In real estate, it's "location, location, location" ...

[Jorge]

... but in the Creation-Evolution debate, it's "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation."

You see, the observations are the same - we all "see" the same things.
But then they have to be interpreted. Take a look at this recent example ...

So, these Evo-Faithful people see the fossilized remains of a flat fish.
How do they interpret it? Well, for them Evolution is a fact, Fact, FACT!
And they've had this nagging problem of explaining via Evolution the
present flat fish with two eyes on the same side of the head.

So what interpretation do they give this particular fossil ???

Ah, yes, but of course!!! This FLAT fish is the transitional stage
between the 'not-flat fish with eyes on both sides of the head'
and the 'flat fish with both eyes on one side of the head only'.
Isn't it obvious? Are you dense for not seeing this?

Here are their own words (my comments are in green) :

"A new fossil discovery described in the latest issue of the
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology by Oxford University
researcher Dr Matt Friedman finally solves the mystery."
"finally solves the mystery" ??? What kind of science is that?

"This study provides the first detailed description of a primitive
flatfish, revealing that the migrated eye had not yet crossed to
the opposite side of the skull in early members of this group."
Uhmmm ... hellooooo, Mr. Friedman! Perhaps the "migrated eye
had not yet crossed to the opposite side of the skull" because
it never happened! IOW, you are assuming that this eye migration
is in the process of occurring. How the devil do you know
that, Herr Friedman? And if you don't know it, if you're just
pulling this out of your rear end, then why are you saying that
the "mystery is solved"? What 'science' do you practice, Herr doktor?


"This is a profound discovery which clearly shows that intermediate
fossil forms, which according to certain creationist theories shouldn't
exist, are regularly turning up as scientists keep looking for them,"
says Dr. John Long of the Natural History Museum of LA County, an
expert in fossil fishes who was not involved in the study."
Jumpin' flatfish! Hellooooo Mr. Long ... you are ASSUMING that this
is a transitional form. Show us - please - how you know that this
fossil from (allegedly) 50 million years ago is actually the ancestor
of today's flounder or any other flatfish. Go ahead, we're waiting.


That, folks, is the "logic" of these Evo-Faithful people.
Truthfully, if not for their arrogance, they invoke deep pity.


Entire article here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0625160358.htm


Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

Another escape thread, eh?

[rogue06]

This discovery was announced in 2008. What's new is the full description was just now released.

Here is what I originally posted concerning it in the old Time for YECs to Reconsider Transitional Fossils? thread:

Ever since Charles Darwin published “Origin of the Species” in 1859 flatfish (which include flounder, sole, plaice, turbot and halibut) has been named as an example of a creature whose distinct features appeared suddenly. Flatfish and their unusual eyes were cited by St. George Jackson Mivart in his “On Genesis of the Species” in 1871 as an argument against the ToE and have continued to be so up through Lee James Best Jr’s “God Fallacy in the Theory of Evolution” and others.

Even the majority of scientists conceded that their asymmetrical, one-sided eye arrangement was a characteristic that arose suddenly in flatfish because they could not comprehend any benefit for the fish if it took millions of years for an eye to migrate from one side to the other. Many assumed that the flatfish’s anatomy was probably a result of a few chance mutations, a through a process called “saltation.”

But that was before Matt Friedman, a graduate student in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago and a member of Geology Department at the Field Museum, spotted several fossils of long extinct species, dating from the Eocene (around 45-50 mya) and often misidentified, sitting in the drawers of various European museums.

While at the Paris National Museum of Natural History, Friedman spotted a fossilized flatfish, an Amphistium that clearly had an eye socket near the top of the skull, apparently in transit to the other side of its face. Then while at Britain’s Natural History Museum in London, he found a second fossil species of Amphistium, slightly younger than the one in the French museum, and was able to CT scan to image the bone structures around the ancient fish’s eyes and again found evidence that Amphistium possessed eye sockets that represented a transitional stage.

Finally, while visiting the Austrian Natural History Museum (or Naturhistorisches Museum) in Vienna, Friedman found misidentified fossils that turned out to be an entirely new flatfish genus he named Heteronectes chaneti, or “different swimmer,” which he said clearly demonstrated a transitional stage.

Both the Amphistium and Heteronectes had been unearthed in limestone quarries located in northern Italy.

Thus, Friedman found not one but two different genus of extinct fish that serve as smoking guns demonstrating that the asymmetrical features did evolve over time thus apparently solving one of evolutionary biology’s oldest mysteries. Both Amphistium and Heteronectes represent true "missing links," with one eye just below the dorsal fin on the side of the fish closest to the ocean floor.

The two fossils “deliver the first clear picture of flatfish origins, a hotly contested issue in debates on the mode and tempo of evolution,” observed Friedman. He noted, “Scientists had long assumed flatfishes must have arisen suddenly because they could not imagine the adaptive significance of intermediates, but this work delivers clear evidence that such intermediates did exist, and therefore, that flatfish asymmetry arose gradually,” and concluded that there can no longer be any doubt that “the evolution of the profound cranial asymmetry of extant flatfishes was gradual in nature.”

Further, it's likely that even this intermediate eye position would have provided an evolutionary advantage for the fish. For example living flatfish often don't lie completely flat on the sea floor, instead they prop themselves up with their fins. “Once you get that extra degree of movement, having a slightly shifted eye is going to be a lot better than having no shifted eye at all,” said Friedman.

It seems that this new discovery hasn’t done much to change the opinion of the skeptics though. Frank Sherwin, science editor for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, a prominent YEC organization), described the findings as “underwhelming,” and said that he doesn’t think this represents evidence for a progression from one flatfish form to another. “Fish have always been fish, all the way down to the lower Cambrian [roughly 542 to 488 million years ago],” he added.

It was only this past February that the announcement of the discovery of Onychonycteris removed the nay-sayers favorite iconic animal cited in support of the notions that animals appeared suddenly and fully formed; namely the bat. Now the flatfish joins the growing number of life forms that we have transitional for.



Further Reading:

The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry: Friedman’s Abstract for Nature

Flatfish Fossils Fill In Evolutionary Missing Link

Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

'Missing link' flatfish has eye that's moved halfway across its head

Flatfish evolution was neither fluke nor turbot-charged

Flatfish missing link tells twisted tale

Dawn of the Picasso Fish



This discovery was also mentioned in the Fossil Finds thread by steviepinhead and Dr.GH.

And here is my response to the reaction from the Discover Institute:

The Discovery Institute has responded to the discovery of Heteronectes and re-description of Amphistium by Friedman in their “Evolution News & Views,” in an article called National Geographic Finds Opportunity to Conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism while Misreporting Fish Fossil, where they primarily take aim at how the story was reported in “National Geographic” rather than with the paper itself.

It seems that one of their chief complaints to their being called a transitional, is to gripe that scientists" only admit how weak the evidence was for evolution after they have some new allegedly 'transitional' fossil in their hands,” calling it a “retroactive confession of evolutionist ignorance.”

In YEC-land, scientists claim to have all the facts and seek to hide any mysteries that still exist (and keep popping up with each new finding). They only let the veil of secrecy (that all science thrives under) slip when they announce a new finding. Such as here, with flatfish, despite clever frequent admissions that they really didn’t know how or even if the eyes could have moved gradually, they only now “admit how weak the evidence was for evolution after they have some new allegedly 'transitional' fossil in their hands.”

I wonder if they hide in their mom’s basement under a heavy table so the Black Helicopters can’t spot them and wear tinfoil hats to keep their minds from being read/controlled when they think this stuff up.

They, of course, also complaint that Amphistium and Heteronectes are still flatfish, completely ignoring the fact that this was never in question. The issue was how the eyes of flatfish moved to their present position not whether flatfish were evolving into something else. With these fish the Discovery Institute is clearly trying a case of bait and switch here.

And let's not even start this Same evidence; different interpretation balderdash.

[phank]

[Jorge]

Another escape thread, eh?

*********************************************

An "escape thread" ??? Didn't I ask you to sober up?

I need no "escape", kiddo ... get real.

Jorge

[MooseOnTheLoose]

The cartoon posted above backfires on itself in a spectacular fashion.

Evolutionists start off with the premise that evolution is absolutely true and interpret everything through an evolutionary paradigm. Consequently some "facts" are more equal than others.

BTW didn't I get modded in this very forum for using cartoons to get my point across?

[wattsr1]

Another escape thread, eh?

I reckon so.

After the C.O.P.E debacle and the Barringer Crater debacle, there is a lot to run from.

[Jorge]

******************************************************

I genuinely and sincerely hope that you are aware of the fact that
in the second part of your cartoon you can have 'EVOLUTION'
instead of 'GENESIS' and it would make just as valid an argument.

I'd bet the chicken farm ten times over that you
haven't a clue of what I'm referring to.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I reckon so.

After the C.O.P.E debacle and the Barringer Crater debacle, there is a lot to run from.

*****************************************

You two must be drinking buddies.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

... but in the Creation-Evolution debate, it's "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation."

You see, the observations are the same - we all "see" the same things.
But then they have to be interpreted. Take a look at this recent example ...

So, these Evo-Faithful people see the fossilized remains of a flat fish.
How do they interpret it? Well, for them Evolution is a fact, Fact, FACT!
And they've had this nagging problem of explaining via Evolution the
present flat fish with two eyes on the same side of the head.

So what interpretation do they give this particular fossil ???

