ICR: Fish With Pelvis Means Nothing

This is an example of creationism at its best. But first, some science. Two weeks ago, the PhysOrg website reported: Researchers make a major cavefish discovery in Thailand. A few excerpts will bring you up to date:

Researchers from New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) have identified unique anatomical features in a species of blind, walking cavefish in Thailand that enable the fish to walk and climb waterfalls in a manner comparable to tetrapods, or four-footed mammals and amphibians. The discovery of this capability, not seen in any other living fishes, also has implications for understanding how the anatomy that all species need to walk on land evolved after the transition from finned to limbed appendages in the Devonian period, which began some 420 million years ago.

[…]

Speaking of the unique anatomical structures seen in the cavefish, Cryptotora thamicola, Flammang [Brooke E. Flammang, one of the co-discoverers] says, “It possesses morphological features that have previously only been attributed to tetrapods. The pelvis and vertebral column of this fish allow it to support its body weight against gravity and provide large sites for muscle attachment for walking.” With respect to evolutionary significance, she adds, “This research gives us insight into the plasticity of the fish body plan and the convergent morphological features that were seen in the evolution of tetrapods.”

Nice discovery. Not as significant as Tiktaalik, but interesting nevertheless. Hey — there’s already a Wikipedia article on it: Waterfall climbing cave fish.

As you might imagine, creationists don’t like such discoveries. They prefer crisp, clearly distinct “kinds” that were poofed into existence during creation week. We see this clearly at the website of the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their latest article is Wall-Climbing Cave Fish: Evolutionary Intermediate?

It was written by Frank Sherwin, M.A. (Note that he touts his Master’s degree.) At the end of the article he’s described as “Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is his writeup at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. ICR has a bio page on the guy: Frank Sherwin. Here are some excerpts from Sherwin’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Scientists recently discovered another bizarre fish. This one has a pelvic girdle. Is it the missing link evolutionists have been searching for?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! They’re still talking about the missing link. Sherwin quotes a newspaper account of the discovery and then asks:

But does this cavefish, with its questionable “tetrapod-like gait,” give insight to the unobserved fish-to-amphibian evolution?

He says it gives no insight at all:

[W]here are the fossils that document the rise of this pelvis-possessing fish from an “ordinary” fish?

Yeah — where are the fossils? They found a living fish! He continues:

Furthermore, evolutionists state that the digited appendages evolved before the complex pelvic girdle during fin-to-limb evolution, but Cryptotora clearly lacks any digited appendages. Apparently this cave fish doesn’t know it’s supposed to abide by evolution’s rules — it’s a fish with fins.

Stupid fish. Here’s more:

Creation zoologists [Hee hee!] suggest this waterfall-climbing cave fish is designed to exploit (move in and fill) a distinctive environment, just as Tiktaalik seems designed to occupy a pre-Flood wetlands environment.

It was designed! Everything was designed! This is from the end:

The bottom line is the fish-to-tetrapod transition has yet to be documented anywhere in the sedimentary rocks … . Non-darwinists heartily agree, because the transition apparently never took place.

Amazing, isn’t it? Wanna debate with a guy like that? Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “ICR: Fish With Pelvis Means Nothing

  1. Is it the missing link evolutionists have been searching for?

    You mean them damn’ Darwinists are trying to pretend it’s half-man, half-ape, half-fish? Whatever will their twisted atheistic — sorry, athiestic — orthdoxy think of next?

    @DavidK

    I especially like this one and this one.

  2. When a creationist learns about an ancient cave system with endemic cave-adapted species, do they claim that God created the cave and put those species there? Did he protect the cave from Noah’s flood? Otherwise, how is a blind cave-dwelling fish or spider supposed to find its way from Mt. Ararat to the cave after the flood?

  3. Fascinating. I’ve often used the Siamese ‘walking’ catfish as an example of something creationists might want to ponder. Apparently fish evolving so as to be mobile on land for periods of time isn’t that uncommon. Oh – and here’s a super-gossipy youtube recording of Kent Hovind. Lots of personal family dysfunction (shocker) is discussed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR3jC0GWFgc

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Maezeppa “creationists might want to ponder”. Yep, but they don’t even see that it is worth pondering (as in the ICR here). I’ve thrown lungfish, blemmies, flying fish at creationists without effect. “They’re still fish!” they declare and move on. Dummies.

  5. anevilmeme

    The man seems to be the perfect intellectual chew toy, but lacking Ken Ham’s charisma.

  6. The bottom line is the fish-to-tetrapod transition has yet to be documented anywhere in the sedimentary rocks … . Non-darwinists heartily agree, because the transition apparently never took place.

    So, fossils appearing in sedimentary rocks can be used to document evolutionary history? I thought that the ICR advocated young earth creationism, in which a sequence of fossils appearing in sedimentary rocks is meaningless.

    It’s nice to see that they are now recognizing that a fossil’s position in the geological column represents it’s position in time, rather than it’s ability to outrun the rising flood waters.

  7. What CD writes. The more transitional fossils and species you throw at a creacrapper the more he/she complains about missing links.

  8. Eric Lipps

    Creation zoologists [Hee hee!] suggest this waterfall-climbing cave fish is designed to exploit (move in and fill) a distinctive environment, just as Tiktaalik seems designed to occupy a pre-Flood wetlands environment.

    Okay, it was “designed to occupy a pre-Flood environment.” So why is it still there, if the Flood wiped out everything not saved aboard Ken Ham’s, er, Noah’s Ark? The Bible doesn’t say that everything died except for water-dwelling life.

    That said, I do wish scientists would be more careful with words like “designed.” Every time they use such words, creationists pounce.