Navigation


RSS: posts / comments



Tiktaalik roseae - what now, creationists?

Monday, April 10th, 2006, by Fred (, No Comments »
, , , ,

Two New Discoveries Answer Big Questions In Evolution Theory

One study produced what biblical literalists have been demanding ever since Darwin — the iconic “missing links.” If species evolve, they ask, with one segueing into another, where are the transition fossils, those man-ape or reptile-mammal creatures that evolution posits?In yesterday’s issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods.

Discovered in 2004 on Canada’s Ellesmere Island by Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago and Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik roseae “blurs the boundary between fish and land animals,” said Prof. Shubin. It “is both fish and tetrapod,” showing how life made the transition to land, evolving four limbs from fins.

Previously known fossils of ancient “lobe-finned fish” also seem poised between fish and tetrapods, with pectoral fins containing precursors of the humerus, radius and ulna of tetrapod armbones. But Tiktaalik (an Inuit word for shallow-water fish) makes a stronger case. Its pectoral fin still has thin, fish-like bones, but also contains the three armbones-to-be as well as a wrist-like structure and a hand-like one. The shoulder and elbow could bend, and the proto-wrist could extend, allowing the fin to support the body and propel it on land. “Tiktaalik shows us the stages in the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” says Dr. Daeschler.

Tiktaalik is an important discovery, although it’s not the first pre-tetrapod transitional fossil. Nor is it the singular missing link creationists/ID proponents (as if there were a difference) demand. Of course, what is far more likely is a series of fossils like Tiktaalik, rather than a single missing link.

Will the creationists go away now? Not likely.

But creationists, many of whose Web sites declare “there are no transitional forms,” are not easily persuaded. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, Calif., says Tiktaalik “is just a variety of fish. There is still a huge gap [between fish and land-dwellers] that has to be filled.”

Add this find to the massive body of scientific evidence supporting evolution, but don’t expect those pushing intelligent design (nee creationism) to care.

Anglicans: No creationism in schools

Tuesday, March 21st, 2006, by Fred (, No Comments »
, , , ,

Archbishop of Canterbury says no to creationism in schools

The spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans does not believe that creationism — the Bible-based account of the world’s origins — should be taught in schools.”I don’t think it should, actually. No, No,” said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, reflecting on the bitter education debate over religion and science that has so divided the United States in particular.

Williams, head of a church which has no problem with the Darwinian theory of evolution, told the Guardian newspaper: “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory, like other theories.”

Asked if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, the mild-mannered and usually cautious theologian said: “Not very. Not very.”

Too bad Missouri legislators aren’t Anglicans.

United Arab Emirates Port Deal: No Big Deal

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006, by Fred (, No Comments »
, , , , ,

Lots of people are upset that a company that is controlled by the United Arab Emirates has entered into a $6.8 billion deal to oversee 6 U.S. ports. It’s created a strange set of bedfellows, with conservatives worried that Arabs will let Bad People into the ports, and liberals mad at Bush for being Bush.

It seems like a whole lot of ado about nothing. Virtually none of the world’s port operators are based in the US; the six ports at issue were previously run by a British company. The Dubai company taking over operation makes a large amount of money running ports throughout the world, and would certainly not risk that global operation in the interest of jihad. The ports will still be staffed by unionized American longshoremen and security will still be the province of the federal government. Honestly, what’s the big deal?

Is it that two of the 9/11 hijackers appear to have been UAE citizens? That several of the hijackers passed through Dubai? That UAE banks were not aggressive enough in pursuing UBL’s assets? These are as likely to be the product of a society that pursues the world’s tallest building as pro-jihad terrorism-enablers. Dubai is a bastion of capitalism. Capitalists tend not to want other capitalists blown up by terrorists.