Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

For those who believe in Intelligent Design only,as opposed to those who are Christian and believe in evolution,how do you explain this discovery?

CT scans of 50-million-year-old fossils have revealed an intermediate species between primitive flatfishes (with eyes on both sides of their heads) and the modern,lopsided versions,which include sole,flounder,and halibut.

So the change happened gradually,in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly,as researchers once had little choice but to believe,the authors of the new study say.

The longstanding gap in the flatfish fossil record has long been explained by a "hopeful monster"—scientific jargon for an unknown animal blessed with a severe but helpful mutation that was passed down to its descendants.

Ever since a geneticist invoked the hopeful-monster explanation in the 1930s,it has been the conventional wisdom for the origin of modern flatfishes.

Intelligent design advocates have seized on the idea of instant flatfish rearrangement as evidence of God or another higher being intentionally creating new animal forms.

Intelligent design advocates often cite the relative scarcity of transitional species in the fossil record as evidence of the intentional creation of species.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


The article goes on to give an argument against this "underwhelming" discovery and Zoologist Frank Sherwin,science editor for the Institute for Creation Research says,

"Fish have always been fish,all the way down to the lower Cambrian [roughly 542 to 488 million years ago]," he added."We have no problem with the variation within flatfish.What we're asking is,Show me how a fish came from a nonfish ancestor."

Such a statement not only shows a total lack of understanding regarding the meaning of evolution,but,when he says,"We have no problem with the variation within flatfish" he also inadvertently admits that evolution is real,as these 'variants' only happen over a long period of time.

Does Intelligent Design rule out evolution?

I think you can say that God created the world and allow for adaptation .. i don't think it negates the theory.

If there was no creator then how did life begin?

Evolution is not science, it's a theory.

No one knows for sure how life begin but it's possible it was created.

reply to post by whiskeyswiller


Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, just how it develops.

Also, it is science.Just because it is theory, doesn't mean there isn't evidence for it. There is a big difference between a conventional theory and a scientific theory. Relativity is "just a theory".....

Creationists have a hard time understanding this as they do not understand the scientific process, yet attempt to slander it by saying "it's just an theory"....

I think you can say that God created the world and allow for adaptation .. i don't think it negates the theory.

I believe thats possible.But for many Christians its just not an option.

Many believe God created everything,and everything has remained the same way ever since he did.




[edit on 30-10-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll


Except those who believe in "Super-Evolution". This hypothesis tries to explain how all live there is now came from the life on the far-too-limited Ark.

reply to post by whiskeyswiller


Evolution is fact. We have witnessed it in laboratories around the world. The theory of evolution, how science explains it, is indeed a theory, but a scientific theory, much different to 'theory' as used in every-day language. There is masses of evidence for this theory, including DNA, which was not discovered when the original theory was published, yet lines up perfectly.

It would help your argument to know what the terms you are using mean.

reply to post by stumason


Evolution theory, while I tend to accept it, has a lot of holes in it.

It's still a theory, not yet proven as science.

There is no missing link. There have been no transitional forms found. I can't recall them all off the top of my head but to me The Evolution Theory is probable yet flawed.

If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone density.

I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist, i'm just telling you there are problems with the theory and your faith in it is the same as blind fundamentalist faith in a deity.

reply to post by whiskeyswiller


Gah. Please read my posts more thoroughly in future.

There are two distinct terms being discussed here:

1. 'Evolution' - the phenomenon of one species, or a group thereof, turning into another species.

2. 'The theory of evolution' - the scientific explanation of how 1. happens.

Number one - 'evolution' - is a fact. We have seen it in labs. We have turned one species of fly into two species, which can no-longer reproduce together (the definition of 'species'). Number two still hasn't had any evidence turn up to blow holes in it - every single discovery has been well within the framework, but has required the theory to adapt, refining it in every step.

We haven't found a missing link, but by studying DNA we know there was one. That doesn't disprove anything, in fact it was predicted by Darwin and demonstrated as true by the discovery of DNA.

Darwinian evolution is about 'the survival of the fittest', yes, but you seem to be confused as to what 'fittest' means. He was using it in the sense 'the most apt', not 'the strongest and fastest'. This is a problem with your understanding of the theory, not with the theory itself.

There are no problems with the theory. There are problems with your understanding of it. Deny ignorance. Read a book.

If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone density.

That isn't what Darwinism is about at all.Its the bulls**t that some Christians like to use in their arguments against evolution.

You may find the information in these threads useful.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller
If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone density.

Larger brains, stronger & more resilient bodies and thicker bone density are all things that require more energy to maintain. Food became scarce at the onset of the last "ice age" and the Neanderthal were unable to keep up the amount of food their bodies required.

Additionally, the Neanderthal used thrusting weapons such as spears to kill their prey, which required them to get very close to their targets. They had to work as a team to kill their food and this became an issue as that food became more scarce.

On top of that, homo sapiens came up from Africa and began to migrate into Europe where the Neaderthal had lived undisturbed for thousands of years. They were able to hunt without help from others, and they didn't put themselves as much in risky situations when hunting because they were able to use projectiles to kill their prey.

There's also some thought out there that humans actually began to interbreed with neanderthals, which eventually assimilated those few into the homo sapien fold.

I believe that it used to be called the evolutionary theory, now it's just called EVOLUTION. Why, because it has been proven through being put to the test of scientific scrutiny and passed times and time again. I don't believe that Intelligent design or creationism even has the word theory applied to it because it is a HYPOTHESIS at best. However, neither intelligent design, nor creationism could ever stand up to scientific scrutiny; therefore, they have no validity in an argument that is based upon tangible evidence.

Just my 2-cents

Originally posted by The Cyfre

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller
If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone density.

Larger brains, stronger & more resilient bodies and thicker bone density are all things that require more energy to maintain. Food became scarce at the onset of the last "ice age" and the Neanderthal were unable to keep up the amount of food their bodies required.

Additionally, the Neanderthal used thrusting weapons such as spears to kill their prey, which required them to get very close to their targets. They had to work as a team to kill their food and this became an issue as that food became more scarce.

On top of that, homo sapiens came up from Africa and began to migrate into Europe where the Neaderthal had lived undisturbed for thousands of years. They were able to hunt without help from others, and they didn't put themselves as much in risky situations when hunting because they were able to use projectiles to kill their prey.

There's also some thought out there that humans actually began to interbreed with neanderthals, which eventually assimilated those few into the homo sapien fold.

Well explained.

There is so much evidence for Evolution that it's quite silly to deny it today. Examples are abundant and solid proof may be maybe one or two percent away from completion, but there is so much supporting evidence outweighing the contradictory evidence that refuting evolution is sort of ignorant from my perspective.

As stated above, evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. Evolution isn't stating how life began, though how it is thought to develop by looking at obvious indications.



[edit on 5-11-2008 by panda319]

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller

If Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest then why did the Neanderthals die out? They had larger brains, stronger bodies, and stronger bone density.

Compared to Neanderthals, we run like gazelles.

When the ice began receding, long, slender bodies and the ability to run fast outweighed being tough and stocky. You can be as tough and stocky as you want, but the food just ran away, and if you can't catch it, what good was being harder than rock?

I suspect there were many other factors as well, such as the human propensity for genocide.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Actually, we are quite successful because we could walk for incredible distances tracking out prey. A horse, for example, would just run off really quick (as they do), and the people tracking it could simply stay on its trail, and eventually they'd walk up to a disheveled horse struggling for breath and overheating, and eat it. We are not quick in the slightest, we're just incredibly efficient at walking really, really long distances.

But yeah, we were massively more suited to the environment than those guys.

reply to post by jakyll


Frank Sherwin's comment is exactly true. variations within species does not equal evolution. they have discovered changes within the flat fish species, so what? When you find intermediate creatures between species, e.g. something not a fish transforming into a fish, then you may have something. As of now you only have word play; macro-evolution, micro-evolution, speciation etc. stand back and just look at it simply: there is no evidence past or present, in nature or laboratory, of any creature evolving into a different type of creature.

reply to post by whiskeyswiller

If there was no creator then how did life begin?

We can explain how life began with science and to me it makes perfect sense and fits together like the pieces of a puzzle.

If there you believe in a creator then who created the creator? It does not matter which way you look at things, everything must of come from nothing! So your argument is pretty weak imo...

Number one - 'evolution' - is a fact. We have seen it in labs. We have turned one species of fly into two species, which can no-longer reproduce together (the definition of 'species'). Number two still hasn't had any evidence turn up to blow holes in it - every single discovery has been well within the framework, but has required the theory to adapt, refining it in every step.

Dave420 Can you provide me with a link to an article talking about scientists turning one species of fly in another? I've looked on google but can't seem to find any.

Here's speciation of a fruit fly - it isn't the same fruit fly used in lab experiments; I can't remember their name, but they are used because they only live 3 days, so you can observe multiple generations in very short series of time.
en.wikipedia.org...

speciation in salmon:
www.nytimes.com...

educational page on speciation:
www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu...

reply to post by cruzion


Is that the best evolutionists have to offer as proof? again, step back and look at what has happened. they started with a fruit fly and ended with a fruit fly, they started with a salmon and ended with a salmon. Whether they split into different groups and don't beed doesn't mean they have evolved into a different creature. Not only are they still fish but still salmon. not only are the flies still flies, but still fruit flies. To say that this proves evolution from one type of creature to another, i.e. monkeys to men or whatever is ridiculous.

Originally posted by cruzion
I can't remember their name, but they are used because they only live 3 days, so you can observe multiple generations in very short series of time.

Drosophila flies were what we used in my genetics lab. We inbred the wildtype looking for inferior genes that caused albinism (white w/red eyes). Is this the same fly you speak of?