Duck with Chicken Feet is Afraid of the Water

Chinese farmer Fu Haiwen has a strange duck: it has chicken feet and is afraid of the water!

Fu said he bought the duck in June but did not notice its unusual feet for ten days, reports Laibin News.

It was only after he noticed it acting differently to the rest of the ducks that he examined it closely and was surprised to see it did not have webbed feet.

"It never went with the other ducks to swim in the river," he explained.


Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

It is interesting that I have been looking for the two-celled animal, and never have seen one. Can someone give me and example? Slime mold doesn't count, since the DNA must contain instructions for that metamorphosis from the beginning. I believe the 1000 celled Rotifer is next in line for complexity. I also would like to know how the law of Stasis (stability of kinds) has been circumvented to produce new kinds of animals by mutations. An example of how new information (not duplications or instructional errors)can be produced by mistakes in existing material would be nice. If the duck without webbed feet is real, it is not evolution, but loss of information that says "make webbed feet". The fruit fly proves you can't produce a new kind of animal by mistake. If the lab folks leave the fruit flies alone, in a fairly short time, they start to get healthier, and soon, they are normal again. That's a good case for creative genius.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"God" is a great, big, fat, unproven entity. It only exists in religion. That makes "god" not part of science. Stop trying to push him into science class. He doesn't belong there. "God" belongs in church, and in religion class, and not in biology, physics, or any other science.
Abiogenesis doesn't invoke unexplained entities. That makes it the better explanation, even when it's currently incomplete. Research is continueing. More will be learned. The origin of life will be explained without the need for god.
The fossil record is direct evidence for evolution, as is DNA, and chromosomes, and taxonomy, and the various ring species, all of wich are explained by evolution. The phrase "god did it" explains nothing.
If you want tranitional fossils, do a google search. You will never find a complete list, becuase scientists have som many fossils that it's impossible to determine whether a fossil is a new species, or a member of an existing species with mere slight variation, like all living humans are slightly different from each other. Scientists now have too many fossils to catalog using the existing system. scientists have more transitional fossils than they know how to handle. We have thousands of tranitional fossils. Hell, we have fossils of fifteen thousand species of trilobites! If you want a corckaduck, don't bother. Evolution postulates no such nonsense.
The wikipedia page on transitional fossils is not complete. It says so on the page. Do more research. Find more complete lists of fossils. It's not hard to do.
The beginning of the universe is not part of evolution. The beginning of the universe is part of cosmology. Scientists do not know how it all started yet. Maybe the LHC will shed some new light on it. Just because we don't know yet how the universe started doesn't mean that "goddidit".
Life transitioning to other forms of life have been observed. Single-cell organisms producing multi-cellular organisms have been observed. Changes to different Genus have been observed over many generations, just as evolution predicts.

Ben Stein's movie is a blatant propaganda piece, designed to pull money from the pockets of a gullible audience. It equates science with nazism. It's a great, big, fat, lie. Take it's claims with a truck-load of salt. Do research of your own regarding it's claims, and do so beyond creationist websites.

If I were head of a scientific research facility, I would want people who ask questions based on the evidence rather than based on their religious convictions, so, no, I would not want to have creationists under me. There is no evidence for creationism. All the arguments for creationism have been crushed over and over again. Find something new already. We are getting tired of debunking the same old arguments agian and again.

Find holes in all of your own beliefs, and correct them. This will make you a better person. This advise goes out to everyone, creationist or otherwise. It's how science works.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
By the way, look at the Transitional Fossils page on wikipedia. It is not at all impressive.

The examples they have are: a little horse turning into a bigger horse; a crocodile-like creature that they say is like a whale; and a fish that is supposed to link amphibians and other fish; along with a few supposed proto-humans.

Shouldn't we have thousands of examples by now after 150 years of searching?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Please explain how "God made it" uses more unproven entities than random, unexplained abiogenesis; the matter and energy of the universe creating itself out of nothing; or how a prehistoric life form gave birth to a completely new life form, even though no life form has ever been observed to produce something other than itself.
Why would you require direct evidence of God when no such standard is required of evolution (or many scientific theories for that matter).

As for the lack of support in the scientific community, there a various lists you could find online of creationists with various degrees, none that are exhaustive as far as I know. But many scientists are afraid to let on what they believe for fear of retribution from colleagues. Ben Stein's movie talks about this. If you were head of a science department, would you want people under you supporting creationism? Or do you think you might want to keep them from giving you a bad name?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
dogrun81: When multiple explanations of facts arise, scientists use something called "Occam's razor" to weed out the most unlikely of the two. One of the criteria that's selected upon is the one that invokes the least unproven entities, such as god.
Until there is direct scientific evidence of one or more gods the theory of evolution remains the best explanation for the diversity of life.

Creationism also doesn't further our understanding of why things are the way they are. Evolution does this by proposing a mechanism through which the diversity of life came about. The closest thing creationism comes to an explanation is "god did it", but it doesn't go further than that. It is never explained how god did it, why he did it, what processes were involved, etc.

In the scientific community there is no debate about this. Creationist promoters such as Kent Hovind and like to imply discord amongst scientists by claiming there is a controversy, but that is mere deception. Kent Hovind and those like him are lying to you, because it will get them publicity, and publicity will generate money. They are not out to inform you, they are after the money in the pockets of a large gullible audience.

Also, the modern theory of evolution is a heck of a lot more complete than Darwin's proposal. Over the last 150 years evolution has been the most scrutinised theory in all of science, and it still stands strong. In fact, it stands stronger than ever before because of all the scrutiny. All the errors and misconceptions have been weeded out quite thoroughly.

I suggest you pick up a book called "the blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It contains a reasonable explanation of the modern theory of evolution. Just ignore the atheist bit.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Email This Post to a Friend
"Duck with Chicken Feet is Afraid of the Water"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More