The Quill and the Crowbar

Friday, April 07, 2006

Tiktaalik rosea




Here we go again. Our friends, the evolutionists can't identify this reptile/fish thing they say they've found. It's probably one or the other or something like the platypus God designed to help our fleshbound scientists make fools of themselves. Notice the big-time authority appeal! These souls have credentials from some of the most famous Godless institutions. How could they be wrong?

I like the part about them fulfilling their dreams. Their fondest dream is for intelligent design to disappear, along with the designer and the accountability He requires from the chief creation of His Hands.

God is not mocked; the Tiktaalik rosea doesn't surprise Him. Only a very few thousand years ago, He created the thing some scientists date at three-hundred and seventy-five million years. What a nice ballpark number, rounded to the nearest five million years! Five or ten million is nothing to an evolutionist--just pocket change.

So look at what the big boys and girls discovered for us to debunk during show and tell time! A science museum in South Kensington, England will house a plaster cast of it. Hopefully we won't have any creative sculpting going on.

Tiktaalik (I'll call him a "Tik-tak" for short since the other word is too hard to spell and too hard to swallow)supposedly looks like a fish and an alligator. It lifts its head above the water to breathe. The evolutionists go bonkers over that. Why? The lowly crocodile does the same thing, but nobody makes a big deal out of it. I can't see why this is such a big evolutionary breakthrough, unless this lifting-the-head trick made the denizen of the scum pond start thinking it might become a man. I can imagine another reason why Mr. Tik-tak rubbernecked. Mrs. Tik-tak couldn't tolerate it, either. Those other "sheilas" on the bank may have had that "come hither look" in their crocodilian eyes.

We know the coelecanth went down the tube as the water-to-land missing link. People still catch and eat him. Tik-tak seems like a suitable replacement fossil. If one big lie doesn't reel in the gullible, then change the bait. Tik-tak could play or prey upon the popular imagination for decades if the God haters do it right. They could make sure newspapers all over the world carry the "news" about Tik-tak. They've already done that. Check. Now they will persuade book publishers to put it in our public school science books. That should be easy. No matter if we easily debunk the thing for the fraud it certainly is, the damage will have been done. College texts will also perpetuate the myth. Religion does not go away so easily.

Interestingly, archaeopteryx, "the famous fossil which bridged the gap between reptiles and birds" is cited as an icon of evolution. Evolutionists insist Tik-tak is another such icon. It is a dream come true because they must realize they have no other verifiable transition forms. Archaeopteryx is a famous fraud. They shouldn't even mention it in the same breath with their new toy unless they want sensible people to wake up and smell their latest con.



Sin Again


Here they go again;
Ideas full of bull again;
Tik-tak a delusional sin,
An offense against God.

They flubbed on archaeopteryx,
Coelecanth and other tricks.
They think we're a bunch of hicks?
Methinks I smell a fraud.

Tik-tak is what it is,
Fish or reptile schiz,
Tadpole or big liz--
All anyone can say.

Real bones or plaster cast,
Still alive or didn't last,
Won't we have one big laugh,
To find Tic-tac's DNA?

Piltdown man, and Heidelburg,
Neanderthal, and more absurd,
Will they find a hummingbird,
Becoming an ornithopter?

Evolutionism is a religion
Holding God in derision,
Apoplexed by our decision,
To take all God can offer.

Created to do what it did do well--
No progeny to think,compute or spell,
Or choose the path to Heaven or Hell--
Christ with a word made flesh and bone.


Tik-tak knew to mind its place,
No way akin to the human race.
It won't have to hide its face
In shame before God's throne.



Speculation and imagination aside, what do the evolutionist's have? It doesn't move. It doesn't tell a story. The continuum of other transitional forms are nowhere in sight. Tik-tak requires these if he's to ever stand on his own two feet and be a man. It never happened! Scientists will find many generations of his offspring looking just like him, give or take tiny differences due to natural selection (We can even acknowledge "micro-evolution.")

Intelligent design? Obviously.

Similar design for different creatures? Of course; same Designer.

How long did it take to make everything we see? Six earth days.

Can real scientists really believe this, given all the discoveries of paleontologists and anthropologists? Sure. Thousands of them do and do it strongly.

