Discoveroids: Tiktaalik Proves Intelligent Design

We noticed a recent article at PhysOrg and thought it was interesting, but not worth blogging about. Little did we know. The PhysOrg article is How vision may have driven fishes onto land. A few excerpts should be sufficient:

About 375 million years ago, certain fishes had developed powerfully strong paired fins that were capable of transporting them out of the water and onto land. These fishes would eventually evolve into the first truly terrestrial animals, called tetrapods. They had four limbs bearing digits – fingers and toes – to help them when they walked around around on land.

They’re talking about species like Tiktaalik, which is one of our all-time favorites for rebutting the idiocy of creationism — see The Lessons of Tiktaalik. Back to PhysOrg:

But one of the biggest mysteries for scientists is figuring out what could have driven such fishes out of the water and onto land in the first place. Was it availability of new food sources, or perhaps their need to escape from predators in the water?

A new theory says it was improved vision, as shown by dramatic increases in eye size and visual acuity, that enabled fishes peeping upwards at the waterline to spot prey on land. This would have motivated them to venture out of the water to hunt for food.

That’s enough. You can read it all if you like. Now then, what we failed to appreciate is what a dedicated creationist could do with that. Take a look at Klinghoffer’s latest post at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Vertebrates to Land Is an Evolutionary Transition Dripping with Teleology . Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Darwinian evolution is supposed to have done away with the need for purpose or will in driving the history of life. The words of Darwinists themselves tend to refute that idea. That’s especially the case when they don’t have the defense of highly technical language to obscure what’s going on. As an illustration, see how researchers describe their idea about how vertebrates made the transition from sea to land some 385 million years ago.

Do you sense where this is going? Creatures like Tiktaalik, rather than being an embarrassment to creationists, are now going to be illustrations of divine will. Klinghoffer says:

Getting to solid ground, according to previous thinking, was driven by the evolution of limbs. These scientists, however, say it was all in the eyes. Large eyes are unhelpful in water, but a necessity on land. So to make the launch to dry earth, sea creatures “evolved” [note the scare quotes] larger eyes. They explain in an article for Science Daily, “Vision, not limbs, led fish onto land 385 million years ago.” “Led“? Note the language suggestive of teleology, purpose, forethought … .

After some quote-mining to highlight the allegedly teleological action, Klinghoffer tells us:

The article concludes: “Rather than limbs, it was eyes that brought our ancestors to land.” Obviously, in ordinary English “bringing” things, “leading” them, implies purposeful action.

Yes — oh yes! — the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — brought our ancestors onto the land! Klinghoffer sums it all up in his final paragraph:

Certainly, “buena vista” [good vision] is a prerequisite to life on land. It seems to have been “selected” for [scare quotes again], however, prior to there being much need for it. That kind of looking ahead to future needs is a hallmark not of blind Darwinian shuffling but, of course, of intelligent design.

[*Groan*] It also illustrates how natural selection takes advantage of fortuitous mutations, but in Klinghoffer’s universe, that never happens. So there you are.

The Discoveroids’ original reaction to Tiktaalik was to deny its existence — see Discovery Institute: Tiktaalik — a “Fraudulent” Transitional Fossil. But when additional specimens were found, they just clammed up. Now, however, they’ve figured out a way to convert it to their purposes.

As we’ve said before, intelligent design is delightfully compatible with anything and everything we may ever discover. Verily, it is the harlot of theories, and the Discoveroids are its promoters.

Copyright © 2017. 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

25 responses to “Discoveroids: Tiktaalik Proves Intelligent Design

  1. Good vision is a prerequisite for life on land?
    As I look out my window, most of the life on land that I see – lots of trees – do not have good vision. Certainly not better vision than fish.
    I am a little puzzled by the idea that big eyes would drive water-borne animals to life on land. I think of whales, octopuses, and various big-eyed aquatic extinct animals which showed, as far as I know, no tendency to move onto land over many millions of years.
    Perhaps the best eyes in the animal kingdom are those of the mantis shrimp.

  2. I just read in the news a new development which proves Intelligent Design.
    As we’re all familiar, natural bridges are often brought up by Darwinists as counter-examples to Irreducible Complexity.
    A famous example of a natural bridge, Malta’s Azure Window, has been destroyed by natural forces. This shows that natural bridges are only a temporary counter to IC!

  3. The stoopid “and they evolved better eyes” as if they forced it to happen!!

  4. Of course the ID IDiots totally fail to even notice their alleged “intelligent” designer was unable to create land animals to begin with. What could possibly be more intelligent that creating tetrapods in the wrong location to begin with. How can they claim to have had an “intelligent” designer when they continually show an abysmal lack of intelligence in their propaganda?

  5. buena vista – good vision?? Nope, that would be buena visión. Buena vista is ‘good view’ as from the town to Buena Vista, Colorado. Spanish should be at least one thing that the D’roids could get right, but alas…..

