Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

[Atheoscanadensis]

Hi folks. I ran across a paper by Kirk Fitzhugh that says, among other things, that finding fossils such as Tiktaalik doesn't constitute the fulfillment of an evolutionary prediction or evidence for evolution. I couldn't find anyone in the literature who mentions Fitzhugh or his paper so I thought I'd ask you guys what you thought of his conclusions. Fair warning: it is an excessively dull and tedious read and I myself fail to really grasp his argument.

Anyway, if you have access to the publication,the paper can be found here:

http://bf4dv7zn3u.search.serialssolutio ... 010-9088-1

If you don't have access and don't want to pay for it (you don't),it can be found here as word document:

http://www.csupomona.edu/~djmoriarty/we ... d%20ID.pdf

If anyone with a better grasp of logic than I have cares to wade through it and assess his argument, that would be cool. It seems counter-intuitive that finding what a theory predicts we should find doesn't constitute evidence for that theory, but he's not just a creationist nutjob (the other half of the paper trashes ID). If no one feels like subjecting themselves to this paper I won't be surprised, so no pressure.

[Brian Jordan]

Please correct me if I'm wrong - I don't want to wear my brain and eyes out if I haven't understood his premise. He seems to be saying that if you use evidence of, say, fossils to arrive at an evolutionary or supernatural hypothesis, you can't go on to use that evidence to confirm the hypothesis. I'm not sure whether that's correct, but even so it's not a problem. Darwin studied fossils and living creatures. Since then people have not only studied many more fossils and living creatures but have also studied genetics in great detail. In a similar but ludicrous vein, the IDCreationists have studied the Bible to come up with their hypothesis and have then contemplated their navels and studied bacterial flagella. One group has produced sense, the other nonsense.
Has he anything significant to add?

[jon_12091]

Its seems to be about the philosphy of science, rather than practical science, and how you frame questions.

[Michael]

How many filosofers of science know any science?

[Christine Janis]

Hmm ---looked at this to see if there was any specific information about Tiktaalik to be discussed. Nothing but mental masturbation. Move along, nothing to see ----

[a_haworthroberts]

NOTHING to do with Tiktaalik - but I've just posted the following comment at the most recent Eye on the ICR blog:

Peter
Will you be blogging on this - it raises interesting issues?
http://www.icr.org/article/7714/
See also: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1055.summary
Tomkins refers to a footnote flagging a paper on the Arabidopsis plant and epigenetics - but there is NO such footnote.
There's also this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/ep ... 76551.html
Ashley

Might Christine or others here also wish to comment?

[Atheoscanadensis]

Its seems to be about the philosphy of science, rather than practical science, and how you frame questions.

Hmm ---looked at this to see if there was any specific information about Tiktaalik to be discussed. Nothing but mental masturbation. Move along, nothing to see ----

Thanks guys. It did seem like it was a bit removed from practical concerns of evidence for evolution.

[a_haworthroberts]

NOTHING to do with Tiktaalik - but I've just posted the following comment at the most recent Eye on the ICR blog:

Peter
Will you be blogging on this - it raises interesting issues?
http://www.icr.org/article/7714/
See also: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1055.summary
Tomkins refers to a footnote flagging a paper on the Arabidopsis plant and epigenetics - but there is NO such footnote.
There's also this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/ep ... 76551.html
Ashley

Might Christine or others here also wish to comment?

Peter has now briefly commented here: http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2013/09/2 ... /#comments
(I've acknowledged.)

He flags this - see some of the comments underneath flagging the same Elizabeth Pennisi article entitled 'Biology Evolution Heresy? Epigenetics Underlies Heritable Plant Traits':
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/ ... etics.html
According to Larry Moran, if I understand him correctly, this finding in a type of plant is not that new.