I have been thinking about my gorilla man post.
It seems to me that the landslide majority of Evolution adherents (not convinced about the fish-to-ape story) are not well served by the fire-eating-fish-to-ape evolutionists who run the show.
I think that ape-to-man requires less of a leap than the fish to ape. Right out of the gate the lobed-fish comes off as counter-intuitive. For the Evolution-Years that the lobes-legs are too weak to walk they will make the fish a poor swimmer. This defeats the survival of the fit fish.
If the majority of the Evolution supporters were well served by the leaders of the best science two things would happen:
1. The counter-natural-selection nature of the lobed fish would be acknowledged.
2. There would be a stated plan - "what we are doing about it" to address the doubts.
Ape-to-man people:
Did I capture in the picture above the reason that so many can buy the Ape-to-Man, but the Fish-to-Ape only appeals to the few?
8 comments:
Biologists don't discuss things based on what seems plausible to laypeople as a form of political strategy of appealing to them: they discuss what the evidence shows. If explaining things is sometimes difficult, well, that's tough for biologists, but they can't just ignore the evidence in order to make things sound easier to take.
In this case, the evidence shows that the earliest land animals are morphological sub-variations of lobed fishes, and that the specific line of lobed fishes in question seem to have been adapted for the very sort of borderline environments (like murky shorelines) in which their particular lobed limbs could have had all sorts of specific advantages. Nothing suggests that they were less fit or less adapted for their particular lifestyles: there is no "one right answer" to how to live: particular not when there are all sorts of different ecologies and environments.
It's also worth pointing out that out of the 20,000 different fish species alive today, when tested genetically (with tests essentially just more elaborate versions of the logic paternity tests are based on) our closest genetic ancestors are the lungfish and coelacanths: i.e. the two living morphological descendants of the early lobed fishes which the first land-animals were themselves morphological variations of. That's quite an incredible coincidence, no? Except of course we are, in fact, related by ancestry just the way evolution suggests.
And again: it's not "ape to man." Men ARE apes: we are subtypes of the basic ape morphology. We share a common ancestor with the other living apes, and we are all types of ape. Everything that defines what an ape is as distinct from other forms of life: the key characteristics that make apes apes... those are also characteristics of human beings.
Hi Drew,
I do appreciate your commenting on my blog, but I started a new thread to avoid the Fish-to-Ape comments.
There is a perfectly good thread under gorilla man for this. (BTW that thread also is directed at Ape-to-man evolution responders)
I hope that you will not be too offended but it is becoming my opinion that the current Fish-to-Ape style of debate is what completely dulls what could be an interesting observation/ evidence discussion.
I am coming to the opinion that what is inherently an interesting discussion is stalled out by a long "no it isnt" section of paragraphs (free of skeptical science) followed by long dull sections of Jr College level re-telling of the Evolution story.
Patrick Stewart has one of the most amazing voices, but I consider his lectures on evolution to be boring. Both in the X men movies and in his IMAX presentation. What chance does a blog have of presenting the story again in a new way.
Simply saying the same thing over and over again is not up to the standards of debate.
BTW - good luck getting apes SSN numbers, citizenship, and the apes-are-humans-too welfare benefits. ... in other words - I am almost drawn into the "no it isn't". For bizarre prima-facia-wrong claims "GAZE" is the only appropriate response.
But again staring at someone in bemused amazement is no substitute for what could be an interesting discussion.
There are some ideas so poor that one needs a college degree to believe them.
"Simply saying the same thing over and over again is not up to the standards of debate."
We have to keep saying the same things over and over again because those are the facts, and people keep making the same confused, false arguments over and over. They remain wrong, and they remain wrong for the same reasons.
"For bizarre prima-facia-wrong claims "GAZE" is the only appropriate response"
Who is the one saying "no it isn't" again?
When I spend considerable energy explaining in detail why some view is incorrect, and the response is basically "nuh uh!" who is being intellectually lazy and dismissive? Taking your arguments at face value and responding to them is a measure of respect. Simply thoughtlessly asserting over and over that I'm wrong, with no argument, evidence, or explanation, is not.
Seriously: I asked a question: why is it that from amongst all modern fish, the modern descendants of the very same group of primitive fish that had lobes with specific bone structures which match up with the earliest land animals (as well as all sorts of other distinctive features in common) are the closest genetic relatives of humans and all land animals?
Hi Drew,
If in the future if I ask for the fish-to-ape majority of evolutionists to post - please ignore that post and go to the "gorilla man" thread instead.
If you think that any fish are similar to humans I will accuse you of believing in mermaids.
When I pointed out what I suspect is the counter-intuitive stumbling point for fish-to-ape evolution, you responded with a long "no it isn't" so I will do the same.
Proposition "Fish are genetically similar to humans."
Reply: "not they are not"
Honestly Drew - if you cannot engage in the obvious then you are reinforcing the stereotype of the fire-eater-true-believer:
Scientific Method:
1. Observe reality
2. Formulate a theory based on observed reality
3. Make predictions based on your theory
4. Prove or disprove your theory based on evidence
True Believer Method:
1. zzzz
2. Formulate a theory based on what you want to believe
3. Make assertions based on your theory
4. Ignore or ban all evidence that disproves your theory
"If you think that any fish are similar to humans I will accuse you of believing in mermaids."
You aren't listening to what I'm saying. I didn't say anything so simply as "fish are like humans": I said that all land animals are descendants, and thus sub-variations of a particular line of ancient lobed fishes.
Compare all land animals to all other life on earth, and you see that the basic vertebrate skeletal structure that first appeared in bony fishes is the template for all of that variation. Why aren't there any animals at all which break that mold completely? Even seeming exceptions like snakes and whales still bear the distinctive shape and form of that skeletal structure, simply further modified.
"When I pointed out what I suspect is the counter-intuitive stumbling point for fish-to-ape evolution, you responded with a long "no it isn't" so I will do the same."
It wasn't a long "no it isn't": it was a long _explanation_ of why it isn't a valid criticism of the idea. There is a very big difference: I explained my reasoning. You are not explaining yours.
"Proposition "Fish are genetically similar to humans."
Reply: "not they are not""
I didn't just say that "fish are genetically similar to humans", I said that a very particular line of fish is more genetically related to humans than any other, and that line just so happens to be the modern descendants of the species most physically similar to the first land animals.
Who is the one using evidence here to examine a particular idea and show that it's justified by evidence?
Who is the one just saying "no no, I don't believe that" with no further explanation, and no examination of the evidence?
"Compare all land animals to all other life on earth, and you see that the basic vertebrate skeletal structure that first appeared in bony fishes is the template for all of that variation. Why aren't there any animals at all which break that mold completely? Even seeming exceptions like snakes and whales still bear the distinctive shape and form of that skeletal structure, simply further modified."
(this paragraph could be used as an argument for a Creator)
Hi Drew,
I am glad that you posted again. I wondered if I had overstated myself.
I forgot to mention - I thinking over your proposition:
"the modern descendants of the very same group of primitive fish that had lobes with specific bone structures which match up with the earliest land animals (as well as all sorts of other distinctive features in common) are the closest genetic relatives of humans and all land animals"
My first thought was "isn't this just another way of stating the evolutionary theory" but I think that it deserves more thought.
I was thinking more about the lobed fish as well - it is my understanding that the best evidence shows lobed fish as deep sea animals, not shallows - lung fish like fish. Perhaps only the lung fish qualify for consideration?
Personally I am amazed at the walking catfish in Florida, who will flop onto porches and eat dog food from a dish, with Fido looking on helplessly.
Post a Comment