Ah, yes, but of course!!! This FLAT fish is the transitional stage
between the 'not-flat fish with eyes on both sides of the head'
and the 'flat fish with both eyes on one side of the head only'.
Isn't it obvious? Are you dense for not seeing this?

Here are their own words (my comments are in green) :

"A new fossil discovery described in the latest issue of the
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology by Oxford University
researcher Dr Matt Friedman finally solves the mystery."
"finally solves the mystery" ??? What kind of science is that?

"This study provides the first detailed description of a primitive
flatfish, revealing that the migrated eye had not yet crossed to
the opposite side of the skull in early members of this group."
Uhmmm ... hellooooo, Mr. Friedman! Perhaps the "migrated eye
had not yet crossed to the opposite side of the skull" because
it never happened! IOW, you are assuming that this eye migration
is in the process of occurring. How the devil do you know
that, Herr Friedman? And if you don't know it, if you're just
pulling this out of your rear end, then why are you saying that
the "mystery is solved"? What 'science' do you practice, Herr doktor?


"This is a profound discovery which clearly shows that intermediate
fossil forms, which according to certain creationist theories shouldn't
exist, are regularly turning up as scientists keep looking for them,"
says Dr. John Long of the Natural History Museum of LA County, an
expert in fossil fishes who was not involved in the study."
Jumpin' flatfish! Hellooooo Mr. Long ... you are ASSUMING that this
is a transitional form. Show us - please - how you know that this
fossil from (allegedly) 50 million years ago is actually the ancestor
of today's flounder or any other flatfish. Go ahead, we're waiting.


That, folks, is the "logic" of these Evo-Faithful people.
Truthfully, if not for their arrogance, they invoke deep pity.


Entire article here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0625160358.htm


Jorge

I'm curious as to how you know that those fossils represent the remains of fish that lived a long time ago in the past, died, had their bodies buried by mud, all of which subsequently turned into rock.

Why should you interpret those patterns as the remains of once living organisms, when there are other interpretations for their (the patterns) existence.

Do you have any credible answer to that question Jorge?


PS My question is very relevant to the OP, as to how we know the animal is a transitional.

[Jorge]

The cartoon posted above backfires on itself in a spectacular fashion.

Evolutionists start off with the premise that evolution is absolutely true and interpret everything through an evolutionary paradigm. Consequently some "facts" are more equal than others.

ABSOLUTELY true - I just posted something to that effect.
Now try getting them to admit it ... don't hold your breath.

BTW didn't I get modded in this very forum for using cartoons to get my point across?

If you haven't noticed already, double standards are frequently practiced here.
To wit : I've gotten banned for calling people "liars" -- even when I've supported
my accusations -- while others in essence do exactly the same thing time and
again yet walk away unscathed. In all honesty, they are more diplomatic about
it -- instead of saying "You lie" they say things like, "We have no reason to
believe you". I guess you must be versed in Clintonese around here.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

Now try getting them to admit it ... don't hold your breath.

Yeah well I've just decided that there is no point in hoping you will discuss your ballsup over the Barringer Crater affair.

However, can you address this question in a meaningful manner:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...18#post3427618

The answer to that might well tell you how we know that various fossils are transitional in that they sit somewhere along the branch leading to another form of animal, but most probably not directly on the direct line of descent.

There must be something that tells you that a fossil represents the remains of a long extinct organism and I'm curious as to what you think it is. After all, there are always other interpretations.


So why do you pick just that one specific interpretation when there are other more God affirming interpretations?

[pancreasman]

ABSOLUTELY true - I just posted something to that effect.
Now try getting them to admit it ... don't hold your breath.





If you haven't noticed already, double standards are frequently practiced here.
To wit : I've gotten banned for calling people "liars" -- even when I've supported
my accusations -- while others in essence do exactly the same thing time and
again yet walk away unscathed. In all honesty, they are more diplomatic about
it -- instead of saying "You lie" they say things like, "We have no reason to
believe you". I guess you must be versed in Clintonese around here.

Jorge

Poor babies. Did the conservative evangelicals who own and operate the site persecute you?

[phank]

Calling anyone a liar is neither useful nor necessary. What IS required is to establish the facts (links work), show that the accused KNOWS the facts (the links have already been posted directly for his perusal), and that he is now knowingly making statements contrary to fact. It's up the reader to figure out what this means.

[pancreasman]

The cartoon posted above backfires on itself in a spectacular fashion.

Evolutionists start off with the premise that evolution is absolutely true and interpret everything through an evolutionary paradigm. Consequently some "facts" are more equal than others.

BTW didn't I get modded in this very forum for using cartoons to get my point across?

Actually, as I'm sure was pointed out to you in your whine thread, you were modded for repeatedly posting cartoons even after asked to cease.