Home » Intelligent Design » Ichthyostega takes a Tiktaalik-ing!

Ichthyostega takes a Tiktaalik-ing!

In the latest Nature, scientists are now telling us that based on the radial positioning of the shoulder and hind limb areas, Ichtyostega very likely was NOT a true tetrapod.

We conclude that early tetrapods with the skeletal morphology and limb mobility of Ichthyostega were unlikely to have made some of the recently described Middle Devonian trackways

Of course, Tiktaalik is considered an “intermediate” to Ichthyostega, and, as such, previously thought to be the fabled “intermediate” to tetrapods; thus adding weight to the Darwinian narrative. This latest news seems to suggest that as far as this narrative is concerned, Tiktaalik is an “intermediate” on the way to a evolutionary dead-end.

There was a big fuss when Tiktaalik was discovered. All kinds of hoopla. One wonders if the same amount of hoopla will accompany its debunking. But, of course, we await the next “just-so” account of all of this. It won’t take long. All Darwinians need is an active (hyperactive) imagination.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to Ichthyostega takes a Tiktaalik-ing!

  1. There is a short video that goes with the paper:

    ,,,Another missing link goes missing:

    Three-dimensional limb joint mobility in the early tetrapod Ichthyostega : Published online 23 May 2012
    Excerpt: The origin of tetrapods and the transition from swimming to walking was a pivotal step in the evolution and diversification of terrestrial vertebrates.,,, We conclude that early tetrapods with the skeletal morphology and limb mobility of Ichthyostega were unlikely to have made some of the recently described Middle Devonian trackways.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf16z5zDm3A

  2. Thanks BornAgain.

    Here’s a little something other on Tiktaalik.

  3. This just goes to show how unstable paleontology is. It is very susceptible to change and errors. Very subjective and hence, not too dependable. It is easy to see what you want to see in the bones. How many other “missing links” might also have been mis-classified by overzealous evolutionists?
    The dating of the bones is subjective as well. You never know if you have all the necessary information. Suppose these bones were missing in this fossil? We would still think that this thing is a missing link! Look at all the hominid bones. Many are missing a lot of bones and yet the stories about them are amazing, but we don’t have all the information. Very troubling.

    It should serve as a warning to us that paleontology is not a very exact science. Be careful how much emphasis and trust you place in the stories about the bones and the supposed relationships envisioned.

  4. tjguy:

    Henry Gee’s basic argument in In Search of Deep Time is precisely the point that paleontologists find what they’re looking for. IOW, paleontology can be very, very subjective.

    I stopped reading articles about primates and human evolution because they haven’t a clue when it comes to either. One study contradicts the other. You just have to have your own kind of “truth detector” when dealing with the subject.

  5. PaV,

    I understand your sentiment. I once tried to find out which of the hominids were “for sure” ancestors of humans. I had a difficult time finding any. Maybe it’s my own bad researching skills, but it seemed to me that most of them were determined to be “cousins.”

  6. By the way, why are comments turned off for Sewell’s article about tornados running backwards? Anybody know?

  7. Collin,

    I was wondering too. What’s the reason for that??

  8. 8

    There was a big fuss when Tiktaalik was discovered. All kinds of hoopla. One wonders if the same amount of hoopla will accompany its debunking.

    There usually never is. When archaeoraptor was hailed as a ‘misisng link’ it was given a nine-page spread in National Geographic…I guarantee their retraction was not 9 pages when it was exposed as a hoax.

    And didn’t another alleged missing link, Ida, also have a book and documentary about it? Where was all the celebrating, books, documentaries, etc when it was finally determined to be just another lemur?

    That’s how darwinists work: They get their ideas into the public consciousness with media blitzes and then are quiet as church mice when they have to retract their claims. Is it any wonder much of the public thinks their myth is true?

    How long before the public starts believing the multiverse is a fact?

  9. Blue_Savannah,

    One day my wife comes home from her english class telling me all about this new concept of a multiverse and how fascinating it is. I about went bonkers. Obviously she did not know that it was a crutch for unstable materialistic philosophy. She just thought it was a neat idea. And it is, by itself. But I know why it is being promoted.

  10. >In the latest Nature, scientists are now telling us that based on the radial positioning of the shoulder and hind limb areas, Ichtyostega very likely was NOT a true tetrapod.

    I don’t think they’re saying Ichthyostega wasnt a true tetrapod, I just think they’re saying that, whatever it was that made those tracks, it probably wasnt an Ichthyostega. They’ve worked out how an Ichthyostega would have moved along the ground, and it wouldnt have made marks like that.

Leave a Reply