OK, this is a response to

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles...il_illusion.htm

This document makes a few claims
1) There are no transitions between vertabrates and invertabrates
2) Highly advanced vertabrates were found in the lower cambrian.
3) Some sort of 'body plan' that has only been around for a few million years.
4) Scientists interested in evolution frequently discuss only the vertabrates.
5) Coelcanths has all the characteristics of a fish.


Let's begin with point one as tradition would dictate. There are transitions between the two. Plenty of them. For full info refer to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html

Now, does Pikaia represent a transition from one to the other? I think it does.

Point two I know little about, so I won't discuss.

Three: I don't understand what this 'body plan' is.

Four: Scientists discuss the vertabrates because they are what evolved. The invertabrates are the first thing in the fossil record, so its impossible to see what they evolved from, however, if invertabrates evolved into vertabrates, then we evolved from them, then that makes for fascinating study. The most exciting part of Evolutionary Theory (and in part, it is what drives so many to study it), is the origins of man. Who wants to watch slide after slide of molluscs in a museum? Thus it isn't discussed because it is boring and only leads onto vertabrates anyway, which is what dinosaurs and we are.


Point five: That's a bold statement. Does it have the characteristics of a fish? Yes. Does it have unique characteristics that set it apart from all other fish? Yes. It has four lobe fins!

From http://www.bioweb.uwlax.edu/zoolab/Table_o.../coelacanth.htm
Among the most primitive forms are those found in the Subclass Crossopterygii, which contains some of the lobe-finned fishes, a name that refers the fact that their fins are supported by fleshy lobes (rather than by the bony rays seen in modern fishes).



http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/fishfacts/fish/coela.htm
Coelacanths are quite different from all other living fishes. They have an extra lobe on the tail, paired lobed fins, and a vertebral column that is not fully developed. Coelacanths are the only living animals to have a fully functional intercranial joint, which is a division separating the ear and brain from the nasal organs and eye. The intercranial joint allows the front part of the head to be lifted when the fish is feeding. One of the most interesting features of the Coelacanth, is that it has paired fins which move in a similar fashion to our arms and legs.

(see diagram) - http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/.../forelimbs2.gif

So, it differs from normal fish in a very significant manner.


I fail to see how any of this presents a problem to evolutionary theory. Anybody care to point out why it does?

I thought I would take a look at some of the material from Fred Williams article, but was unable to find any reference to, reference 6 the stated references is in relation to .

Anyone know where I can find a link?

Verterbrate evolution definately gets covered more in the popular press, because the general public is much more interested in things like dinosaurs and mammoths than invertebrates like ostracodes or trilobites.

But in terms of the actual research done, there is much more paleontological work done on the invertebrates. In academics and the oil industry, invertebrate paleontologists probably outnumber vertebrate paleontologists by 50 to 1.

Some of the most well documented evolutionary histories known are for invertebrates, especicially the super-abundant microfossils, like ostracodes and foramaniferida, as well as macroinvertebrates, like ammonoids (related to squids and cuttlefish), land snails, and trilobites.

But to find out about invertebrate evolution, you actually have to read some rather obscure technical journals and literature.

It's much easier just to say it doesn't exist!

Fossil linkage, I don't see any papers stating shock or disdain over highly advanced vertabrates, but there seems to be some excitement.

See this article in the Boston Globe where the scientists were able to be a little more candid with their discovery:

http://www.unityinchrist.com/preevangelism...lobeArticle.htm

(I also fixed the link in my article).

FYI, you notice they in so many words question Pikaia as an legit intermediate. It makes me wonder how closely Modulus read my article since he touted Pikaia as an intermediate and failed to notice I addressed this in my article.

Fred

Had a look at the page. It quotes Eric Davidson as saying "Neo-Darwinism is dead," but I can't find the original quote. Note however, he didn't say the Theory of Evolution. And also note that this is suspiciously similar to something Gould said 25 years ago: “the neo-Darwinism synthesis is effectively dead, despite its continued presence as textbook orthodoxy.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? 6 Paleobiology 119, 119–20 (1980)

It then goes on to say that most of the anti Neo-Darwinian scientists aren't throwing evolution out of the window, but a genuinly excited by a new kind of evolution. They discuss their hypothesis of "Harmony' as being a viable driving force.

Also of note, I can only find one article which seems to be worded this way and its this one, it has been copied all over the place. I can't seem to find any other articles saying this. So either the case has been exaggerated, there is a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden, or there are lots of reports like this one, but everyone copy/pastes the same one.



It looks to me like they aren't questioning Pikaia. They just expected to find something less advanced beneath it. I look around and I see plenty of websites hailing Pikaia as a primitive chordate. Note also - that I provided a link with several other early chordates. I should also point out there are living transitions, creatures which start off with a primitive backbone, and then lose it in adulthood.

Now - if we find a human fisherman, who got tangled in his net during the Global Flood, fell over board, and was dragged to the bottom of the sea by tidal forces and panic where he was quickly buried and fossilized....then evolution would be in trouble, heck even a rat would do.

As it is, it just shows that we don't know everything about our origins and there maybe other mechanisms behind evolution we hadn't thought of before. Science is tentative. This isn't evidence against evolution, just evidence that mutation/natural selection might not be the only way. And that evidence isn't totally compelling yet. 6 years later and the Theory of Evolution hasn't been toppled yet...despite a core group of people dedicated to doing that very thing.

An interesting discussion on this very topic is here, Fred knows about this of course (since he started the thread), but I thought others might want to take a look at it, to avoid going over old ground.