06.28.08
Fishy theory
The paleontologists are going too far. This is getting ridiculous. They keep digging up these collections of bones that illuminate tetrapod origins, and they keep making finer and finer distinctions. On one earlier side we have a bunch of tetrapod-like fish — Tiktaalik and Panderichthys, for instance — and on the later side we have fish-like tetrapods, such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Now they’re talking about shades of fishiness or tetrapodiness within those groups! You’d almost think they were documenting a pattern of gradual evolutionary change.
As usual this is an argument against creationists, or the ID perspective. This data is ambiguous in a broader sense and merely shows us the fact of evolution, without clearly showing us the overall mechanism of change, possibly with a macro and micro aspect. As usual the two are confused by Darwin promoters