Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.
One of the main arguements "against" evolution was:
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.
But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
I really don't like the use of the term "Intermediate" species however, it looks like the creationists are going to have to remove a very large piece of thier accusations leveled at Evolution. As of now the creationist statement as noted above is (as we all suspected) utter BS.
This is a major find that fills in the gap
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.
Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.
Ansar - Like I said, you claim that it is a fact that creationism is not a theory. Thank you for supporting my point. Now would you mind answering it? If you claim that creationism is not a theory then no amount of evidence will ever deal a blow to creationism. Hence your entire post here is off-target, beginning with the title.
I fail to see how I have supported your point when you have claimed creationist theory status to which I am simply saying your point here is "wrong". Since creationism has no supporting evidence other than using "faith", creationism/ID attempts to validate itself by attempting to discredit evolution. Hence, one of the criticisms from creationists to evolutionists is the lack of transitional fossils, they claim teir are none. This post shows that to be a false accusation with this recent discovery so how it is "off-target" defies belief.
Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?
For the same reason I just gave. Cretionism/ID does not bring any supporting scientific nce one exists, creationism/ID seeks to discredit evolution in trying to validate itself. I say "wrong" simply on the basis you are wrong
Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?
yes I did, I even had a ponder on your paradox of a falsafiable theory for something that is not a theory. remember, creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.
So it differs 'greatly; because
1. because it is a transition to a tetrapod
2. and because it differs greatly from all other species during this period that we currently know about within this period of time.
Wonderful demonstration of logic root. It differs greatly because it differs greatly. And maybe you should learn about the other species I mentioned because they were also labeled as transitional forms from fish to tetrapod.
Yes, I did say I disiked the word "transitional". However, the species you talk about are known as ancestors the same as the species uncovered in this thread. However, none of the species you mention contained transitional bone structure making this species very different.
I have bolded in black what you have left out from my original post, it makes more sense if you include the full sentence eh?
There is no law and order in people who dont have Religion if people were to fornicate on the streets the people who believe in god dont care.
As traditional China shows so well.
People who believe in evolution are the ones who said Blacks are animals thats how slavery worked even at that time black people use to be put in cage and researched astagfurillaah.
When were Blacks ever put in cages and "researched"? And African slavery pre-dates evolution by about 2000 years. Nor did a lack of belief in evolution stop Muslims enslaving Blacks.
If there is no God what do u have after this life nothing thats why if a theist wants money they will rob they hate someone they can kill them there is nothing going to happen to him.
Well in Indonesia and other places, if a Theist wants money they will rob a Chinese person, and they can kill them too, because some how they have an idea in their head that Buddhists are evil people who will go to Hell. How could they have got that idea do you think?
look at the majority cases in america like the BTK killer do u think he had faith in god ?? I highly dought it.
Actually he did. For some reason he seemed to think that the women he killed in this life would be his sex slaves in Heaven. The guy was so screwed up it is a wonder he could operate in normal society.
People with faith will treat this life as temporary and the next life as everything. so money, cars, etc.. dont matter to them as much.
And hence some small number of them do not mind getting on buses in London and blowing themselves up.
Find me an atheist who has ever done that.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
can you explain onething?
Since you claim that humans originated from apes, why is it that humans walk on two legs while apes on four? Since having four legs makes one more stable, why has evoultion undergone negative development?
What makes you think it is a negative development? Presumably at some time in the past, our ancestor found it was an advantage to walk on two legs instead of four and so freed our hands for using tools and writing and typing on this key board. The latest theory is that when our ancestors came out of the forests and into the hot plains, standing upright allowed us to see further over the grass (for lions for instance) and kept us much cooler.
But who knows?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
One last question: are humans the last in the chain of evolution?
What you accept as an answer to that may well depend on your own religious beliefs - even if you accept neo-Darwinism and evolution as, at least, the best theory. (It can never be "proven" - any more than any other scientific theory can).
If you didn't believe in a God at all, there would be no reason to think evolution would stop with man. Why should it? Its easy to concieve of another species that might evolve from us that at some stage would replace us, just as homo sapiens (us) replaced other hominids. It might be smarter - smart enough not to destroy itself, or it might have a characteristic currently impossible to predict that would help it survive some global catastrophe.
If you believe in God (one that designed the workings of the universe, not a Genesis style "creator"), you might think the same. Why not - why should we be the end of the line? That doesn't mean such a God would love us any the less. Take a look at the world from what you see in newspapers, TV or what you read here. Is it so hard to imagine that mankind may have some way to go before he reaches God's final blueprint? Alternatively, you may think God intended to end up with us, or that there was no evolution at all. Personally, I find that unbelievably arrogant. As a species, we are just so imperfect. We kill, cheat, lie, build atom bombs, destroy other species and ruin the beautiful planet around us. What's so great about us? We squabble over nothing, sometimes under the banner of religion but can that really be what an all knowing, all powerful, loving God had in mind?
can you explain onething?
Since you claim that humans originated from apes, why is it that humans walk on two legs while apes on four? Since having four legs makes one more stable, why has evoultion undergone negative development?
Humans walk on two legs (Bipedal) because humans have always walked Bipedal! If your asking why "pre-human" species took to bipedal then any one single answer is not easy and often evolutionary change soes not come about by a single event, please allow me to explain.
Bipediality is not disadvantages.
Early primates evolved at a time when most of the planet was deep jungle/forest terrain. It makes sense that primates evolved to a life in the tree's as a good means of avoiding predators as no natural predators existed for them whilst in the safety of the canopy. Primates ruled this period of time as the most prominent species.
Geologically, around the same time that we find the first evidences of bipediality the earth was going through major enivronmental climate changes in that the planet became drier and open planes developed. Selection pressures would follow to this newly developing environmental and climate change. Many advantages are to be gained as early Homo moved to exploit new niches and adapt to the new environment.
how come apes have 48 chromosomes but humans have 46
Apes and humans diverged a while ago. Plenty of time for changes to have occurred. But this may not be such a big change. Why do you think it is important?
The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae are not clear, but the family generally includes those species who share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language and for simple cultures beyond the family or band. The theory of mind, providing the capacity to lie convincingly, is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age, whereas the bonobo, gorilla and chimpanzee never seem to do so.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
how come apes have 48 chromosomes but humans have 46
Chromosomes are a poor guide to common ancestory, some species have differing chromosomes numbers within thier own species. Chromosomes are the packaging for DNA and all life has approxomately 300,000 DNA strings.
"As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications."
Who cares about this? Is this more "evidence" than any other fossile? For almost every single fossile found the evolutionists are quick to interpret it into their chains of evolution. Evolutionists are scared of their theory being questioned. I've heard that once, Richard Milton, a science journalist (and a non-creationist) wrote a book which shows that the earth could be as young as 175.000 years. But when Richard Dawkins, a militant atheist, reviewed it he was filled with hate and accused the author of being mentally ill!
Not that the age of the earth matters to me as a Muslim, but this truly shows that something sacred to him was being violated...
Atheists often label themselves as critics and sceptics, presumably doubting what they hear and investigate it. And when it comes to religion, they indeed do that. The atheists' main competitor in history is Christianity. And indeed atheists often find a lot of faults in Christianity, tearing some aspects of it into pieces, but are unable to recognize a single fault when it comes to evolution. Indeed, when it comes to evolution most atheists for some reason feel that there is no reason to being sceptical to what is presentated, they just blindly accept it and all kind of scepticism or investigation ceases when it comes to evolution.
So the "sceptics" turned out to be not so sceptical after all, when it comes to the bulk of their ideology...
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Updated 24/7
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks