Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

Postby Atheoscanadensis » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:38 pm

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.
Atheoscanadensis
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:00 pm

Re: Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:20 pm

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?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:22 am

Its seems to be about the philosphy of science, rather than practical science, and how you frame questions.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

Postby Michael » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:51 pm

How many filosofers of science know any science?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

Postby Christine Janis » Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:29 am

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 ----
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: epigenetics etc

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:13 pm

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?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8045
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Tiktaalik not evidence for evolution

Postby Atheoscanadensis » Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:30 am

jon_12091 wrote:Its seems to be about the philosphy of science, rather than practical science, and how you frame questions.

Christine Janis wrote: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.
Atheoscanadensis
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:00 pm

Re: epigenetics etc

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:45 am

a_haworthroberts wrote: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.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8045
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest