The Darwin symbol has a new name.
April 5, 2006 4:05 PM Subscribe
There have been many knock offs of the Ichthys symbol. None of these symbols have caused as much controversy as the Darwin fish. Recently some scientists in Northern Canada have made a discovery that may eliminate some of that controversy, it’s called the Tiktaalik roseae.
Summon you-know-who! This should be funny!
Marvellous news. I even considered making my first ever FPP about it, but you beat me to it, so you can take the inevitable Newsfilter snarks.
posted by Decani at 4:13 PM on April 5, 2006
Marvellous news. I even considered making my first ever FPP about it, but you beat me to it, so you can take the inevitable Newsfilter snarks.
posted by Decani at 4:13 PM on April 5, 2006
If evidence could make any difference, there wouldn't be any contraversy in the first place. This discovery is signficant to science, not to the science deniers of the USA.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:17 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by -harlequin- at 4:17 PM on April 5, 2006
Maybe it didn't walk on land but on ice! After all, it was found on Ellesmere Island.
posted by furtive at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by furtive at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2006
Shame it wasn't found in Kansas..
posted by dash_slot- at 4:29 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by dash_slot- at 4:29 PM on April 5, 2006
Damn, that's almost proof that there is a god, and he's a smart ass.
posted by eriko at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by eriko at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2006
take THAT, creationists!
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2006
Surely this is what will finally convince the creationists they're wrong.
posted by empath at 4:44 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by empath at 4:44 PM on April 5, 2006
Surely this is what will finally convince the creationists they're wrong.
Outbursts from creationists that this only creates two more gaps in the fossil record in three, two, one...
posted by Dipsomaniac at 4:46 PM on April 5, 2006
Outbursts from creationists that this only creates two more gaps in the fossil record in three, two, one...
posted by Dipsomaniac at 4:46 PM on April 5, 2006
CS Monitor article here with a pic of the fossil and an artists interpretation.
posted by wfrgms at 4:46 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by wfrgms at 4:46 PM on April 5, 2006
Eh, who cares about the creationists. This is cool, no need to give the loons the attention they crave. Science once agains proves to be pretty darn neat.
posted by billysumday at 4:51 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by billysumday at 4:51 PM on April 5, 2006
Outbursts from creationists that this only creates two more gaps in the fossil record in three, two, one...
Ha! You got it.
"Oh, that isn't a wrist. That's just an extra-flexible fin! Where's the transitional fossil with an elbow? Honestly, we'd need to see that before we... errr.... ask for one with a shoulder blade, ankles, knees, a total lack of gills... and that'll obviously be a monkey, and not a transitional form at all. God, you evilutionists are sooo STOOOPID!"
posted by Decani at 4:52 PM on April 5, 2006
Ha! You got it.
"Oh, that isn't a wrist. That's just an extra-flexible fin! Where's the transitional fossil with an elbow? Honestly, we'd need to see that before we... errr.... ask for one with a shoulder blade, ankles, knees, a total lack of gills... and that'll obviously be a monkey, and not a transitional form at all. God, you evilutionists are sooo STOOOPID!"
posted by Decani at 4:52 PM on April 5, 2006
Sweet. We just covered fossil transitional forms in my biological reasoning class (where it is fun to watch creationists get knocked down inumerable pegs), and I guess I'll score some teacher's-pet-points by bringing this up on Friday. er. I'm a dork, but it's too cool not to share.
posted by luftmensch at 4:59 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by luftmensch at 4:59 PM on April 5, 2006
Truly awesome news. I can't be the only one who sees a hint of a grin on that fishopod's face. I want a bumper magnet.
posted by wanderingmind at 5:32 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by wanderingmind at 5:32 PM on April 5, 2006
Mummy, a goldfish just dragged a lincoln log into me sock drawer.
posted by isopraxis at 5:33 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by isopraxis at 5:33 PM on April 5, 2006
My wife is teaching about this using tadpoles, which are just beginning to sprout limbs. I love evolution!
posted by snsranch at 5:36 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by snsranch at 5:36 PM on April 5, 2006
Evolution is awesome.
It used to be just good, but over the years, somehow, it got better - almost like it was adapting to its surroundings.
How'd that happen, I wonder?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 5:39 PM on April 5, 2006
It used to be just good, but over the years, somehow, it got better - almost like it was adapting to its surroundings.
How'd that happen, I wonder?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 5:39 PM on April 5, 2006
Oooh croco-fish! When's the cartoon coming out?
I can't wait for the cereal. (I'm thinking choc-croco-fish. It'd be big in Japan. Then anime fans here will import it.)
I dunno, some newsfilter is good newsfilter.
This is nifty.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:50 PM on April 5, 2006
I can't wait for the cereal. (I'm thinking choc-croco-fish. It'd be big in Japan. Then anime fans here will import it.)
I dunno, some newsfilter is good newsfilter.
This is nifty.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:50 PM on April 5, 2006
snsranch writes "My wife is teaching about this using tadpoles, which are just beginning to sprout limbs. I love evolution!"
Careful! Ontogeny does not necessarily recapitulate phylogeny!
posted by mr_roboto at 5:50 PM on April 5, 2006
Careful! Ontogeny does not necessarily recapitulate phylogeny!
posted by mr_roboto at 5:50 PM on April 5, 2006
If you're interested in this sort of thing I'd recommend this book.
posted by pwb503 at 6:12 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by pwb503 at 6:12 PM on April 5, 2006
Man, science is getting Soooo political.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:23 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:23 PM on April 5, 2006
mr_roboto:
I think a point that people struggle with in evolution is that they can see that a fish is a viable animal, and they can see that a frog is a viable animal, but have difficulty imagining something bridging the gap that... works. Tadpoles may bear little resemblence to transitional animals, but they seem to me like a good way to show that weird-ass animals that looks like something between our notions of animals, can get around and do ok for themselves.
The same way people struggle to understand how an eye could evolve - they've never seen that the "transitional" form of the eye is a useful and valuable organ. Seeing things working helps at the gut level, and the gut level is the level at which doubts about evolution come from.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:50 PM on April 5, 2006
I think a point that people struggle with in evolution is that they can see that a fish is a viable animal, and they can see that a frog is a viable animal, but have difficulty imagining something bridging the gap that... works. Tadpoles may bear little resemblence to transitional animals, but they seem to me like a good way to show that weird-ass animals that looks like something between our notions of animals, can get around and do ok for themselves.
The same way people struggle to understand how an eye could evolve - they've never seen that the "transitional" form of the eye is a useful and valuable organ. Seeing things working helps at the gut level, and the gut level is the level at which doubts about evolution come from.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:50 PM on April 5, 2006
You realize that this find does nothing to defeat creationists right? People who believe that God created and designed the world don't have to have any trouble with this at all.
posted by oddman at 6:57 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by oddman at 6:57 PM on April 5, 2006
Here's a cute model of our new friend from the NYTimes article.
posted by heydanno at 7:17 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by heydanno at 7:17 PM on April 5, 2006
wanderingmind, I see the smile. Reminds me of an alligator. Cheerful little critter, isn't it?
posted by cmyk at 7:33 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by cmyk at 7:33 PM on April 5, 2006
kind of related question - are there still examples of intermediate eyes around? I know they started as light sensitive patches, then they curved in to grab a wider angle - till they were entirely curved + enclosed.
are there any more of those slightly concave patches of photo sensitive skin still in existance? I was arguing evolution with a friend - he using the 'irreducible complexity' argument and I explained that an eye without a lense was still useful, but he didn't buy it. An animal pimping a rudimentary eye would help me out a lot.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:50 PM on April 5, 2006
are there any more of those slightly concave patches of photo sensitive skin still in existance? I was arguing evolution with a friend - he using the 'irreducible complexity' argument and I explained that an eye without a lense was still useful, but he didn't buy it. An animal pimping a rudimentary eye would help me out a lot.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:50 PM on April 5, 2006
I wonder how it tasted.
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:22 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:22 PM on April 5, 2006
Tryptophan-5ht Here's one decent article on it. And here's whole site devoted to debunking the "irreducible complexity" idea.
posted by jmhodges at 11:13 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by jmhodges at 11:13 PM on April 5, 2006
5ht:
Euglena.
Lots of planaria and various insects (ticks, for example) also have only rudimentary eye patches, some flat, and some curved--I'm not too sure of any that have more developed "eyes". It may be something like tetrapod evolution; developing eyes beyond a certain point simply requires too much energy, and there are always things waiting to eat you that have better eyes already. After all, eyes were pretty clearly evolved in most of their structures for larger animals by the end of the Precambrian. I think tubeworms also have only rudimentary eye structures.
posted by trigonometry at 11:21 PM on April 5, 2006
Euglena.
Lots of planaria and various insects (ticks, for example) also have only rudimentary eye patches, some flat, and some curved--I'm not too sure of any that have more developed "eyes". It may be something like tetrapod evolution; developing eyes beyond a certain point simply requires too much energy, and there are always things waiting to eat you that have better eyes already. After all, eyes were pretty clearly evolved in most of their structures for larger animals by the end of the Precambrian. I think tubeworms also have only rudimentary eye structures.
posted by trigonometry at 11:21 PM on April 5, 2006
jmhodges:
Thanks for the link, too--Dawkins naturally (literally!) knows far more than I, so I may be utterly wrong in my speculations (in the good way, though).
posted by trigonometry at 11:26 PM on April 5, 2006
Thanks for the link, too--Dawkins naturally (literally!) knows far more than I, so I may be utterly wrong in my speculations (in the good way, though).
posted by trigonometry at 11:26 PM on April 5, 2006
More Tiktaalik roseae images and discussion at Pharyngula, and a related MeFi thread.
How do mudskippers—which seem to have more advanced vision, land-adapted breathing, and terrestrial mobility—fit into the overall picture?
posted by cenoxo at 11:49 PM on April 5, 2006
How do mudskippers—which seem to have more advanced vision, land-adapted breathing, and terrestrial mobility—fit into the overall picture?
posted by cenoxo at 11:49 PM on April 5, 2006
thanks :)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 11:50 PM on April 5, 2006
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 11:50 PM on April 5, 2006
quick question, correct me if i'm wrong, but don't alot of creationists (NOT intelligent design-ers) believe that God created all animals, extinct or not, and knocker em off accordingly?
how would this "croco-fish" serve to change a fanatics' viewpoint? they would just say Jesus didn't want him around and removed him.
posted by Doorstop at 6:14 AM on April 6, 2006
how would this "croco-fish" serve to change a fanatics' viewpoint? they would just say Jesus didn't want him around and removed him.
posted by Doorstop at 6:14 AM on April 6, 2006
I never quite understood the fish eating Darwin symbol. Is it for or against evolution theory?
posted by geoallen at 8:08 AM on April 6, 2006
posted by geoallen at 8:08 AM on April 6, 2006
You evolutionists cause natural disasters. If God weren't so busy making up all this stuff to test your faith, he'd have time to avoid hurricanes and tsunamis.
posted by qvantamon at 8:42 AM on April 6, 2006
posted by qvantamon at 8:42 AM on April 6, 2006
geoallen, it is usually against evolutionary theory (for example the truth fish eating the darwin fish.) Since I was searching, here are some other parodies I found.
posted by drstupid at 9:57 AM on April 6, 2006
posted by drstupid at 9:57 AM on April 6, 2006
From drstupid's last link:
The release of the T-Rex emblem has some in the Christian community worried. But the latest attack on the Ichthus fish doesn’t worry Bob Woodward, the creator of the Truth fish. In a recent press release, he argued that truth is more than a catchy slogan or trendy bumper sticker, and pointed out a fatal flaw in the Darwinists’ decision to include a dinosaur in their latest offering: extinction. “The last Tyrannosaurus Rex fell down dead over 60 million years ago. The Truth of literal biblical creationism, on the other hand, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Wait... Dinosaurs died out 60 million years ago... literal biblical creationism implies Earth is much younger than 60 million years... So the very fact that the dinosaurs died off 60 million years ago proves that Earth was created more recently than 60 million years ago.
I am simultaneously having "tea" and "no tea" thoughts in my brain right now.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:56 PM on April 6, 2006
The release of the T-Rex emblem has some in the Christian community worried. But the latest attack on the Ichthus fish doesn’t worry Bob Woodward, the creator of the Truth fish. In a recent press release, he argued that truth is more than a catchy slogan or trendy bumper sticker, and pointed out a fatal flaw in the Darwinists’ decision to include a dinosaur in their latest offering: extinction. “The last Tyrannosaurus Rex fell down dead over 60 million years ago. The Truth of literal biblical creationism, on the other hand, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Wait... Dinosaurs died out 60 million years ago... literal biblical creationism implies Earth is much younger than 60 million years... So the very fact that the dinosaurs died off 60 million years ago proves that Earth was created more recently than 60 million years ago.
I am simultaneously having "tea" and "no tea" thoughts in my brain right now.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:56 PM on April 6, 2006
Decani: "God, you evilutionists are sooo STOOOPID!"
Classy.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:33 PM on April 6, 2006
Classy.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:33 PM on April 6, 2006
Decani: "God, you evilutionists are sooo STOOOPID!"
Classy.
Huh?
posted by Decani at 6:37 PM on April 8, 2006
Classy.
Huh?
posted by Decani at 6:37 PM on April 8, 2006
« Older Jesus was way cool. But did he exist? | Impulsive music-buyers, beware. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hank at 4:09 PM on April 5, 2006