Icthyostega and the Fish-to-Amphibian Tale

Creative License Gone Wild

Per Ahlberg of Upsalla Universitet, Upsalla Sweden has reconstructed what is proposed by evolutionists as a major example of the supposed evolution of fishes into a clade of land-dwelling amphibian tetrapods. It seems the inspiration for this reconstruction was based upon a single piece of bone less than 3cm long which Alhberg found while sifting through bone fragments in a museum drawer. That a single bone or bone fragment can ignite the imagination of an evolutionist to imagine an entire creature which is presumedly evidence of evolutionary transition brings Nebraska Man to mind. Ahlber's fossil reconstruction of Icthyostega seems to be highly imaginative but not scientific because it does not conform to the known skeletal features of Icthyostegids and other fossil vertebrates of similar homology. I debated this matter with Mr. Ahlberg, but was not able to get straight answers from him about how his reconstruction is scientifically sound.

Evolutionist have made much effort to marry the earth's fossil record of life with Darwinian theory. The proposed transition from the fossils of Celocanth, Sauripteris, Osteolepis, Panderichthys. Eusthenopteron, and Tiktaalik to Ichthyostega, especially Ahlberg's reconstruction, requires the transition of features which is not apparent in these fossils. Such transition would require countless changes to anatomy. Amongst the major transitions necessary but which are not present in any fossil are:

1.  transition of the rib cage of Osteichthyes (bony fishes) to the bicipital ribs of amphibian tetrapods - development of tuberculum and capitulum in the ribs and parapophyses and diapophysis in the vertebrae
2.  transition of the barrel-shaped rib cage of Ichthyostegids to one that is congested and heavily overlapping
3.  migration of the shoulder girdle of Osteichthyes to that of Ichthyostegids
4.  increase in rigidity of the spine and ribs from fish to Icthyostega, then to greater lateral flexion of the spine and ribs of reptiles
5. transition of lobe fins into limbs with digits
6.  gradual dissapearance of ray fins
7.  disappearance of gills and appearance of lungs
8.  rearangement of caudal and sacral vertabrae
9.  transition of "ashtray-shaped" vertabrae to "hokey-puck" shaped vertabrae

It is quite interesting that so many prominent evolutionist scientists have acknowledged in their own books that the fossil record of life does not possess fossils which are clearly transitional, and that species appear fully-formed without intermediates. It seems that when evolutionists create works intended for their peers, they admit transitional forms are not known, but when speaking to the public, suddenly transitional forms are abundant.

The lineage proposed by evolutionist scientists between fishes and tetrapods centers upon the species Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktallik Rosea, Acanthostega, and Icthyostega. Unarguably, Eusthenopteron, Pandericthys, and Tiktaalik are fish. The transition of fish to amphibian tetrapods would require an intermediate form which crawls upon it's stomach on land but is able to swim well. While the morphology of Acanthostega seems to fit this need, it appears that the creature is simply a giant salamander which evolutionists have given a different name and placed in their imagined lineage to fill a critical gap.

An assumption made regarding Acanthostega is that it's internal gills are evidence that the creature was transitional. Regarding this assumption, Devonian Times states, "Evidence for internal gills include bony gill arches and post-branchial lamina on the leading edge of the shoulder girdle." However, some species of giant salamanders have internal gills as adults, and most species retain gill arches and brachial lamina as adults which are preserved from their adolescent stage of development. In simple terms, evolutionists have assumed that the evidence for internal gills in Acanthostega is evidence of transition, when in fact it is simply evidence that the animal was a giant salamander. The real difference between modern giant salamanders and Acanthostega is the number of digits. Adding to the confusion caused by evolutionist claims, some examples of Acanthostega had seven digits while one was found which had eight, while extant giant salamanders have four or five depending upon the variety. It seems that phenotypic plasticity is the explanation why both giant salamanders and Acanthastega, which in my opinion is itself a giant salamander, may possess varfying numbers of digits in a single species.

The anatomy or Acanthostega, including it's general form, the fact that it has skull bones, skull shape, limbs, and ray fins nearly identical   to giant salamanders demonstrates that Acanthostega was a salamander, and not a transitional form in any way. One must question how any paleontologist can examine the fossils of what is labeled Acanthostega and not realize they are looking at a giant salamander. Knowing how evolutionists think and operate provides understanding as to why they should be well aware of the extraordinary similarities between giant salamanders and Acanthastega and present them as if they were transitional forms between fish and amphibian tetrapods. Even within giant salamanders, such as the Japanese and Chinese varieties, there are quite notable differences. Icthyostega however, is an extinct creature of a type well documented by fossils which was somewhat unique because of it's broad, flat ribs.

There must therefore, in the imaginations of evolutionist scientists, exist a workable model by which it can be demonstrated that the creatures in their hierarchy of lineage represent real anatomical history, despite the great differences between the proposed humerus of lobe-finned fishes and the dermal shoulder girdle of amphibian tetrapods. Presenting animals which are amphibian tetrapods with a fish-like appearance fits the bill for evolutionists. For this, the giant salamander is a fine culprit which evolutionists use to promote speciation. So long as they can give an extinct variety of an extant species a taxonomic name of their chosing, they can fill another gap in the evolution story.

In truth, had evolution been the explanation for the variety of life forms, transitional examples would vastly outnumber fully-formed examples by a ratio of billions-to-one, both throughout the history of life on earth and among current species. Even so, Richard Dawkins has stated publicly that we should not expect to see living examples of transitional forms today; a statement which exemplifies the absurdity and hegemony of evolutionist propaganda. However, the fossils show no such transition, and there are no such transitional forms living today. By itself, this fact destroys evolution theory, whether by gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium. Like the gross differences between the number of bones of the snout of lobe-finned fish varies considerably, so too the number of these bones varies between amphibian tetrapods. There is no apparent relationship between these animals in relation to these. We do not "see" evolutionary transitopn occuring when we examine them. As with countless examples of animals living today, similarity is not evidence of evolution.

