Tuesday, January 15, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Canadian fossil makes waves in Huckabee's presidential run

by Randy Boswell, The Ottawa Citizen

Thanks to Graham Dolby for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=45236de2-606d-412c-b0e5-6f973eff0d98&p=1

Unlikely as it sounds, an extinct Canadian fish with foot-like fins is set to make a serious splash in the U.S. presidential race.

Tiktaalik roseae -- a 375-million-year-old fossilized "fishapod" discovered on Ellesmere Island in 2004 -- has been hailed as an "evolutionary icon" because it represents the crucial transition from sea to land for some of the Earth's most primitive creatures.

The discovery was announced amid global fanfare in 2006, and Tiktaalik is now the showcase species in a report released last week by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to promote the study of evolution and counter calls for U.S. schools to teach creationism.

That issue has dogged Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and an ordained Baptist minister, who publicly rejects the idea that humans came from apes.

Now Neil Shubin, the University of Chicago biologist who discovered the High Arctic fossil, is poised to release a populist recounting of his Canadian find -- Your Inner Fish -- in which he traces the primordial origins of the human race to such lowly creatures.

"It is far worse for Huckabee. Before apes, his ancestors were fish, worms, and other creatures," Mr. Shubin told Canwest News Service yesterday. "With jaw bones that correspond to gill bones in fish and sharks, a body plan shared with headless worms, and with parts of a DNA recipe shared with relatives of jellyfish, Huckabee's ties to some of the most humble forms of life on our planet run deep indeed."

The planned launch of Your Inner Fish next Tuesday has already prompted a prediction from the leading U.S. evolutionary scientist Don Johanson -- co-discoverer of Lucy, the "missing-link" ape -- that "creationists will want this book banned" because it so convincingly discredits their world view.

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that," Mr. Huckabee said in an interview last year. "I believe there was a creative process ... I believe that there is a God and that he put the process in motion."

Though he has tried to avoid the issue in recent months, Mr. Huckabee's views about evolution are coming under renewed scrutiny after solid support among evangelical Christians powered his surprise victory last week in Iowa in the opening round of the Republican presidential race.

The influential journal Nature welcomed the publication of Science, Evolution and Creationism this week, applauding its focus on "fossils such as the Canadian Tiktaalik" and noting the book's timely release came "on the same day that Mike Huckabee won the Republican presidential caucus in Iowa."

And in its latest issue, New Scientist magazine editorializes warmly about the pro-evolution push by the U.S. National Academy Sciences, arguing that the effort is "unlikely to be enough to convince Huckabee" but "will help to highlight the idiocy of a political position that calls for America to lead the world while denying one of the foundation stones of scientific progress."

Mr. Huckabee has said he doesn't oppose the teaching of evolution and wouldn't expect U.S. schools to promote creationist ideas, such as Intelligent Design, "as if it's the only thing that they should teach."

Polls in the U.S. routinely show that nearly half of all Americans discount the theory of evolution.

Tiktaalik was a predatory species that hunted in shallow waters at a time in Earth history when Ellesmere Island -- now Canada's northernmost land mass -- was a subtropical swamp situated near the equator.

The fossilized bones of the three-metre-long Tiktaalik (its Inuktitut name means "big, shallow-water fish") showed that it had the scales and fins of a fish but the ribs, neck, head and limb-like bones of a land animal.

"The major bones in our own arms and legs are similar in overall configuration to those of Tiktaalik," notes the report by the National Academy of Sciences. "The discovery of Tiktaalik, while critically important for confirming predictions of evolutionary theory, is just one example of many findings made every year that add depth and breadth to the scientific understanding of biological evolution."

The academy, which is congressionally mandated to advise the U.S. government on scientific issues, also states: "Because science has no way to accept or refute creationists' assertions, creationist beliefs should not be presented in science classrooms alongside teaching about evolution. Teaching non-scientific concepts in science class will only confuse students about the processes, nature, and limits of science."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #111877 by athegan on January 15, 2008 at 11:37 pm

It was enough when he raised his hand on that question about evolution :)

Other Comments by athegan

2. Comment #111879 by Silly Mongoose on January 15, 2008 at 11:47 pm

That fossil isn't proof of evolution! God just wanted to see what a fish would look like with shoes on.

Other Comments by Silly Mongoose

3. Comment #111880 by Ducklike on January 15, 2008 at 11:49 pm

It's always encouraging to see a Canadian have a positive impact on the global scene. Okay, in this case a really, really old Canadian but hey, there's no need for age discrimination here.

Way to go Rosie!

Other Comments by Ducklike

4. Comment #111881 by Bueller_007 on January 16, 2008 at 12:17 am

Why do these articles always forget to mention that Ron Paul is also a creationist?

Other Comments by Bueller_007

5. Comment #111895 by pyota on January 16, 2008 at 1:10 am

for those who don't understand how american politics work: public opinion is intensely studied and the candidates are merely responding to polls when they state their 'beliefs'. who knows what mr. huckabee really believes. to quote woody allen: "he's a politician, that's like a notch below child molester".

Other Comments by pyota

6. Comment #111900 by Goldy on January 16, 2008 at 1:13 am

They'll want more proof. Always more. And when it can't be provided to their liking they all scream "See! God must have done it then!"

Other Comments by Goldy

7. Comment #111904 by faouloki on January 16, 2008 at 1:27 am

for those who don't understand how american politics work: public opinion is intensely studied and the candidates are merely responding to polls when they state their 'beliefs'. who knows what mr. huckabee really believes.

In the case of candidates like Barak Obama I'd agree with you, but when they go lengths to become ordained Baptist ministers I think they've gone beyond merely bowing to public expectation.

That said, they could just be going to the greatest lengths possible to demonstrate they're deluded and that they are just like the majority of the population.

Other Comments by faouloki

8. Comment #111925 by Tycho the Dog on January 16, 2008 at 2:55 am

Silly Mongoose

I'm afraid you're correct. A fish with legs proves creationism is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coy9DFnGDJg

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog

9. Comment #111926 by Duff on January 16, 2008 at 2:57 am

Trust me. Smirking Hick Huckabee really, really does believe the earth is six thousand years old and all the animals that ever existed were on the ark. He can believe that kind of moronic, fuckwittian, irrational, simpleminded hogwash because he, like all the other rationally unencumbered religionists have never really thought about it. And they don't want to start thinking about it.

Do your duty boys and girls. Get in the face of a religionist everyday, in every way!

Other Comments by Duff

10. Comment #111938 by Bob Russell on January 16, 2008 at 3:32 am

I'm not sure which is more scary. A half-wit Baptist fundamentalist as president or a president named Huckabee. Can you see this moron on the world stage. He makes GW look positively cerebral. "And now from the Oval Office addressing the nation, the President of the United States of America, Mike Huckleberry."

Other Comments by Bob Russell

11. Comment #111954 by scooternyc on January 16, 2008 at 4:12 am

I'm glad for the discovery and find it quite amazing.

I find Huckabee's take on evolution very condescending and as most religious, quite the attitude of superiority - I guess dominion over animals is their stance.

I said yesterday on another site to one of these religious types that if you think that you're superior over animals, place yourself in a situation with you and a lion and we'll see who comes out alive - it won't be you, baby.

Man is more vulnerable to nature than he wants to admit.

Other Comments by scooternyc

12. Comment #111960 by Azven on January 16, 2008 at 4:51 am

If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that

Mr. Huckabee has, as usual, missed the point. It's obvious that he's soft-pedaling here (if not actually back-pedaling) because of the interviewer and the audience du jour, but he's well known for a harder line on the Creationism/Evolution question – and anyway, as Athegan said, "It was enough when he raised his hand on that question about evolution".

But the point he's missed is that it doesn't matter what I believe about where I and my family came from, what matters is what does the evidence tell us?

I've always wanted to be descended from a dinosaur, but, hey, I go where the evidence leads…

Other Comments by Azven

13. Comment #111961 by Azven on January 16, 2008 at 4:53 am

Scooternyc
What about 50 humans and 50 lions? I bet it'd be lion burgers all round.

Other Comments by Azven

14. Comment #111962 by DanPinto on January 16, 2008 at 4:58 am

"That fossil isn't proof of evolution! God just wanted to see what a fish would look like with shoes on."

HAHAHA!

Other Comments by DanPinto

15. Comment #111967 by Jiten on January 16, 2008 at 5:16 am

in which he traces the primordial origins of the human race to such lowly creatures.

I don't like loose language like "lowly" when referring to animals other than humans.Do they not realise how complex is even a single celled eukaryote? Or for that matter a bacterial cell.
We'll have to find other ways to refer to other animals like earthworms,slime mould,rabbits,sheep,fish etc..Words like "simple","less complex","less evolved" just won't do.Any suggestions?

Other Comments by Jiten

16. Comment #111969 by Azven on January 16, 2008 at 5:26 am

Question: Why would fish want to leave the water?

Answer: Because fish schools were teaching creationism!

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/04/might_as_well_stay_missing.php

I forgot to say what a beautiful fossil it is. Stunning!

Other Comments by Azven

17. Comment #111983 by croatcat on January 16, 2008 at 6:23 am

scooternyc,

I have been wondering lately why man needs to be superior over other animals. Control issues? I think religions exacerbate the tendency as a displacement of a kind. Believing in an authoritarian god might make one want to then compensate by controlling other people, animals, environment, etc., as a way to make themselves feel better. I'm sure it is much more complex than this. I am still trying to work through all this new information of no god.

I personally like to look for the simplest paths to outcomes, which is rarely if ever correct.

Other Comments by croatcat

18. Comment #111984 by annabanana on January 16, 2008 at 6:24 am

I'm sincerely hoping that Mike Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination and especially not the general election. I just don't know what I'll do if we have another creationist president. I just want to make them all have the genetics and zoology classes that I had in college (from my wonderful professor who's a fan of TGD) and I just know they'll change their minds. (ok, probably not, but it's worth a try) I just get so frustrated. How does the populace ignore such staggering evidence? And how/why do they think they know better than many many years of what research has told us?

Other Comments by annabanana

19. Comment #111986 by Jaffas85 on January 16, 2008 at 6:33 am

Huckabee or Romney won't get the nomination as either McCain or Giuliani will so I'm not worried.

And besides, either Clinton or Obama will be the next President so this issue is really moot.

Other Comments by Jaffas85

20. Comment #111987 by irate_atheist on January 16, 2008 at 6:36 am

19. Comment #111986 by Jaffas85 -

So it's cigars all round then! No Bill, don't do that with it please, not again...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

21. Comment #111989 by annabanana on January 16, 2008 at 6:43 am

Jaffas85, I really really really hope you're right!

Other Comments by annabanana

22. Comment #112002 by RationalOlive on January 16, 2008 at 7:30 am

Annabanana,

They reject the evidence because to accept it is hard, very hard -- if one has been programmed from infancy to believe in gods and an afterlife wherein we swing happily through the stars with all of our loved ones. It is a major life-shattering event to come to the realization that it's all a lie and Mom, Dad, and aunt Martha are really gone forever. And, that sooner or later, I'm going to be just as gone. And, that's just for starters. Abandoning belief in god changes most other core beliefs. For years, I pushed the conflict between what I had been taught as a child and what I instinctively believed to be true onto a back burner and didn't think much about it. When I finally came to the acceptance that there is no god, I knew that this changed everything about me.

Other Comments by RationalOlive

23. Comment #112035 by GoneGolfing on January 16, 2008 at 8:30 am

Annabanana:

"How does the populace ignore such staggering evidence? And how/why do they think they know better than many many years of what research has told us?"

As RO pointed out it's programming, wishful thinking, and fear of death for most. Combine that with the threat of Hell and it's a powerful recipe for the rejection of hard evidence for the truth.

No matter what Science throws at the die hard Fundies they just can't take the risk of backsliding into unbelief and ending up as fuel for the fire. Believe me, I sat in the pews for years and listened to the consequences of rejecting God and it becomes a tough mindset to abandon!.

For most believers, it's not so much about the reward they're going to get, but about the punishment they're going to escape by having their belief.

Quite pathetic.

GG :-)

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

24. Comment #112076 by Double Bass Atheist on January 16, 2008 at 9:25 am

Annabanana

How does the populace ignore such staggering evidence? And how/why do they think they know better than many many years of what research has told us?

As others have already commented, it is rooted in childhood indoctrination and wishful thinking, but what is worse is what this leads to… a immediate rejection of any data that contradicts their fantasy. Just yesterday, I was having a debate with a biblical literalist who told me that she "Does not believe in Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon Man." I tried to tell her the obvious point, that this is not a "belief", these hominids existed! Their bones can be seen in museums all over the world! But she simply told me "That's your opinion." What can you call this kind of thinking? It's absolutely crazy. I left our debate with the following comment:

"After all, why suffer from insanity? Become religious and enjoy every minute of it!"

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

25. Comment #112077 by Glen Davidson on January 16, 2008 at 9:27 am

Tiktaalik is a beauty, a triumph of predictive paleontology which relied on evolutionary factors to pinpoint where a fish-to-amphibian transitional might be found. However, it was not just any old transitional they were looking for, they wanted evidence whcih would show how the shoulder girdle evolved. After all, they already had fish-to-amphibian transitionals, Elpistostege, Ichthyostega and Acanthostega. Some even consider Tiktaalik to be, in effect, a better-preserved version of Elpistostege.

I wish that the reporting in the media, and even in the NOVA program, were more clear about these matters. Sure, it's great that Tiktaalik (hardly the vision one would have of an intelligently designed machine, merely a fish adapting to quadrupedal locomotion) was found near the height of the circus that is ID, however there has not been any excuse for denying non-teleological evolution on the supposed lack of transitionals, for all vertebrate classes have had transitional forms known for decades.

Indeed, if more transitionals were considered to be a pressing need in science, I'm sure a whole lot more could be found. Tiktaalik was found simply because some biologists wanted yet another transitional form to know more about the fish to amphibian transition, particularly in regard to locomotion, so they went looking in the strata in which such a transition might be preserved.

I would like to add, as well, that only evolutionary theory (the real one, with mechanisms for it being actually known) is capable of telling us what a transitional even could be. ID doesn't know, since "the Designer" could make anything it pleases. Only the so-called "Darwinism" tells us that, due to constraints of history and because of the limits to change known via genetics and other studies, Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega have to exhibit an identifiable mix of fish and amphibian features, with no great leaps or novelties possible, let alone could there be any actual design features like rational planning or "purpose" to be found. Indeed, only "materialistic" evolutionary theory even predicts transitionals to exist, since any designer capable of making life could make whatever it wanted de novo.

The upshot is that Tiktaalik is a great find, and it ought to be a contemporary embarrassment to any serious IDist, yet there was never any lack of important transitional fossils, unlike what IDists and creationists claimed (of course many large-scale transitions have no fossil evidence for them at all, but one cannot expect them for insects and other poorly fossilized animals). They've never had any excuse from the fossil record, and the genetic record indicates that all "gaps" are illusory, as relatively small genetic changes (small by ID or creationist standards, while biologists dispute how large the changes are by their own, better, standards) have characterized all of the evolution which can be elucidated from DNA.

IDists never had an explanation for Ichthyostega, and they certainly had no means to predict that other transitionals had ever existed, nor any means of identifying them if they did exist.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

26. Comment #112080 by annabanana on January 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

I suppose I'm lucky that my mother wasn't very encouraging of religion. I was raised in the church, but at home it definitely wasn't reinforced, probably the opposite actually.

This is very problematic, though. I think the most frustrating thing is that there isn't an easy solution or even really a good idea for a solution.

Other Comments by annabanana

27. Comment #112082 by colluvial on January 16, 2008 at 9:33 am

"I have been wondering lately why man needs to be superior over other animals."

It makes the meatballs go down more easily if you can convince yourself it's not one of your cousins.

Other Comments by colluvial

28. Comment #112138 by konquererz on January 16, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Colluvial, I think you read my mind!

I can't wait until this book comes out, I really want to get it. This sounds like the perfect book for my kids to read when they get older. I of course will read it now.

Other Comments by konquererz

29. Comment #112147 by robotaholic on January 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm

the actual story that we are all part of is in fact gorgeous if you ask me - seeing a star go nova is wonderful and the idea that the matter that makes us up gets blasted at nearly the speed of light in all directions when our star dies and that this could possibly be viewed for millions of light years in all directions is kind of neet -

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Other Comments by robotaholic

30. Comment #112162 by celestial_T on January 16, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Duff - just have to say: 'fuckwittian' ?! (comment 9 this thread)that's a truly inspiring bit of evolution of the english language right there!

More seriously, I've always struggled to understand how anyone can argue against the fossil record. One only has to hold these things in one's hand to see the magnificence of life's history on this planet - and feel a sense of awe that any religion can only dream of inspiring. But I'm lucky: I've worked on fossil material and seen some amazing things up close.
Maybe schools should be giving kids more hands-on examples of our origins? do science teachers fear sounding 'evangelical' when they talk up the wonders of nature? or don't they get the chance? (I don't know - it's a long time since I was in a classroom...)

Other Comments by celestial_T

31. Comment #112179 by neilcreek on January 16, 2008 at 1:57 pm

This fossil is Huckabee's "three-eyed fish" served up to him during the campaign in front of the world's media. Will he take a bite, or will he choke on it?

Other Comments by neilcreek

32. Comment #112265 by OrbitalMike on January 16, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Folks,

Don't you get it? This has just multiplied the "much needed gaps" by 2!!!

"We are all star stuff."

Other Comments by OrbitalMike

33. Comment #112268 by appaZ on January 16, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I would like to see Tiktaalik roseae ( we call her Rosie )stand up and bitch slap the Rev.

Other Comments by appaZ

34. Comment #112276 by Richard Morgan on January 16, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and an ordained Baptist minister, who publicly rejects the idea that humans came from apes.

I reject it too - in the sense that we are still part of the family of great apes.
Though when I listen to the likes of Huckabee, I wonder about the "great" part....

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

35. Comment #112281 by MelM on January 16, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Well, I phoned and found a copy of "YOUR INNER FISH"; the local University book store had to search a bit and call me back. Turns out that they had copies which weren't on shelf yet! It looks like a fun read but I'd sure like to see a review by Dawkins. If this book is solid, the catchy title might be its ticket to the best seller list. BTW, there are about 10 pages of "NOTES, REFERENCES, AND FURTHER READING" at the end of the book.

Lucky for me that I remembered to ask about the 2007 paperback edition of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. They had that too!

It occured to me while reading one of the pieces in Hitchens' "the Portable Atheist" that one way of looking at what ID is all about is that it's just about "miracles". Some features, at least, of living things are claimed to be against natural law and were created by god (the non-natural undesigned designer). But, that's the very essence of a "miracle."

Other Comments by MelM

36. Comment #112343 by dlitt on January 16, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Comment #112002 by RationalOlive on January 16, 2008 at 7:30 am
Annabanana,

They reject the evidence because to accept it is hard, very hard -- if one has been programmed from infancy to believe in gods and an afterlife wherein we swing happily through the stars with all of our loved ones. It is a major life-shattering event to come to the realization that it's all a lie and Mom, Dad, and aunt Martha are really gone forever. And, that sooner or later, I'm going to be just as gone. And, that's just for starters. Abandoning belief in god changes most other core beliefs. For years, I pushed the conflict between what I had been taught as a child and what I instinctively believed to be true onto a back burner and didn't think much about it. When I finally came to the acceptance that there is no god, I knew that this changed everything about me.

I found dropping God was as easy as dropping Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. It is much easier to accept new ideas when you are young. This is why 'proper' science is so important to the educational curriculum.

Other Comments by dlitt

37. Comment #112531 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I think OrbitalMike has it exactly right:

"We are all star stuff."

Our sun is an "ordinary" yellow star, and during its active period of about 10 billion years, it will burn up its own nuclear fuel and in the process create other elements up to those as heavy as iron.

To create the heavier elements such as uranium, we need bigger and shorter lifespan stars, which live stellar life in the fast lane, and due to their own mass and therefore instability, burn up their fuel quicker and explode as supa novas, thereby seeding the heavier elements into the surrounding universe. It is thought that our sun is at least a 2nd if not 3rd generation star. This all needs a lot of time. We can be sure that our sun by itself has no chance of producing the heavier elements found on Earth, and some of which are found in our bodies. So yes we are all made of star dust, including Mr. Huckabee.

For the moment ignore evolution, any person who is not aware of the evidence for a very old universe and slightly younger Earth, is in desperate need of enlightenment.

Other Comments by D'Arcy