PZ Myers shows why evolution is unfalsifiable
PZ Myers, on the Panda's Thumb, has a great post up which highlights just how plastic the claims of common descent evolution are.
The change has to do with finding evidence of a tetrapod 18 million years further back than currently accepted. The evidence also shows more advanced features than Tiktaalik, which was a fossil that seemed to give great joy to evolutionists like PZ.
The first diagram (which appeared in Nature) is useful.
PZ, tells us "Notice what you don't see? They didn't publish this as a direct, linear relationship that could be disrupted by a minor anachronism."
Yep. The diagram cannot be disrupted. No direct relationships are given. We can't actually tell any relationship from the diagram. 'Unexpected' findings will merely cause the modification of relationships, never the questioning that common descent evolution is true.
Notice too, that PZ tries to pass of the new finding as a 'minor anachronism'.
Lets quickly review what the scientists and science journalists say about it
Creation Safaris has a good round up here
- “These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals” said co-discoverer Per Ahlberg in Science Daily.
- The finding “could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.” – Ted Daeschler in National Geographic News.
- “The team says the find means that land vertebrates appeared millions of years earlier than previously supposed.... the Zachelmie Quarry tetrapods break the neat and simple timeline.” (BBC News).
- “The fish–tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented.... Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al lob a grenade into that picture.” – Janvier and Clement, commenting on the find in Nature.2
- “It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak.” – Jenny Clack (Harvard), in PhysOrg.
- “We didn’t know they existed at this point, and we would not have expected to have found them in this environment.” – Per Ahlberg, co-discoverer, in Live Science.
It seems other people think it a little more than minor..
The next couple of diagrams neatly show how evolution simply adapts any time an 'unexpected' finding happens...
Notice how the diagram is simply extended and modified to adjust to the new findings. ANY new finding can thus be adapted, BECAUSE a direct relationship is never given.
Creating a morphological tree is not evidence for evolution, as a tree can be created for pretty much any dataset.
But don't tell PZ that, because his faith in evolution is blind and un-shakeable.