A fine example that demonstrates the failure of evolution theory to show heredity between forms are the incongruencies relating to homeobox (HOX) genes. Had evolution been true, and if it had modified the HOX genes which direct the development of the front limbs in reptiles to produce the wings of birds, we would expect to find greater similarity between the HOX genes of reptiles which direct the development of front limbs and those of birds which direct the development of the wings. They should also occupy nearly identical lucus in the genome. However, it is increasingly dicovered that these allegedly related HOX genes are of surprisingly different in sequence and locus, even sometimes on different chromosomes. Such phylogenetic incorngruencies as these and others are shared among evolutionist researchers, but not with the general public. The public gets a different story - one that declares the evidence for evolution to be so well established scientifically and so congruent that evolution is as much a fact as the nose on your face.

The absurdity of assuming the animals proposed as transitional between fish and tetrapods is seen in the great differences which exist between the number of bones in the snout and roofing bones of lobe-finned fishes and those of amphibian tetrapods. It could hardly be said that there exists enough similarity between them to provide for an assumption of transition. As if this were not enough, the same problem exists with the supposed elongation of the frontals, shortening of them, and then elongation once more. The differences are great enough that to assume otherwise is less plausible than believing that complexity bounces up and down repeatedly from more, to less, and to more again in the process of the evolution of a single line of living creatures. This is especially true when comparing the great differences in bone numbers and locations between Osteolepis and Panderichtys, and the differences between Pandericthys and Icthyostega. The difference exists because comparison is being made between aphibian tetrapods (Acanthostega, Icthyostega) and lobe-finned fish (Eusthenopteron, Pandericthys, Tiktaalik).

In the same way that evolutionists have claimed have claimed that the bones of fins increased in number, decreased, and increased again, they also claim that roofing, skull, and snout bones have fluctuated in numbers in their imaginary tansitional form - the car that gets more parts, loses them, then gains them again on the way to becoming a truck. There is no such thing as a "fully-formed species in the mind of the evolutionist; every example of any species is described as "close" a relative of different species as they span across the gaps between different families of relatively similar homology. By such logic, the DNA of such animals underwent a series of increasing complexity, loss of complexity, then increase again while on the path of evolution toward increased complexity. Such "progressions" in taxonomy defeat evolution theory, and provide for Special Creation. Nonetheless, such gross anatomical changes in lineages are presented as mere post-its to transition, as if we are to simply ignore the miraculous changes caused by selected mutations, such that we see only digits where there once were a host of individual bones in a lobed fin.

The animals said to represent transition from water to land have exceedingly similar counterparts today with close to identical limbs. Yet these are not proposed as transitional because they are living fossils  and thus cannot support evolution theory. The evolutionist answers this problem by claiming such animals experienced a mystical "stasis" in which, being well suited for their environment and without harshly competing rivals in their ecological niche, no environmental pressures were experienced which would cause them to evolve, despite the fact that these organisms share an environment with many other species which are said to have evolved because of changing environmental pressures. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too with evolution theory. Either the environment did change so as to apply the pressure which selects for change or it does not. Evolutionists manufacture the illusion of transition by organizing species of similar yet different homology while ignoring the fact that the environment is shared by living fossils. Simply put, stasis is not an explanation that organisms evolved to be so well-suited to their environment that they had no need of change. It is simply hard evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossils because evolutionary change does not occur.

The proposed changes in the medial and lateral scapula are also questionable of alleged transitional forms. It has not been shown how new bones can arise by separations from existing bones through any kind of process, nor how such bones can develop, disappear, then develop again within any time frame. It is simply assumed because mesenchymal tissues result in structures during development, and evolvution was able to accomplish the feat by selected mutation. It is difficult to imagine just how many mutations which continuously change everything about organisms, including mesenchymal tissues, must have been occurring and how proficient Natural Selection must be at allowing only those which result in the anatomical necessary to explain the invisible changes. It is also difficult to imagine why this barrage of mutaion and incrimental change is not observed by genetic studies. Evolution always occurs when you are not looking. Even so, this is precisely what is proposed by evolutionist scientists with Punctuated Equilibrium largely because gradualism is not supported by the fossil record of life on earth - that bones which are extant in many current species separated and became new individual bones. The results of such assumptions have resulted in the proposed evolution of whales, debunked by the fact that the ischium of whales exist have nothing to do with locomotion, but instead  function as supports for the reproductive organs.

A fine example of the creative license evolutionist scientists allot themselves may be seen in Per Ahlber's reconstructive analysis of Elginerpeton's femur medial and lateral scapula, wherein Ahlberg has insisted that a single bone actually represents many. He has in effect pulled a rabbit from a hat. Examples from prior evolutionist claims, some of which are now known to history as fraudulent hoaxes discredited by evolutionists themselves, such as brow ridges, skull caps, knee joints, and bone fragments come to mind. To this list must now be added femurs. Despite the fact that it has not been demonstrated how a single bone can become many, Ahlberg's assertion seems to go far beyond reason. It could be compared, using a simple analogy again, to the wheel of an automobile comprised of a singular piece of solid metal mysteriously becoming a tire, wheel, wheel cover, and lug nuts. According to Palaeos.com, regarding Per Ahlberg's reconstruction of Elginerpeton's femur, I quote:

"Several parts of Ahlberg's paper on the subject [A98] have a Cuvier-like magical quality to them. In particular, his reconstruction of almost the entire pelvic girdle from a little nubbin of broken bone is like watching a magician pull a living temnospondyl out of a hat. One is tempted to gasp and applaud, even when he explains, very clearly, just how the trick is done. Its an incredible performance, particularly since the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society doesn't permit one to use bikini-clad "assistants," deceptive lighting, and similar distractions. The section on the femur is almost as good. However, there is a limit to what human reason can do with one badly abraded example of the middle one third of a single femur."

