At one point in the past, long long ago, animals had to have moved from the water to the land. Those who study this knew what they were looking for, and knew what they should find, they just needed to find it.
Well, They did.
The new species, Tiktaalik roseae, has features found in fish, such as fins and gills, and also features that are only found in land-living animals, such as a wrist, elbow and neck.
'It is a stepping-stone in the water-land transition showing us a permutation of features not seen before, notably the combination of lobe-fins with the beginnings of a neck.'
Kinda interesting, how scientist used evolution to predict so much about this animal. They knew where in time it should be, what features to expect and now we have real fossils proving their existence.
And proving that science was right.
Tags
Evolution
4 comments:
Of course it would be impossible for them to have pushed their interpretation of a few small differences onto the fossil evidence, right? Wishful thinking eaisily taints the interpretation of minor data, especially where the evolutionist is concerned.
My prediction: When this fossil "evidence" is throroughly debunked its debunking won't get much play on the news.
My guess is you are clueless
Not clueless Keith, I would guess that Anon is just a person of faith, who's faith is so weak that when faced with facts that may weaken it further, they attack the facts, rather that try to figure out why thier faith is so weak in the first place.
Thanks to you and Anon for droping by and posting
Quote from the article....
"'Tiktaalik is particularly valuable because it is based on three articulated skeletons, which means that its anatomy can be described and interpreted with a great deal of confidence,' said Dr Milner."
Three full fossilized remains are pretty thorough. I think if Paleontologists and evolutionary biologists of merit examine the discovery, the findings will hold up.
Anon, are you a scientist? No? I'm not either. I'm actually a lawyer. Say an intellectual property attorney gives me an opinion on a patent and I have a contrary opinion on it. I'm probably going to go with the IP attorney's opinion. Why? Because he or she is an expert and I am not. If I get a second, third or fourth opinion on it, and it comes out the same, then obviously I'm wrong.
Attorneys (and scientists) get their jollies from proving their peers wrong. For attorneys its the adversarial system ingrained in our very beings by education. For scientists, its the peer review system that is taken almost as a sacred oath. Scientists live to be proven wrong. There is not some vast left wing scientific community conspiracy looking to further an evolutionary agenda and push out the role of religion in our society.
I'm pretty involved in all of the other vast left wing conspiracies to attack religion, so I'm just I would have heard about it by now if there is one. (I'm just kidding here. I am a man of abiding religious faith that feels evolution is not exclusive to my beliefs, FYI)
Post a Comment