The IDers aren't the only ones sounding foolish trying to dismiss Tiktaalik roseae as a transitional fossil, the old fashioned young earth creationists are too. Lancelet has two posts on the subject, one on Answers in Genesis and one on the Institute for Creation Research. The one on the ICR includes this delightful quote from John Morris on how an evolutionary transition between fish and amphibians could be documented:
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today.
In essence, that is precisely what we have in a remarkable series of fossils documenting the transition.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
We've already documented the profoundly silly response of the Discovery Institute and ID advocates to the recent announcement of the finding of Tiktaalik roseae; now let's look at the response of more traditional creationists. Two creationist groups, the young earth Answers in Genesis and the old…
In addition to AIG, Reasons to Believe and all the other DI folks falling all over themselves to say nonsensical things about Tiktaalik roseae, Casey Luskin has now jumped into the fray with this silly post at the DI's blog. His argument can be summed up thusly: even though this find fills in a gap…
Jonathan Witt, one of the many DI shills, has posted one of the many ID responses to the find of Tiktaalik roseae. The most fascinating thing about the ID response to this find is how scatterbrained it's been. An organization famous for being able to stay "on message" can't seem to settle on a…
If the ID and traditional creationist responses to Tiktaalik roseae aren't quite ignorant and badly reasoned enough for you, might I suggest you look at the response from Joseph Farah, founder of the Worldnutdaily? It's delightfully wacky and full of nonsense. The ignorance begins to accumulate in…
"I'm sorry. Did we say '90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian'? We meant '90% fish/10% amphibian; then 89% fish/11% amphibian;'..."