It must be questioned how defining locations on a single bone, such as what is called the "reconstruction of the femur" of Elginerpeton, is in any way a reconstruction. Such terminology as "reconstruction" gives more credit than is due to the process of defining locations on a bone. Nonetheless, Ahlberg's "reconstruction" of the ventral and anterior femurs is stated as "reconstruction of almost the entire pelvic girdle from a little nubbin of broken bone", which conveys my sentiments about what is presented to the public precisely, and reminds me of the numerous "reconstructions" of entire creatures said to be pre-human "hominids" from a single pig's tooth (Nebraska Man hoax), piece of skull cap, or brow ridge. From such bone fragments, evolutionist scientists commission the modeling of an entire animal which is then presented to the public as an ancestor of man. Examples include Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Nebraska Man, which were all proven to be complete hoaxes and did not represent any such creature as was modeled from bone shards or a pig's tooth. Worse, they and others since are published in school textbooks where they have remained in some cases for decades, and children and college students are "educated" about these creatures as having been their ancestors - all from a single bone or pig's tooth. All the while, the theory of intelligent design is kept out of public schools despite the empirical evidence supporting it. When a pig's tooth can be used as representing a human ancestor but the concept of intelligent design, which far better explains the stupefying complexity of life, particularly micro biological life, is not allowed to be taught, you know that something is more than wrong with the system. Such reconstructions constitute indoctrination into evolution theory rather than education. It represents the pressing of the religious faith of Darwinism into the minds of students and society in general.

Ahlberg has done on a smaller scale with these femurs what was done with those examples: "reconstructed" an entire pelvis from a bone shard. This is a perfect example of how the public is in the end presented with models of entire creatures fashioned from almost nothing and then told that this animal, which nobody really knows what it is, is a transitional form. I have no doubt that the femurs of "Elgineperton" exist, if one could call them femurs, but modeling an entire pelvis based upon a femur bone, considering the variety of such bones in various species of fish, goes far beyond science into the realm of science fiction, imagination, and faith. Evolution theory is the only field of science that I know of where such creative license is considered acceptable amongst scientists. The motive behind such acceptability amongst evolutionist scientists is of course to create artistically that which the fossil record of life does not provide.

Similar controversy surrounds Ahlberg's assertions regarding the processes of the partial pectoral girdle of the medial and lateral of Elginerpeton (The early evolution of the tetrapod humerus Ahlberg, PE 2004) about which Paleos.com stated was "completely out of line with what we know of other early humeri" and an abandonment of accepted terminology (Romer's). Such fervor existed between Ahlberg, Coates, and others to describe the supposed transition between Elginerpeton's humerus and it's evolutionary relationships that a kind of one-upmanship has resulted in chaos in regards to terminology, assessment, and gross discrepancy between the analysis put forth by each. Several assertions were presented at press, some of them in virtually complete contradiction to each other. This is not surprising however, as evolutionist often play this game at the expense of what is factual, and the the winner is often the one who makes the loudest noise or handles the material first and gets their assertions to press first, thereby "branding" the bone or fossil find with their name in textbooks and professional periodicals and journals. The universities or other institutions who employ them are often catalysts in this fervor as such branding is associated with them and therefore brings them academic prominence. The more branding they can obtain, the more the name of the institution becomes associated with prominence. Thus the public is often provided with information in the media about supposed this or that despite inaccuracy or complete fallacy in many cases. While the university or other organization is footing the bill for travel expenses, there is incentive to be competitive, and evolutionist scientists feel free to dash around the world attempting to be the first or best at describing any new fossil find and getting their name and their employer's name in publications.

One must wonder, why if such scientists understand the physiology of known examples and the proper terminology to describe them, could there be such complete contradiction in their assertions regarding a single animal proposed as transitional, or even a single bone for that matter, all the while those competitors are after the same motivation with liberal financial backing: to prove with money and fervor common ancestry of all life. One must also wonder how such contradicting opinions about the locations of proposed bone separations within a single bone could possibly be scientific at all and not sheer speculation about an event which has never even occurred. In their rush to be the first to lay claim to defining these bony transitions, each has proposed something which contradicts the other and abandons terminology. I can imagine each of them rushing to the airport at taxpayers expense to be the first to get their hands on a bone and see how long they can keep it in their possession despite complaints from their peers, before providing it to another for examination. Jarvic played this game far too long with Icthyostega, keeping the specimen in his possession until his lengthy work was completed, but he at least adhered to accepted terminology. However, times have changed, evolutionists are under far greater pressure from creationists to provide evidence for evolution, and publication of the employer's name is more important in having a greater student body now that ever before. In the end, what is provided as scientific fact is hardly acceptable or consistent. The history of paleontology is rife with not only error, but fabrication. It could be said that there is a point at which error, whether made in earnest, zeal, or disregard for accepted methodology, becomes fabrication based upon imagination, wishful thinking, and ambition to lay one's name upon a bone for time eternal.