But what about all the fossil evidence? Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence to test with their instruments and their senses. Tik-tak belongs to all of us, not just to evolutionists. God created Tik-tak for our use and we will use his bones to glorify the Creator, not to rebel against Him.



The old, old, old story in the same old evolutionist style:



Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.

Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.

As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power. Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history, and Tiktaalik is an important link in the story."

Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language Inuktikuk - shows that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water. The animal lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals (known as tetrapods), as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish. The scientists who discovered it say the animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head, and a body that grew up to 2.75 metres (9ft) long.

"It's very important for a number of reasons, one of which is simply the fact that it's so well-preserved and complete," said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University and author of an accompanying article in Nature. Scientists have previously been able to trace the transition of fish into limbed animals only crudely over the millions of years they anticipate the process took place. They suspected that an animal which bridged the gap between fish and land-based tetrapods must have existed - but, until now, there had been scant evidence of one.

"Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said Neil Shubin, a biologist at the University of Chicago, and a leader of the expedition which found Tiktaalik. The near-pristine fossil was found on Ellesmere Island, Canada, which is 600 miles from the north pole in the Arctic Circle. Scientists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University led several expeditions into the inhospitable icy desert to search for the fossils.
The find is the first complete evidence of an animal that was on the verge of the transition from water to land. "The find is a dream come true," said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences. "We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition."

When Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a land mass which straddled the equator. Like the Amazon basin today, it had a subtropical climate and the animal lived in small streams. The skeleton indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity.

Farish Jenkins, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University said: "This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including humans - albeit a very ancient step." Tiktaalik also gives biologists a new understanding of how fins turned into limbs. Its fin contains bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals.
"Most of the major joints of the fin are functional in this fish," Professor Shubin said. "The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land-living animals."

Dr Clack said that, judging from the fossil, the first evolutionary transition from sea to land probably involved learning how to breathe air. "Tiktaalik has lost a series of bones that, in fishes, covers the gill region and helps to operate the gill-breathing mechanism," she said. "The air-breathing mechanism it had would have been elaborated and having lost the series of bones that lies between the head and the shoulder girdle means it's got a neck, it can raise its head more easily in order to gulp the air. "The flexible robust limbs appear to be connected with pushing the head out of the water to breathe the air."

H. Richard Lane, director of sedimentary geology and palaeobiology at the US National Science Foundation, said: "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil Rosetta stones for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone - fish to land-roaming tetrapods."

A cast of the fossil goes on display at the Science Museum in South Kensington central London today.

32 Comments:

  • STOP BLOGGING about creationism! Creationism is a blatant lie perpatrated by a deceiving church! VIVA EVOLUTION!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:19 PM  

  • Thanks for the input, Anonymous. As for "Viva Evolution," I think it has lived long enough to destroy millions of lives. It should definitely die. What is Spanish for Die Evolution? Isn't it "muerto" or something like that?

    Please write back and let me know what you think of the poem.

    D.

    By Blogger Don Daniels, at 6:56 PM  

  • Dear Don,

    I took the link for your important observations on that fossil (T.r.) to my own blog, in my response to an evolution student. I entitled my response as:

    Macroevolution, The Overselling of a Speculation.

    Dear Don,

    Congratulations for your commitment and for your wise comments!

    Here in your blog, as in mine, it is evident that through anonymous and multiple pseudos, the desperate evolutionists are trying to darken the light. However, while we are still here, we won't let that to happen!

    Continue your encouraging work and God bless you!

    Fernando Castro-Chavez, PhD.

    By Blogger fdocc, at 12:12 PM  

  • I got as far as "Archaeopteryx is a famous fraud" before collapsing. Somehow that fact has bypassed two generations of palaeontologists (most of which have better things to do than play any part in the paranoid pageant you seem to experience).

    Ah, it must be nice to have so much privy knowledge! Where we lesser mortals toil for many years, test hypotheses, make and discard theories, you just get spoonfed by a deity. Quite enviable. But I think I 'd rather keep both my integrity and self-respect by doing my fact-finding myself. Good luck with the poems, they are doubtlessly good stress-relievers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:59 AM  

  • Thanks Nectocaris (?)

