Well, here it is. Link to the Link . They’ve supposedly found it. Assuming it is authentic, where does that put us? Is it game-set-match for Creationists, or is this just an amazingly clever god that’s placed such a fossil there (last week, mind you) in order to throw everyone off?
I’m inclined to think that staunch Creationists will cloes their eyes, plug their ears, and lalalalalalalala themselves into ignoring it, hoping it’ll go away.
What’s the debate? Actually, this doesn’t seem particularly new, or at least none of the features that this fossil exhibits seems new. And the YECs will just say it’s a fake, or make up some other excuse. You don’t honestly think that one fossil is going to change their minds when thousands of other equally compelling fossils haven’t?
The whole concept of a “missing link” doesn’t really have much scientific basis to begin with.
Word.
Every organism that ever lived is a “link”. The only thing that makes something “missing” is that it wasn’t fossilized. In fact, when scientists use that term*, they just play into the YECs argument.
*I doubt many scientists use that term these days. You’re more likely to hear it from journalists trying to make the concepts “accessible” to laymen.
Nothing will convince some people. They would only say the evidence is manufactured or some such.
Pah. As a creature that just about “walks the land”, Noah would have had a couple of these on the Ark. And since they couldn’t flipper away very fast, they probably got eaten and extinct by a cat a year or so later.
That’s why the rest of them are buried so far below fossils of modern fish: the Great Flood’s silt got them first before the ones in the deep blue sea.
See?
Oh, who cares? Paleontologists who already believe in Darwinian evolution will be impressed at the find. YEC’s already are denying lots of geological conclusions, this is minor minor–if it were a human-ancestor primate, they might bother to snit. Old Earth Creationists & Theistic Evolutionists will probably say what I say: The Demiurge(s) was(were) playing around with intermediate forms. So? This is news?
It’s significance seem to be that it is a ‘transitional’ form. Creationists often dishonestly claim there are no fossils that show transitions. This one supposedly shows fish transitioning to land, which was a huge evolutionary event.
But as creationists are dishonest, stupid or both it won’t make any difference to them.
I was hoping the debate would end up being a “now that there’s ‘proof’, does that change anything?”
It seems people here don’t need the ‘proof’, probably because they followed evolution anyways.
Hey, nobody ever said this would be an Amazing Debate, but the potential explosiveness of the situation is hard to ignore. Then again, it could end up fizzling out and not being as revolutionary.
The creationists I deal with will undoubtedly deny virtually everything in the article.
1 - 375 M years ago is a made up number. The world was created 6392 years ago at 0900 hrs.
2 - This is not a transitional fossil for two reasons: a) God just created it this was as he likes variety and b) from conversations with them, they expect some chimera-like creature that is half fish half dog.
3 - The flood easily accounts for the sediment build up just as Mt St Helens supposedly created millions of years of sediment layers in a brief eruption.
sigh
To answer the OP’s question: No. This does not change anything.
All available evidence indicates there is nothing that can change the creationist mind. Imperviousness to contrary data appears to be a defining characteristic, so asking what data would convince a creationist is paradoxical.
I agree that it supposedly shows a water creature transitioning to land, and I agree that if that is what happened then it was a huge evolutionary event.
Maybe some more decades of research will make evolution a complete and convincing theory. As for me, there are still so many gaps in the evolutionary hypothesis that I find it “not proven”. It’s fine by me if anyone wants to say that evolution is their preferred hypothesis. However, to insist that it is what happened is a statement of faith.
In my experience, there are many who are neither. When you meet an intelligent, honest person who believes in creation, I hope you will believe the evidence of your eyes and ears.
I’m not sure what “gaps” you’re talking about, but science always has them. Unless you have another scientific* theory that better explains all the available data (both fossil and DNA), then it really doesn’t make much sense to criticize the “gaps”. Evolution by natural selection is one of the most rigorously tested theories out there, and it has stood up to every challenge thrown at it.
*one that proposes a testable hypothesis, and not one which invokes the supernatural.
Simply put, religion begins with an assumption and tries to explain existence by that original assumption.
Science begins with nothing. It simply observes and makes hypothesis.
Creationism, therefore, is not science, so this “link” is irrelevant to them.
Reality and religion do not mix.
Evolution is a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that species died out and were replaced by other, similar species which weren’t there before over millions of years. Do you dispute this fact?
The theory of evolution is that these differences in species come from groups becoming isolated and, after generations, having small differences to the larger group it became isolated from. This speciations has been observed in organisms having a short enough lifespan to accomodate the necessary number generations. Do you deny this fact about the theory?
‘Intelligence’ and belief in creationism are contracdictions. I’m sorry - but people who believe creationism are displaying their stupidity like peacocks looking for a mate. I do believe the evidence of brain. My eyes and ears too when it comes to putting the witterings of bronze age savages above fact and reason.
I don’t think intelligence and belief in creationism are mutually exclusive, and I have met intelligent creationists myself. It’s precisely because not all creationists fit the knuckle-dragging stereotype that impervious faith in it is so mysterious.
Exactly Loopydude. It seems that some have just decided that they will accept the creation account without question or challenge.
I tend to wonder if many of them decide anything. The most striking example I’ve encountered was a woman who graduated summa from one of the top five liberal arts colleges in the country, and her undergrad major was biochemistry. She went on to an Ivy med school.