“What is the evolutionary advantage of “transitional footlike structures” over pectoral fins?”

We don’t know what the particular advantage is. One can speculate, but there is no evidence for this species other than what can be determined from morphology. The bones in the fin/limbs were probably not adaptive for life on land at all. They can bear weight (not necessarily unbuoyed), but that feature may have provided for highly efficient aquatic life rather than life on land. The early Tetrapods are all thought to have been aquatic. What these bones do tell us is that the proposed theoretical transition from fin to limb in the lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-fin fish) to Tetrapod, is confirmed in these fossils, even in the way in which individual bones are thought to have evolved in a series of gradual changes.

Individual organisms or fossils need not bear the burden of proving or disproving evolution. They all form part of a gigantic whole from which a very clear picture of evolution emerges.

There’s a problem with the Darwinist position that runs even deeper than this, however: If Darwinian evolution is an undisputed fact, as its chief defenders routinely claim, why is this fossil find being billed as such an crucial piece of evidence?

Arrgh. Right up there with the old “now there are 2 gaps where there was 1” wheeze. These guys must have taken a course of two in logic taught by Steve Fuller.

The advantages that these structures conferred were selected. It’s just not the case that selection was anything anticipatory.

But the NYT article cited states:

But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals

Specifically:

In the fishes’ forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders.

All I know is what I read in the article. And the article doesn’t talk about lungs. It talks about proto-wrists. What is the evolutionary advantage of “transitional footlike structures” over pectoral fins?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?

“The idea of God FUCKING WITH MY HEAD scares the shit out of me!”

I did not say otherwise. My annoyance is with the media who play the anti-creationist angle of this, as though that were the reason it is interesting.

Well it seems to me that it’s no coincidence that fundamentalism and evangelism/proselytising go hand in hand. They need a constant supply of new, young recruits to replace the ones who wake up and smell the evidence.

The big exception to this, of course, is Judaism. Without proselytisation, the most hardline Orthodox Jews have to shut themselves off from the outside world almost completely to sustain their worldview.

One would think. Yet, radical fundamentalism seems to be growing in the world today. Within a framework of such fundamentalism, one can use a lot handwaving to dismiss secular empirical science findings.

Why? IDists tend to argue that all morphological and functional features are perfectly designed and useful. Biologists, on the other hand, will say that there are features that are either uselessly present while other features confer adaptive advantage, or that features fall by the wayside as species adapt.

In the case of Tiktaalik, functional advantages can be inferred from changes in ear and limb structure. The advantages that these structures conferred were selected. It’s just not the case that selection was anything anticipatory. The interesting thing is that such changes were previously proposed as necessary steps in the evolution from fishes to tetrapods, but they had not yet been found in the fossil record.

Teresa – all of fundamentalism seems to be setting its adherents up for catastrophic loss of faith. The denial of non-scriptural evidence, the head-in-the-sand approach to sin (no sex education, for example), the elevation of all-too-human authority figures, and so on. I’m puzzled as to why fundies think fragility of faith is a price worth paying for moral and epistemological certainty. If that certainty can’t withstand rigorous challenge, what good is it?

If I’m, say, an old-Earth Intelligent Design theorist, isn’t my strongest argument in favor of ID the “evolution” of structures that are useless to the present generation but will become useful millions of years down the road?

Take it easy. I am a biochemist, myself, and would be soon out of funding were Creationism to be re-established. It’s just that I am also dismayed that certain CTers’ antipathy to ‘hard’ liberalism (or is it just an artificial contrarianism?) has sometimes, um, evolved into a tortuous defence of Islamists and their apologists.