Slashdot Mirror
Missing Link Fossil Discovered
choongiri writes "The Guardian is reporting the discovery of a missing link of evolution. From the article: "Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.""
Can we please stop using this "missing link" terminology? It's one of those terms often bandied about by creationists, but it has very little meaning in science. And anyway, everytime we find another transitional fossil the creationists are just going to point to the two gaps on either side of the new transitional and say, "Now there's two missing links! Nyah nyah nyah!" They already don't believe evolution is possible anyway.
Now as for this find, there's something very important here that the writeup isn't covering. The scientists used their theory to not only predict the existence of such a transitional species, but also where, geologically, it would be located. And guess what - they found what they were looking for exactly where they were looking for it! Talk about predictive power! The predictive power of the theory of evolution is one of its many strengths, and one often overlooked by science-deniers.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Clearly, His Noodliness is testing us.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
The fossil record is (and always will be) full of holes for the simple reason that not everything gets preserved (and some environments make preservation extremely unlikely), and there's no "magic fossil" that's needed in order to make the big puzzle fall together.
For the most part, the big puzzle is already together. Yeah, there are lots of areas where we'd like to have more detail, but "missing link" implies that we're looking for some sort of Holy Grail, and are in a jam without it.
That simply ain't the way it is.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I Am Not An Evolutionary Biologist -- So talking about this makes me feel a bit like a fish out of water.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Funny... following your link to "The Missing Link" says "The page cannot be found." So I guess that means it's still missing? :)
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
"As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power."
This certainly goes against creationism but afaik the only difference between evolution and intelligent design is that intelligent design claims statistics is insufficient and a divine guiding hand was required, wouldn't this missing link be required for either model as both need to go from water to land?
I stole this Sig
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/93q2/creationfaq .html
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
This link to bbc news includes a picture of the fossil.
Doesn't look very tasty.
Don't Hate, Gestate
Heh, there's lots of missing links here in canada - calling each other hosers and swilling cheap beer, eh.
A truth that's told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent. -- William Blake
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)? Whatever science comes up with, one can always back out and say that the system as a whole was created by an omnipotent external creator. So what I don't get terribly well is why all the fuss about evolution in the first place, unless it's only dogma that's important?
(For me anyway, it's the notion that dogma, existing power structures and beliefs which are important -- rather than any serious notion of consistent broader philosophy -- that's scary.)
> I can hear the naturalists clacking away at their keyboards in glee with the "smoking gun" that evolution has finally been "proven" and that the creationists will have to sit in stunned silence under the weight of the evidence finally presented.
To the extent that anything is ever "proven" in the natural sciences, evolution was "proven" well over 100 years ago.
And of course, nobody expects creationists to sit in stunned (or any other kind of) silence, regardless of what evidence is presented.
> Let's not oversimplify this discussion. Thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this debate have passion, and conviction.
Yes, but one side has facts and a theory, whereas the other has a well-funded propaganda machine and a lot of self-appointed spiritual advisors telling the ignorant masses that they'll be tortured for all eternity if they let the facts affect their conclusions.
> As a creationist, I welcome advances in knowledge that arise from investigation of the physical realm. I respect men (and women) of science, and applaud this new discovery - but that changes not my conviction that a creator made the planet as it is.
To paraphrase the old saying, facts won't dissuade anyone from a position that isn't built on facts to begin with.
> There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
Except as a religious/social/political issue, creatinism was nailed back in the nineteenth century.
> I'm not looking to start a debate on this issue, but I am hoping to raise the level of discussion by respectfully asking those who would use this occasion to ridicule people with whom they disagree to please refrain. This is a complex issue and cheap shots are not productive. I will refrain from ridicule as well. Deal?
For my money, people who express ridiculous views are entitled to all the ridicule they reap. (Unless they're insane, in which case we should show a little sympathy for their plight.)
If you would care to identify any of the creationism evangelists who are insane, it would help things alone.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The Flying Spaghetti Monster just put it there to confuse us.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I can hear the naturalists clacking away at their keyboards in glee with the "smoking gun" that evolution has finally been "proven" and that the creationists will have to sit in stunned silence under the weight of the evidence finally presented.
As a scientist, creationism isn't on my radar at all, and quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not you believe it. What I do care about, is people such as yourself misrepresenting both science and religion as something that they are not, claiming you know things that you clearly do not. And then blaming good scientists for your own ignorance and lack of insight.
The fact is, evolution has been satisfactorily proven to work. Creationism and intelligent design are DOA, and the only open question about these idiotic ideas, is how much damage are they going to do to both science and religion before they finally go down for good.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
m = milli = 10^-3
M = mega = 10^6
325m years = ~ 118.6 days
Missing link may be a bit young don't you think?
> Flame away diephobic moderators...flame away.
You're a fookin returd.
Oh, and your post was really stupid too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually eating spaghetti and noodles in general is approved, sort of like going to communion.
Touched By His Noodley Appendage.
There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
Actually, it is impossible for any nails to be placed in the coffin of creationism, because it isn't a theory that is able to be proven or disproven. However creationist proponents have placed creationism in opposition to evolution, so this can place a nail in the coffin of that use of creationism.
Oh, and creationists who claim that evolution and creationism have equal evidence backing up each theory (or even better, that there is more evidence to back up creationism then there is to back up evolution) ARE idiots. I'm always happy to hear evidence that helps prove creationism, but I've yet to actually see any. I've seen logical thoughts (as in "but how could it have happened? it's all so complex" although they do rely on premises that can be neither proven nor disproven themselves), but no direct real evidence (for instance, evolution was just a thought, a theory, until fossil records were discovered that helped prove it).
Respectfully
aussie_a
You can only find a "link", not a "missing link." Once found it is no longer missing.
/attempted humor
In much the same way as a hot water heater is unneeded since hot water is already hot.
Letter To Iran
I like how the first thing on their minds is giving us a blow-by-blow play of evolution vs. intelligent design. (See third paragraph) Is it too much to ask for a story that just says, "Hey look, we found this cool fossil that seems to coincide properly with the theory of evolution in a way that we haven't seen before" without bringing up how stupid intelligent design is? Hasn't it crossed anyone's mind that the existence of evolutionary changes might not play any role whatsoever in the proving or disproving of the existence of a higher power? I mean, it's God we're talking about here. He could've created the birds from the fish, then the land creatures from the birds by means of evolution like he created woman from man, if he wanted to. Or we could be trapped in a strange time loop and the fossils we keep digging up are really genetic experiments of creatures that couldn't survive and died out in the future. Actually, I'd better claim copyright on that idea so I can write a crappy mini-series for the sci-fi channel. Anyway, the point is that evolution really is still a theory. Granted, it seems like a pretty good one so far, but it's not exactly provable without either time travel or the witnessing of the generation of a new species in our midst.
Okay, so I get that you're just trying to "save" all of those crazy fundamentalists from believing in something that doesn't seem scientifically viable. Just thought I'd let you know that making fun of them doesn't really help your case. Though what really annoys me are the people who are into Christianity for purely political reasons and make the rest look like fools when they go up to bat for some foolhardy idea (a la Kansas), but that's a whole other discussion.
Because it's about grace. It really is about grace.
I think one of the effects of this is that it is making religious people stop and ask themselves what they really believe, and why they believe it.
As for what I think, I like to think that He put it together personally, in a way that is portrayed symbolically in Genesis. But, like I say, without some more revelation, we will never have anything more to add to what the scriptures say.
I just realized: without revelation, creationists are in the same place as the evolutionists would be if they stopped finding fossils long ago. All the creationists can do is reinterpret the data (scriptures) they already have.
Note: Please forgive my generalized language (creationists, evolutionists, etc.). I kind of did it on purpose, because I think most of us have the tendency to lump people into one extreme or another.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
> If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are.
What makes you think that?
What is the probability that an organism will become fossilized, survive erosion and other hazards for millions of years, and then actually be found by someone? I.e., how good a sample do you think the fossil record is.
How easy would it be for you to find your own ancestors' bones going back 100 generations? Or just 10. What do you conclude from any gaps in that record?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Assume this animal uses oxygen as an energy source for chemical reactions. Traditionally it retrieved oxygen through the water. Yet after some time its lungs grew the capacity to retrieve oxygen through the air. It would seem that there would have to be some sort of informational exchange in order to determine air was a candidate source for oxygen. How did this happen?
The ancestors of this animal most likely lived in shallow water and perhaps came into contact with air all the time. It might have been able to jump out of the water for a very short period of time. Yet in order to evolve lungs that could take advantage of oxygen in the atmosphere there must have been some informational exchange.
I think some will argue that there doesn't have to be any information involved because random genetic change and natural selection will over time evolve a lung that can retrieve oxygen through the air. The major presupposition is that the genetic code that allows for breathing on land is implicit in genetic change. The group of possible genetic alterations included at least one genetic sequence which would result in land breathing capabilities.
If genetic change is truly random then it could have possibly happened somewhere that was not close to land. Therefore such a change would have not been selected. Then either the space of possible genetic changes is rather small (unlikely) or there is an informational element to evolution.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Stupid comments? The MS bashers do what they do in all seriousness, my comment was a joke.
I don't know of many real scientists that believe that there is actually a debate, they know religion and science are completely seperate issues. However, when Christians inject their beliefs into public education systems that serve everyone's children, thats where the "at odds" comes in. I don't know what you mean by evolution on the "cosmic level", but there is absolutely no debate when it comes to evolution being the means by which each species arose from those before it. If you are one of those people that buys into the "it's only a theory!!!1111", then you arent a scientist. Science is a whole lot of "theories", but theories in a scientific sense are not the same as theories in a conventional layman sense. If evolution was a "hypothesis", then there would be room to argue, but in science if something is a theory, there is a lot of evidence to support it.
Anyone who takes any part of the Bible or any other religious text, especially those written before, oh lets say soap, was invented, has no place in science and especially no place in public educational policy. If you want your kid taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah put T. Rex on his ark, and that people who carbon date fossils have an agenda, there are plenty of private schools for you.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
And this sentence just goes to show that you don't get it. Evolution can never be "proved". Like any scientific theory, it can only be falsified or strengthened by further evidence. A scientific theory of anything physical (ie, not abstract) can never be proved to be true - that is one of the essences of science. Even the most seemingly elementary of scientific theories over the years have been falsified, and subsequently modified to accommodate new evidence, and even the qualification of physical vs abstract theories isn't strictly true (there are whole branches of mathematics dealing with whether or not the rest of mathematics is based on sound foundations).
Neither true Creationism nor its bastard cousin Intelligent Design can be falsified. They are not scientific theory.
The probability of a fossil forming is actually pretty slim. First of all, the organism needs to be at least partially solid -- bones do the trick, or a nice big shell, but squishy invertebrates, for example, are extremely unlikely to leave any trace of their passing. The organism also needs to die under the correct conditions and stay there relatively undisturbed for millions of years until human scientists get around to digging it up.
:)
Given that billions and billions of species have existed on this planet, it's not surprising that we've found some fossils, most notably those of the dinosaurs (ie. big, numerous boney things that lived at a time when Earth was conveniently swampy), but that doesn't mean that there's even the slightest possiblity that we'll ever find the remains of everything that ever existed.
Also, I've read about scientists observing evolution in action. Sure, they're only going to be able to observe relatively small changes in their lifetimes, but that doesn't mean that the changes didn't happen... though they obviously don't have a complete fossil record to go along with their notes
"If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are."
Really? Because the biologists--you know, the guys who actually do the math to figure that sort of thing out--say otherwise. I don't mean to suggest that your casual inference is somehow not as persuasive as the life labors of scientists who waste their time with experiments, observations, professional collaborations, and measly testable predictions. Your unsupported hand-waving is certainly good enough for me. But just in case anyone reading your comment thinks that it in any way represents an educated opinion, you might want to read the FAQ.
I've already said it once in these comments, but it bears repeating. The ignorance required to be a creationist is stunning in its own right. But it's the arrogance that really knocks my socks off. It's one thing to just not know how a complicated science works - very few people do. It's quite another to assume that the well-educated, hard-working specialists who unanimously disagree with you also don't know anything, simply because you don't like the facts they discover.
"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess"
Horseshit. It's a well constructed theory supported by vast mountains of evidence. It is the foundation of the entire science of biology. Every biologist in modern times has spent their career testing it, and found it solid. If it's an "educated guess" then plate tectonics is a wild shot in the dark.
According to Swedish radio this is not a direct ancestor to us. However this find is important since it is close to the trunk from which the mamals is derived.
"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess."
Two serious mistakes in one sentence. Evolution has been observed, and is much, much more than an 'educated guess.'
(And, incidentally, "Evolution on a cosmic level"? What does that even mean?)
There's some serious erroneous logic in this article's summarization of the find and of it's importance...
First, they compare it to the "reptile-to-bird" fraud (and yes, it's been proven by NON-CREATIONIST scientists to have been known to be WRONG and NOT what it was said to have represented, yet was displayed and proclaimed as such anyhow - that's fraud, it's a lie... BUT that's not the point here...); This comparison claims to be on the same level of importance and uses that earlier finding as justification for the assumption of this one being relevant to what they are claiming it is. Basically "that one was a link, and since that's one, this has to be another." Well, not really. It COULD be something totally unique.
Second, the assumption that this thing lived and died, therefore had offspring of another type of animal is just plain silly. We breed dogs with all sorts of other types of dogs, sometimes wolves, coyotes, and even Jackals and Hyenas (all in the "canis" family) and we always get offspring that are DOGS! If we suddenly found a skeleton of a St. Bernard no one would think to claim it's a rabbit's ancestor in a transitional period of evolution. It's just not logical. A fossil/remains can tell you ONE THING and only one thing... that the creature to which those remains belonged to LIVED AND DIED. It can't tell you how many offspring it had (it's suspect whether most can tell you if they had ANY - forget that half (give or take) of most all species is of a non-childbearing gender)), whether those off spring survived or not, and certainly not what those off spring looked like - other than to assume that in the "millions of years" of human record of the animals of our world that the off spring would be just like the parents; as we've seen billions of times in humans alone (much less the thousands of variants of animals and all their offspring!)
Third, they simply claim that this previously undiscovered creature is something "in transition" from one being to another when this is the first one found. How do they know that it's not just a unique creature that died out (ie: gone extinct). We've seen entire animal groups wiped out by over-hunting or poaching (the Dodo bird comes to mind), if this happened many years ago and it was not recorded by someone for us to know today, how would we know?! We're always finding new information about animals that have been long since extinct... And we're finding new ones once in a while too...
Fourth, they seem to ignore the fact that we have aquatic animals today that have feet-like appendages, fin-like appendages, and live in the water more of their life than not. Most are reptilian, but there are mammals too. That is a problem... Reptiles are cold-blooded and egg-laying. Mammals are warm-blooded and bear live young... There's no way to prove that this was an "adaption" to moving from water to land - else, why do animals like ducks still lay eggs (or the platypus, et al) and some mammals (whales, dolphins, seals, etc) live entirely in the water (but not breathe in the water like fish and some reptiles) bear live young like mammals if this is indeed an evolutionary change... Frogs are reptilian but they live more of their life on land than in water (so it's believed currently, this has been a back-and-forth debate for years)... and look at gators or crocs- reptilian, breathe oxygen without gills, and still are cold-blooded and not mammalian breeding...
There's too much speculation along the lines of "this is what we expect to see therefore it's what we see, and what was/is" thinking in these types of articles.
The sad and simple truth is that you have to take it on faith that "this must have happened" to truly make the evolution theory work. That's fine, and that's ok... but it's not scientifically sound. You can not test it, it can not be duplicated to ensure the theories hold out true, and the scientific principles of the methodology of study can not be applied to the evolution. When you take this into account and say "well we're here
-- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
What IS surprising, is that there is no image - not even the obligatory 100-pixel-across thumbnail, which links to a lame-ass 200-pixel-across "Large Picture".
That qualifies as the missing link then, doesn't it.
Yes, beneficial mutations are often observed.
The Talk Origins FAQ I've linked to is comprehensive, easily searched, and quite objective. Even better, it points the way to more in depth books, articles, and sources--you can, if you choose, go from a one-page FAQ summary all the way to the primary evidence. Otherwise, I would recommend a book such as Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is." Much more difficult than the FAQ, and a tiny bit dated, but also much more rewarding.
1. There is a lot more about this just that it's "an animal that we haven't seen before". It's a tetrapod like we are. We've found aquatic tetrapod fossils, we've found land-based tetradpod fossils. This one is between the two. It has land-based features (i.e. lungs and strong limbs), and fish-based features (i.e. fins and scales). As such it falls between the two "groups" of tetrapods.
2. They didn't "assume" the time period. They looked in riverine rocks which are dated to having been deposited between 417 mil and 354 mil years ago to find the animal. They knew the time period it should come from (from the dates of aquatic and land tetrapods fossils), and they knew the type of environment it would be found in (riverine). So, they went to an area dated to that time period, that was riverine in those days, and found the fossil.
3. (Since you conflated two points in no 2), the point is that it doesn't resemble "some other animal", it resembles two other animals, a marine tetrapod and a land tetrapod. Ergo, transitional fossil.
We don't, that's why you won't find the term "missing link" used scientifically. It could have been one of many species that subsequently became extinct. However it's an example of a fish that developed features that we find in land based animals so it's at least an existance proof.
I think you'll find that evolution is a lot more gradual than you give it credit for. The main reason that we expect to find "jumps" in the fossil record is precisely because it is gradual. To simplify, speciation is theorised to be "faster" for isolated species, since their smaller population allows for swifter distribution of advantageous genes. Once they expand beyond their range, if they have evolved enough advantages, they very quickly expand even further.
So, if we look everywhere on earth, except for at that original range, we will find a "sudden" appearance of that species. Even if speciation was not "swifter" in isolated populations, we would expect to find this. However, if we did ever find the original range (a VERY unlikely proposition), we would find the gradual fossil record for that species.
If you have a problem with it, no-one is insisting you believe it. You're welcome to your personal beliefs. However, you are (and have in your previous posts) disputing science based on those beliefs. No matter what evidence is put before you showing evolution to be correct, you would twist it or deny it because your faith does not allow for it. At least, unlike many Creationists, you seem to be willing to admit this. However, like many other Creationists you seem to feel that science must conform to your personal beliefs.
Keep in mind that if you're a biblical literalist, it is not just evolution you must deny, but also physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, and many others. They all point to an old Earth and contradict a literal reading of Genesis.
As I said before, you're welcome to your personal beliefs, but evangelising bad science based on those beliefs is not welcome.
Re: showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago
Not so. Arthropods (millipedes and centipedes etc) first conquered the land around 500 million years ago and were walking around long before this newly-discovered beastie. Their fossilised footprints have been found. "The oldest body fossil of a land animal is a 430-million-year-old millipede."
"Our own ancestors, fish-like amphibians, first lumbered ashore a mere 370 million years ago. There they found a world teeming with plants and giant creepy crawlies."
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Let's assume the creationists are right, and that the creator built the earth in 7 days a few milennia ago.
Then the creator camuflaged this work to perfection:
1. Dinosuar bones
2. Carbon dating
3. Erosion and tektonic activites
4. DNA evolution
The allmighty obviously have _on-purpose_ misled us to find perfect support for evolution.
This must be for a reason.
Should we, his humble followers, try to reveal this perfect camuflage by shouting Creation?
I say _no_. The Creator have obviously done a perfect job hiding the evidence of creation, and planted false evidence for evolution to perfection.
He must obviously want us to conclude the evolution is the truth.
And even if we know better, who are we to try to find flaws in His effort to hide the nature of His creation.
It will at any rate be fruitless, for who think they can do better than the Allmighty, and find the evidence He has hidden to the ability of the Omnipotent?
As a creationist one therefore faithfully should document and support the beauty of the evolution, while quietly in your soul know the true nature of the universe.
So to the creationists I tell you: Abandon your blasphemic and arrogant ways. Preach Evolution!
"Fix it"
right here.
> What IS surprising, is that there is no image
i cleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000
Lots of other places covered the story, some do have pictures.
http://news.google.com/news?q=Tiktaalik+roseae
e.g. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&art
rant
I had some thoughts along these lines a while back: that by insisting on Biblical inerrancy, the fundamentalists are guilty of idolatry, and that by ignoring evolution they're missing one of God's finest works.
Ah, here it is:
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Ya'll are just looking for reasons to blast the religious community... I think it's awesome that they found this evidence, but I don't think it gives me the right to go out trying to tear down people's beliefs.
You mean this sucker is important evidence of evolution, has been missing for who knows how long, they found it, and now they tell us about it? Where was all the hoopla when it was missing?
Before they found it. I don't recall any scientists saying "This theory of evoution might be convincing if we could find a fish with toes, but until then...."
Nor do I recall anyone saying "Well we had this link, but Mortimer apparently slipped it into his pants and took it out of the Smithsonian, and since then it has been missing..."
What else are they missing and not telling us about?
Whole thing just deepens my suspicion. I want an accounting of all the links they claim to have, but for all we know have also gone missing.
