JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (ppb @ July 16 2008,13:32) | | Quote (raguel @ July 16 2008,16:13) | | I find it odd that a non-scientist/biologist can look at tiktaalik and think "fish". I see that flat head and think "alligator". I don't see any part of that fossil that makes me think it's a fish. |
I agree. To me it is a perfect example of a transitional form between fish and amphibian.
People like FTK look at things like this with their bible goggles on. To them, changing from one kind to another is impossible, so they have to label this as either a fish or a terrestrial animal. For them, there is no in between. |
Most of you have probably seen this discussion of creationist views of hominid skulls, but it's a wonderful example of this sort of worldview. If there is an unfathomable chasm between humans and (other) apes, then every one of these fossils must be clearly, unambiguously, obviously either ape or human. None of them can possibly be transitional, because there was no transition. All the creationist "authorities" agree on this point.
If only they could agree on which skulls are which...
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
