JGC must be busy. :) I'm surprised I found this article before him. It concerns a long-sought explanation for flatfish and how the eyes of these fish ended up on one side of their head. The story is remarkable: this grad student visited museums all over Europe, uncovered centuries old evidence, corrected misclassified fossils, and put together a transitional series of fish with one eye migrating from one side of the head to the other.

This may finally put to rest a question used by creationists since Darwin's time and cited as recently as a 2003 creationist book. How many other answers to vexing questions in evolutionary science may be waiting to be found in dusty old museum storage?

His first "transitional" fossil was an adult specimen he stumbled on in the Paris museum, part of a collection that had been given as a tribute 200 years ago to Napoleon as he fought in Italy. It clearly had an eye socket near the top of the skull, Friedman said, in transit to the other side of the face.

But since it is clearly established that evolution is an illusion designed to test one's faith, the pious thing to do is just to ignore such transitional fossils. In fact, the more absurd an idea is, the more it is a testimony to one's faith that one believe it.

I would have bet against that.

Much of what I've been reading lately involves the idea that major evolutionary change can happen in big jumps very quickly. Stuff that used to be pretty difficult to explain with tiny change over long periods of time, such as the evoution of whole new structures, or the movement of the flatfish eye, can be pretty easily explained by changes in the time and place of gene expression in a developing embryo. In fact, embryologists and geneticists have done some pretty amazing stuff demonstrating just this idea. So, it's pretty cool that it can also work slow and steady.

In other words, evolution can find more than one way to skin a cat. Awesome.

Thanks for the link!

For one thing, the flatfish is still a fish. Movement of eye isn't necessarily a contradiction of Scripture which says the initial life forms were made according to their kinds.

Dd

Nothing transitional at all about it.

Dd

While I don't really care if the evolution of the flatfish contradicts the bible or not -- it's quite self-contradictory enough, thanks -- the curious reader can look into how transitional fossils are defined to see why DD is wrong.

Oh yeah. I forgot for a moment. When good plain English doesn't suffice, you change the meaning of words. For instance, queer used to mean something a bit peculiar, now it means a person who sucks cocks and puts his penis up some man's butthole or has some man put his penis up his butthole ostensibly for sexual gratification but in reality to play out a Sado-masochistic pathology. Same with Gay. One day it means carefree, the next it means a person who is sucking cocks, putting cocks in men's rumps or having a man shove his cock up your asshole.

Quer = Evillusionist. Yep, that stands to reason. Not much difference. Both have a problem with reality and nature.

Dd

Distraction tactics, DD, SOP for your sort. You and Nano need to get together and discuss some new strategies. He at least is capable of a variety of fallacious rhetorical constructs, although he favors distractions as well. Perhaps you two can do something about your sexual fixation, too. Just be clear as to your safewords beforehand.

Take a look at the following: <link>

Well puppy I suppose it's like the old saying goes: The squeaky wheel is wanting to get greased.

What's a quer?

Proves you start with a fly you end up with a fly......

It's still a lizard.

Dd

A cocksucker who hasn't had it up the as yet.

Dd

predicto:

It's still a lizard.

Dd

Well, I see you and Truett hold to the same strawman construct of what you think evolution should be (the easier to bash it down). So at least you're consistently fallacious in your rhetoric. :) Sounds kinky. Maybe you two should hook up, DD.

Did Dinosaurs have feathers? Were they reptiles or birds?