Intelligent Design? Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

Dale Husband · 5 October 2008

But religion does not give any indication of how the universe and life was created, it just says it happened..... Oh, I get it. ID is religion because it does the same thing, but with scientific and mathematical terminology. And that is theologically flawed because that's LYING! Pseudoscience does not become scientific when it is disguised with false rhetoric! Thanks.
PvM said: Simple, how does ID define 'design' versus how religion has come to accept the same concept. Bait and switch my dear friend
Dale Husband said: PvM wrote:

Now ask yourself, is this the kind of ‘controversy’ you want your children to be exposed to in schools? As a father of two children, I am incredibly concerned about the lack of scientific content in “Intelligent Design”, as a Christian I am even more concerned about its flawed theology.

Two questions arise here: 1. How do you respond to those non-Christians, including hard-core atheists who support evolution, that Christianity itself is a flawed theology? 2. What are the theological flaws in Intelligent Design? Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

PvM · 5 October 2008

I did no t say that ID is religion, I stated that ID is theologically flawed. ID defines 'design' to be the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance" and then continues to conflate 'design' which is more aptly described as 'ignorance' with 'Intelligent Design'. Since it now makes religion 'falsifiable' by making 'design' falsifiable, it may give religious people the impression that science has disproven religion, when all it has done is disproven our level of ignorance. In this sense, ID is an atheist's 'wet dream' as they can use the same flawed arguments to argue against 'design', but in both instances, design has little relevance to the larger concept of Intelligent Design, a concept which science is unlikely to resolve one way or another.
Dale Husband said: But religion does not give any indication of how the universe and life was created, it just says it happened..... Oh, I get it. ID is religion because it does the same thing, but with scientific and mathematical terminology. And that is theologically flawed because that's LYING! Pseudoscience does not become scientific when it is disguised with false rhetoric! Thanks.

tresmal · 5 October 2008

Dale Husband said: What are the theological flaws in Intelligent Design? Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?
For one thing it can't be reconciled with omnipotence. The statement that "X could not have evolved by natural processes" must always be synonymous with the statement "the creator of those natural processes could not have done it that way"

Dale Husband · 5 October 2008

Speaking of theological flaws: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=988928

I nearly died laughing when I read this today: Evolution is a lie, correct? It's an idea spawned by Satan to damn our souls. Okay, let's think about that. Satan gets the souls of sinners, correct? If he wants souls, he has to make humans sin. What are the seven sins? There's greed, lust, sloth, envy, gluttony, pride... and I can never remember the last one, but that's okay because the important one here is pride. The Bible goes to great lengths to say that terrible things lie in store for the proud in the great hereafter. So which is an idea that contributes more to human pride: that we were specially created in the image of God to be the masters of all other creatures upon the Earth? Or that we are one species out of countless billions that has arisen according to simple and probably inevitable rules of chemistry and selection?

Dale Husband · 5 October 2008

So Intelligent Design is actually an atheists' plot to discredit religion? Maybe I am still confused, for then people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins would be ID promoters, not its critics. We already know that ID is what you get when all the specific Biblical references are removed from Creationism. What if the Creationists themselves are athiestic con artists and nothing more? Imagine how many people BECOME atheists when they realize that Young Earth Creationism is nothing but lies and nonsense! If ID is disproven, religion is too? Not necessarily. Nothing about evolution denies the existence of a Creator.
PvM said: I did not say that ID is religion, I stated that ID is theologically flawed. ID defines 'design' to be the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance" and then continues to conflate 'design' which is more aptly described as 'ignorance' with 'Intelligent Design'. Since it now makes religion 'falsifiable' by making 'design' falsifiable, it may give religious people the impression that science has disproven religion, when all it has done is disproven our level of ignorance. In this sense, ID is an atheist's 'wet dream' as they can use the same flawed arguments to argue against 'design', but in both instances, design has little relevance to the larger concept of Intelligent Design, a concept which science is unlikely to resolve one way or another.

Stanton · 5 October 2008

Dale Husband said: So Intelligent Design is actually an atheists' plot to discredit religion? Maybe I am still confused, for then people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins would be ID promoters, not its critics. We already know that ID is what you get when all the specific Biblical references are removed from Creationism. What if the Creationists themselves are atheistic con artists and nothing more?
I think you're thinking too hard here, Dale. The Intelligent Design crowd have long ago demonstrated that they are all nothing more than either conniving fanatics or hired charlatans, especially what with what the Wedge Document, and various ID proponents' confessions about their main purposes.
Imagine how many people BECOME atheists when they realize that Young Earth Creationism is nothing but lies and nonsense!
It's always heartbreaking to watch a person's belief system erode away and collapse.
If ID is disproven, religion is too? Not necessarily. Nothing about evolution denies the existence of a Creator.
Of course Evolutionary Biology does nothing to deny the existence of a Creator, unless one believes in an allegedly omnipotent Creator who could only have created the Universe and all of its inhabitants in the way suggested/stated according to a strictly literal interpretation of some specific holy book.

Ichthyic · 5 October 2008

So Intelligent Design is actually an atheists' plot to discredit religion? Maybe I am still confused, for then people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins would be ID promoters, not its critics.

Pim tends to get confusing right around this area quite often, Dale.

Don't blame yourself.

If you want to see how PZ and Dawkins approach the idea that ID "disproves" anything religious, you probably should just look at their arguments directly.

hint:

they don't.

All ID shows wrt to religion is the effort people will put into maintaining a certain level of compartmentalization, irrational as it might be.

FL · 5 October 2008

Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

Absolutely correct, Dale. That's honestly true. (Ummm, you might have to remind your evolutionist comrades more than once about that particular point.) FL

FL · 5 October 2008

With reference to the Tiktaalik topic, Casey Luskin puts forth an irrefutable main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we've seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that "poor" and "primitive" Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

THAT, is unavoidably true. Way Too Much evolutionist and media hype, even to the point of declaring Tiktaalik to be a Missing Link (TM). And now? Now it's done gone all to poo-poo. But don't just take Evolution News and Views word for it (although Casey Luskin does an excellent job of proving his main point.) Here's some more goodies for you to think about. You gonna love it baby! http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/ FL

Dan · 5 October 2008

Dale Husband said: Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?
No, it does not. Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods". It is certainly possible to believe in a god who is not intelligent (Bacchus) and to believe in a god who did not create the universe (Zeus). The Navajo origin story involves many gods and animals, but none of them created the universe -- the universe was there at the start of the story, and the gods and animals just changed things.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 5 October 2008

Dan said:
Dale Husband said: Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?
No, it does not. Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods". It is certainly possible to believe in a god who is not intelligent (Bacchus) and to believe in a god who did not create the universe (Zeus). The Navajo origin story involves many gods and animals, but none of them created the universe -- the universe was there at the start of the story, and the gods and animals just changed things.
Speaking as PT's resident polytheist lurker, I would say that you got it almost right, and in the process identified a major problem with Fundamentalist Christians: they think that monotheism is the only religious game in town. The "almost" part is that I would say that Bacchus, although not the person you would want in an adminstrative position, is quite intelligent, in all senses of the word. Many of those here will no doubt view polytheism as ridiculous, but we're used to that. And at least we are pro-science, so we're ahead of the Creationists on that.

James F · 5 October 2008

Wait a minute, I thought we had a Global Darwinist Conspiracy™ so perfect that it has prevented the publication of any data in support of intelligent design or refuting evolution. Surely with this detective work by Luskin everything will come crashing down now, right? Perhaps they can submit their work in time for publication in 2008? 'Cause the latest research paper on the DI web site is Voie's data-free nonsensical hypothesis piece in a math journal from 2006. Let's step it up, guys! Evolution is ahead around 200,000+ papers to zero!

Paul Burnett · 5 October 2008

PvM said: I did not say that ID is religion, I stated that ID is theologically flawed.
If intelligent design creationism ("ID") is not religion (i.e., not theological) how can it be theologically flawed? Should theologians routinely criticize things that are free of theological content? (Because I understand that ID is theological, I have long maintained that it is theologically flawed - in fact it is heretical, because it removes all mention of the Creator God of Genesis from the Creation mythos.)

PvM · 5 October 2008

FL may have missed this part

“The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik,” Boisvert wrote. “Combined with fossil evidence from Tiktaalik and genetic evidence from sharks, paddlefish and the Australian lungfish, it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod.”

And I doubt FL can present in his own words, the objections raised by others, which, as is so often the case with creationist sources, ignore the reality.
FL said: With reference to the Tiktaalik topic, Casey Luskin puts forth an irrefutable main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we've seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that "poor" and "primitive" Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

THAT, is unavoidably true. Way Too Much evolutionist and media hype, even to the point of declaring Tiktaalik to be a Missing Link (TM). And now? Now it's done gone all to poo-poo.

PvM · 5 October 2008

As I have already explained, there is a difference between how ID defines 'design' and how religious people define Intelligent Design. Let's not conflate the two. Further discussions about theology should be held at the bathroom wall or after the bar closes. I refuse to let this thread be disrupted.
FL said:

Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

Absolutely correct, Dale. That's honestly true. (Ummm, you might have to remind your evolutionist comrades more than once about that particular point.) FL

Stanton · 5 October 2008

Of course, we all must not forget the fact that Intelligent Design proponents have nothing to say about the fossils, themselves, beyond to make inane and debunked claims that Evolution/ism/Darwinism[sic] is somehow wrong.

I mean, when did anyone at the Discovery Center ever take the time to explain how Tiktaliik supports Intelligent Design?

FL · 5 October 2008

Combined with fossil evidence from Tiktaalik....

Well, we know for sure that the evolutionist and media hype concerning the "fossil evidence from Tiktaalik" did not match the reality----it was "never all it was hyped up to be." Tiktaalk was even hyped as a Missing Link (TM), and it failed to live up to that billing. What Luskin said as his "main observation" was and is correct, as shown by his article and the Earth History webpage. FL

Stanton · 5 October 2008

So, then, what does Intelligent Design say what Tiktaliik was, and why does Intelligent Design do a better job describing it than Evolutionary Biology, FL?

PvM · 5 October 2008

So you disagree with Luskin's quote minining but still believe that he has a point. Figures. However as the evidence shows, the transitional fossils are starting to pile up here and ID has no explanations.
FL said:

Combined with fossil evidence from Tiktaalik....

Well, we know for sure that the evolutionist and media hype concerning the "fossil evidence from Tiktaalik" did not match the reality----it was "never all it was hyped up to be." Tiktaalk was even hyped as a Missing Link (TM), and it failed to live up to that billing. What Luskin said as his "main observation" was and is correct, as shown by his article and the Earth History webpage. FL

PvM · 5 October 2008

So FL, do you approve or disapprove of Luskin's argument that the fossil was retroactively considered to be poor? When in fact, it seems to have referred to a small aspect of it and that the other parts fitted perfectly as a transitional fossil?

And explain in your own words why you consider the fossil to be lacking as a transitional.

Stanton · 5 October 2008

PvM said: However as the evidence shows, the transitional fossils are starting to pile up here and ID has no explanations.
Intelligent Design proponents not only have no explanations for the fossils (transitional or otherwise), but, have no desire to explain them beyond their stocks of "evolution wrong!" and "GODDESIGNERDIDIT"

tresmal · 5 October 2008

You have to understand that tiktaalik, panderichthys, ichthyostega et al were all different kinds. The problem was that they were too aquatic to haul themselves onto the ark, but not aquatic enough to survive the flood.

PvM · 5 October 2008

Creationists attempt to discredit the work by pointing to homoplasies Although the admit that the Tiktaalik matches the transitional nature

Although it was a fish, Tiktaalik had some features that were tetrapod-like, and one could (depending on one’s point of view) interpret the whole animal as transitional to tetrapods. These features include: a lengthened snout (measured from the eyes to the tip of the skull), a mobile neck, overlapping (‘imbricate’) ribs and a pectoral girdle that may have given it an ability to lift the front part of its body by its fins. On these grounds the animal is analysed as being intermediate between the lobe-finned Panderichthys and the four-limbed Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. That is, Tiktaalik went on to evolve in two separate directions, Acanthostega on one branch and Ichthyostega on the other.

they argue that because

Still, some caution is appropriate, even with these tetrapod-like features. Among sarcoptery- gians the mobile neck is not unique to Tiktaalik, being also found in Mandageria, a fish closely related to Eusthenopteron and not thought to have been an ancestor of any tetrapod. In evolutionist terms the feature must therefore be interpreted as ‘convergent’, i.e. it evolved in Mandageria, disappeared in Panderichthys, then re-appeared on another branch in Tiktaalik.

That is not necessarily the case, it could have evolved independently in Mandageria and never went anywhere since Mandageria went extinct. and

The ventral vacuities in this tristichopterid were rearranged to create the functional equivalent of a flexible neck, although the structure bears no similarity to the tetrapod cervical apparatus.

