Search This Blog

Monday, June 28, 2010

No new facts will dissuade Darwinists

Taking time to do something else tonight, so I will highlight good old Ian Juby and do Baraminology on Tuesday.   

I wonder, if someone did find a track with both a man and dinosaur print together would Darwinists admit they were wrong?

I wonder, is any fossil find that overturns the Darwinist dating applecart EVER going to get them to rethink the entire idea?   I will just post a part of this newsletter and link it so you can read it all.

"1) Texas Fishapod fry!
Now I’m not a big fish eater, but I have to admit, the
first time I had Texas grilled Catfish, I loved it!  So there’s no
better way to start off the new year then with a good fish fry, only
today, we’re going to fry some “fishapods.”

Bad year for Darwin
Welp, we’re just wrapping up the “year of Darwin,” which was supposed
to be a celebration of Darwin’s birthday, and his genius penned in his
earth-shaking book “Origin of the species.”  Problem is, it’s been
a baaaad year for Darwin.

You’ll recall in several newsletters from the past year (="">1, ="">2 , ="">3)
that the mythological evolutionary tree has suffered repeated hacking,
uprooting, pruning and grafting.  Well the subject of today’s
first story lops off a major branch….again!
The find is “very old” fossil footprints found in Poland:
(complete with nice video from Nature magazine)

Also, a nice video on the find:

Supposedly 395 million years
, these footprints have toes and are similar in many ways to large salamander tracks. In layman’s terms, what this means from an evolutionary standpoint is that tetrapods (four-footed, four-legged creatures) were around 395 million years ago.

Telling another fishapod story
The evolutionary myth has tetrapods (land animals) evolving from fish -
hence the nickname “fishapods”
- creatures supposedly half-way
between a fish and a tetrapod
.  So these were creatures evolving into tetrapods.  Wikipedia has
a nice diagram of the “fishapods” and their supposed evolutionary
(image courtesy of wikipedia)
If you were paying attention, you’ll notice that the Polish fossil footprints are older than all of the
fishapods!  Waitaminit – I thought the fishapods were supposed to be evolving into tetrapods? But now we have evidence (by evolutionary standards) that tetrapods were already around before any of the fishapods!  It’s purdy simple: your great-great-great-grandfather can’t be your child.  You’ll notice that this single fossil footprint find just uprooted the tetrapod evolutionary tree.

So to help you grasp the significance of all of this, let’s hop into the time machine and take a look at what’s been said about some of these “fishapods.”
Cast of Tiktaalik fossil, on display at the Chicago Field Museum
Interpretive plaque at Chicago Field museum – click on image to view
high-resolution version

Homology plaque describing Tik’s forelimb
It’s just like yours!
It was only 2006 when Tiktaalik rosae (aka “Tiki”) was presented to the public with much fanfare.  This is an incredibly important fossil for the evolution myth.  Don’t believe me?

In 2008 I was taken on a wonderful tour of the Chicago field
museum – wow.  Of course, we homed in on the “Evolution hall”
which provided copious amounts of supposed evidence for
evolution (It actually provided a lot of wonderful evidence for creation!).  Tiktaalik had quite a bit of space for itself in the Evolution hall.  The
plaque (shown right, click on thumbnails to view high-res images) is
quite plain in its very bold claims:

“The 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik is a “missing link” between sarcopterygian, or lobe-finned, fishes and their tetrapod descendants.”
[Bold Emphasis and red text mine]

Notice the word “descendants?”  In fact, the Field Museum made a very big deal of the bones of Tiktaalik to make their case – heck, the bones in its fishy fin are just like yours! Can’t you see it? (see image on right, “Homology”)  I dealt with this bankrupt argument from homology in a previous newsletter (see second entry).

I have to give them credit though: They at least called it’s “leg” what
it was – a fin. A big deal was made about the fact that Tiki had its eyes on top of its
head.  Ya, so does the flounder and tarbot – they’re fish. Your point is?

