Comments on: Hello, Beautiful http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:39:45 +0000 By: The Flying Trilobite http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-34003 The Flying Trilobite Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:51:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-34003 I agree with Weenerbunny; the artist should be cited. That's some good work. I agree with Weenerbunny; the artist should be cited. That's some good work.

]]> By: Weenerbunny http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-23133 Weenerbunny Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:28:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-23133 the image above demonstrating tiktaalilks place amongst other fossils... does anyone know who/where I ask for permission to use this image on wikipedia's tiktaalik article? the image above demonstrating tiktaalilks place amongst other fossils... does anyone know who/where I ask for permission to use this image on wikipedia's tiktaalik article?

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-601 Ebonmuse Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:16:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-601 It's certainly true that other people (most notably Charles Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus) published evolutionary <i>ideas</i> before him, speculating about the possibility of living things changing over time. What they did not publish, however, was a <i>theory</i> - a unified, scientific account of this process that supplied a plausible mechanism and that was backed by observational evidence. The reason Charles Darwin is credited as the originator of evolution is precisely because he did the footwork necessary to establish it as scientifically plausible, whereas his predecessors did not. In that respect, I consider it accurate to say that he was the first to propose the theory of evolution as a theory. This is a pedantic point, I realize. :) It's certainly true that other people (most notably Charles Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus) published evolutionary ideas before him, speculating about the possibility of living things changing over time. What they did not publish, however, was a theory - a unified, scientific account of this process that supplied a plausible mechanism and that was backed by observational evidence. The reason Charles Darwin is credited as the originator of evolution is precisely because he did the footwork necessary to establish it as scientifically plausible, whereas his predecessors did not. In that respect, I consider it accurate to say that he was the first to propose the theory of evolution as a theory.

This is a pedantic point, I realize. :)

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-599 BlackWizardMagus Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:29:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-599 Well, Adam does say "the theory of evolution that he proposed", as opposed to the theories anyone else proposed, became the pillar of biology. Well, Newton almost missed the boat regarding the invention of Calculus, but that's more of a historical novelty than anything. Well, Adam does say "the theory of evolution that he proposed", as opposed to the theories anyone else proposed, became the pillar of biology. Well, Newton almost missed the boat regarding the invention of Calculus, but that's more of a historical novelty than anything.

]]> By: PJJ http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-598 PJJ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:07:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-598 Would it be too pedantic to point out the assertion that Charles Darwin was the first to propose the theory of evolution is just plain wrong. Many before Darwin had suggested that diversity life on earth has arisen through a process of evolution. What Darwin did when he wrote “The Origin of Species” was to propose a mechanism by which evolution could occur – natural selection or “the survival of the fittest” as he put it. Darwin was so tardy in putting his thoughts into print in the search of the definitive work that he was almost pipped at the post by Alfred Russel Wallace who had come to similar conclusions independently. Would it be too pedantic to point out the assertion that Charles Darwin was the first to propose the theory of evolution is just plain wrong. Many before Darwin had suggested that diversity life on earth has arisen through a process of evolution. What Darwin did when he wrote “The Origin of Species” was to propose a mechanism by which evolution could occur – natural selection or “the survival of the fittest” as he put it. Darwin was so tardy in putting his thoughts into print in the search of the definitive work that he was almost pipped at the post by Alfred Russel Wallace who had come to similar conclusions independently.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-570 Ebonmuse Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:30:53 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-570 <blockquote>My wife, incidentally, thinks it looks like a crocodile, in terms of the side profile of the skull.</blockquote> The comparison is apt. It's been made by others, including the authors of one of the Nature papers (which, incidentally, I can provide PDFs of if anyone's interested). I would add that this wasn't a small fish; its skeleton is about nine feet long. <blockquote>Since it sounds like it lived in a similar habitat, do you suppose there might be any overlap of ecological niche?</blockquote> That seems very likely. <i>Tiktaalik</i>'s skull came with a nice sharp set of teeth, so it was clearly a carnivore. I don't recall any of the papers speculating about its diet, but it probably ate smaller fish and crustaceans, which is what was around in those days.

My wife, incidentally, thinks it looks like a crocodile, in terms of the side profile of the skull.

The comparison is apt. It's been made by others, including the authors of one of the Nature papers (which, incidentally, I can provide PDFs of if anyone's interested). I would add that this wasn't a small fish; its skeleton is about nine feet long.

Since it sounds like it lived in a similar habitat, do you suppose there might be any overlap of ecological niche?

That seems very likely. Tiktaalik's skull came with a nice sharp set of teeth, so it was clearly a carnivore. I don't recall any of the papers speculating about its diet, but it probably ate smaller fish and crustaceans, which is what was around in those days.

]]> By: Dominic Self http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-568 Dominic Self Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:29:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-568 Oh great, so now there are two gaps in the fossil record, one on either side of <i>Tiktaalik</i> ;-) (Joke courtesy of <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000" rel="nofollow">Michael Shermer</a>) Oh great, so now there are two gaps in the fossil record, one on either side of Tiktaalik ;-) (Joke courtesy of Michael Shermer)

]]> By: Azkyroth http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-563 Azkyroth Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:04:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-563 "So tell me...do those fin-limb-things go all the way up?" Hehe ^.^ I'm making a point of forwarding this discovery to as many creationists as I can find. My wife, incidentally, thinks it looks like a crocodile, in terms of the side profile of the skull. Since it sounds like it lived in a similar habitat, do you suppose there might be any overlap of ecological niche? "So tell me...do those fin-limb-things go all the way up?" Hehe ^.^

I'm making a point of forwarding this discovery to as many creationists as I can find. My wife, incidentally, thinks it looks like a crocodile, in terms of the side profile of the skull. Since it sounds like it lived in a similar habitat, do you suppose there might be any overlap of ecological niche?

]]> By: EnigmaOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-561 EnigmaOfSteel Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:01:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html#comment-561 Just reading about this. Exciting news. Hopefully the story will make headway in pop culture channels and beyond, which for better or worse is often what it takes to influence people these days. Interestingly I caught a radio program last week with Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, telling listeners he had studied evolution over the past 50 years, and claiming there was "not a shred of evidence" for it. He went on to have the notorious Ken Ham do his anti-evolution shtick. Wonder if Dr. Kennedy is going to study Tiktaalik roseae? Ken Ham will likely blame it all on "the flood" mixing different bones together;) Just reading about this. Exciting news. Hopefully the story will make headway in pop culture channels and beyond, which for better or worse is often what it takes to influence people these days.

Interestingly I caught a radio program last week with Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, telling listeners he had studied evolution over the past 50 years, and claiming there was "not a shred of evidence" for it. He went on to have the notorious Ken Ham do his anti-evolution shtick. Wonder if Dr. Kennedy is going to study Tiktaalik roseae? Ken Ham will likely blame it all on "the flood" mixing different bones together;)

]]>