And let me point out that phylogenies are not based on a single feature either.

PvM · 5 October 2008

As to 'missing link' versus 'transitional'

In many news articles, Tiktaalik was billed as "the missing link" between fish and land vertebrates — but that description is a bit misleading. First, Tiktaalik is more accurately described as a transitional form than a missing link. Transitional forms help show the evolutionary steps leading from one lineage to another by displaying characteristics of both the ancestral and the new lineage. These character suites help us understand the order in which the traits of the new lineage evolved and what functions they served as they evolved. Tiktaalik, for example, had fins with thin ray bones, scales, and gills like most fish. However, it also had the sturdy wrist bones, neck, shoulders, and thick ribs of a four-legged vertebrate. Tiktaalik was specialized for life in shallow water, propping itself up on the bottom and snapping up prey. The adaptations it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the stepping stones for vertebrates to climb onto dry land — but of course, Tiktaalik was not "aiming" to evolve features for land-living. Tiktaalik was simply well-adapted for its own lifestyle and later on, many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle.

In other words, Tiktaalik remains a well established transitional fossil, for FL and others to focus on 'missing link' misses the arguments made in the actual papers in favor of a more popular description which may be somewhat inaccurate but not because of any recent findings.

PvM · 5 October 2008

As the lancelet observes

Again, like AiG's response, the DI is simply responding to the media and not the original material itself.

In fact, the DI makes a good case for intermediates or transitionals. Perhaps, as with FL, they are confused that there can be more than one transitional. It's the lovely series of transitionals which supports so well the evolutionary conclusions. The DI is not doing science nor its followers any favours by poor science understanding.

ragarth · 5 October 2008

Stanton said: I mean, when did anyone at the Discovery Center ever take the time to explain how Tiktaliik supports Intelligent Design?
This is a good point, has an ID proponent ever been caught studying a fossil? I've never actually heard such fables myself! This also led me to wonder: Without some method of speciation, all living things ever found both living today and in the fossil record would have to have existed initially when life began. This would be an incredible level of diversity, and would provide some rather interesting fossil results, especially if the earth is only 5 to 10 thousand years old. How does ID explain this? Also, is there someplace that states what ID's beliefs and assumptions are, and any predictions it may make (silly rabbit, predictions are for theories!)? Aside from 'somedudedidit' I know the latest incarnation of ID says 'micro' evolution exists, heh, but that's about it.

Dale Husband · 5 October 2008

For the record, I wasn't trying to disrupt the thread, but to raise an issue that someone else might have (including FL), but in a less disruptive manner. Speaking of FL, someone needs to tell him that not all forms of Theism/Creationism also deny evolution. Maybe the one he believes in, of course, but we need not take his tunnel vision to be our own. I assume, PvM, that you are a Theistic Evolutionist and thus a Creationist of a kind FL would not recognize due to his dogmatic excesses, but I do.
PvM said: As I have already explained, there is a difference between how ID defines 'design' and how religious people define Intelligent Design. Let's not conflate the two. Further discussions about theology should be held at the bathroom wall or after the bar closes. I refuse to let this thread be disrupted.
FL said:

Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

Absolutely correct, Dale. That's honestly true. (Ummm, you might have to remind your evolutionist comrades more than once about that particular point.) FL

PvM · 5 October 2008

I cannot speak for who or what FL would refuse to recognize, however as a Christian I have no problem accepting the science of evolution for the same reason I have no problem accepting any science. If this offends FL then perhaps it is more his problem than mine. If FL insists on rejecting science in favor of his believes then I consider himself to be 'foolish' in the sense of Augustine. However, in the end it's FL's own choice.
Dale Husband said: For the record, I wasn't trying to disrupt the thread, but to raise an issue that someone else might have (including FL), but in a less disruptive manner. Speaking of FL, someone needs to tell him that not all forms of Theism/Creationism also deny evolution. Maybe the one he believes in, of course, but we need not take his tunnel vision to be our own. I assume, PvM, that you are a Theistic Evolutionist and thus a Creationist of a kind FL would not recognize due to his dogmatic excesses, but I do.
PvM said: As I have already explained, there is a difference between how ID defines 'design' and how religious people define Intelligent Design. Let's not conflate the two. Further discussions about theology should be held at the bathroom wall or after the bar closes. I refuse to let this thread be disrupted.
FL said:

Theism by definition presupposes that an Intelligent Designer created the universe and everything in it, does it not?

Absolutely correct, Dale. That's honestly true. (Ummm, you might have to remind your evolutionist comrades more than once about that particular point.) FL

Dale Husband · 5 October 2008

FL said: With reference to the Tiktaalik topic, Casey Luskin puts forth an irrefutable main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we've seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that "poor" and "primitive" Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

THAT, is unavoidably true. Way Too Much evolutionist and media hype, even to the point of declaring Tiktaalik to be a Missing Link (TM). And now? Now it's done gone all to poo-poo. But don't just take Evolution News and Views word for it (although Casey Luskin does an excellent job of proving his main point.) Here's some more goodies for you to think about. You gonna love it baby! http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/ FL
FL said:

Combined with fossil evidence from Tiktaalik....

Well, we know for sure that the evolutionist and media hype concerning the "fossil evidence from Tiktaalik" did not match the reality----it was "never all it was hyped up to be." Tiktaalk was even hyped as a Missing Link (TM), and it failed to live up to that billing. What Luskin said as his "main observation" was and is correct, as shown by his article and the Earth History webpage. FL
In short, Luskin is claiming that the discovery of one transitional form invalidates another one found previously. Need I point out how stupid that point is?

PvM · 5 October 2008

Dale Husband said: In short, Luskin is claiming that the discovery of one transitional form invalidates another one found previously. Need I point out how stupid that point is?
You shouldn't have to but when confronted with creationists it does help to point out that more than one transitional can exist. After all, each transitional merely fills one gap and forms two more. That Tiktaalik is one of said transitionals is very important, that Tiktaalik fails because of lack of sufficiently preserved distal radials, is hardly a reason to reject the complete fossil. But somehow I doubt that creationists understand this.

FL · 5 October 2008

So, then, what does Intelligent Design say what Tiktaalikk was, and why does Intelligent Design do a better job describing it than Evolutionary Biology, FL?