First course of the meal: fishopods,  second course: words…

But in case you’re still missing the significance of the Poland fossil
footprint find, let’s visit a few websites and see what they had to say
about the discovery of Tiki.

A Harvard University Gazette article said:
“It would take several more seasons, and a move east to Ellesmere Island, before the researchers would find their prize: a link between fish and land animals that they would name Tiktaalik roseae. Tiktaalik would prove worth
the wait. When announced in April 2006, the discovery was hailed as the long-sought “missing link,” filling an evolutionary gap in the history of how fishlike creatures first crawled out of the shallow rivers to take their place on land….Still, Jenkins acknowledged that Tiktaalik’sdiscovery provides a stronger link between fishes and tetrapods, or four-legged land animals.”[emphasis mine]
BBC news headlined their article “Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say” and went on to report:

“Before these finds, palaeontologists knew that lobe-finned fishes
evolved into land-living creatures
during the Devonian Period. ['d they 'know' this? - IJ]…Professor Jennifer Clack, from the University of Cambridge, said
that the find could prove to be as much of an “evolutionary icon” as Archaeopteryx – an animal believed to mark the transition from reptiles to birds.”

You remember Archaeopteryx, don’t you? One of the most famous intermediate fossils ever – supposed ‘proof’ that lizards evolved into birds, another fossil ‘proof of evolution’ which was also ungloriously hurled out of the evolutionary tree last fall.

The BBC article reproduced the
diagram from the Nature magazine report on Tiki, and the diagram is
very telling (shown right): 
You can’t get around it – with titles like “Transition between fish and land vertebrates,” it’s pretty obvious what they were claiming
about Tiki.  And by the way – this entire chart just got thrown out the
window by this one find from Poland, because land vertebrates were already around before Eusthenopteron!
An MSNBC article kicks off with a pretty drawing showing Tiki trying to walk up on land.  Too late Tiki! Someone already beat you to it by about ohhhh….. 20 million years, give or take?  The article goes
on to make the usual brazen claims associated with the discovery of an “intermediate fossil:”

I will quit here but I recommend you go read the entire newsletter. Ian Juby rides again~


Anyway, Ricky Tikky Taalik turns out to be a false alarm.  We have similar animals around today.  Heck, we have salamanders around today.   I wonder what would happen with Darwinists if a Mokele-mbembe is ever captured?  I wonder what Darwinists could date a Snakehead fish if it was fossilized instead of swimming and crawling around looking for things to bite?  

Frankenfish? circa 2002

And now in 2010 

“Smile, you son of a bitch!”
— Chief Brody as he aims at the shark in Jaws

Say hello to Frankenfish.

How’d you like that thing biting your ass? It can grow to 1.8 metres. The fish, I mean.

The savage, voracious, quick-tempered, razor-mouthed northern snakehead fish.

It’s Asian but seems intent on conquering the New World. We’re like a holiday resort with a jaw-dropping buffet.

Just when your chihuahua thought it was safe to go back in the water. This monster is known to inhale small mammals and shred human appendages.

“You wouldn’t want to be in the water with it,” Burlington biologist Becky Cudmore tells me. “It’s as nasty as it looks.”

And that’s naaaaaaasty. Watch your toes.

This’ll curl them: The northern snakehead can survive four days out of water, thanks to a primitive lung above its gills. AND IT “WALKS” ON LAND!

Aye, Capt. Quint, the slippery devil slithers from one stream or lake to another. It can “walk” for half a klick.
I kid you not.

I learned of this finned fiend in the Expositor, on Manitoulin Island, where I just bought a small waterfront lot, where I will now sleep with one eye open.

The paper warned of the looming danger to such species as the local whitefish.

Sure, Mikey, but this is some distant nightmare, right? A Hollywood plot? A bait-and-switch?

Wrong. Already, the northern snakehead is snapping at Canada’s door.

Officials are trying to contain an outbreak in a few ponds and streams in mid-New York State. Poison and electrocution have been hit and miss. (They “walk,” remember?)

Northern snakefish invaded the Potomac River near Washington, D.C., while George W. Bush was president, though this time you can’t blame him.

