Yesterday brought the news of the discovery of fossils of yet another "missing link." This link is between sea and land animals. As you read the story you almost think the scientists have . . .

Yesterday brought the news of the discovery of fossils of yet another "missing link." This link is between sea and land animals. As you read the story you almost think the scientists have gotten it correct, until you study the actual description of the fossil.

The news story may be found here or here.

What bothers me is that scientists claim this is THE link between fish which swim and animals that walk, yet this claim is based upon vague changes in the animal and no true mutations from sea breathing / swimming to land air breathing /walking.  For example, the article at Guardian Unlimited says:

 Its fin contains bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals.

Now, what it appears we have is a fish that likes to swim in shallow water with a different bone structure in its fins. If one were not stuck on the need to prove evolution, I wonder how many potential reasons for or uses of such a structure one could suggest?

The scientists also believe there are missing bones around the gills, so that it is possible this fish stuck its head out of the water to breath. If true, this suggests a different kind of fish, but does it require that there is a link between this fish and land animals? Certainly if you are an evolutionist, this would be true. On the other hand, a link to the story is found at digg, one of the blog collection points of the web. Digg's headline to the story suggests "Intelligent Design Supports Be Damned." This seems like a stretch to me.

Now I will admit that as a firm believer in the Words of the Bible, I believe the teachings of Genesis 1 and 2 are true. God created the heavens and the earth and all plants and animals that occupy planet earth. God also created man. I do not need to look for proof of evolution. I believe that micro evolution exists. Some animals, for example, undergo minor changes to adopt to new climate conditions. This is evolution, but it is not the production of a new species. Only God can create.

Because of my faith, I take stories of discoveries supporting evolution with a grain of salt as far as their scientific interpreation is concerned. I believe this new fossil represents a previously unknown fish. It is entirely possible that this fish breathed air, in which case I think that makes him a mammal who swims and lives in shallow water. However, it has been forty plus years since I took high school biology and I may be remembering this distinction incorrectly.

The fact that there is a different bone structure does not make this fish a link to anything. it means the fish has a different bone structure. The question should be "why?" Armed with a long list of answers to that question, I would then set off to study the various possiblities. Maybe someday I would find an answer. It is too bad that today's scientific world is so anxious to disprove creation and intelligent design, that they take a great discovery and make it a new icon.

Didn't God say we should not worship images and icons?

Jim A