Well, Stanton, let me simply say I don't have an answer for you on those two questions at this time (which is the truth btw). My apologies to you. (However, you are reminded that Casey Luskin's Tiktaalik article doesn't even mention Intelligent Design in the first place. I understand that you and PvM may want to shift the ground of discussion to "Intelligent Design" instead of remaining focussed on the troubles with the Tiktaalik hype, but that's just changing the subject. For me to say "I don't know at this time" to your two ID questions there doesn't make the cited problems any more tractable for Tiktaalik.) So I will stick with what I offered earlier, a point which you apparently do not wish to discuss.

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we’ve seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that “poor” and “primitive” Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be. --- Casey Luskin

**********************

So FL, do you approve or disapprove of Luskin’s argument that the fossil was retroactively considered to be poor? When in fact, it seems to have referred to a small aspect of it and that the other parts fitted perfectly as a transitional fossil?

Oh, I approve of Luskin's argument that the fossil was retroactively considered to be poor. In fact PvM, if you look at Luskin's argument one more time, you'll see that it was Boisvert herself who said it was poor. And not only did she say THAT, she also said:

And the orientation of (Tiktaalik's) radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." --- Luskin's article.

So yeah, Boisvert's kinda laying it on there. More than one problem on the table right now. Things not fitting quite as "perfectly" as you claimed, hmmm? Luskin's merely agreeing with her criticisms, that's all. Of course, on that latter criticism Luskin HAD previously given folks a head's up on that one, you probably read it already: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/an_ulnare_and_an_intermedium_a.html ************************* Btw, even now, not all evolutinary biologists are convinced when it comes to the new fossil on the block, either. As Luskin quoted from the Nat'l Geographic article:

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers. For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said. "Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."

*******************************

And explain in your own words why you consider the fossil to be lacking as a transitional.

Kinda like asking a person to reinvent the wheel there, aren't you? How many ways can you say "the fossil was retroactively considered to be poor" in your own words? Let's just put the stuff on the table so the readers can check it out. First, Pers Ahlberg, from the Nat'l Geographic article cited by Luskin:

One possibility, Ahlberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form.

Okay, so if Tiktaalik is supposed to be transitional like you said, what's the deal with finger development going BACKWARDS? Wazzup with Tik's fins representing "an evolutionary return to a more primitive form"? Now Casey Luskin spells out what this means, and it's worth just plain quoting it out loud:

In other words, at least some the alleged similarities to tetrapods found in these fossils do not actually represent features that are homologous to tetrapods, i.e. they are convergent similarities, also called homoplasies. This means that similarities between these lobed-finned fish fossils and tetrapods imply homology, except for when they don't, making the Darwinian rationale for inferring "homology" appear weak and arbitrary.

Seems clear enough, PvM. But that's not all. How many ways can you say "Tiktaalik failed a clear evolutionary prediction" in your own words?

As it happens, a very explicit prediction was made in the pages of Nature four months earlier (22 December 2005), when Catherine Boisvert was discussing the pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys: The pelvic girdle is even less tetrapod-like than that of … Eusthenopteron, but the pelvic fin … shares derived characteristics with basal tetrapods despite being more primitive than the pectoral fin of Panderichthys. The evolution of tetrapod locomotion appears to have passed through a stage of body-flexion propulsion, in which the pelvic fins played a relatively minor anchoring part, before the emergence of hindlimb-powered propulsion in the interval between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. What Boisvert is saying here is that Panderichthys had ‘front-wheel drive’: its front fins were bigger and more powerful than its rear fins. However, the early tetrapods were ‘rear-wheel drive’. Consequently, evolution theory predicted that the emergence of hindlimb-powered propulsion would be seen in the interval between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. Tiktaalik fails that prediction. Indeed, it was more of a ‘front-wheel drive’ animal than Panderichthys was. http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

Okay, everybody see from that example why Tiktaalik isn't transitional? And make no mistake: that Earth History webpage is a gold mine of arguments against Tiktaalik being transitional. You'd be occupied the rest of this year trying to deal with them. But let's do one more:

Overall, this is not an animal that falls plumb in the middle between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. It is a fish, albeit an unusual one, and while there is only a relatively small gap between Panderichthys and Tiktaalik, there remains a big gap between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. In a significant number of features – body scales, fin rays, lower jaw, palate – the fossil resembles sarcopterygians that are considered to be evolutionarily less advanced. As Ahlberg and Clack say, ‘we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes.’ It may be reasonable enough to link the first pair into a group that had a common ancestor (the ‘elpistostegalian fish’), but it requires a lot more extrapolation to link the second pair together.

Now, I've highlighted certain phrases and made smaller paragraphs in order to make sure the reader is catching the point being made. But I honestly have faith in each PT reader's command of the English language; I think everybody here's a high-school graduate and that's all you need to catch the points on the table, from Boisvert's statements on down. So, you add it all up, and here's your tab: (1) Tiktaalik is a POOR example. (2) Tiktaalik's "other aspects" CLEARLY DO NOT fit perfectly as a transitional fossil (btw, we didn't even discuss the huge gap between Tik's pelvic fin and the hind-limbs of Acanthostegan and Icthyostega, which "is so large that the authors omit to comment on it."). So the "fitting perfectly" claim is now refuted. (3) Tiktaalik failed a clear evolutionary prediction. (4) Evolutionary biologists are NOT 100% unanimous about the new Panderichthys fossil either. (5) ".....It seems reasonable to conclude that we know very little about tetrapod evolution at all and to regard Tiktaalik in much the same light as one now regards the lung-fishes, which, for all their superficial appeal as intermediates, are no longer seen as ancestral to tetrapods." And finally, (6) "'Poor' and 'primitive' Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be." ***************************************** There you go folks. Six reasons to NOT consider Tiktaalik as transitional. In my words AND their words too. FL :)

PvM · 5 October 2008

I am sad you hear you continue the quote mining

Oh, I approve of Luskin’s argument that the fossil was retroactively considered to be poor. In fact PvM, if you look at Luskin’s argument one more time, you’ll see that it was Boisvert herself who said it was poor. And not only did she say THAT, she also said:

The fossil was considered to be poor to study the development of radials, that's all. I am amazed how you can pretend to stand for accuracy when all you are interested is to misrepresent the facts while avoiding to look at why Tiktaalik remains a great transitional. Tiktaalik's location was well predicted based on existing fossils and in fact found where science had predicted it would be found. And now FL repeats another creationist lie

(2) Tiktaalik’s “other aspects” CLEARLY DO NOT fit perfectly as a transitional fossil (btw, we didn’t even discuss the huge gap between Tik’s pelvic fin and the hind-limbs of Acanthostegan and Icthyostega, which “is so large that the authors omit to comment on it.”). So the “fitting perfectly” claim is now refuted.

As someone else who exposed Menton's similar lies

Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I’ve seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin.

When the author was contacted he responded

Regarding Tiktaalik pelvic fins . . . no pelvic fin material has been reported. Less for him to misrepresent!

Shamelessly FL repeats the same flawed talking points showing that he is not interested in pursuit of the truth but rather relies on the myths of others. If he can show us the pelvic fins and explain to us why the authors did not comment on them... And what does FL believe the meaning of transitional refers to? So let's ask Ahlberg

“However, the shoulder girdle and pelvis are almost identical to those of Acanthostega, and the shoulder girdle is quite different from that of Tiktaalik (the pelvis of Tiktaalik is unknown), suggesting that the transformation from paired fins to limbs had already occurred. It appears that different parts of the body evolved at different speeds during the transition from water to land”, says Per Ahlberg.

Has FL no sense of decency?

PvM · 5 October 2008

Okay, everybody see from that example why Tiktaalik isn’t transitional? And make no mistake: that Earth History webpage is a gold mine of arguments against Tiktaalik being transitional. You’d be occupied the rest of this year trying to deal with them. But let’s do one more:

Let's first point out that the webpage is repeating much of the flawed claims about the pelvis, furthermore, let me point out that the page while admitting the transitional nature of Tiktaalik attempts to undermine this by arguing that there is another fossil which has a 'neck' as well, missing the point totally. That FL sees no problems with the misrepresentations by Luskin is sad since his claim that rejects the whole fossil because it is incomplete in the details of the distal radials... That both of them continue to misrepresent the lead author is even more despicable. It's one think when people like FL support a flawed theology but it is worse when such theology causes them to misrepresent science.

PvM · 5 October 2008

In other words, at least some the alleged similarities to tetrapods found in these fossils do not actually represent features that are homologous to tetrapods, i.e. they are convergent similarities, also called homoplasies. This means that similarities between these lobed-finned fish fossils and tetrapods imply homology, except for when they don’t, making the Darwinian rationale for inferring “homology” appear weak and arbitrary.

Showing a willful ignorance of homology and how such are interpreted. Now I understand that Wells may have caused ID proponents to remain poorly informed as to the science involved. Sufficient to read Responses to Jonathan Wells's Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

Come on FL, surprise us with some real science

PvM · 6 October 2008

And the orientation of (Tiktaalik’s) radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.” — Luskin’s article.

Referencing the poor preservation of the radials of Tiktaalik, just as the original paper pointed out. Since Tiktaalik's transitional nature was not based on radials but on many other well preserved features, claiming that the fossil was poor is just irresponsible and ignores the context. Then again, that seems to be the modus operandus of Creationists.

Dale Husband · 6 October 2008

I guess if Archeopterx and Tiktaalik are not considered transitional forms, what would be? Of course, you can't FORCE Creationists to be honest or reasonable, but at least that way we know they are also incapable of doing any real science.

PvM · 6 October 2008

From the Tiktaalik paper

Figure7 Strict consensus tree from a phylogenetic analysis of 114 characters and nine taxa. Tiktaalik is the sister group of Acanthostega Ichthyostega in one of the two most parsimonious trees, and clades with Elpistostege as sister to the tetrapods in the other.

In other words, homology is not haphazardly inferred. Why do creationists have such a hard time familiarizing themselves with the facts?

Chris · 6 October 2008

ID is nothing more than the assertion that the origin of some biological systems cannot ever be determined. It is entirely theistic because it makes this assertion on faith in a creator whose methods are themselves not possible to determine. If this was an honest assertion, the work of scientists who study evolution would be welcome, since it can be conceived as nothing more sinister than an attempt to test the assertion itself. The most striking hypocrisy of The Discovery Institute is therefore antithetic to the practice of science altogether. This is that the results of any study or experiment can be conclusively predetermined on the basis of incomplete evidence. Intelligent Design is dogma and not science.

SteveF · 6 October 2008

FL,

You have quoted Per Ahlberg a number of times. You might be interested to learn that he is a regular poster at the TalkRational website (PvM provided links in his post) and is always happy to answer questions. Why don't you put your arguments against tetrapod evolution to him. After all, how often is it you get to quiz one of the worlds leading experts on a subject. Here is the thread started on Luskin's most recent article. Given your confident proclamations, I assume we'll be seeing you there soon:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=6408

PvM · 6 October 2008

Good point, I would love to see FL discuss Tiktaalik and Panderichtys with one of the foremosts experts. Given FL's preferred reliance on flood consistent website which make unsupported claims about the pelvis, I wonder if he is up to it. Real science I mean

Dan · 6 October 2008

FL said: With reference to the Tiktaalik topic, Casey Luskin puts forth an irrefutable main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we've seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that "poor" and "primitive" Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

THAT, is unavoidably true.
This point, claimed to be irrefutable, is actually laughable. When the Model T Ford came out, it was extolled by engineers and the press as technologically advanced. Today, the Model T Ford is not considered technologically advanced. According to Luskin's "reasoning", that means that the Model T was "never all it was hyped up to be".

eric · 6 October 2008

It is amazing that Casey (and FL) can look at figure 3 and conclude that, because we aren't sure of the evolutionary relationship between (b) and (c), that they aren't transitional between (a) and (d).
FL said: For me to say “I don’t know at this time” to your two ID questions there doesn’t make the cited problems any more tractable for Tiktaalik.)
Yeah it does. As long as there is no viable alternative hypothesis for why Tiktaalik exists in that geological strata, showing the transitional features that it does, then your 'cited problems' do nothing to dethrone evolution as the best theory. What is your explanation for the appearance of fossils with the features seen in (b) and (c), collectively, exactly where they should in the geological record to be transitional between (a) and (d)? As long as you don't have one, then evolution remains the *best* explanation.

Eddie Janssen · 6 October 2008

One question at the time please!
An ID'er reacts on this site. Someone asks him a question. He does not answer or avoids the question. Another one asks a different question, and a third one comes with yet another remark to the reaction of the ID adherent. Confusion all around, not made easier by the confusing lay-out.
Life would be a lot easier if people would not ask second or third questions until the ID'er has answered the first question. Instead of asking a new question you could all focus on the first subject.

Wheels · 6 October 2008

ragarth Without some method of speciation, all living things ever found both living today and in the fossil record would have to have existed initially when life began. This would be an incredible level of diversity, and would provide some rather interesting fossil results, especially if the earth is only 5 to 10 thousand years old. How does ID explain this?
More interestingly, how could all those creatures implied by the fossil record ever occupy the same living space at the same time? Especially when you consider the areas that were at some points underwater and at some points dry land.
Paul Burnett said:
PvM said: I did not say that ID is religion, I stated that ID is theologically flawed.
If intelligent design creationism ("ID") is not religion (i.e., not theological) how can it be theologically flawed?
I believe he meant ID is not "a religion" unto itself like Hinduism, or it isn't "religion" the way steak isn't "the meat group." ID is more like Transubstantiation, an aspect of some religious beliefs.

Wheels · 6 October 2008

Eddie Janssen said: Life would be a lot easier if people would not ask second or third questions until the ID'er has answered the first question.
If that were widespread practice, we'd still be waiting around for Dembski to define "specified complexity" and have done nothing in the meantime. ;)

GvlGeologist, FCD · 6 October 2008

Eddie Janssen said: One question at the time please! An ID'er reacts on this site. Someone asks him a question. He does not answer or avoids the question. Another one asks a different question, and a third one comes with yet another remark to the reaction of the ID adherent. Confusion all around, not made easier by the confusing lay-out. Life would be a lot easier if people would not ask second or third questions until the ID'er has answered the first question. Instead of asking a new question you could all focus on the first subject.
You're kidding, right? If everyone waited for an IDer to answer a question, nothing would EVER get done on this site. And of course, part of the reason to ask all these questions is to demonstrate to any lurkers the vacuity of ID; the inability of ID to answer these questions and the inability of IDers to be honest about it.

derwood · 6 October 2008

FL said: With reference to the Tiktaalik topic, Casey Luskin puts forth an irrefutable main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we've seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that "poor" and "primitive" Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

THAT, is unavoidably true. Way Too Much evolutionist and media hype, even to the point of declaring Tiktaalik to be a Missing Link (TM). And now? Now it's done gone all to poo-poo.
How does one refute 'hype'? What a completely stupid claim, Mellotron. Of course, to see real hype, just read anything by Luskin, Coppedge, etc.
But don't just take Evolution News and Views word for it (although Casey Luskin does an excellent job of proving his main point.) Here's some more goodies for you to think about. You gonna love it baby! http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/ FL
Not really. The usual creationist gobbledegook. Not that someone with a journalism background would understand.

derwood · 6 October 2008

PvM said: And I doubt FL can present in his own words, the objections raised by others, which, as is so often the case with creationist sources, ignore the reality.
Of course he cannot. Creationists in general can only parrot and exhalt that which some website operating YEC propagandist has written.

mark · 6 October 2008

With regard to the question of the level of biodiversity that would have existed right after Creation, before species began to go extinct--Consider this question in terms of ecology. Ecological niches, guilds, and all that; how much economic/ecologic space could have been available? Why is that amount of space no longer filled--is it no longer available?

Ichthyic · 6 October 2008

I would love to see FL discuss Tiktaalik and Panderichtys with one of the foremosts experts.

really?

really really???!!??

you're a sick man, Pim.

;)

Ichthyic · 6 October 2008

One question at the time please! An ID'er reacts on this site. Someone asks him a question. He does not answer or avoids the question.

congratulations!

you have completed chapter 1 in: "The dishonesty of people living in denial, Vol. 1 - creationists"

Chapter two talks about goalpost moving.

PvM · 6 October 2008

I have seen Per have poorly informed creationists for lunch and no signs of indigestion. Now that is character..
Ichthyic said: I would love to see FL discuss Tiktaalik and Panderichtys with one of the foremosts experts. really? really really???!!?? you're a sick man, Pim. ;)

Ichthyic · 6 October 2008

poorly informed creationists

redundant.

FL · 6 October 2008

Okay, good day amigos! Let's reply a little.

It’s one think when people like FL support a flawed theology but it is worse when such theology causes them to misrepresent science.

My understanding was that we weren't allowed to do any more comments WRT theology in this thread, and that violations would be moved to BW or AtBC. I will continue to abide by your previous warning unless you've changed your mind, PvM. Please let me know. **** I want to repeat Luskin's main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we’ve seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that “poor” and “primitive” Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

This point remains unrefuted. We've all seen the media hype, the "Missing Link (TM)" announcement. This specific point by Luskin is what I started with and this is what I'm pointing to. That Tiktaalik's hype doesn't quite match the reality is easily documented, but honestly, y'all still want to claim it's "transitional" all the same. In short, you still believe the hype, you don't want to criticize the hype, and want to salvage it as much as possible especially now that Tik's status has devolved to "poor" with the advent of Pander. Yet, the problems with that label "transitional", remain. ****

“However, the shoulder girdle and pelvis are almost identical to those of Acanthostega, and the shoulder girdle is quite different from that of Tiktaalik (the pelvis of Tiktaalik is unknown), suggesting that the transformation from paired fins to limbs had already occurred. It appears that different parts of the body evolved at different speeds during the transition from water to land”, says Per Ahlberg.

So, Ahlberg says the pelvis of Tiktaalik is unknown. And that would reasonably undercut what the Earth History site said about "The gap between the pelvic fin of Tiktaalik and the hindlimbs of both Acanthostega and Icthyostega is so large that the authors omit to comment on it, except to say that Acanthostega does not have Tiktaalik’s numerous lepidotrichia (fin rays)." However, that "unknown" is a two way street. "Unknown" does not provide positive evidence of "transitional", as we see from an article written about three months later by the Earth History site. That article effectively acknowledged that "the pelvis is unknown", but they also point out that even given that much, you still got some problems when you label Tiktaalik "transitional":

Despite much searching, the pelvic (rear) fin bones of Tiktaalik have [b]not[/b] been located, so the case for its representing a step towards terrestrial locomotion has to rest on the pectoral fins. The following diagram is from the Nature report on those fins (Shubin et al 2006). Even within the sarcopterygians there is no smooth progression of increasingly tetrapod-like forms, still less such a progression across the divide from sarcopterygian to tetrapod. As the ‘News & Views’ commentary put it, ‘There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega.’ (diagram found at link:) http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/fish-to-amphibian/

This would support a "No" answer to the question of is it "transitional". ****

It is amazing that Casey (and FL) can look at figure 3 and conclude that, because we aren’t sure of the evolutionary relationship between (b) and ©, that they aren’t transitional between (a) and (d).

