Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

The discovery of a missing link in the evolution of bizarre flatfishes - each of which has both eyes on the same side of its head - could give intelligent design advocates a sinking feeling.

[Dennis2]

Interesting article..and one more transitional form to be rationalized away by creationists!

[TedHOhio]

There in lies the problem with the God-of-the-Gaps argument. We uncover more evidence, the gaps get smaller and smaller. I saw that ICR called the evidence 'underwhelming'. I guess their spin doctors were out to lunch because they usually have a great deal more to say. Their bottom-line has been that there aren't any, so how can you have possibly have found one!

[Katydid]

Agreed Dennis, terrific paper. I am afraid it will not convince those that have their heads stuck in the sand though, saying,“nuh-uh”

Did you get a load of what the “science” editor for the ICR (Frank Sherwin) said?

"We have no problem with the variation within flatfish. What we're asking is, Show me how a fish came from a nonfish ancestor."

How this man can refer to himself as a scientist or a zoologist is beyond me.

[llDayo]

From the article: "As a flatfish develops from a larva to a juvenile, one eye migrates up and over the top of the head, coming to rest in its adult position on the opposite side of the skull.

The change leaves the young fish baffled, and they swim at bizarre angles until they adapt, said evolutionary biologist Richard Palmer of the University of Alberta in Canada."

And creationists saw this as an intelligent design and not a signal there was, at one point, an intermediary specimen?

[Dennis2]

Katydid wrote:

Agreed Dennis, terrific paper. I am afraid it will not convince those that have their heads stuck in the sand though, saying,“nuh-uh”
Did you get a load of what the “science” editor for the ICR (Frank Sherwin) said?
"We have no problem with the variation within flatfish. What we're asking is, Show me how a fish came from a nonfish ancestor."
How this man can refer to himself as a scientist or a zoologist is beyond me.

Of course, one of the arguments creationists liked to use in the past was that there was no transition between regular and flatfishes, and therefore obviously it had to be a creation event. Now of course, they simply refer to all as "variation within flatfishes" even when the new find has non-flatfish features, and then shuffle off to their next argument.

It's a constantly moving goalpost.

[romey79]

Dennis2 wrote:

Interesting article..and one more transitional form to be rationalized away by creationists!

Yes, they will say this new evidence creates new gaps...such boobs!

[llDayo]

romey79 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they will say this new evidence creates new gaps...such boobs!

Well...there ARE gaps between boobs! Usually.

[MIDutch]

llDayo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well...there ARE gaps between boobs! Usually.

Best laugh I've had today.

[The Dude]

Not if you push 'em together. Which can be fun!

:-p