Cretinism so stupid...
That I just had to reproduce it in full:
It's been a week since the scientific world went gaga over a fish called "Tiktaalik," which is being billed as the missing link between water and land animals.
Stop right there. cHRIST, one sentence and he's already making errors! Tiktaalik is NOT "the missing link"; in actuality the process was much more complex. Tiktaalik is believed to have been capable of foraying onto the land- given the level of pectoral development I think that's probably a given- but it was still very much an aquatic creature. So it is A LINK, yes, but I would hardly say "the missing link" in so momentous a transition.
The paleontologists say the fossils they date to 383 million years ago show how land creatures first arose from the sea.
Sort of yes, but see above.
Tiktaalik, they say, lived in shallow swampy waters and had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs and limb-like fins of so-called "early mammals."
Jesus butt-fucking cHRIST, early MAMMALS?!! What the fuck is this guy smoking and where can I get some?!! Tiktaalik was an important part of the transition during the Devonian period from sarcopterygian FISH to TETRAPODS, I.E. EARLY AMPHIBIANS!!! Mammals, incidentally, came well over a hundred million years later during the mid-late Triassic (say 225 million years ago or so), after a lengthy transition from REPTILES who in turn had sprung from amphibians during the Carboniferous.
"Tiktaalik represents a transitory creature between water and land," explained Farish Jenkins Jr. of Harvard University, one of the discovery team members. "Really, it's extraordinary. We found a fish with a neck."
Yes, basically. But technically WE'RE "fish with necks" too. "Fish" is just a vernacular term, and some so-called "fish", including Tiktaalik and the coelocanth (since the fucker's got that below) and lungfish are more closely related to creatures such as amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals that are NOT considered fish than they are to other "fish", such as the actinopterygians (bony, ray-finned fish) or the chondrichthyans (sharks and their relatives).
Martin Brazeau of Sweden's Uppsala University said Tiktaalik is "unquestionably" the most land-animal-like fish known to date.
"Just over 380 million years ago, it seems, our remote ancestors were large, flattish, predatory fishes, with crocodile-like heads and strong limb-like pectoral fins that enabled them to haul themselves out of the water," explained Per Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala and Jennifer Clark of the University of Cambridge, in a commentary accompanying their report in the journal Nature.
As the New York Times reported the find, the fish has characteristics that "anticipate the emergence of land animals ? and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs."
I'm glad these evolutionists are so giddy about finding one of their ancestors, but before we all go off the deep end about this latest discovery, understand what all the excitement is about.
For years, those who disbelieve in macro-evolution ? people like me ? have been saying to the evolutionists, "Show us evidence of one kind of creature becoming another kind." They haven't been able to do it ? not with all the fossils they've studied and certainly not in their scientific observations of the world in which we live.
Tiktaalik is their best shot.
Hold it RIGHT THERE- ARCHAEOPTERYX?!! Let's try this one out, animals helping to build/blur the transition between:
Dinosaurs and birds: Archaeopteryx does this quite nicely; see also Microraptor and many other bird-like feathered theropod dinosaurs.
Horses: Hyracotherium, early horse with several toes, low-crowned teeth, small build, transitions through a range of forms such as Pliohippus and Mesohippus to modern horses, in the process losing toes, gaining higher crowned teeth to help it process grass (which is more abrasive and has to be eaten in larger quantities than does shrubbery, the likely food of Hyracotherium), and grew larger and faster for running on the plains.
Humans: Ardipithecus kadabba, Ar. ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. garhi, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens is a plausible sequence and fairly well-supported. I left out H. erectus because in the interpretation I favor erectus was an offshoot from habilis early on that left no modern descendants.
Fish to tetrapods: Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, and now of course Tiktaalik. I could go on but I've still got ground to cover. If anyone's interested I'm happy to elaborate/give more examples whatever.
But let me tell you why it is most definitely not what the evolutionists suggest it is.
There is another fish called the "coelacanth." Ever hear of it? I've included a photo of one with this column ? which, when you think about it, is really quite amazing. Because, just a few years ago, the same scientists who were calling the Tiktaalik fossil the missing link between sea life and land life were claiming the coelacanth fossils of the same era represented just that link.
Yes, idiot, it was claimed that ANCIENT coelacanths were this link because after all they ARE sarcopterygia too.
But, then, unfortunately for the evolutionists, coelacanths ? these "350-million-year-old fossils" ? turned out to be very much alive. They turned up regularly in fish markets. Today they live in aquariums ? not terrariums ? by the way.
gOD-fucking damn. This guy keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper. Let me explain. The coelacanth that was discovered was, in 1938, a new genus. There was no doubt that it was a coelacanth, but a new, modern, deep-sea form that had never been documented in the fossil record. The genus was named Latimeria after its discoverer and two species are known today, one off the coast of Madagascar and the Comoros, the other off the coast of Sulawesi in Indonesia. How the hell is this bad for evolution?! It was interesting, yes, it still is. In theory there's nothing to say that SOME coelacanths couldn't have made the transition while others didn't: similar things have happened all through out evolution, hence, sigh, THAT is why we still have monkeys! Reevaluations of the available evidence have lead some scientists to favor rhipistidians over coelacanths as better evidence has mounted. And Tiktaalik has certainly helped the picture.
The coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as the Tiktaalik. The fossil experts told us they enabled the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor. However, none have yet been observed walking. Instead, they use those lobe fins to swim better, not walk.
Gack... no, the coelacanth does not QUITE have "the same kind of lobe fins"; they have similarities and they are homologous (i.e. the same structure) yes, but they're not the same. Coelacanths don't have necks and they don't have the kind of girdle development that Titkaalik displays. Tiktaalik also has a primitive "wrist", another feature that it shares with us but not particularly with Latimeria. Yes, it WAS hoped at one time that coelacanths used their limbs in that manner, but it now appears unreasonable because, after all, Latimeria lives in deep oceans not shallows as did Tiktaalik.
Like those of the coelacanth, the bones in the fins of the Tiktaalik are embedded in muscle ? not part of the skeleton.
They're BOTH, you stooge! Embedded in muscle AND part of the (appendicular, rather than axial) skeleton. Appendicular skeletons (bones in what became our arms and legs) evolved BEFORE they were integrated with the axial skeleton (basically your backbone, ribs and skull) through the pelvic and pectoral girdles. And for the umpth time, Tiktaalik shows greater development in this vein, ie looks more like a tetrapod, than does Latimeria.
In other words, there is a whole lot of supposing going on about the Tiktaalik that is reminiscent of the kind of supposing that has gone on for as long as evolutionary theory has been around.
Right, because we don't simply sit on our ignorant butts and swill Jesus-juice and accept biblical bullshit? Because we ACTUALLY INSIST (gasp! the heresy!) on those inconvenient things like LOGIC and FACTS?!! Babby Jeezus save us!!!
The Tiktaalik is no more a missing link between sea life and land life than a Tic Tac is a missing link between a Lifesaver and an Altoid.
Please do us a favor and castrate yourself. Your stupidity should not be passed down. Lifesavers and Altoids don't reproduce. They can't have intermediate links per se. Living creatures DO and they CAN, in fact every living thing IS transitional from whatever came before it and whatever it gives rise to. In another sense there are NO transitionals because organisms are always adapting and adapted to environments and are thus never "finished". Many compelling reasons abound for thinking Tiktaalik to be a form linking fish and tetrapod, especially the girdle development and the wrist.
Notice not one of the stories you have read about the Tiktaalik has confronted the sensationally uncomfortable issues raised by the coelacanth.
Uh... DONE?!! Coelacanth wasn't a SCANDAL ("Latimeriagate"!), it was a great scientific discovery! Tiktaalik is proving to have far greater ramifications for understanding our ancestry in many ways... because in between 1938 and Tiktaalik theorists DID actually look at evidence and many of them came to the conclusion, based on reevaluation and new finds, that rhipistidians made better candidates for our ancestry than coelacanths.
We don't know that the Tiktaalik lived 383 million years ago. We don't know that it used its unusual fins to walk. We don't know that it ever left the water. We don't even know for sure that it is extinct today. And we sure don't know that it represents any link between one species and another.
We simply don't know what we don't know. And I sure wish those who called themselves scientists would just admit that.
No, idiot, we DO know those things or at least can make an inference! We use science to date when it lived and died, we evaluate its potential or lack of for terrestrial locomotion, and based on its habitat parameters and history (end-Devonian, end-Permian, end-Cretaceous and other mass extinctions) we conclude that if a couple of hundred years of natural science in the West hasn't turned up a nine-foot long shallows-dwelling foot-finned fish that yes, it's PROBABLY EXTINCT!
So garsh, let's go back to the ol' slavation station for some gospel hour fun! More bibble 'n less branes!
Source: Religious Bullshit