Hmmm. If there's something wrong with "b" and "c", if you can't even be sure you got "b" and "c" correct, how can you be so certain of the entire "a" thru "d" claim of transitions, Eric? Do you just take it on faith? **** So honestly, what do we have? We have the original six items I listed earlier. We still have a failed evolutionary prediction from Tiktaalik. The only real counter that's been presented so far is "the pelvis is unknown", which leaves all the other problems intact PLUS fails to provide positive evidence in and of itself for transitional claim. We have problems not even addressed yet. Like the digit problem.

Finally, there is no evidence for progressive reduction from 8 digits to 5. As mentioned, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega and Tulerpeton were all contemporaries. Panderichthys, like Tiktaalik, had none. So the sequence is: zero digits, then simultaneously 6-8 digits in the aquatic tetrapods, which did not use them for manipulation or walking but for paddling (their feet being probably webbed), then 5 digits in the terrestrial tetrapods. Before these fossils came to light, evolutionists expected the earliest tetrapods to have 5 digits, not 8, for that was the number living tetrapods had, their presumed descendants. So strong was this expectation that for many years the palaeontologist who discovered Ichthyostega, Erik Jarvik, made out that Ichthyostega actually had only 5 digits.

**** And so, the problems remain. The opposition to labeling Tik as "transitional (TM)" and "missing link (TM)", comes not from ignorance but from what we DO in fact know. **** Dale asks, "I guess if Archeopterx and Tiktaalik are not considered transitional forms, what would be?" But that's like asking "If the coelecanths are no longer considered transitional forms, what would be". The answer is: They're just plain not considered transitional forms any more. You just acknowledge the truth, you move forward from that point, and you don't try to keep on preaching that they're transitional anyway. **** Hey, speaking of lungs: that's one of the NAS hype-assertions that you'll directly find about Tiktaalik in their 2008 edition of Science Evolution & Creationism. So let's kill it:

Unfortunately, the National Academy of Sciences is intent on blurring the differences. Tiktaalik, it says, had both the ‘features of fish (scales and fins) and features of land-dwellers (simple lungs, flexible neck, and fins modified to support its weight). The bones in the limbs of this fossil, named Tiktaalik, resemble the bones in the limbs of land-dwelling animals today.’ This is not an accurate statement. Lungs, simple or otherwise, were not mentioned in the scientific report. A flexible neck, while it quite possibly helped the animal to raise its head above water and target prey by the water’s edge, was not a uniquely tetrapod feature. The 2-metre long tristichopterid lobe fin Mandageria also had a mobile neck (a good example of ‘parallel evolution’), as does the modern eel catfish. And Tiktaalik’s fins were not attached to its backbone; their ability to support its weight was strictly limited. Its rear fins, to judge from Panderichthys and Eusthenopteron, were probably incapable of uplift. Nor should we forget that Acanthostega’s splayed, paddle-like limbs were also unsuited to supporting its body. http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/fish-to-amphibian/ (this is the later, July 2008 article)

**** Okay. This is a lot of information, and I sincerely apologize for being lengthy; I'm not trying to be but I want to make clear that Luskin's point stands WRT hype not matching reality. The problems remain; they honestly do exist. Otherwise it would NOT be possible to do posts like this one. I think we can all agree that problems exist with labeling Tiktaalik as transitional. In fact, as mentioned earlier, you got an evolutionary biologist who still has doubts about Panderichthys, even. **** I appreciate the invitation to try out these problems on Dr. Ahlford himself. No promises, (and I mean that!), but I will likely give Ahlford's forum a whirl this weekend. **** FL

SteveF · 6 October 2008

It's Ahlberg, not Ahlford. You'd probably better get that right at least. Again, here is a relevant recent thread:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=6408

or you could just start your own in the Evolution and Origins forum:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

As you seem pretty convinced that the evidence for tetrapod evolution is so poor, I look forward to you pointing out to Per why his research is flawed.

This should be fun.

PvM · 6 October 2008

Note the following 1. FL does not recognize or know the correct name of the researcher in question, Per Ahlberg

I appreciate the invitation to try out these problems on Dr. Ahlford himself. No promises, (and I mean that!), but I will likely give Ahlford’s forum a whirl this weekend.

— FL
2. Note that initially accused scientists of avoiding to address the Tiktaalik pelvis (a common creationist objection based on unfamiliarity with the facts) when in fact the pelvis for Tiktaalik was never found

The gap between the pelvic fin of Tiktaalik and the hindlimbs of both Acanthostega and Icthyostega is so large that the authors omit to comment on it, except to say that Acanthostega does not have Tiktaalik’s numerous lepidotrichia (fin rays).

Could you show us a sample of the pelvic fin of Tiktaalik? You made the claim. As to the rest of the attempt to rescue Luskin's arguments, I fail to understand why you continue to support Luskin's claim that the Tiktaalik fossil was poor just because the distal radials were poorly resolved and thus were not suitable for the purpose of resolving the origin and evolution of the limb. Of course, with the evidence from Panderychtis and the limited evidence of Tiktaalik which does show some hints of radial digits, and combined with molecular biological data, the authors, made their hypothesis. Nothing of this undermines the relevance of Tiktaalik which remains an impressive transitional. And if your objections are merely that popular science abuses the term 'missing link' then your objections are not with science but rather with the popular media. If you had read the actual papers, you would not have jumped to your conclusion such as that the earthscience website somehow presents valid objections to Tiktaalik. Given its poor track record so far, are you sure you want us to continue to pwn the site and your arguments? Is it so hard to admit you were wrong? And worse, that by making such foolish assertions about science you, in the words of Augustine, are doing a disservice to religious faith?

PvM · 6 October 2008

Will FL retract his claim about the pelvic region and the almost libelous claims about the scientists involved?
WWJD?

PvM · 6 October 2008

The problems remain; they honestly do exist. Otherwise it would NOT be possible to do posts like this one. I think we can all agree that problems exist with labeling Tiktaalik as transitional. In fact, as mentioned earlier, you got an evolutionary biologist who still has doubts about Panderichthys, even.

— FL
Not doubts about its transitional nature but about particular details. You seem to be of the flawed opinion that disagreement in science is evidence that all should be rejected rather than the issue of disagreement, contention or lack of evidence. Your claim of 'problems' fails to credit what is known, in favor of meaningless speculation, misrepresentation of fact (pelvic region) etc. That does not seem to be a honest disagreement. In fact, even earthsciences admits that Tiktaalik appears to be an example of transitional, although it then continues to argue, based on flawed concepts that it is not because of the existence of homoplasy in other fossils. Surely you understand the lack of logic here?