What is even more absurd about all of this jostling and zeal is the fact that macroevolution itself is false and has been proven so by numerous creationist scientists. Nothing more than limited adaptation and phenotypic plasticity has ever been demonstrated in living species or found to be represented by fossil forms. Didn't Mendel verify this so long ago, and hasn't it been demonstrated beyond question ever since? While morphological change is observed, changes to morphology are insufficent to account for the biological structural designs that had to have arisen incrimentally if evolution were factual. Evolution theory depends upon anatomical change, for which there is no incrimental example in living of fossil form, nor is there a known mechanism for it in genetics. Mutation certainly isn't such a mechanism, as so many thousands of experiments have verified since the 1930's. Haven't the numerous works of geneticists since Haldane made this clear? When will evolutionists ever stop claiming random mutation is a mechanism for evolutionary change? Like a herd of sheep the evolutionists follow a hopelessly blind paradigm, searching endlessly for what they are certain is abundantly present but which they are never able to find. The absence of anatomical change has condemned evolutionism since Darwin. So much so, that in 1980 a group of esteemed scientists working in the field of evolution gathered for a conference in Chicago entitled “Macroevolution” to finally settle the matter and ease the consciences of evolutionists about the absence of evidence for anatomical change. Dr. Roger Lewin commented after attending the conference,

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

In order to even begin to understand the evolutionist's assumptions of transition, we must ignore the gross anatomical differences in the skull bones of their alleged examples. We are then left with considering morphology, which is so influencial to the mind of the evolutionist and so critical to their assumptions. The greatest morphological difference between what are proposed by evolutionists to be "early" tetrapods is clearly the size and shape of the head. Some are short, others long, some are flat-ish, others rounded. Some which are long are rounded (Elginerpeton) while others which are rounded are short, while some which are flat-ish are long and others which are flat-ish are short (Tiktaalik). There is no visible relationship to the size or shape of these animals heads or limbs, nor  between the shape of their head and the design of their limbs. Furthermore, the length of these animals varies considerably from 1.5 to 9 feet.

Evolutionists pick-and-chose which examples show transition, based upon those which seem structurally most alike in overal homology, leaving those which are not chosen to be placed into a different clade. In fact, Elginerpeton's head which is far larger than Panderichtys. If it does not fit the lineage in their mind because of one feature, it is left out even if it is more similar in those features which are proposed as transitional. This is because the overall morphology of the animal is too dissimilar and does not fit their visualization of transition. Evolutionist scientists have from the beginning believed that visual perception and general homology is evidence of transition, and so this is predominantly what they present to the public in their efforts to convince those who are unbelievers and skeptics. It would be counterproductive for evolutionists to present the facts about the great differences in the sizes of bodies or heads, or the number of skull bones in the creatures they arrange for presentation, since these things would cause doubt and undermine their efforts. What is rather bizarre is that these differences should also cause doubt in the mind of the evolutionist, but does not, because it is difficult to undermine the presumptions which effect one's worldview.

Without clear evidence of transition from lobe-finned fishes to amphibian tetrapods, evolutionist scientists have become desperate to find evidence by reevaluating existing examples. This has led to controversy and questionable assertions regarding what evidence is visible or not visible and whether a reconstruction is even logical, much less supported by comparisons with other known material and living animals of similar homologies. In the case of the supposed branching of new bones from existing ones, I refer to Elginerpeton and the proposed branching of sarcopterygian stem proposed by Ahlberg. Of particular importance is the method of locomotion of alleged early tetrapods. Since the structure of the spine and neural arches of Icthyostega prevent a walking gait which is similar to the side-to-side motion of the spine seen in fishes, it is clear that Icthyostega had a far more rigid spine than fish, which facilitates a staggered side-to-side gait and limited movement of the head. This rigidity of the spine is further complicated by the fact that it's ribs are wide and form a tight, barrel-like enclosure of the abdomen. Since fish have considerably flexible spines capable of great lateral motion, icthyostega cannot be closely related to fishes. This is a problem for paleonologists who wish to show that Icthyostega represents the end of the transition from water to land. If fishes can move their spines in this way, then surely there would be transitions from the spines of fish to that of ridig amphibians instead of leaping from one to the other. Nonetheless, Icthyostega is represented by more than sufficient material to clearly define the animal from head to toe using the collective material of hundreds of finds. The resulting animal is not unlike those amphibian tetrapods which are said to have come after it or were contemporaries, with flat ribs close together, a barrel-like rib formation, and a linear vertebrae size relationships.

Prior to his reconstruction of Icthyostega, Per Ahlberg expressed that the change in locomotion between lobe-fined fishes and amphibian tetrapods were adaptations of the forelimbs which improved movement in water. This was the only explanation that could be had, since amphibian tetrapods such as Icthyostega were laterally rigid, while fish are laterally flexible. Unless it were possible to show that Icthyostega and other allegedly early amphibian tetrapods had greater lateral flexion and were capable of moving their head with more flexibility, there would remain this difficulty in presenting Icthyostega as the result of transition from fish to amphibian tetrapods. After all, the fact that such animals were rigid would reduce their effectiveness as hunters on land, allow them to be agile only in water, inconsistent with reptile spines and rib cages. We are then left with Special Creation to explain such creatures which have lived in the past and are now extinct. In the minds of evolutionists there had to be a presentable connection, since Icthyostega is the best example of a creature in fossil form which can be fit into the transition to land because of it's homology and morphology, despite the lack of lateral flexion. Surely since the fossil record of life is void of animals which represent this crucial example of evolution, Icthyostega must be it, and there must be a way of showing it. This is where Per Ahlberg had his epiphany: that if the bones of Icthyostega were arranged in the living animal in a manner greaty at variance with Jarvic's reconstruction, and in fact with all other amphibians of somilar homology known in fossil form, then the problem of Icthyostega's lack of lateral flexion could be eliminated. Evolution had a big problem, and since desperation is a great motivator, it was time for someone to roll up their sleeves and get creative, and make fossils conmform to evolution if they didn't already do so.

