Tiktaalik ha ha

[dad]

Sigh... I forgot who I was talking to.

You do understand that the larger than expected girdle, joint, and fins were useful before tetrapods moved out of the water, right? I mean it says it right there IN THE ARTICLE:

The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds, or scramble around on mudflats.

Not to mention that the hind limbs are only ONE of the several transitions that tiktaalik represents. Again from right there in the article.

Its extraordinary blend of gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy ribcage and crocodile-like head, placed Tiktaalik half way between fish and the earliest four-legged land animals.

If one of several items was not a transition at all, but already there, why call the rest that??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey why couldn't we buy proto Elvis records thousands of years before he lived? Same sort of principle.




A fossil that already had the stuff evos claimed took millions of years to get there. Chicken...meet egg. Cart, meet horse.

No, you are misunderstanding. And your level of misunderstanding is so deep it is impossible to know where to start. Perhaps we need to go all the way back to a basic logic class for you.

At best you have a strawman argument here. You are making claims that were not claimed and then trying to debunk those claims.

Yes, the development of fins to legs would have taken millions of years. All that has been shown is that Tiktaalik was further along in its development than fist thought. There is no problem. There would have been earlier fossils that were less developed in its leg areas, there are later fossils that are more developed.

This is simply a non-issue.

 

[dad]

Expectations are not the same as predictions. The theory of evolution makes no predictions as to the speed of evolution for each and every characteristic.

Oh? So all evolving could have started st Eden? Or is, in fact the theory totally constrained by the slow present processes we know?

The theory only predicts that we should find fossils with a mixture of fish and tetrapod features, and that is EXACTLY what Tiktaalik has.

Well, in a world that was changing, that says little, except that you believe the changes were slow, and had no rhyme or reason or starting place other than a pond.

This is another case of creationists saying evolution is false because there are no transitional fossils, and then trying to say that transitional fossils disprove evolution once they are found. It is rather pathetic.

We simply looked at your own claims and story here. It seems somewhat internally inconsistent, and ad hoc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one of several items was not a transition at all, but already there, why call the rest that??

What!? You are not making any sense. The whole creature is transitional.

Again, like many creationists you are trying to use the fact that you misunderstand what was happening as a weapon. That weapon can only be used against yourself dad, try again.

 

[dad]

No, you are misunderstanding. And your level of misunderstanding is so deep it is impossible to know where to start. Perhaps we need to go all the way back to a basic logic class for you.

At best you have a strawman argument here. You are making claims that were not claimed and then trying to debunk those claims.

What was expected according to evolutionary expectations and time frames apparently was that the pelvis took much time to grow. Funny thing is that it didn't at all! Ha.

Yes, the development of fins to legs would have taken millions of years. All that has been shown is that Tiktaalik was further along in its development than fist thought.

""It turns out that the size of the hind appendage was already large in fish and that a good chunk of the transition has already happened in fish before the origin of tetrapods,"

So you need it to have happened. Yet having it exist already in FISH was not expected. Why reinvent the evo wheel, and invent reasons?

There is no problem. There would have been earlier fossils that were less developed in its leg areas, there are later fossils that are more developed.

There would have been? So cough em up already.

 

[dad]

What!? You are not making any sense. The whole creature is transitional.

Easy to say. Now why did the fish have the pelvis that evos thought took millions of years to get big and develop? It knew it would transition one day millions of years later?

 

[Queller]

If one of several items was not a transition at all, but already there, why call the rest that??

Just because one part of a organism developed before (and possibly in earlier organisms) others doesn't mean ALL parts of that organism did the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

""It turns out that the size of the hind appendage was already large in fish and that a good chunk of the transition has already happened in fish before the origin of tetrapods,"

Why is this a problem?

 

[Queller]

Easy to say. Now why did the fish have the pelvis that evos thought took millions of years to get big and develop? It knew it would transition one day millions of years later?

No. Because it was useful at the time it developed.

 

[dad]

Just because one part of a organism developed before (and possibly in earlier organisms) others doesn't mean ALL parts of that organism did the same.

Any particular reason it 'developed'?

 

[Queller]

What was expected according to evolutionary expectations and time frames apparently was that the pelvis took much time to grow. Funny thing is that it didn't at all! Ha.

What makes you think it didn't a long time to develop?

 

[dad]

No. Because it was useful at the time it developed.

A created fish would find lots of things useful in a created world that was changing. That is nothing for your side!

 

[Queller]

Any particular reason it 'developed'?

Because a mutation, or combination of mutations, resulted in a pelvic girdle that was more useful than what was there before. This is pretty basic evolutionary theory here.

 

[dad]

Why is this a problem?

Why would a fish develop a big pelvis?? Why did they believe that it was small, and would 'develop' over millions of years as needed?

 

[Queller]

A created fish would find lots of things useful in a created world that was changing. That is nothing for your side!

Feel free to start a thread providing evidence that the fish (or anything else) was created ex nihilo.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh? So all evolving could have started st Eden? Or is, in fact the theory totally constrained by the slow present processes we know?

I am talking about relative speed. For example, bipedality evolved before large brain size in our ancestors. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires that one evolve before the other, or that they evolve at the same speed.

Well, in a world that was changing, that says little, except that you believe the changes were slow, and had no rhyme or reason or starting place other than a pond.

The evidence is what indicates long time periods, not belief.

We simply looked at your own claims and story here. It seems somewhat internally inconsistent, and ad hoc.

How is it inconsistent? A transitional fossil will have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Tiktaalik has a mixture of fish and tetrapod features. It is transitional. That is neither inconsistent nor ad hoc. Tiktaalik also fills in our understanding of the exact evolutionary history which happened to involve the evolution of a large pelvic girdle early in the transition.

What would be inconsistent is ignoring the fossil evidence and going with the original speculation made by Shubin.

 

[dad]

Because a mutation, or combination of mutations, resulted in a pelvic girdle that was more useful than what was there before.

Great. So how does a fish find a huge pelvis useful? More importantly, in what way would your belief be any more scientific or reasonable than a creationist view of the thing?? Prove it was random mutations?

 

[dad]

Feel free to start a thread providing evidence that the fish (or anything else) was created ex nihilo.

That is above the pay grade of mere man's science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would a fish develop a big pelvis??

Whether or not we can answer that question has nothing to do with the fact that a transitional fish did have a big pelvis.

You are acting as if the facts go away because we got the early speculations wrong. If Vegas predicts that New England will win by 7, does this mean that they are being inconsistent when they report that New England won by 10?

Why did they believe that it was small, and would 'develop' over millions of years as needed?

Ask Shubin.

 

[dad]

I am talking about relative speed. For example, bipedality evolved before large brain size in our ancestors.

Existed might be a better word than developed. To be more precise..existed in the partial fossil record!

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires that one evolve before the other, or that they evolve at the same speed.

So why expect that it took millions of years to develop? It would seem that common sense dictated to evos that a muscle or appendage would respond to a need and develop over time...rather than just magically be there because you need it to be all of a sudden!!!!!!!

The evidence is what indicates long time periods, not belief.

The pelvis required no such thing, it was there they now admit.

How is it inconsistent? A transitional fossil will have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Tiktaalik has a mixture of fish and tetrapod features. It is transitional.

Many kinds transitioned as needed. How would we know if this thing was created that way, or evolved to be able to live in areas where there was water and land? Just having the features to do both in NO way means it had to have evolved to get them. Now if you had 40 of these things, and we could see the pattern in different layers of such a transition...you may have something!

That is neither inconsistent nor ad hoc.

You seem to be trying to take credit for all things and changing your little theory as needed along the way. Some might think of that as at least 'ad hoccish'

Tiktaalik also fills in our understanding of the exact evolutionary history which happened to involve the evolution of a large pelvic girdle early in the transition.

Well, however it might fit your belief system, it also fits others! So?? Your belief system apparently can wave away millions of years of developing a small pelvis, to a big one at the drop of a hat as needed! Not impressive.

What would be inconsistent is ignoring the fossil evidence and going with the original speculation made by Shubin.

The issue is the claims that did not fit the evidence! What you think Shubin was an idiot?