Your Inner Fish

Continuing the discussion from BioLogos: Teaching Evolution to Students of Faith:

Here is how you test it…

The story behind the discovery of the four-legged fish is driven by hypothesis testing about our common ancestry with them.

69 posts were split to a new topic: Nonlin’s Case Against Common Descent

The original thread was somewhat hijacked, so we never really got to discuss this case without the interruptions. The posts in that exchange was moved to: Nonlin's Case Against Common Descent.

At this point, we can reopen discussion on the original post.

1 Like

Copying a response from the split that was not meant to be a response to Nonlin, if that is OK? (If not, please delete.)

Tiktaalik is one of my favorite examples. I use it in reply to people claiming there is no experimental evidence to support evolution.
There was a gap in the fossil record between fish and land-walking tetrapods, and based on evolution hypothesized that such a creature should have existed. Shubin and others examples examined geological records for location of the right age and environment where fossils of such a creature might be found. After several years of searching they discovered the fossils representing the creature we now know as Tiktaalik. This constitutes an experiment based on a prediction of evolution: hypothesis, gathering of data, and confirmation of the prediction. This is very repeatable - we can (and do!) search for other fossils not yet known but predicted by evolution.


It would seem to me that phylogenetic analyses are test enough, though it’s certainly nice to have consilience of different sorts of data.