Missing Link
Out of context: Reply #40
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- flagellum0
It was easy to tell that the article was flawed when they said this:
“like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds”.
I guess they didn't hear that it was a fully mammalian bird: http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
Anyway, regarding Tiktaalik, either the creature at some point could breathe both in and out of the water or else at some point one solitary Tiktaalik “learned” to breathe air. It would not only have to learn to breathe air but it would also have to learn how to use breathing air to an advantage with a beneficial point mutation happening which would settle in the genome and get passed along, etc... etc.... (insert additional hand waving & speculative scenarios here). The more one looks at this thru the lens of Darwinian gradualism, the more absurd it becomes. We know of the biochemical hurdles this thing would have to cross without intelligent guidance... and sorry, it ain't happnin' that way. How do they know this is a transitional form and not a separate species that deserves its own unique branch? We have no soft tissue, just fossil remains. It could be just another interesting creature with features in common with some other creatures. It really comes down to the paradigm in which you interpret the evidence.
The article also mentions this being a detriment to Intelligent Design. This demonstrates how little the authors know about ID. Common ancestry via saltation or quantum level programming is perfectly compatible with ID. It is the unscientific notion that Darwin's unguided NS+RM can naturally produce biological novelty, that ID (and the evidence) challenges.