    I appreciate your perusal of Tiktaalik rosea. Sorry that my calling archaeopteryx a famous fraud flummoxed you. At least you read the article up to that point.

    Actually, you have corrected something I forgot to correct shortly after this post was published. I had been reading about archaeoraptor and unwisely mixed up the two names. I meant to identify archaeoraptor as the fraud it is.

    But it seems not everyone is convinced that archaeopteryx passes the sniff test either. It has the avian lungs, hollow bones etc. of a bird (I am told)--only a bird and nothing more. If this is true, then might I not also call the archaeopteryx a famous fraud?

    Sorry to say, evolution is not necessarily a religion based upon pure values. Chicanery pays big, especially in the arena of supposed "missing links/transitional forms. Much money changed hands between the discoverers of ---ryx and museums. We know science should be pure, something totally based upon carefully monitored scientific methods. Not so. Scientists are at least as culpable of errors and dissimulation as clergymen. That is why science makes an even poorer religion. Many scientists rule out God a priori; that leaves us with directionless man prone to fulfilling his own ego.

    Nectocaris, I assume from your comment that you make your living as a scientist. Congratulations. Your testimony about pursuing truth with integrity appeals to me. I would be happy to hear further from you about why you feel archaeopteryx is a transitional form. We should be able to clear this up based upon real data. (I admit that the Internet can give a person a jaundiced view of most anything.)

    My apologies for confusing archaeoraptor and archaeopteryx.

    No paranoia here. I have received the promise of eternal life from the One Who has always existed.

    Not one other world religion, including evolution/humanism, includes fulfilled prophecy about its master, not Buddhism, Islam, Darwinism, or any of them. But the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ was foretold with hundreds of prophecies about where he would be born, where he came from, the nature of the virgin birth, how much would be offered for his betrayal, and on and on (over 300 details hundreds of years before He came to us). People have set out to disprove his life and ministry and have become Christians instead. Thousands of scientists doing work similar to yours actually believe in a literal six days of creation by an intelligent designer and personal God. You may find several of their professional credentials are at least the equal of your own. Why are they denied a voice in leading scientific publications? Because evolution is the ruling paradigm. That has nothing to do with truth; only with power.

    Thanks for your comments. Please write me again.

    Don D.

    By Blogger Don Daniels, at 3:13 PM  

  • I'm sorry, what is your argument? How are you trying to disprove trained scientists about the evolutionary linkage of the Tiktaalik rosea? You just say they're wrong and you're right. That doesn't fly in the real world, Don. You're ignorant and you don't deserve any form of human contact.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:35 PM  

  • 'Tiktaalik' is a hard word for you? Then it is with little suprise I see you are a creationist. Talk about the easy option! No wonder you have problems with evolution. Big words, difficult concepts - do you treat all science the same? There are other 'theories' in science, not that you understand the word in the scientific sense. Why do you not 'debunk' them? Pick the easy target, the only one you *think* debunks your god.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:20 AM  

  • Seriously, in this day and age, you have to be astoundingly ignorant of science and nearly devoid of reason to believe in a young earth and biblical creationism. It is not hyperbole to say it is tantamount to still believing in a flat earth. Even the Pope has declared that the biblical account of creation is just allegorical and that evolution is fact.

    If the science that says the earth is billions of years old is wrong, the same science that plays an integral role in the engineering and manufacturing of all modern technology that exists today, your computer would not work, there would be no internet, no planes flying in the sky, no modern medical technology like CAT scans and radiology, your car would not start, you would have no high tech of any kind.

    You creationists unknowingly validate the power and accuracy of the scientific method every time you use modern technology of any kind... and yet you simultaneously deny the validity of the same scientific principles and laws that allowed these things to be engineered in the first place.

    It would be utterly comical, if not for the fact that you try to foist your middle age ignorance on school children via the con of 'Intelligent Design'.

    FYI, just to clear up a confusion that most of you creationsist seem to have and continue to perpetuate among yourselves: That evolution occured is a scientific and historical fact, not a theory. It is only Charles Darwins theory of how it happened (Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) that is a theory in science, and one as well supported by evidence and gravitational theory, nuclear theory, etc.