  6. docbill1351

    When the Tooters first attacked Tiktallik, it was by the Attack Gerbil hisself. He hounded the published research for not showing “wrist bones” only to be slammed by something like Figure 3 that showed wrist bones. Gerb slunked away. Now the Gerb is gone and we have no such authority to speak, however wrongly, about science.

    Oh, Gerb, where art thou?

  7. @Zetopan
    Their argument must be that Darwinism itself must admit Intelligent Design. That is, a form of reductio ad absurdum. It must be something like, Let us assume that Darwinism is true, that is, that ID is false. The Darwinists are driven to the conclusion that a macro-evolution such as the transition from fish to tetrapods must involve teleology, i.e. ID. Thus, ID is a consequence of the assumption of ID being false. QED.

  8. OT, but of interest — I drove past Ham’s Ark thingy last weekend on I-75, and noticed that he’s advertising a zip line now at the Ark as well as the one at his Creation Museum. Pretty soon he’s going to have a full-blown amusement park there, complete with dinosaur rides, no doubt. (I’ve been away from this blog for a bit, so my apologies if the Ark zip line has already been mentioned.)

  9. Ross Cameron

    Anyone know of any studies in the evolution of human delusion? Did it originate after we split from our hairy ancestors? Do apes and monkeys show signs of delusion or did it develop in homo sap alone? Might give us an insight into why creos can`t face facts.

  10. Steven Thompson

    The statement that Large eyes are unhelpful in water, but a necessity on land. implies that the Designer was inefficient and/or incompetent when designing the ichthyosaur Opthalmosaurus or the cephalopod Architeuthis. Or possibly He has big (and relatively dry) plans for their descendants (except that the former seems not to have any).

  11. Squids are said to have rather large eyes, so too many other sea creatures, then there are many critters that live in caves in total darkness that have lost their eyesight.

  12. Christine Janis

    “Oh, Gerb, where art thou?”

    Hopefully somewhere where he’s learning the meaning of the word “eponymous” (as in those eponymous wrist bones in Tiktaalik that Shubin refused to name).

  13. docbill1351 guides us down Memory Lane:

    When the Tooters first attacked Tiktallik, it was by the Attack Gerbil hisself.

    Yes, I remember that championship bout well!

    IIRC Don King was the promoter for the celebrated Rumble with the Bungler between (in the blue shorts) Tikki the Cretard-Licker and (in the red shorts) Casey the Spacey!

    Casey was full-tilt braggadocio in the pre-match press event: “I float gloat like a peppered moth, and sting like a flea!” he declared.

    But it was a KO by Tikki only 15 seconds into the first round.

  14. Correction: Casey claimed to “gloat like a peppered moth”…

  15. Apologies, this is totally off-topic, but those of us blessed with spectacularly large appendages are grateful for good press: New insight into secret lives of Neanderthals

  16. Megalonyx mumbles: “those of us blessed with spectacularly large appendages …”

    You can, perhaps, be forgiven for your ignorance of Sapiens culture, but we usually don’t regard a gigantic butt to be an “appendage” that one brags about.

  17. Ceteris Paribus

    Klinghoffer has again proved the ancient truth that: “You can lead a Creationist out of water, but you can’t make him think”.

  18. So did the animals use a zip line to get out of the Ark? Perhaps one all the way from Mt Ararat to the Brazilian rainforest?

  19. Mark Germano

    Klinghoffer says: “Obviously, in ordinary English “bringing” things, “leading” them, implies purposeful action.”

    Overcast skies often bring rain. Newborns bring joy. Winter brings snow and ice. Obviously, clouds, babies, and seasons act purposefully.

    The Discovery Institute: Winner of the Nobel Prize in Semantics for 23 years running.

  20. “Dripping with Teleology .”
    Science has no use for teleology. Thanks for admitting that IDiocy is not science, Klinkleclapper.

  21. docbill1351

    The only thing “dripping” is the drool running out of Kankerwanker’s slack jaw.

    As for “he’s advertising a zip line now,” the zip is the sound of money leaving your wallet.

  22. Michael Fugate

    This is so typical of the anecdotal methods used by the DI and other pretend scientists. Is Klinghoffer implying that every time people use language implying purposeful action, they actually are implying purposeful action? And if not, how can he tell the difference? I am sure he will be no better at this than he is at telling the difference between something made using purposeful action and something not made using purposeful action.

  23. Michael Fugate, you either don’t understand, or you stubbornly refuse to understand. What Klinghoffer is saying is that the designer — blessed be he! — led the fish out of the ocean, just as Moses led the chosen people out of Egypt.

  24. Christine Janis

    Good thing that those fish could see where they were going, then.

  25. Michael Fugate

    Led or lured? Was it 40 MY in the swamps? Where the hell is the Promised Land? Was Ichthyostega grumbling we were better off in the Ocean? Are insects manna? So many questions.