Evolutionary Flop: Early 4-Footed Land Animal Was No Walker?

[Breedingvariety]

We know of the effects. We don't know much of what composes dark matter or dark energy, but we do observe the effects of these phenomena. This is how much of physics works. Kepler and Newton didn't know what gravity was, but they were able to describe how it worked. Later, our understanding of gravity was refined with Einstein. Currently, physicists are trying to reconcile quantum gravity. The same applies here. Just because we don't know what something is composed of, nor do we observe it directly, does not mean there is reason to question its empirical existence. Theories are never finished, they are always applied to scrutiny and refinement. That is the nature of science. Just because there is a problem, one mustn't assume it is because the basis of what we do know is wrong. If that were the case, then there would be no use in any form of science, which seems odd considering the massive amount of practical applications we've gained from modern science.

There is nothing wrong with scientific theories that haven't been shown to be applicable practically or valid empirically. They are possibilities. But they should not be taught to be equally good to theories that proved themselves empirically applicable.

[Breedingvariety]

Post of the day

Thank you. But the day is young. Don't fall in love with first post that touched you. There are plenty of posts in the sea.

[Stefan]

There is nothing wrong with scientific theories that haven't been shown to be applicable practically or valid empirically. They are possibilities. But they should not be taught to be equally good to theories that proved themselves empirically applicable.

The Big Bang Theory has a large amount of empirical evidence. If it didn't, then it would be called a hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

[Quorra]

Thank you. But the day is young. Don't fall in love with first post that touched you. There are plenty of posts in the sea.

[Rødskjegg]

This proves my belief in intelligent design.

How is this proof of "intelligent design"? Not very intelligent with those hind legs.

Evolutionary "overlap" I'd say.

[Breedingvariety]

The Big Bang Theory has a large amount of empirical evidence. If it didn't, then it would be called a hypothesis.

You are confused by words. I think it would be appropriate to call it hypothesis.

[Stefan]

You are confused by words.

I don't think I am at all. There is plenty of verifiable evidence explained in the link I posted. Much of it is observational evidence, from data received by electromagnetic radiation. That is as empirical as things can get. The existence of CMBR is one concrete example.

[Rødskjegg]

[Aces High]

Evolutionary Flop: Early 4-Footed Land Animal Was No Walker?

3-D model suggests dog-size animal's hind limbs were largely useless on land.



An artist's rendering turns Ichthyostega's skin translucent to show fossils scanned for a new study.

One of Earth's earliest four-footed land animals couldn't walk, a new 3-D model suggests.

Instead, the dog-size Ichthyostega likely flopped on land, using only two of its four stubby legs for locomotion.

One of our most distant ancestors, Ichthyostega is also one of the earliest tetrapods known to have crept onto land.

Evolutionary Flop: Early 4-Footed Land Animal Was No Walker?

Looks like one of those blow up crocodiles you get for the kids at the seaside.