Response from AiG

"...supposedly 290 million years old, the frogamander fossil was collected in Texas a decade ago, then “rediscovered” in the National Museum of Natural History in 2004. Comparative biologist Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary led the new analysis of the fossil, claiming he recognized the “froggy slamander-y sort of look” of the fossil— now dubbed Gerobatrachus hottoni.

The creature is said to fit a “noted gap” in the amphibian fossil record—one of those gaps the media never reports on until it’s filled! Anderson judges that the animal would have looked like a stubby-tailed salamander with froglike ears and that it “pretty convincingly settles the question [that the] frog and salamander shared origins from the same fossil group.”

A couple of thoughts for creationists. First, although the find has been reported with typical evolutionary fanfare and certainty on the surface, that’s not to say everyone agrees with the complete analysis. For example, read what National Geographic News reported from the Field Museum’s John Bolt, a curator for fossil amphibians and reptiles:

Bolt, the Field Museum expert, cautioned that it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.
“At this point I would say it is by no means certain that this is representative of a common ancestor to frogs and salamanders, although it might be,” Bolt said.
Bolt also says, intriguingly, “The most astonishing thing to me about this study is that this animal is far more froglike than I would ever have expected from its age. Nothing this nonprimitive has ever been described from this age. It's just amazing.” (Emphasis added.)

Our second thought is that it is possible that, assuming the incomplete fossil has been interpreted accurately and truly shares frog and salamander features (and such assumptions often fail to hold true), frogs and salamanders descended from the same amphibian kind—that is, selective pressures gradually exploited the genetic variation in an original amphibian kind, resulting in the two modern groupings. If not, it is possible God created an amphibian kind with features in common with both salamanders or frogs.

As always, though, Christians must separate the actual finding from the interpretation. There are several creation-based explanations for an incomplete fossil with salamander and frog features, but all too often, well-meaning Christians swallow the evolutionary propaganda whole, facts and worldview, without trusting God over man’s often-foolish speculation."

Rockstar, What you fail to realize is the fact that the study showed that Gerobatrachus is the sister group to Batrachia. Proving it is the ancestor is not possible. That is what, I believe Bolt, meant. There is no reason to question the current sister taxon relationship. As for the possibility that God created theses, completely untestable therefore unscientific. Creationism offers nothing to scientific discovery. Sorry.

Actually we can and most often will accept other view points and explanations if backed up with scientific evidence and the proposed counter theory better fits the scientific evidence given. As for your erroneous statement that evolution cannot be proven or refuted well evolution has already been observed (in action) several times in both nature and controlled test. If you would like to take a look as some of those studies yourself you can find a very nicely put together page of several of these here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). All of the examples and work are properly referenced so that if you feel that anything is being taken out of context you can examine the original work for yourself. And yes evolution could be refuted, if you were to find a fossil record that consistently showed all forms of life appearing at the same time it would call into question the theory of evolution but that has not happened yet and at the risk of sounding overly confident I believe never will happen. And finally as for your addressing those that subscribe to the theory of evolution as close minded well I would think that somebody in the face of so much evidence to the contrary still believes in creationism or ID and won’t even consider evolution because it goes against what is taught in a very old book is more close minded than somebody who relies on science to form their beliefs around. If you are a creationist would you accept evolution if we could show you all the evidence that indicates that species came into being at different times in history (the fossil record all over the world shows this). Or if you are an ID proponent would you accept evolution if you were shown evidence of some very unintelligent biological designs (In African locusts, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, and then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.). And please if you have evidence that shows your theories stand up to scientific scrutiny then for all that is good’s sake let us know, we will be more than happy to review it. BUT if you have no scientific evidence to support your theories then PLEASE stop trying to force your beliefs on our children by masquerading them as science, keep them in the theology class where they belong.