Dale Husband · 6 October 2008

FL said: I want to repeat Luskin's main point:

My main observation is this: if Panderichthys is dethroning Tiktaalik as the icon of the fish-to-tetrapod transition, what does that say about all the hype we’ve seen surrounding Tiktaalik? It says that “poor” and “primitive” Tiktaalik was never all it was hyped up to be.

This point remains unrefuted. We've all seen the media hype, the "Missing Link (TM)" announcement. This specific point by Luskin is what I started with and this is what I'm pointing to. That Tiktaalik's hype doesn't quite match the reality is easily documented, but honestly, y'all still want to claim it's "transitional" all the same. In short, you still believe the hype, you don't want to criticize the hype, and want to salvage it as much as possible especially now that Tik's status has devolved to "poor" with the advent of Pander. Yet, the problems with that label "transitional", remain.
Hype is irrelevant. The point of Luskin was unrefuted because it was never a valid point to begin with. And the hype was indeed justified, Luskin's false spin notwithstanding. Have you any REAL objections to Tiktalik's status as a transitional fossil? Something based on FACT?

eric · 7 October 2008

FL said:

It is amazing that Casey (and FL) can look at figure 3 and conclude that, because we aren’t sure of the evolutionary relationship between (b) and ©, that they aren’t transitional between (a) and (d).

Hmmm. If there's something wrong with "b" and "c", if you can't even be sure you got "b" and "c" correct, how can you be so certain of the entire "a" thru "d" claim of transitions, Eric? Do you just take it on faith?
No, you take it on your eyes. Look at them. Despite their defects they demonstrate finer bone structure at the ends and a shrinking of the intermedium and ulnare. It is a very foolish and stupid argument to claim that in four samples A B C D, if you don't know the exact relationship between B and C you can't say anything about their relationship with A and D. Examples of situations where you CAN do this abound in math, in geneaology, in comparing objects of different sizes, in comparing objects of different ages, etc... You're also moving the goalposts. Your first "argument" was that Tiktaalik has been overhyped. Now you are claiming there's "something wrong" with b and c. This is an entirely different claim. Its also completely unsupported by Luskins post. What's wrong with the samples? Do you think they're forgeries? Were they incorrectly dug out? Do you think they belong to some other beast?

mharri · 7 October 2008

In other words, homology is not haphazardly inferred. Why do creationists have such a hard time familiarizing themselves with the facts?
To be fair, biology is a really big field, and it's hard for an outsider to know where to start, or what it takes to be considered "educated in biology." FL: of course there are biologists who don't agree with such-and-such! No field of science has everyone agreeing on all the details, especially when it comes to new developments! Just look back at the homo floriensis "new species or not?" debate, or at the string theory wars.

Dan · 7 October 2008

FL said:

Eric said: It is amazing that Casey (and FL) can look at figure 3 and conclude that, because we aren’t sure of the evolutionary relationship between (b) and (c ), that they aren’t transitional between (a) and (d).

Hmmm. If there's something wrong with "b" and "c", if you can't even be sure you got "b" and "c" correct, how can you be so certain of the entire "a" thru "d" claim of transitions, Eric? Do you just take it on faith?
I'd be willing to wager that Eric is not certain of the entire chain of transitions. Science doesn't produce certainty. In science, every observation can be elaborated upon, every measurement can be refined, every calculation can be improved, every generalization is tentative. In science, discovering that the old verities are wrong is a source of pride and prizes. (This doesn't mean that the new verities are perfect! They will themselves be replaced as they are inspected, tried out in different circumstances, and tested in the harsh refining crucible of new observations.) This is in contrast to faith, where anyone wishing to refine the old verities is a heretic. And it is precisely because science knows that it doesn't produce certainty, that the verities of science (while imperfect) are more reliable than the verities of faith.

Stanton · 7 October 2008

Dale Husband said: Hype is irrelevant. The point of Luskin was unrefuted because it was never a valid point to begin with. And the hype was indeed justified, Luskin's false spin notwithstanding. Have you any REAL objections to Tiktalik's status as a transitional fossil? Something based on FACT?
FL does not have any fact-based objections, as, since FL is a Creationist and Intelligent Design proponent, he feels that he is under absolutely no obligations to study anything about fossils, or anything else biological in nature, in fact. In fact, to hear FL talk, one would get the impression that he feels obligated to never study anything biological or paleontological.

Raging Bee · 7 October 2008

In fact, to hear FL talk, one would get the impression that he feels obligated to never study anything biological or paleontological.

Or theological, as his dirt-poor understanding of the Bible indicates. We should remember that FL has admitted to being the kind of YEC who believes his God faked fossil evidence -- on a planetary scale -- for the purpose of deceiving humans. And since he believes in a God who lies, there's no reason to trust him to tell the truth about anything.

eric · 7 October 2008

Dan said: I'd be willing to wager that Eric is not certain of the entire chain of transitions.
You'd win that bet!
And it is precisely because science knows that it doesn't produce certainty, that the verities of science (while imperfect) are more reliable than the verities of faith.
Oh, I tend to think technological reliability has a little something to do with science's percieved verity. Maybe FL's personal experience is different, but so far I have had many successful drives to work, yet no successful prayer-based teleportations. :)

FL · 13 October 2008

We should remember that FL has admitted to being the kind of YEC who believes his God faked fossil evidence – on a planetary scale – for the purpose of deceiving humans.

Hey, it would be greatly appreciated if you avoided misrepresentations. That kind of crap only adds smoke, not light, to the debate. So, this morning, I'm going to try out that new website, as was suggested by one of the posters, and ask their Tiktaalik expert a quick question. FL

Stanton · 13 October 2008

FL said:

We should remember that FL has admitted to being the kind of YEC who believes his God faked fossil evidence – on a planetary scale – for the purpose of deceiving humans.

Hey, it would be greatly appreciated if you avoided misrepresentations. That kind of crap only adds smoke, not light, to the debate. So, this morning, I'm going to try out that new website, as was suggested by one of the posters, and ask their Tiktaalik expert a quick question. FL
It's hypocritical of you to suggest that we're misrepresenting you, given as how you were defending Casey Luskin's "criticisms," even though we pointed out that the "criticisms" were nothing but quotemines and malicious misrepresentation. That, and when you were asked about what Intelligent Design/Creationism interpreted Tiktaalik as, you wormed your way out of it, claiming that you weren't obligated to propose alternative interpretations, despite the fact that scientific critics are obligated to propose alternative interpretations in order to correct and improve science if they want legitimacy.