Yes, the fact is that they are tetrapod footprints is shared by experts. They are too scared to call them paw prints despite their obviousness.
Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fishtetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record
Access : Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland : Nature
If you do not believe these experts then you need to submit your concerns to them. They have placed tetrapods at 395mya.
I am well aware of what the experts say. We knew the tetrapods first emerged around 300-400 million years ago (this prediction is what lead to the discovery of
Tiktaalik). This new discovery pushes back the origin of tetrapoda by less than an order of magnitude. An interesting discovery, but I think the abstract is being somewhat overly dramatic. Ultimately, however, this discovery is not a big hiccup: we already knew tetrapods first emerged from the oceans in the order of 10[sup]8[/sup] years ago, and this simply serves to refine that date by an order of 1[sup]6[/sup] years.
The obviousness of the paw prints demonstrates exactly what kind of tetrapod it was...a the bear kind.
Says you. No expert of publication of any kind supports your own inexpert opinion.
You really should take a look and think before you speak. The article simply reflects the research behind it. Here is the link again to the actual research article, so you do not get confused.
Access : Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland : Nature
Thank you. I did not see that article cited in any of your previous posts. Interesting, however, how there is no mention of any pad or mammalian trait, despite your insistence. Any scientist who could place a mammal in the middle Devonian would be hailed as as great a scientist as Darwin, Einstein, and Hawking. It would be the next great paradigm shift.
But, conspicuously, despite the obvious acclaim and reward of such a discovery, there's not a single mention of any ursine tracks.
Just being tetrapod footprints is enough to bamboozle your verterbrae phylogeny so that it is as mesy as the rest.
Why, exactly? As I said before, we already knew tetrapods emerged 300-400 million years ago. We used that estimate to predict where such a fossil of such a transition should be found, we went digging, and, lo and behold, we found
Tiktaalik, a species that has every hallmark of an ancestral tetrapod recently emerged from the oceans. These tracks serve to push back the date of the first tetrapod by a few million years. This does absolutely nothing to established scientific knowledge on evolution, except to say that
Tiktaalik wasn't the first tetrapod - something that was quite probably anyway.
So, why, exactly, did the observation of tetrapod footprints in the time-scale where we should expect them "bamboozle [our] verterbrae [sic] phylogeny"?
Your opinion means less than a blank page as your whole refute is based on their being no actual research behind the article..and there is and.. You ought to know better.
My 'opinion' is a simple reiteration of the facts: there is nothing in any article or publication that you have cited that verifies your claim that the prints are ursine. I have made no subjective remark or interpretation. All I'm doing is simply pointing out that nothing you've cited supports your subjective opinion.
No the fossil of ambulocetus natans looks more like the skeleton of a crocodile and there is no need to make monsters and mythical intermediates. I am not talking about the misreprentations sketched, I am talking about the actual fossil evidence
Exactly. You took a look at
A. natans, thought it looked like a bit of a crocodile (what, are you an expert on the osteology of crocodillians now, are you?), and then proceeded to dismiss every expert opinion and analysis on the subject. You would be amazed what you can tell from a creature's skeleton - including whether or not it's a mammal.
A. natans? It's a mammal. For instance, crocodiles, like all quadrupedal reptiles, have their legs out to their sides, splayed.
A. natans, like all quadrupedal mammals, had its legs down beneath it. It is, in no way, a crocodile. It is more closely related you and me than it is to the crocodile. It superficially looks like a crocodile, and may well have occupied the same ecological niche as a crocodile - but it's not a crocodile.
Evolutionists have no idea how science works as they think non plausible scenarios is evidence with merit, as demonstrated
You go on thinking that. Meanwhile, actual scientists will continue to make working, practical breakthroughs using established scientific knowledge - including evolution. That medicine you took? A product of evolution. That plane you flew in? Built using evolutionary principles. That multi-resistant bacteria we knew in advance to fight? Foreknowledge using evolution.
Ahh yes...of course...Evolutionists should know what it feels like to be wrong. You hardly notice the recants anymore.
Err... you realise that that hypothesis was utterly unrelated to evolution, right? That
all of science experiences disproof? You do realise that the ability to disprove one's theories and discard them accordingly is the greatest strength of science, right?
I have evoked eye sight, comparisons to creatures alive today, the dating of your scientists, the research of your scientists in naming the creature a tetrapod and of course good old common sense, something that has no place in evolution. What is a fully terestrial tetrapod doing around just after the cambrian?
Doing exactly what we'd expect it to. There is nothing new about that finding. We already knew tetrapods existed during the Devonian, as evidenced by
Tiktaalik and comparative dearth and abundance of tetrapod fossils before and after, respectively.
Actually simply being a tetrapod footprint falsifies tiktaalik the famous first tetrapod is now just another flop. ..just like the coelacanth fraud.
Err... except
Tiktaalik doesn't
need to be the first tetrapod, nor was it ever touted as such - we always knew that the odds of finding the first tetrapod were astronomical. The key point about
Tiktaalik is that it
was a tetrapod with all the features we predicted it would have, found in exactly the right geological stratum we predicted we would find it in.
Tiktaalik has all the hallmarks of a transition from aquatic to terrestrial locomotion - the rudimentary reptilian features on top of a fundamentally aquatic form. Exactly as we predicted, using evolution. Whether or not it was the
first tetrapod is utterly irrelevant to its importance.
The fact that the footprint is also clearly looks like a paw is just icing on the cake.
In your opinion. An opinion shared by no one else.
Ahh but not one has spoken to what this creature is. As it is it turns over verterbrae phylogeny many simply wish to ignore it. What other creatures foot leaves such a padded footprint? At this time, 395mya, creatures should have just been crawling onto the land. There is certianly no sign of webbing or anything remotely related to being aquatic. Perhaps you would like to suggest this padded paw belongs to a lizard. Why not..?? You have apes with human feet. Evolution is just one big monster party!
Heavens, a lizard with pads on its feet!
Oh my word,
IT'S A BEAR!!!
You should listen to me because your researchers have not said a word about the obvious.
Bingo. All we have is
your opinion. It is
your own, personal opinion that the print is ursine, and any silence on the part of the actual researchers who've been there and studied it (instead of, y'know, peering at a single frame over the Internet), is because of some great conspiracy. Don't you think, if they were so frightened of evolution being overturned, that they'd simply not report the findings at all?
Regardless, it is a fully terrestrial creature..a kind...that appears soon after the cambrian creation period as attested by the fossil record.
Oh, you mean the Cambrian explision? A period that lasted
two million years?