Aquarium fanciers and live-fish markets are the usual suspects.

An 18-inch snakehead was pulled from a Chicago harbour five years ago — but it’s believed (hoped) to have been a one-off.

At the time, a U.S. fisheries officer warned that northern snakefish “are going to affect the food chain from the bottom up. You need to stop them before it’s too late.”

Says Cudmore: “It’s a vicious predator. I’ve seen pictures of fish that it has torn in two, completely sheared in half. You can see the bite marks.
“Native fish just aren’t prepared for this.”

Is it already too late for the Great White North? Will we kiss our bass goodbye?

Just a month ago, Quebec scientists shuddered when a giant snakehead — a bigger, meaner, but tropical version of the northern — was found dead on the shores of the Saint-Charles River.

It too is believed to have been an overgrown former pet.

Ontario has banned live snakeheads — for fun or food — but Cudmore bought one in Vancouver to study.

She spent a nervous night while it glowered in a bucket in her hotel room.

“It sank its teeth into the plastic and just wouldn’t let go.”

Next stop, the freezer. Snakeheads are a tasty treat in Asia.

“Actually, I’m allergic to fish,” says Cudmore.

Odd trait for the woman who is top warrior in the federal fisheries department against the snakehead, Asian carp, and other invasive species.

She co-authored a study that declared a “high — reasonably certain” risk of northern snakeheads calling Canada home.

The study reports maximum lengths in Asia of 1.8 metres (5-foot-10!), though most adults top out at a metre.
Which, including teeth, is plenty.

We should all be allergic to this fish. If you catch one, kill it. MAKE SURE IT’S DEAD!

The brute is hardier than a federal Tory in Toronto. It has survived being frozen, clubbed or shipped without water from China.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has a website,, with a hotline.
Or, call Chief Brody.

And get a bigger boat,"


My point?  If we found a fossil of this thing it would be classified a fishapod.  But it exists now.  Heck, so does the coelecanth!  In fact, so many "Lazarus" organisms (thought extinct but now found alive) are extant that the entire evolution chart should be ripped to shreds by now.  Sure, a few things like crocodiles existing pretty well unchanged might be expected but if dozens of so-called ancestors of modern animals are found to exist still, then the creationist assertion that there are various species of basic kinds rather than a continuum of emergent new kinds as claimed by Darwin frankly makes more sense.  It seems no matter what is discovered in the fossil record the Darwinists do the soft shoe and revise their talking points to include it.

Tuesday will come a post on Baraminology that will hopefully clarify the fact that Darwinists have taxonomy backwards, sideways and upside down wrong.   


Jon Woolf said...

if someone did find a track with both a man and dinosaur print together would Darwinists admit they were wrong?

If there was no other possible explanation, then yes, such a find would be a serious problem.

But so far, there have always been more plausible explanations: mistake and fraud being the two chief ones. The Delk print is not trustworthy.

Juby's newsletter is a pile of junk. He clearly suffers from the delusional belief that scientists regard their science the way he regards the Bible: abslute truth, written in stone, nevermore to be revised or reconsidered for any reason. In fact, scientific theories are always tentative: this is what we think happened based on the best evidence currently available. When new evidence becomes available, the theory gets changed to try to account for it. If no acceptable change can be found, the theory is discarded. That's happened with numerous theories over the ages, but it has not (yet) happened with evolutionary theory.

Juby also clearly thinks that any mistake in details, however minor, falsifies the entirety of evolutionary theory. Yes, it turns out that "Ida" was misidentified and its importance was blown out of proportion. How does that affect the basic concept of primate evolution? (Hint: it doesn't.)

Juby also makes other mistakes that show he, like you, has never bothered to actually learn the subject he's trying to talk about. His equation of Tiktaalik with the northern snakehead fails because the former is a highly derived sarcopterygian fish, while the latter is an actinopterygian. The differences between the two types of fish are numerous and widespread throughout the skeleton. Likewise, his attempt to compare the broad flat amphibian-like skull and eye placement of Tiktaalik to the heavily distorted skull of the flounder is risible.

Juby also botches his claim about Archaeopteryx ... and in the process destroys your argument about it. The Wall Street Journal article that Juby links says that based on a detailed study of bone histology, Archaeopteryx has been reclassified AS A DINOSAUR. Juby claims that this "knocks Archaeopteryx out of the avian evolutionary tree" or some such rot, but it does no such thing. It just moves Archaeopteryx a step further away from the direct line that led to true birds (whatever those are). Archaeopteryx still had modern-bird-type flight feathers on its arms -- meaning that it could fly. A dinosaur that had feathers and flew. So much for your repeated claim that it's just an odd old bird.

highboy said...

You guys are overlooking the fact that the frankenfish in those pictures is awesome.

Hawkeye® said...

"if someone did find a track with both a man and dinosaur print together would Darwinists admit they were wrong?"

Darwinists rarely admit that they are wrong. The few examples of "conversion" that you have provided on this blog are an exception to the rule. I doubt that you will make many converts among this crowd.

But that is human nature. It is difficult to admit when you are wrong about something. When the "stakes" get higher, the admission becomes more difficult. When it comes to a person's world view, which has been cultivated and developed over dozens of years, the "stakes" couldn't be higher. A person will do almost anything to avoid changing their entire world view.

You and I are probably as guilty of this as the next guy. You and I have come understand the truth of the Bible. We have seen God work in our lives. We have received great blessings. The world view revealed to us in the pages of God's Word makes sense to us. We have not only come to accept it, but to nurture it, cultivate it, and to share it with others.

And if all we had was our faith, then we might even be pitiable to some. But we have more than our faith. We have the example of others. We follow in the footsteps of the apostles, the martyrs, and the Founding Fathers. Many great men were believers. Many wicked men were non-believers.

I reiterate, a person will do almost anything to avoid changing their entire world view. As the Bible says, even if someone were to come back from the dead and reveal the truth unto them, they would still not believe.

Jon Woolf said...

It is difficult to admit when you are wrong about something.

As you and Radar demonstrate so vividly every day.

So, Radar, when are you going to admit you were wrong about Archaeopteryx?

radar said...

"So, Radar, when are you going to admit you were wrong about Archaeopteryx?"

In what way am I wrong. Be specific here. You say Juby is full of it without specifying how he is wrong, probably because you don't want to touch the Delk track with a 110 foot pole? But Juby linked a non-creationist source that says Archy is a dinosaur.

So I have stated that Archy is a wildcard but probably should be considered a bird. If you agree with the WSJ then you think Archy is a dinosaur (thus bye-bye transitional form). Please do not be so inconsistent that you will look to Juby for information after you deride him!

So WSJ article (I read it, did you) is making a claim based on bone growth. But the way the entire structure of Archy presents itself (based on what we know now) is that of a flying bird. I think Darwinists need to get their stuff together.

So if it has feathers it can fly? Care to tell the Ostrich about that? That is oversimplification.
I stand by what I said about Archy, he was a bird with unusual features. I do not see that the WSJ has any compelling evidence to falsify that.

But pretty much all Darwinists other than you have abandoned Archy as a transitional form, so there you go. Engineers studied Bumblebees to figure out how they manage to fly because their structure is such that they should not be able to do it. But studying living examples revealed wing movement patterns that took advantage of special muscles and helicopter-like motions to do it.

Dragonflies have such sophisticated flight mechanics that we study them to make better drones. If all we had was fossil records of dragonflies we would not know of their incredible tracking abilities to follow prey will appearing not to move and being able to move each wing independently to be more efficient and quick.

We cannot study Archy alive to see how he flew. But his remains seem to indicate that he did. Without a living specimen it will be darned hard to prove either way.

radar said...

Details on the Delk print and testing thereupon. The Delk print has withstood vigorous testing and it comes out as authentic. The Delk print is trustworthy and it was safeguarded so no Darwinists could come out and hammer it into oblivion so it is still available to be viewed if you care to go on down to Texas yourself.

Jon Woolf said...

I not only read the WSJ article, I understood it. Which is more than you can say. Here are the salient points that you should have taken away from it:

1) The bone structure of Archaeopteryx suggests that it grew at the relatively slow rate of a dinosaur, not the lightning-fast rate shown by modern birds. This is yet another way in which it resembled dinosaurs, and not later birds.

2) Biologists are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their search for a way to reliably distinguish birds from derived maniraptoran dinosaurs. The dinosaur-bird distinction is now even more blurry than the therapsid-mammal distinction.

3) This study really makes Archaeopteryx a better example of a transitional form. It had feathers, it had flight feathers, it could fly, it probably led an arboreal lifestyle ... but it wasn't quite a bird yet.

So your description of it as an odd "wild card" bird is simply wrong.

If you agree with the WSJ then you think Archy is a dinosaur (thus bye-bye transitional form).

[snicker.wav] Like shooting fish in a barrel...

Radar, extreme difficulty in classification is exactly what you should expect in a transitional form. Again, if you knew taxonomy and systematics, not to mention the actual theory of evolution that scientists work with every day, you'd understand that.

So if it has feathers it can fly? Care to tell the Ostrich about that?

[sigh] I live for the day a creationist demonstrates enough knowledge to avoid my simple little traps...

I said Archaeopteryx must have been able to fly because it had flight feathers. Flight feathers are very highly specialized feathers whose only raison d'etre is providing lift and thrust for flight. They have no other function. Modern flightless birds like ratites don't have them. Their presence is a 100% reliable sign that Archaeopteryx could fly.

As for the Delk print, way back when you first brought it up, I posted a link to a page that gives several good reasons to question it. Ichnofossils are not a strong suit of mine, but I find Glen Kuban's argument convincing, and Juby's not.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
Glad to know that you are ALWAYS right. Now (sticking finger in throat) I know where to turn when I need help with something.

radar said...

Woolf, I do not want to call names but if Archy had bird wings and bird feathers and bird skeletal features and apparently bird lungs and it flew, then the fact that it had bones that were not the same as surviving birds does not preclude it being an extinct bird. There are some who have studied the remains of the Archys we have found and concluded that it was a bird. There are those who believe the bone type and bone growth evidence separates it from birds. There is no common agreement in the scientific community so you, not being an authority, cannot tell me that I am "wrong" about Archy with conviction.

Juby presents evidence. You call names. I prefer evidence. You also apparently want to get a lot of mileage out of Archy when both sides agree it is not a transitional fossil. So frankly it would not matter to me were it a flying dinosaur. Like all the other so-called transitional fossils it has turned out not to fill the bill (pun intended).

It does not escape my attention that you run away from the main arguments by trying to go down rabbit trails.

Jon Woolf said...

You also apparently want to get a lot of mileage out of Archy when both sides agree it is not a transitional fossil.

This is false.

Creationists say Archaeopteryx is not a transitional because they exalt their faith over fact, and deny reality in favor of superstition.

I don't know of any scientist in any relevant field who says that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form between bird-ancestors and primitive birds. Both of the primary hypotheses for the origin of birds use Archaeopteryx as an example of a stage near the basal origin of birds. Every book I have that touches on the topic uses Archaeopteryx as a transitional. What sources are you looking at that have "evolutionists" saying that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional? Can you point to verifiable, in-context quotes by scientists using their own words? Ofr are you relying on sweeping generalizations by the creationist liars you made the mistake of trusting?

Anonymous said...

Relative to Archaeopteryx, Radar you say "There is no common agreement in the scientific community" on it being a transitional fossil. Are you able to provide one single shred of evidence for this statement that doesn't come from creationist sources? If so, lets see it. I've looked, and this seems to be yet another completely unsupportable statement (i.e. lie) being foisted by our beloved blogwriter, on to his trusting "readers". How is it that you think of yourself as a moral person (which I'm sure you do), when you lie darn so often, Radar?

- Canucklehead.