Yep, those "Darwinian Gaps" them Fundies are crying about, wind up showing up more and more with each and every fossil find, yuppims. I like this particular find because it comes from the Great White North, and I know, that as a member of Ontario blogs, that I have a quasi-commitment, to have some Canadian content every now and then.
This particular find occurred in the Canadian Arctic and it is extremely important because, "fossil records showed a gap between Panderichthys, a fish that lived about 385 million years ago which shows early signs of evolving land-friendly features, and Acanthostega, the earliest known tetrapod (four-limbed land-living animals) dating from about 365 million years ago." This pre-Canadian creature, the Tiktaalik Roseae(sounds like a wine), was predicted, and voila, was finally found.
'The creature shares some characteristics with a fish; it has fins with webbing, and scales on its back.
But it also has many features in common with land animals. It has a flat crocodile-like head with eyes positioned on top and the beginnings of a neck - something not seen in fish.
"When we look inside the fin, we see a shoulder, we see an elbow, and we see an early version of a wrist, which is very similar to that of all animals that also walk on land," said palaeontologists Professor Neil Shubin, from the University of Chicago.
The scientists think the creature lived in the shallows
"Essentially we have an animal that is built to support itself on the ground."
The scientists believe the position of the creature's eyes suggest it probably lived in shallow water.'
Update (thanks to an anonymous reader):
A short video of the findings can be found here.
Isn't science wonderful. Here we have a theory called evolution, and a find is made.
And the find fits in perfectly with what the theory predicted. Of course, the literal bible made no such prediction or even prophecy about this find.
OK, lets ask the three top Fundy scientists about the find:
Professor Hearn Oevil: "Those bones can't be more than 6000 years old, just look at them. Anything older than that of course didn't exist, because God didn't create diddly until then. But scientifically speaking, anything 6000 years old would be dust by now, the fact it aint dust means it can't be too old."
Professor Seeno Evil: "What a wonderful carved stone you have there. Must have been done by one of those Nanookian Eskimos you got up there in Canada. Great work, I didn't even know they had the tools to carve those things."
Professor Spea Knoevil: "Ah, you found another relic that God put on this glorious planet when he created it around 6000 years ago. Just like all the oil He put in the ground so that we can drive our cars all the way to heaven when the Rapture comes. I don't know for sure, because God works in mysterious ways, but I think He put all these so called fossils on this earth so that we wouldn't have that much traffic on Rapture day. Only us pure Christians get to drive to heaven. God bless you, I will pray for your soul."
Way cool. I had to steal it. :-)
ReplyDeleteNo problem. I'm looking forward to see your highbrow take on the subject.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm in a minority, but I've always considered science--not philosophy--to be the best path to atheism. With science, and a helping of history, one can prove the Bible to contain impossibilities, absurdities and falsehoods. Scientifically speaking, the Resurrection is impossible. Scientifically speaking, Special Creation is fiction. Historically speaking, the Noah story could not have happened (Ancient civilizations maintained uninterrupted records before, throughout, and after the Bible dates the global flood).
ReplyDeleteEvolution was one of the biggest factors in my deconversion. If humans and bacteria have the same ancestor, then how can this whole "Humans are special" thing be true? Not to mention my studies of the brain, which revealed the concept of a "soul" to be extraneous and wholly unnecessary.
No wonder 93% of NAS scientists are either agnostic or atheist (mostly atheist).
have you seen the fish video?
ReplyDeleteFrances, science has created most Atheists and Agnostics, I'm sure. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure that most of us start out assuming there is a God. It is those of us who understand that religion mostly has farcical answers, and that pushes us away from it, and on the other hand, science offers realistic answers. Science doesn't look at this fossil find and say it has to be within the last 10,000 years, it ages it independantly. And all thes independant results blow religion away in the dust.
ReplyDeleteAnon, thanks, that video is about this story. I updated my post and linked it. Thank you again.
The fundies do not mind. They still will hold firmly their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThis find is of fascinating signifance to science and should be one more, and really the final, nail in the coffin of the anti-evolution argument.
ReplyDeleteSurely, it will be ignored just as the remaining mountian of evidence already supporting Natural Selection.
I used to hunt for fossils and it was my dream to find something like this. I remember showing one of my finds to a fundie and he could barely bring himself to look at it, muttering that it was “just a stone”.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw this commercial, I wondered if Guinness knew that they had just destroyed the fundy share of their market.I just love it.
ReplyDeleteT. Ath, I posted that commercial March 16th here.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall seeing the commercial here in Canada. I wonder how much exposure it got in the USA.
If you would give up Guinness over a commercial, you would be no real beer drinker.
ReplyDeleteReally, to give up Guinness at all would be akin to foolishness.
vile blasphemer said:
ReplyDelete"Really, to give up Guinness at all would be akin to foolishness."
Um, we're talking about fundies.
The whole issue that I have with fundies is that they refuse to give credence to the ability of the human character and mind. If someone wants to use the Bible (old or new) as a reference for moral behavior, I say why not. But it is not a science manual. It is not a history book. I feel bad for people who do not have the ability to allow their minds to wonder and explore. These people close all avenues to learning because of what? Fear; that I do not know.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite movies is Inherit the Wind with Spencer Tracy. It is about the Scoop Monkey Trial. When Darrow, the movie did not use the real names of the people in the case, asks the questions from the bible one had to laugh at the answers. But more importantly is that Darrow asks the very important question, why are they so scared of what people may think of. Atheists, agnostics and people on the border are no more libel to be murderers, pedophiles or any other type of criminal than those who fear the all mighty. I tend to think that these people are insecure and long to belong to something.
I have to add to what FrancestheMagnificent wrote about Noah. As a child I remember hearing about Noah and the idea that I remember and still think about is, why kill the land animals. What did the tigers, lions, goats…. do to deserve this harsh punishment? Also, obviously none of the sea creatures die, again why?
HT, I think Atheists are less likely to commit rape, murder, etc.
ReplyDeleteWe know there are no do overs and we know this our only chance to live.
To be fair, we are more likely to kill ourselves later in life if we have a terminal disease. Because we don't fear not getting into heaven because of it.
Fundies dislike Atheists because we are not sheep, and they know we "might be right." We expose every question they have had about their faith and give a rational scientific or psychological answer for it.
Like I have said before, it is just those who believe in a young earth and who believe evolution is a hoax who dislike Atheists. They don't like our answers.
I love your site, I love the discussions, I'll be back regularly, and I will be linking you. :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for existing. I know another bacon-eating atheist Jew, and you guys are a great lot.
You're all wrong! These ae NOT transitional forms. These are all uniquely created, "wicked-dragons" which were wiped out by the Great Flood.......
ReplyDeleteplease ignore the fact that they could swim
One of my favorite movies is Inherit the Wind with Spencer Tracy. It is about the Scoop Monkey Trial. When Darrow, the movie did not use the real names of the people in the case, From Hatetaxes
ReplyDeleteThe only name that was changed was "Scopes" I forget the teacher's real name.
Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan were real, and Inherit the Wind portrays their relationship rather accurately. After the trial, Bryan Univ. was founded in Dayton Tenn. (in the movie it was called Hillsboro) to honor William J. Bryan's victory. To this very day, biology classes at Bryan Univ. do NOT teach evolution.
Hi Allie. I always reciprocate when I'm blogrolled. Thanks.
ReplyDelete...after some fact-checking apparently his name was really Scopes
ReplyDeletetwenty-four-year-old, John Thomas Scopes
biology teacher and football coach
the rest is correct
In the early 1960's Scopes authored a book about his experience...
ReplyDeleteCenter of the Storm, in which he writes:
“The day will come when we will not be bothered by Fundamentalists.” His humility concerning his own role remained: “I furnished the body that was needed to sit in the defendant’s chair.” He felt at peace with the fact that his life would forever be defined by a drugstore conversation that got out of hand. “A man’s fate,” he wrote, “is often stranger than anything the imagination may produce.”
50 years later and Fundies are still bothersome.
Did anyone see the comments in the NYT article from a fundy blogger about this discovery? His position is that there are no intermediate fossils between these and either fish or land-based animals so they are not evidence of evolution. You can see what's going to happen here - they will always be demanding "intermediate fossils" until the evolutionary line is clearly laid out -- and then they still will not believe it...
ReplyDeleteDoesn't surprise me. They aren't gonna accept it.
ReplyDeleteIf a fish gave birth to a frog, they wouldn't accept it.
BTW, to anonymous posters: I can't tell you apart (it doesn't matter I guess), but you don't have to put in homepage info or an email when you post here I believe. You just make up a handle, instead of posting anonymously. It is up to you. It will be easier to tell you dudes/dudettes apart.
Oh I agree that the movie was an excellent portral of the court and situation. They did change the names though.
ReplyDeleteI read the biography of Clarence Darrow, very interesting person indeed.
You know, that's right! now I am remembering
ReplyDeleteBryan was called "Matthew Harrison Brady" in the movie and Darrow's name escapes me
Here is info on the cast:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/
Dick York, the first Darren on Bewitched was in it. I forgot about that. I haven't seen the movie in years.
Curiously, the film Inherit the Wind, unlike other documentary-dramas such as Gandhi and Patton, does not use the actual names of either the participants or places it portrays. Although some characters like the Rev. Jeremiah Brown and his much persecuted daughter Rachel are purely fictitious, the rest of the principal characters in the play and film versions of Inherit the Wind clearly represent well known participants in the Scopes trial. Lest there be any doubt, even the pattern of the names and the number of syllables in each name carefully match the real names of the people they purport to portray. In both the play and film versions, the character Matthew Harrison Brady represents William Jennings Bryan, Henry Drummond represents Clarence Darrow, Bert Cates represents John Scopes and E. K. Hornbeck represents H. L. Mencken. I have chosen to use the proper names of the principals in the Scopes trial to avoid confusion since there has never been any doubt who the chief characters in the film are intended to represent.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/scopes.html