Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Coelacanth : the BIG misconception 2.0

The story of the Coelacanth is fascinating for various reasons, for our purposes the fascination is in noting how the evidence implies one story and the Darwinist infers quite another. 

Fossils of the fish Coelacanth are said to date as far back as 400,000,000 years ago and they were thought to have gone extinct circa 60,000,000 years ago. This opened the door for the telling of tall tales about how the Coelacanth decided to get out of the water and trot about on land. Oh, the stories that were told; we can tell from the fins that…and became legs because…anatomy this, evolution that, and bada bing—human being.

What a time they had; chin stockingly pontificating as they interpreted evidence based on bias schools of thought and adherence to theory. But then the show was over and reality swam past them as in 1938 AD South African fishermen made Marjorie Courtenay Latimer, the curator of a museum in East London (northeast of Cape Town, South Africa), aware of the living fish—the Gombessa, as they knew it. 

But the party was not over. While many biologists express consternation at the upsetting of their theories, a good Darwinist never lets those troubling little facts get in the way of a good theory.

Thus, when the living fish toppled the dead theory the fish was prepared with a twist of lemon and the theory was propped back up in the form of a red herring. What comes forth from this strange sort of weird science is that there are two stories of the Coelacanth: the actual story told by the evidence itself and the story told regardless of evidence which is meant to function as smoke and mirrors which call attention away from the story told by the evidence—smoked Coelacanth, yummy.

The evidence presents a fish which has not changed in 60 to 70 million years (with the possible exception of size, etc.). The theory remains all but unchanged; this fish decided to go on walkabout. But how is the gap filled between the evidence of an unchanged creature and the human who examines the fish from which it supposedly evolved? 

Simple! By appealing to the mythical environmental pressures which caused part of the fish population to remain unchanged for 60,000,000 years and part to change into human beings who eat them (actually, I understand that they are too oily to be eaten).


Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails