Creationists: do you find transitional forms annoying?

Question

"Discovered in 2004 on Canada's Ellesmere Island by Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago and Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik roseae "blurs the boundary between fish and land animals," said Prof. Shubin. It "is both fish and tetrapod," showing how life made the transition to land, evolving four limbs from fins."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114436537563919417-2SeevT9LrELO0e2AWr5cVOVeLBg_20060506.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Answer 1

No. How can I find something that doesn't exist annoying?

Answer 2

Very interesting. I have always been fascinated by dinosaurs and other extinct creatures. Of course this story does have two sides. A little research finds this commentary that I also find interesting. Your Tiktaalik Roseae is described as a mosaic lifeform thus forming what is described as a 'missing link'

"Mosaic life forms, however, are very far from being the intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution. The present-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for instance, is a mosaic creature that possesses mammalian, reptilian and avian features at one and the same time. But nothing about it constitutes any evidence for the theory of evolution. Mosaic life forms are not what evolutionists need to find in order to back up their claims; they need to find “intermediate forms,” which would have to be with deficient, only half-formed and not fully functional organs. Yet every one of the organs possessed by mosaic creatures is complete and flawless. They have no semi-developed organs, and there are no fossil series that can be proposed as evidence that they evolved from some other life forms."

I didn't want to disappoint anyone by not providing a response.

Cheers.

Answer 3

That God created creatures able to survive able to survive in multiple environments and having caharacteristics for more than one species is obvious. We see those all around us everyday. Penguins, which are swimming, flightless birds for example. Or an egg laying mammal. Or frogs that begin life in the water and end it on the land. Or creatures that start as "worm-like" things, surround themselves with silk, and become flying creatures instead.

So finding a now extenct species that combines fish and land animal characteristics is common. Nothing new or exciting in that story. Just another example of the creativity of the Creator in the creative way he made his creatures. Just further evidence of God.

Answer 4

As for the latest find Tiktaalik roseae there is nothing with this find that suggests evolution, only one more fossil found in a specific rock layer with a claimed age of 383 million years. The only evidence for the evolution of this animal into another is use of iconography. It is simply a matter of asserting that ‘animal A looks similar to animal B and C, therefore animal A must be evolving from animal B into animal C.’ But there is no evidence for this change. And yet scientists and journalists are so taken in by the thought that such a process has occurred that they promote in to the public with absolute certainty without any supporting empirical evidence. The pressure on the public is then to suspend critical analysis and accept evolution as well. But this is a form of belief and not science.

Answer 5

all science is discovery ! Theories need to be prov-en by experimentation. Man hasn't been around long enough to prove any theory of overvaluation. A few bone chips and unreliable carbon dating doesn't prove anything. Ever hear of survival of the fittest. Mutations of a fish is no proof that it survived. How would one exhibit even reproduce it's self?

Answer 6

another one that annoys me (irk from previous answer lol)

when creationists argue that for evolution to be taken seriously, we need to find organisms with in other words, half-evolved organs...are they serious?

to steal a phrase from another R and S user, "this is where a little knowledge can become a dangerous thing!"

Answer 7

No, I find it cool and interesting.
Doesn't change my faith.

EDIT. Read the Yahoo new article in today's news called "Dinosaur theory's demise". Things change within in scientific circles all the time. .

Answer 8

John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, Calif., says Tiktaalik "is just a variety of fish. There is still a huge gap [between fish and land-dwellers] that has to be filled."

Answer 9

Beautiful

Answer 10

That's only one example too. There are literally THOUSANDS of transitional fossils out there, from invertebrate to vertebrate all te way up to higher order mammals.
But the creationist morons out there will plug their ears, close their eyes and dance around yelling "is not! is not!".
Pathetic is what they are...