The fish that crawled out of the water
For anyone looking for more info plus a picture of Tiktaaaaaahtingy check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
I'm always impressed how fast wiki is with its updates, whoot!
.sigh
... the scientist ... said it was 'one of many' missing links to the evolution of land animals from fish, but certainly not the only one.
;-), a fairly accurate reconstruction is possible. This is more useful than a pile of fragments of different individuals who may have lived centuries apart.
Yup. Much of the reason this one gets so much attention is that it is nearly complete. Other than not knowing how long its tail was (and what color its skin was
Plus, it's a species that wasn't known before. That's always useful information.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Tiktaalik+roseae &hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
i'm sure i could find more if i tried
When the Bible says that 'death' began with the original sin, I believe it is more accurate to not take death literally. Throughout the Bible 'life' and 'death' refer not to life and death here on Earth, but what happens to us in the hereafter. Hence Christ frequently discusses how through him we can achieve eternal life. He's not talking about living a mortal life forever, but that we will live forever in heaven with our Creator. Death on the other hand would be eternal seperation from our Creator, or eternal pain below. I believe mortal death existed before original sin, it was this spiritual death that Adam brought to us, and it was Jesus Christ that created a means for us to be redeemed of this death and live forever. This interpretation obviously is in keeping with evolution and old earth theory, and furthermore I think it makes more sense based on the teachings of Christ.
Quite funny that the only reference that your struggle unearthed, while admittedly a Christian, is actually an ID critic
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Doesn't seem to me like this guy supports Intelligent Design, he's just giving his spin on Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria of Science and Religion.
You are, in fact, entirely ignorant of the issue. I am not surprised; Intelligent Design was created with the intention of deceiving people, and it is very successful. The vaunted list you're pimping suffers from two critical flaws. The first is that it is overwhelmingly made up of lay persons with no special training in biology, as another commenter made clear.
Second, and more importantly, the list's statement is an expression of just the sort of ignorance that is characteristic of creationists. Any scientist could honestly sign the statement, because "it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too." Most scientists won't sign it, however, because they understand that it is a political tool used to attack objective science and support the suppression of scientific education. The DI list is a carefully constructed tool for deceiving laypeople, intended to create the false impression that there is a legitimate debate over the reality of evolution in scientific circles. There is not, and your belief that there is betrays colossol ignorance on your part.
(Incidentally, the list is also dwarfed by "Project Steve," a list of professional scientists who support objective science and evolution, but only accepts signatories named "Steven" or "Stephanie" in honor of Steven J. Gould. When the DI's list is a little over half the size of JUST the scientists named Steve who understand and support objective science, it shows how poorly they are viewed by professionals.)
In short, your criticism betrays just the sort of ignorance you don't want me pointing out in creationists generally. The problem is that it's not just a rhetorical claim; creationism really is dependent on ignorance. The list is a good example--it seems like a valid argument only as long as you don't know what you're talking about. Please do read up on the subject, but remember that you cannot get accurate information from creationists; the success of their theories depends on the suppression of information, not the dissemination of it.
"Prediction involves things that haven't happened."
And the discovery of ambulocetus had not yet happened. Then, after it was not only predicted, but genetic studies purported to tell us where to look for it, we found it. What is that, if not predictive power?
It both predicts AND requires it. They are of a kind.
Sigh. No.
You don't understand the method. Observation is observation of some fact or state of affairs that we want to explain. In evolution, those facts are things like the fossil record, the diversity of life on earth, and the very particular character of that life. "Observation" is not a requirement that we see things with out eyeballs, or even the part where we draw conclusions. It's the set of circumstances that we are trying to explain. That's why it comes first. It's TESTING where we find out if the explanation was correct or not.
And that's where you go wrong again. Testing in evolution is testing any given piece of evidence to see if it confirms or disconfirms the theory. If you don't think evolutionary biologists run tests or use evidence to confirm or disconfirm their claims, then you don't know anything about the field.
IF evolution is true, then all other sorts of things MUST be true. Are they true, or not? We test, and find out. We gather evidence and compare it to those theoretical requirements. Does it hold up? Yes, it does: in fact it holds up in spectacular and exacting detail.
If what you were saying were true, then forensic science wouldn't be science either. But, unfortunately for your post, it is science. I don't think you're liable to find any textbook on the scientific method that would actually support what you are saying.