Like Icthyostega, Tiktaalik also has broad ribs and vertebrae design which prevent reasonable lateral motion of the spine, thus separating it from fishes and preventing a land-based carnivorous life-style. Worse yet, the shoulder girdle of lobe-finned fish, like that of Tiktaalik, was dermal. That is to say that it was connected to the spine by soft tissues only, as opposed to endochondral, which is to saythat it was connected to the spine by cartilege and tendon. Because it was dermal and not endochrondal, it was unable to support it's weight out of water any better than any lobe-finned fish. If this one-time miracle of evolution from fish into amphibians were accomplished, evolution should not have developed ribs which cause rigidity and limit mobility on land. There should instead have been transition from the laterally flexible spines and ribs of fish into something less flexible than fish but more flexible than Icthyostega as evolution progressed to the more flexible spines and ribsa of reptiles. The story of evolution is in crisis over this problem. Furthermore, in this scenario of fish-to-amphibian tetrapod, the inexplicable loss of dorsal ribs or fins is never addressed, as they too prevent problems. There are no representations in fossil form which show the gradual loss of dorsal ribs or fins. Haemal arches and spines are present in these animals, but cannot be argued to be remnants of dorsal ribs.

Another problem for the fish-to-amphibian evolution scenario is the fact that fish have basal stumps to which their ribs attach, whereas tetrapods have bicipital spines and ribs which possess parapophyses and diapophysis. If dorsal fins were lost because of evolution, basal stumps would have either disappeared or migrated dorsally and become bony flanges to protect the vertebrae. Yet vertebrates already have these flanges and basal stumps. Therefore, basal stumps could not have migrated from dorsal to ventral to become diapophysis in anticipation of bicipital ribs, nor would there have been an incentive to, since the bony flanges would already be present and the ribs would not have already had tuberculum or capitulum waiting for attachment. Since those animals which are considered to be the "earliest" tetrapods have bicipital ribs, it is preposterous to assume that they could have had basal stumps, then developed parapophyses and diapophysis. While there are fish with only ventral ribs, these are attached to basal stumps and do not possess parapophyses or diapophysis. The imagined transition from basal stumps and accompanying development of tuberculum and capitulum in the ribs and parapophyses and diapophysis in the vertebrae presents an impossible account of the evolution of the spine, since it requires the migration of dorsal basal stumps towards the underside of the vertebrae for attachment to ribs which would presumably evolve to possess tuberculum and capitulum in anticipation of parapophyses and diapophysis. Evolutionist scientists would propose that such a migration is the result of an animal moving from land to water, but this is not possible, since ribs would become dysfunctional if they developed tuberculum and capitulum without the presence of parapophyses and diapophysis already in place. Transition from one design to the other requires that either the vertebrae or the ribs would become dysfunctional during this transformation.

Furthermore, in the imagined evolution to greater weight-bearing ribs, there is no scenario by which the development of bicipital ribs and parapophyses and diapophysis would develop in response to greater force being applied to basal stumps. All examples of vertebrates exhibit fully-developed spines, and there are no intermediate vertebrae or ribs known, nor has it been shown how such change could occur. The ribs of Icthyostega for example, show significant weight-bearing qualities because of their breadth and thickness and because they exhibit of a terrestrial nature with tuberculum and capitulum. Yet Pandericthys and Eusthenopteron for example, have single basal stumps, as do all fish.

While variation in within families of organisms exists and is expected with the Special Creation model, between known species the vertebrae do not markedly vary within any given family. In Icthyostegids, of which only two species are known, one of which is based upon a single bone, the first sixteen ribs are bicipital. In fish, including examples said to be intermediates such as Eusthenopteron and Pandericthys, there are no bicipital ribs. This shows that the proposed transition from fishes to amphibian tetrapods is not supported in fossil form, since there are no intermediates showing the evolution of bicipital ribs. Furthermore, Icthyostega and all other amphibian tetrapods have "dish shaped" vertebrae, whereas in fishes, only sharks are known to have such vertebrae, and all other fishes have "hockey puck" shaped vertebrae.

Without far better side-to-side motion, amphibians are relegated to a predominantly aquatic lifestyle. It would be disadvantageous for such creatures to venture more than a relative few meters form water to hunt for food as a general lifestyle since their lateral rigidity would limit mobility and make hunting on land difficult while making them easier prey. Two possible method of locomotion could be exhibited by an imagined transitional form from fish to amphibians, according to Jennifer Clack. It could have a side-to-side gobbling gait like reptiles, which move both limbs on one side towards each other, or it could have moved it's front limbs together, and it's back limbs together in an "inchworm" manner of locomotion. This is the method of locomotion which Per Ahlberg proposed for Icthyostega to salvage it as a transitional form because of it's lateral rigidity. It simply did not have enough flexion to be closely related to fish. It was too much like any given reptile living today to fith the evolution scenario. Something had to be done to solve this problem.

The biggest problems with Icthyostega as representing transition from fishes to amphibian tetrapods lies with it's skeletal structure, which did not afford it much lateral flexion, and the fact that it's body shape is completely reptilian, while it had ray-fins on it's tail. It may have been an amphibian because it had ray fins, but the rigidity of it's spine and rib cage contradicts the story of evolution from fish to reptiles. Conceiving a solution to this, Ahlberg stated in an interview with LiveScience, "On the one hand, it could have ‘walked’ with the body held rigid and the limbs moving in alternating diagonal sequence – front left and hind right, front right and hind left. The forelimbs were robust with bent elbows and could probably lift the front part of the body off the ground, but the hind limbs were more flipper-like so the pelvic region probably dragged on the ground."

What a bizarre aassumption this is - to believe any creature walked with such a dissability while it's anatomy is clearly that of an animal with well-endowed limbs with digits - and all because it's spine and ribs were too rigid for it to be a transitional form. Ahlberb therefore imposed upon the animal an outrageously awkward, inefficient manner of mobility unlike any creature of similar homology, and unlike any creature living today. Even Gili Dasami, Gili Motang, Komodo, Rinca, Padar, and small lizards move their limbs in a 1-3/2-4 manner with greater lateral flexion, and since Icthyostega was more rigid than them, it does not fit as a transitional form. Furthermore, like the Celocanth claim now disproved by living examples, it is claimed that Icthyostega had both lungs and gills, whereas the fossil specimens do not show this material.

Per Ahlberg has stated, "What we conclude from this is that the earliest tetrapod limbs had a high number of digits, probably 8/8, and that this number had been reduced to 5/5 or 4/5 in the last common ancestor of modern tetrapods. Icthyostega may represent an intermediate state."

If it may have represented an intermediate, why is declared to be one? In the minds of evolutionist, what "may have" often constitutes "does or did". Ahlberg went on to say, "Nobody is claiming that Eusthenopteron is a direct ancestor of Pandericthys". Again, if this is so, why is it depicted as an intermediate and this is then put forth to the public as scientific fact in publications and in the media? Why do evolutionists include it in their illustatiions of evolution instead of including placeholders to show that the forms are not known? After all, the same could be said of each of these species and yet they are nonetheless depicted together as visual evidence of evolution for the general public to preview in publications. These illustrations are not made for evolutionist scientists, but for the public to see. I can't speak for others, but looking at this image, I see a squence of fish with a lizard at the top.

Why would an animal such as Icthyostega evolve to have such a thick and weighty body which it would have dragged on it's stomach if it was evolving to live on land, since the need for better mobility on land would allegedly provide pressure to  develop less underside body mass for locomotion on land? This is contrary to the proposed process of evolution. Developing an inchworm method of locomotion and thick, stout body mass would be counterproductive for an animal which would be evolving to walk upon land, particularly since the proposed ancestors of Icthyostega are depicted as having far less body mass. Other animals living today have virtually identical homologies to icthyostega but do not have such body mass and do not have to drag their undersides along on land, nor do they move like an inchworm. If Icthyostega is said to have limbs capable of supporting it on land, why would it them move along by dragging it's underside on the ground? The proponents of Evolution Theory must rely upon bizarre imaginative scenarios, and now it seems even utterly perposterous fossil reconstructions to create the transitional forms that the rocks of the earth do not provide.

Ahlberg stated in an email to national Geographic News, "Icthyostega’s complete skeleton was first described by Erik Jarvik in 1955, but many aspects of its anatomy remained unknown, making it difficult to determine how it moved on land." The article which included his email statements states, "Ahlberg and his colleagues made a few changes in this [Jarvik's] construction, mainly in the rib cage, neck, and shoulder regions. Then they played around with this reconstruction to figure out how the animal might have moved. "We arrived at the overall functional interpretation by drawing together our functional interpretations of the different parts of the skeleton – forelimb, hind limb, backbone, and so forth – and trying to figure out how they could all make sense in one animal," Ahlberg said."

One must question how Jarvik's reconstruction of Icthyostega left "many aspects of it's anatomy" to be unknown when all of the animal's bones have been discovered, there are hundreds of Icthyostegid finds to be used as reference, and their arrangement in the earth provides clear assesment of their general arrangement, particularly in light of the host of other amphibian tetrapod species which provide reference, such as Seymouria Baylorensis, Utegenia Shpinari, Ariekanerpeton Sigalovi, Temnospondyli Cochleosauridae, Solenodonsaurus Janenschi, and others. Are we to believe that Icthyostega varies from these tetrapods so much that it's ribs are clustered and grossly overlapping in contrast to all known tetrapods? Are we being fed science or creative license? Because Ahlberg's strange and fanciful creation is so far removed from all known tetrapods, it is not a reconstruction, but is instead an animal that he has fashioned out of the bones of Icthyostega which in his own, personal imagination, would could be used to fill the gaps in the evolution of fish to amphibians. Reconstruction is not redesign. Science is one thing, while unrestricted and outlandish artistic licence is another.

Ahlberg clearly states that his reconstruction was created to make the fossil conform to his, and I quote, "functional interpretation". We must ask ourselves, is it science to apply interpretation to a reconstruction of an animal for which the arrangement of bones is well documented by numerous examples? If such interpretation were applied to all fossil reconstructions, evolutionist scientists could reconstruct fossils in virtually any manner they chose according to their personal interpretation of how the animal moved, or even how they wish to believe the animal moved, rather than how the creatures bones were arranged as they were found in the earth. Let's do a little literary reconstruction of our own by replacing that last sentence to see if we can create with words what Ahlberg has done with bones. Let us replace Ahlberg's statement, "trying to figure out how they could all make sense" with "trying to figure out how to make the animal look more like what it must to fit into the lineage and present the impression of tetrapod evolution." In so doing, we can with words reconstruct the concept of "making sense of" the fossil by "making it conform" to our need to have it appear more transitional. This reconstruction of words would seem every bit as appropriate as Ahlberg's reconstruction of bones in light of the fact that the arrangement of Icthyostega's bones is well known from many examples which have been recovered, and they not at all like the arrangement that was assembled by Ahlberg.

When I briefly debated Ahlberg about his reconstruction of Icthyostega, he made a statement that illustrates the anti-religion motivation of evolutionists. He said, and I quote, "Gosh! (There doesn't seem to be a "glowing with embarrassment" graemlin available, so you'll have to imagine one...) To receive such plaudits from the Vorlon Ambassador AND the illustrious author of "Well, that just about wraps it up for God" and other blockbusters is almost too much! Seriously, I've been consistently impressed with this site: you are doing a great job."

Further illustration of this motivation comes from his statement in the BBC program titled "The Missing Link" which aired at 9:00pm on Thursday, February 1st 2001, wherein Ahlberg stated, "What would happen if they [creationists] won, if they truly won is that we would descend into another Dark Age. It's an unimaginably dark prospect." Personally, I take this statement to mean that if creationists removed the false evolution theory from science, where it does not belong, that a level of damage would be done to the progress of Godless secular humanism that to people like Ahlberg is unthinkable. Secular humanism would be pushed back into the 17th century from which it raised it's head and began to destroy all that is good and true.

Regarding Icthyostega, British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Henry Gee stated,

"A statement that Icthyostega is a missing link between fishes and later tetrapods reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature we are supposed to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing a restricted view on reality based on our own limited experience, when reality may be larger, stranger, and more different than we can imagine."

Unfortunately for science, evolutionists were allowed to overtake the scientific community over a period of decades beginning shortly after the publication of Darwin's infamous book. The means by which they accomplished this is the same means by which they maintain control over the scientific community today - the process of selection. Much like the process of selective breeding whereby a population of a species is bred to become phenotypically homogenous, so too evolutionists gained positions of authority in science, and over time they have selected who is able to participate in science and education. The result of that selection process is that that the phenotype of academia is relatively homogenous and evolutionist. Those who are disbelievers are not selectedn and when these black sheep are found within the fold, they are removed from the population of the scientific community. Science has paid a heavy price for it, resulting in cornucopia of scientifically false information infecting education and academia.

Since icthyostegids had a rigid spine and fairly limited side-to-side flexion, Ahlberg set out to reconstruct the fossil in such a manner as to create an arangement of bones which would allow for far greater flexion, as is seen in land-dwelling tetrapods. To accomplish this, Ahlberg regionalized the spine to create the appearance of transition by closer association with lobe-finned fishes. National Geographic News states, "The team's reconstruction differs from all previously published reconstructions of the animal. Unlike in other reconstructions, the vertebrae that make up the backbone in Ahlberg's rendering are regionalized: They have different shapes in different parts of the column. Therefore, different parts of the backbone flexed in different ways, Ahlberg speculates."

The article further states, "While regionalization of the backbone is fairly common in living land vertebrates, it's not seen in the lobe-finned fishes from which Icthyostega is thought to have evolved. Lobe-finned fishes have thick, fleshy fins, as opposed to the delicate fins of most fish. Only two types of lobe-finned fishes survive today, coelacanths and lungfishes. "Icthyostega is actually the first example of such a regionalized vertebral column in the vertebrate fossil record," Ahlberg said."

The truth is that Ictyostega had such flexion only after Ahlberg's reconstruction which rearanged the locations of vertabrae from what is known of many examples, and as these bones have been discovered in their locations in the earth. What Ahlberg has done is fashioned a new spine to promote the appeatrance of transition by giving the animal greater flexion. This departure is perposterous to say the least.

Furthermore, Ahlberg has moved lumbar ribs to the caudal section of the spine, turned them at what appears to be 180 degrees, as with all of the ribs in his reconstruction, and laid them nearly flat against the caudal vertebrae. Such a ridiculous arrangement of ribs does not exist in any animal either living or in fossil form. This represents a gross misrepresentation of the actual creature. There is not one amphibian tetrapod living or in fossil form that complies with an arrangement even remotely like Ahlber's imaginative reconstruction. If this kind of disregard for what is known of fossil creatures were performed to the entire fossil record of life on earth, evolutionist scientists could fashion completely new creatures pf cpmpletely unknown forms. So long as the public does not know how the bones have been rearranged, they are none the wiser. Such reconstructions move beyond creative licensee, which is unacceptable in itself, to the world of hegemony and speudoscience. It is a common ploy of evolutionists to provide the general public which perceptions based loosely upon assumption and speculation. What Ahlberg has done however, is push this freedom afforded him by an unknowledgable public and a lack of criticism by peers until it is far outside the scope of science.

Not only has Ahlberg rearanged the ribs, but completely rearranged the spine of the fossil to afford it the kind of locomotion he envisioned for an animal which could be perceived as more like a transition between lobe-finned fishes and land-dwelling tetrapods. His desire and goal from the onset of the reconstruction was to create the impression of an animal which seemed more transitional than known Icthyostegids, and he acheived this by maximally extending the precaudal column. Despite that it is contended that there are at least three known species of Icthyostegids which are examples of variety within the kind (stensioei, eigili, and watsoni), six specific samples of Icthyostega were selected from the approximately 600 individual bones which are available. Since Ahlberg admitted that the purpose of the reconstruction was to solve problems with Icthyostega's locomotion, it is then obvious that the reconstruction is outside the scientific method of seeking a cause for the animal. Instead Ahlberg has done the opposite - he has sought an animal for a cause. He has rearranged the bones of an animal well known by previous and widely accepted reconstruction, and created one that does not exist from a collection of Icthyostegid bones.

What can be easily discerned from the three "reconstructions" of Icthyostega is a transition in reconstruction, and not an animal that represents a "transitional form". Thus, evolutionists do what they have always done, and what Ahlberg has done with both Icthyostega and femurs or other tetrapods. He has transitioned fossils from bones to created an imagine animal to fit his faith that evolution should show the transition from one kind into another. Clack has done something just as dastardly in her own reconstruction; she has turned the back legs of the animal backward to present Icthyostega as incapable of walking, as so has been done by evolutionists with Pakicetus and Ambulocetus to make the evolution of whales "look" more plausible. Thus we understand Ahlber's implausible contention that Icthyostega moved on land in an "inchworm" manner by dragging itself along with it's front legs, which is completely preposterous. Even modern alligators and crocodiles, which have legs exceedingly similar in form and proportion are capable of walking on land with all four legs and do not move like an inchworm. Jennifer Clack, Per Ahlberg and Henning Blom have each contributed to the creation of an animal which did not exist out of the bones of one that did to solve problems with the evolution of tetrapods. These materials were gathered together for analysis, and according to Clack, the neural arches of new samples of Icthyostega pointed at different angles in four different sections of the spine, which supposedly had not been seen before in previous material. One must wonder how, with hundreds of examples, such "obvious" relationships between neural arches had not been "seen before" in creatures which have been pressed down by the heavy sediments which entombed them.

Such claims are not new. Ahlberg proposed his ideas about Icthyostega, and a little over a year later Jenkins made the smae claims about the newly discovered Tiktaalik. The same claims were made by Harvard University zoologist Parish Jenkins, who has said, "And Tiktaalik's lungs, which evolved from the air bladders fish use for respiration and buoyancy control, are housed in a sturdy overlapping rib cage, the better to buttress the animal's weight against gravity. No other fish in the world either living or dead has overlapping ribs." The truth is, there simply is no material showing the transition from swim bladders to lungs, in fish or icthyostigids. But according to evolutionists, it is good science to say it unquestionably took place. Afterall, it had to if evolution were true, and that is what is most important to the evolutionist. What they believe must have happened becomes what actually has happened, and to show that it happened only requires the rearrangement of bones and redesign of organisms, and forms imagined but not provided by the physical evidence. The scientific method is not so important to evolutionists. What is more important is whatever they can declare, even if it means creativity replaces the scientific method.

Devonian Times illuminates Ahlber's reconstruction by stating, "During the 1990s, studies by Jennifer Clack, Michael Coates, Per Ahlberg, and H.C. Bjerring substantially revised Jarvik's reconstruction. Ichthyostega was now considered to be a primarily aquatic tetrapod, although one that may have hauled itself onto the shore. The hind limbs were smaller than previously depicted and may have served as paddles rather than legs."

Clearly Clack, Coats, and Alhberg have redesigned the animal to create a transitional form that fills one of the endless gaps in their thoery. It cannot be called a reconstruction. It seems Ahlberg was so fueled by the energy he was experiencing from collegues that he engaged in a reconstruction of Isthyostega in which he held nothing back and drew upon his deepest convictions and the greatest creativity he could muster to get the animal into shape as a transitional form, even if it meant creating something unlike any animal to have ever lived and which possesses a most bizarre skeleton. Ahlberg has in effect created a new animal by attempting to make it primarily aquatic by moving lumbar ribs in the caudal section of the spine, rearranging the vertebrae to increase it's lateral flexion, lowered it to the ground, congested it's rib cage into a grossly overlapping package, and turned it's ribs at an unnatural angle. It would seem that this was the intention of the reconstruction from the start. This falls just short of claiming the creature to be a fish. How much farther from science can a reconstruction go than this?

While Ahlberg was the driving force of this erroeous fabrication, he was not the only culpable person involved, as Devonian Times states: "This work would not have been possible without the assistance of Ted Daeschler and Walt Cressler. Ted Daeschler, who is the lead researcher at Red Hill, co-discoverer of Tiktaalik, and the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Academy of Natural Sciences, was the driving force behind the second and third editions. He provided leads, literature, fossil images and guidance. Walt Cressler, who has conducted the most extensive paleobotanical investigations of Red Hill, also provided leads, literature, fossil images, and guidance. Ahlberg stated regarding their help, "I also want to thank Jennifer Clack, Stephen Scheckler, and Heather Wilson for their assistance."

If it weren't for the fact that so many people eare either skeptical of evolution or do not believe evolution is true, these individuals, and so many evolutionists like them, would not feel the desperation which results in such misguided and unrestrained drive to commit such atrocities of hegemony as the horror of what has been done with the bones of Icthyostega, or to put into textbooks so many assumptions and speculations declared as scientific facts. The fact that such a horrific manipulation of the skeleton of an animal has gone without harsh criticism and correction demonstrates the culpability and irresponsibility of the entire evolutionist camp. A counter-scientific method rules their minds such that whatever they believe must be true about the origin and diversity of life <i>becomes</i> fact, despite the physical evidence or absence of it. They see evolution happen in their minds, and so they seek to make it seem visible to the eyes, by whatever means necessary. Because evolutionists feel so much pressure to convince an unbelieving public, they are unable to conduct science repsonsibly.

In the history of paleontology, evolutionists have repeatedly manufactured evidence based upon their paradigm because in their minds, what they envision simply had to have existed, whether or not it has been found in the rocks of the earth. The fallacious recontstruction of Rodocetus produced under the direction of Philip Gingerich is a fine example of the way in which evolutionists produce organisms with features they do not possess for the purpose of indoctrinating the unbelieviers. When more complete fossils of Rodocetus were found, it was discovered that the animal did not possess the blowhole or fluke tail that Gingrish put into what was called a "reconstruction". In the case of Icthyostega however, an abundance of fossil material exists which represents all of the animal's bones. Nothing is missing. Ahlberg did not need to give the creature features which were unknown to it's anatomy, and in fact would not have been able to, but instead rearranged it's bones to give it a morphology so grotesquely unlike the one it possessed that the result could be considered a different animal. Ahlberg's attempt to solve the absence of transitional forms in the fish-to-amphibian sequence was even more creative that Gingrich's attempt to solve the absence of transitions in the evolution of a dog-like animal into whales.

Ichtyostega is simply an extinct creature similar to, but also somewhat different, from other extinct animals with similar homology. It is an amphibian with a rigid bicipital spine and rib cage. This taxa of amphibians no longer exists in living form - all of them are now extinct. Nonetheless, there is no excuse for the bizarre manipulations which Ahlberg has produced as an alleged reconstruction. The question is often put to creationists, "Why aren't you skeptical of creation theory?" However, considering the overwhelming evidence for creation, the absence of evidence for evolution, and the history of hoaxes and imaginative reconstructions from evolutionists, a better question would be, "Why aren't you skeptical of evolution theory?" Evolutionists claim to be skeptical of all scientific evidence, but this is actually not true because evolution is to them a religion - a set of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. As long as humanism is the foundation for that faith, the evolutionist feels justified in presenting a case for evolution by any means necessary, even if it is speculative or outright fallacious. It is a form of self-worship; the creation is worshiped while the creator is denied.