    There is incontravertible proof in the fossil record that life changed over millions of years from simple life forms to more complex ones. That is evolution, irrespective of HOW or WHY it happened. Got it?

    You guys should really stop getting your information about evolution from evangelists and people with no real science background if you want to speak intelligently on the subject.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:21 PM  

  • I can only hope your scientific credentials surpass your skills as a poet...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:17 AM  

  • "Thousands of scientists doing work similar to yours actually believe in a literal six days of creation by an intelligent designer and personal God."

    Name them. Or are we supposed to take this on faith too?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:15 AM  

  • Hi Don,

    I'm curious as to the "hundreds of prophesies" you refer to.. May I ask where these are, as I'd be interested in reading them.

    Thanks! :)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:34 PM  

  • Creationists are always going on about gaps in the fossil record. Then when a new fossil is found, they say "Ah hah! *Two* gaps!"

    What a ludicrous gang of troglodytes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:21 PM  

  • so how long has don been studying fossils? He's now quite the expert!! Not.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:23 PM  

  • Hi Don

    I feel sorry for the little boy in the picture. He will be brought up to be a closed-minded cretin, ill prepared for enjoying all that is good about life if you have anything to do with his upbringing.

    You are little more than a child abuser if you burden him with your absurd and dangerous religious dogma.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:45 AM  

  • Scientists don't claim to have all the answers - but the answers they do have they can prove. If they are wrong then they are disproven or discredited.

    Those who spin webs of religion claim to have all the answers, but they can't prove a single one. Their theories are never proved nor disproved (ecxept where they contradict demonstrable fact, such as the dating of fossils).

    In time science will have more answers, but religion will still have none.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:44 PM  

  • Thou dost protest too much.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:48 AM  

  • I find it very amusing that god secretly placed a fossil a few thousand years ago years ago to trick us. A prankster god. If he existed he would make me laugh.

    If god created everything, in theory he created the physical rules that govern phyics and chemistry. So "god's rules" he "created" determine the half life of radioactive atoms, but its all just trick because he created it all a few thousand years ago. I tell you, he is a funny guy.

    You people really need to wake up and see the inconsistencies of religion.
    Good Luck

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:09 AM  

  • G'day,

    You're not very intelligent, are you?

    Matt

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:17 PM  

  • Hey Don
    I just noticed that you have comment moderation on and a comment I made isn't on your blog. Please don't tell me you were offended by the suggestion of a prankster god. Maybe you have asked yourself why or how the world is supposedly 10000 years old and how stupid it sounds, but I doubt it.
    I would really like to know why you think god planted the Tiktaalik rosea for people to find?

    MG

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:14 AM  

  • You write: "...like the platypus God designed to help our fleshbound scientists make fools of themselves". Do you really believe this? Listen to yourself.

    Does this "God" you talk about have nothing better to do than plant fossils to confuse us.

    What you are telling us is that we should rather believe what we are told in an ancient mythology than use our heads to investigate honestly the world around us.

    Very well then, I will play your game. You are wrong. It is written so in the runes. When you die you will find this out when Thor laughs you out of Valhalla for falling for his cunningly planted mammoth bones.

    Please!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:54 PM  

  • i find dawkins too extreme and i find you creationists just as extreme.....
    it seems both parties are so desperate to undermine and belittle each other you've all lost perspective; why don't you both try and learn a little from each other and realise that it is impossible for either of you to preach with the authority you do... the truth lies between your polarized perspectives.
    Just remember, god made Dawkins too!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:25 AM  

  • "Tiktaalik ... supposedly looks like a fish and an alligator. It lifts its head above the water to breathe. The evolutionists go bonkers over that. Why? The lowly crocodile does the same thing, but nobody makes a big deal out of it."
    Because Tiktaalik pre-dates reptiles.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:05 AM  

  • Even the Pope believes in evolution.

    --- Don, you are a sad sad person - how is it that evolution destroys lives again?

    Religion kills!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:50 PM  

  • Why are all creationist/religious posts all over the internet written by poor-spelling, petty, immature, condescending (to both religious and logical people), and wholly school-yard minded people? In everything I've read or watched, the best any creationist can do to argue their viewpoint is to mock. Evolutionists merely show the facts and the absurdity of the creationists comes clear.

    By Blogger WRP, at 4:41 PM  

  • You're a genius. The best educated minds in the world pale into insignificance when measured against the knowledge of those worshipping the beliefs of people who couldn't conceive of a bicycle. Well done, keep it up, perhaps next you can explain to people why Jesus is the Messiah when the Bible says the Messiah will be born of the house of David. Unless you consider the Holy Spirit to be a descendent of David, Jesus was not born of the house of David, you see, Joseph was the descendent of David, not Mary, and Jesus was the result of the Holy Spirit's EXTRA MARITAL affair with Mary. Or was Jesus the son of Joseph, thereby a descendent of David, but not the son of God? Why don't you sort out the internal inconsistencies of your own fairy tales before trying to prove something about science (which you probably can't spell either).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:19 AM  

  • What I find so interesting about the current gaggle of scientists who espouse Evolution as a fact (instead if what it really is: a theory long since discredited by serious scientists) is how SURE they are until another discovery changes their entire dynamic.

    God can not be "proven" by science, but He will never be disproved either.

    Science states something dogmatically-- until the dogma changes.

    Which do you really want to put your faith in?

    As I show on my own Doubt Free Living site, God uses the foolish things of this word to confound the wise. Still holds true today!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 AM  

  • How can anyone be this stupid and still remember to breathe?

    By Blogger Rissa, at 4:36 AM  

  • Congratulations, not one but TWO quotes from this article have made it into Hilarious Creationist Quotes Part IV!! Good job!

    By Blogger Three Ninjas, at 9:09 AM  

  • Science is not the forum for faith. The fact that it is open and prone to change is a strength, not a weakness.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:53 AM  

  • Don, as a EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN, biology student and believer in evolution, both micro and macro I feel that you might want to become better informed before you begin making such inflammatory comments. I came into my Christian University three years ago a firm believer in 6-day creation. How little did I truly know about science and what the evolutionary theory was. Throughout the next three years, my eyes were opened through GODLY MEN and WOMEN, who have devoted their lives to uncovering the truth about God's created order.

    I am not going to attempt to sway you one way or the other, I just have some reading I think you should consider. First, the Language of God, written by Francis Collins. He's a Christian, and also the head of the Human Genome Project. Second, Coming to Peace with Science, written by Darrel Falk, a professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene University. And lastly, Random Designer by Richard Colling, professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University.

    One more thing I'd like to leave you with. Just this thought, the more the church keeps denying evolution... the science which has been tested as much as gravity itself... the more we isolate ourselves and make the church seem irrelevant and unneccesary. Is it not a more powerful picture of God to say that he was able to put together a Universe that is not only orderly and functional but that works together so perfectly?

    Also, if you would read up on some of your theologic minds, such as John Wesley, and St. Augustine, you might just find they themselves never advocated a literal translation of the first Chapter of Genesis. In fact, Augstine cautioned against using the Bible as a science textbook. When we do that, we open up debate about its validity each and everytime science uncovers something that "disproves God".

    The evolutionary science has been shown over and over again. Those who have taken that science and spread it into the realms of philosophy are doing something that science was never intended to prove, and that the majority of science would agree is a erroneous conclusion.

    Do your research before spouting comments you no nothing about. I fell into that trap too many times. Honest and open minded research... do it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:39 PM  

  • Dear Don,

    Just out of interest, how old are you?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:54 AM  

  • "God can not be "proven" by science, but He will never be disproved either."

    And the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus and Shiva will never disproven either. The fundemental disprovablity of those things isn't a good reason to believe in them either.

    "Science states something dogmatically-- until the dogma changes."

    Nope, Science states thing tentavily until the evidence suggests that models should be modified. Religion states that it's infallible and any evidence that contradicts it has to be explained away.


    "Which do you really want to put your faith in?"

    I would want to put my "faith " in things based on evidence and testability, not in "infallible" dogmas that can never be tested or falsified.

    "God uses the foolish things of this word to confound the wise. Still holds true today!"

    It's impossible to say something is true when it's untestable and all evidence contradicts it! Oh well......

    By Blogger Chris mankey, at 12:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home