//
you're reading...
Creation/Evolution

Fish with legs? Breaking down an “evolutionary breakthrough”

See this link:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16157835

Fish uses fins to walk and bound

By Victoria Gill & Jason Palmer Science reporters, BBC Nature and BBC News

________________________________

 

Let’s break this down, what is the actual scientific discovery here

Through natural selection, and/or a mutation – a fish has developed the ability (whether positive or negative) to maneuver itself along the bottom of a tank in a similar fashion to legs.

What is the scientific assumption?

These appendages are early versions of legs.

What is the conclusion?

Because this fish has developed what appendages similar to legs, it is proof that fish have evolved into land-dwelling animals.

Where did it go wrong?

The conclusion is based on an evolutionary bias.  The conclusion has already assumed that evolution is correct, and thus we must fit this creature into the already established timeline.  This is confirmation bias.

What is the actual strictly scientific conclusion?

A fish has developed odd appendages.  It is not clear what they would benefit him.  They may very well be a detrimental mutation that just happened to have a side-effect that resembles “legs”.

_________

This has been an exercise in distinguishing between evidence and conclusions.  This happens all the time in the history of evolution.  Scientists no longer look at evidence as what it clearly is, but instead with a presupposed set of conditions, and then use the specimen to fit into their model. 

Evolutionists often decry creationists claiming we use confirmation bias.  We do.  This has been an exercise in showing that they do too.

The creationist response to the specimen would be that it is another kind of fish that has developed a strange mutation.  In fact there are all types of fish species with different forms of tentacles, fins, and appendages.  There doesn’t appear to be any significant scientific discovery here.

The difference here is between observational science (what we can observe here in the modern world) and historical science (a hypothesis about a timeline of events that can never be proven).  It’s fine to make hypothesis about this fish.  It is not alright to say this is scientific proof of a missing link.  That is an assumption that came about by confirmation bias, not scientific data.

 

 

Advertisements

About Tim

http://www.gracewithsalt.com

Discussion

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: