Tiktaalik ha ha

[dad]

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

Right, and you thought it was small!!!

You are acting as if the facts go away because we got the early speculations wrong.

You need a welding torch to constantly weld evidence to fit your theory!

Ask Shubin.

Man, you guys are quick to turn on each other and insinuate the other evo is dumb when you need caught with your pants down!

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Funny how you try to run away from the fossil evidence.

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!!!!!!!

Where did you show that it wasn't needed in Tiktaalik's ancestors?

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

It is the FISH that is transitional. Now admit it.

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?

Evolution produces a nested hierarchy. There is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy from a process of intelligent design and separate creations. That is the test. The nested hierarchy evidences evolution.

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!

We have hundreds of thousands of fossils that all fit the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

Well, however it might fit your belief system, it also fits others!

It fits what we would expect from the observed process of evolution. The only belief system here is the one that requires a god and magical creative power that no one has ever observed.

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.

Where was that waved away? There were millions of years between Pandericthys and Tiktaalik.

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

Then guess what we did? We threw out the claims and went with the evidence. You should try it sometime.

 

[Queller]

Great. So how does a fish find a huge pelvis useful?

Already answered in the article and one of my earlier posts.

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

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?

We have evidence that mutations can increase fitness. We have no evidence for your different state past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, and you thought it was small!!!

Yes, and they were wrong. Are you really criticizing science for throwing out claims that were not supported by the evidence?

You need a welding torch to constantly weld evidence to fit your theory!

What is wrong with this evidence? Why can't the evolution of Tiktaalik involve the evolution of a large pelvis before the development of other tetrapod features? Why is a tetrapod pelvis in a fish body a problem for evolution, given that we would expect to find fossils with a mixture of these features if evolution were true?

Man, you guys are quick to turn on each other and insinuate the other evo is dumb when you need caught with your pants down!

I think Shubin would gladly admit that his speculation turned out to be wrong. No one is claiming to be infallible.

 

[Queller]

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.

Thank you for once again giving evidence that you don't understand what the theory of evolution actually is.

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

How do you know it didn't require millions of years to develop?

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?

Because there is no evidence of creation ex nihilo.

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!

This IS what we have for many animals besides just tetrapods.

 

[Split Rock]

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'

Yes, we change our theories as new evidence is gathered. This is why we do not get derailed permenently like creationists do.

As far as "ad hockery" is concerned, look no further than your own unbiblical Split/Merge dadology. Light can be faster or slower in the past. Water can be different in the past. Plants can grow faster in the past. No evidence for any of it, and you change it at will.

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.

No. As has been explained in this thread already, that part of the transition simply occurred earlier in time. Tiktaalik afterall is not the only fishapod transitional, it is one of many.

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

Shubin's hypothesis concerning the pelvis/rear legs was falsified with new evidence. He is no idiot, he is mearly fallible, like the rest of us. Your problem, dad, is that you think you are not fallible, which is why you insist upon labeling yourself "Undefeated."

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So the pelvis was already here. No millions of years involved.

I notice several people have said this and you have yet to offer a response, but please explain how finding a robust pelvic girdle sooner than expected proves that it didn't evolve over millions of years. And I can't believe you are really asking that obtuse "How did they know they would need such and such a structure" question.

Also I notice you've ignored the part where the article points out that

the girdles still show several fish-like characteristics. The Tiktaalik pelvis is a mix of fish and tetrapod characteristics

So despite the fact that the pelvic girdle is more developed than predicted, it still contains a mixture of fish and tetrapod features. Can you say transitional?

 

[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.

Come on now, you are what iffing something fierce.

 

[dad]

Funny how you try to run away from the fossil evidence.

The evidence of already developed knickknacks on fish are nothing I would want to run from. In fact I ran right at the little pecker and scared it away!

Where did you show that it wasn't needed in Tiktaalik's ancestors?

Unless you prove it was simply admit not knowing. Besides, ancestor fits a creation view also. We jut erase the imaginary time involved, and the imaginary first ancestor.

It is the FISH that is transitional. Now admit it.

Well, show us 40 or fify of the same fish fossils, each with a progressive distinct difference?? We should be sure you are not just making stuff up here.

Evolution produces a nested hierarchy. There is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy from a process of intelligent design and separate creations. That is the test. The nested hierarchy evidences evolution.

Meaningless blab. Show how the tikaalik nesting.

We have hundreds of thousands of fossils that all fit the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

You have a partial puzzle where you arrange the pieces to fit your belief system, at ridiculous cost to reason and truth.

It fits what we would expect from the observed process of evolution.

This week? The darn thing is last week apparently they expected millions of imaginary years happened in which the little pelvis developed into the big one! You have 'convenient' expectations! If things are totally different you still claim you expected it!

The only belief system here is the one that requires a god and magical creative power that no one has ever observed.

Speaking of observed, let's stick to what you can observe.

Where was that waved away? There were millions of years between Pandericthys and Tiktaalik.

"...had expected the hind fins and pelvis to be small in animals like Tiktaalik, with rear limbs becoming stronger and more prominent only as animals adapted to life on land."

That adapting took millions of years, inside your theory. Yet it never happened at all, because the strong pelvis was already there to start with!!

Then guess what we did? We threw out the claims and went with the evidence. You should try it sometime.

Been there done that. Evolution thrown out, creation with fast evolving now gone with.

 

[dad]

Already answered in the article and one of my earlier posts.

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

Right, and we could say the same for whales in the sea of Eden! ..Or almost any other creature with limbs or remains of them. In other words, it was made that way.

We have evidence that mutations can increase fitness.

Irrelevant. Let's see evidence there WERE ANY mutations for starters back in the day of tikaalik? Hunch?

We have no evidence for your different state past.

Great so stop talking about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence of already developed knickknacks on fish are nothing I would want to run from. In fact I ran right at the little pecker and scared it away!

Now you are pretending that the fossils don't even exist.

Unless you prove it was simply admit not knowing. Besides, ancestor fits a creation view also. We jut erase the imaginary time involved, and the imaginary first ancestor.

And now you are acting as if transitional fossils are not evidence for evolution.

Well, show us 40 or fify of the same fish fossils, each with a progressive distinct difference?? We should be sure you are not just making stuff up here.

What will 40 show that 1 does not?

Meaningless blab. Show how the tikaalik nesting.

You have a partial puzzle where you arrange the pieces to fit your belief system, at ridiculous cost to reason and truth.

Cladistics is not a belief system.

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This week? The darn thing is last week apparently they expected millions of imaginary years happened in which the little pelvis developed into the big one! You have 'convenient' expectations! If things are totally different you still claim you expected it!

The rate of isotope decay, ratios of isotopes in rocks, and inclusion/exclusion of these isotopes in rocks is not imaginary.

Speaking of observed, let's stick to what you can observe.

You first. Let's start with radioactive decay.

"...had expected the hind fins and pelvis to be small in animals like Tiktaalik, with rear limbs becoming stronger and more prominent only as animals adapted to life on land."

That adapting took millions of years, inside your theory. Yet it never happened at all, because the strong pelvis was already there to start with!!

Where did you demonstrate that it never happened?

Been there done that. Evolution thrown out, creation with fast evolving now gone with.

Please show us the rate at which this pelvis supposedly evolved, with references.

 

[dad]

Yes, and they were wrong. Are you really criticizing science for throwing out claims that were not supported by the evidence?

No, they have to do that when busted! I criticize the robust fables that were different from what the evidence shows to begin with!

What is wrong with this evidence?

If I had claimed millions of years were involved to develop something, and lo and behold that something actually was already there, I might find something wrong. As it is I am fine, thank you very much!!

Why can't the evolution of Tiktaalik involve the evolution of a large pelvis before the development of other tetrapod features?

Why didn't you thin of that before claiming the other?? You are just making anything fir your predictions...even the opposite.

Why is a tetrapod pelvis in a fish body a problem for evolution, given that we would expect to find fossils with a mixture of these features if evolution were true?

We would also expect to find critters adapted to watery landscapes from creation, or even created to be able to interconnect! Yeah creation. Boo evolution.

I think Shubin would gladly admit that his speculation turned out to be wrong. No one is claiming to be infallible.

Not like he would have a choice! How generous.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, they have to do that when busted! I criticize the robust fables that were different from what the evidence shows to begin with!

What is busted? Tiktaalik is transitional.

If I had claimed millions of years were involved to develop something, and lo and behold that something actually was already there, I might find something wrong. As it is I am fine, thank you very much!!

What evidence do you have as it pertains to the length of time it took?

We would also expect to find critters adapted to watery landscapes from creation, or even created to be able to interconnect! Yeah creation. Boo evolution.

You still have not explained the nested hierarchy. Boo creationism.

 

[dad]

Now you are pretending that the fossils don't even exist.

No. I asked you to show the tikaalik fossils that show gradual changes! Instead you splatter a bunch of other fish fossils in a picture as if that helps you!

And now you are acting as if transitional fossils are not evidence for evolution.

You calling something transitional does not make it so. If something truly was transitioning, ten let's see the creature change...not a bunch of sort of similar in some way other creatures!! Sleight of hand is not transition.

What will 40 show that 1 does not?

Maybe that the pelvis grew more and more over time?

Cladistics is not a belief system.

Yes. It sure as hell is.

The rate of isotope decay, ratios of isotopes in rocks, and inclusion/exclusion of these isotopes in rocks is not imaginary.

You have noo clue about rate of istopic decay in the past! Fess up.
Ratios of isotopes in rocks are something that needs interpreting, not just blind belief in a present state origin!!

Where did you demonstrate that it never happened?

That the pelvis took millions of years to develop? Well, if it was already there, how does that work!?

Please show us the rate at which this pelvis supposedly evolved, with references.

Why claim it evolved?? I would need proof. Have you not so much as learned to tone down and cease and desist your robust fable telling??

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I asked you to show the tikaalik fossils that show gradual changes! Instead you splatter a bunch of other fish fossils in a picture as if that helps you!

Why would a single species show gradual change that requires a lineage of many different species?

What Tiktaalik has is a mixture of features from earlier fish and later tetrapods like Acanthostega. That is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts we should see, and we do. Creationism makes no such prediction since a creator could have mixed features between fish and birds, or fish and octopi. Boo creationism. Yeah evolution.

You calling something transitional does not make it so.

Having a mixture of characteristics from earlier fish and later tetrapods does make it transitional, and your flat denial does not change that fact.

If something truly was transitioning, ten let's see the creature change...

Fossils are dead. They can't change.

You have noo clue about rate of istopic decay in the past!

Yes, we do.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

Ratios of isotopes in rocks are something that needs interpreting, not just blind belief in a present state origin!!

The past rates of decay are evidenced. It is not blind belief.

That the pelvis took millions of years to develop? Well, if it was already there, how does that work!?

Where did you show that it was already there in previous generations?

Why claim it evolved?? I would need proof. Have you not so much as learned to tone down and cease and desist your robust fable telling??

We claim it evolved because that is what the fossil evidence indicates.

Creationist: Evolution is a belief system because there are no transitional fossils for fish becoming tetrapods.

Evolutionist: What would this transitional need to be?

Creationist: It would need to be part fish and part tetrapod.

Evolutionist: There are a whole list of fossil species that have tetrapod features not seen in lobe finned fish, and fish features not found in modern tetrapods. They are part fish and part tetrapod.

Creationist: That doesn't count.

Does that about cover it?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You calling something transitional does not make it so. If something truly was transitioning, ten let's see the creature change...not a bunch of sort of similar in some way other creatures!! Sleight of hand is not transition.

The hierarchy with which you have been presented is based on in-depth morphological analysis. For example, the original description of Tiktaalik contains a phylogeny like the one that has been posted here that is based on 114 morphological characteristics (I can post them if you like). So the hierarchy is demonstrably not the result of the superficial assessment you imply with the above quote.

And this relates back to the thread about creationist inconsistency in using morphology to assess relatedness.Morphology is viewed as perfectly acceptable for inferring relatedness within "kinds" but is viewed as invalid when used exactly the same way to infer relatedness on a larger scale. No creationist has yet managed to justify this methodological inconsistency. Would you like to try?

 

[lost999]

What evolutionists continually have to ignore is the fact that organisms walked on land long before the oldest Tiktaalik fossil meaning it cannot be claimed as a transition to land organisms since they existed before the oldest Tiktaalik fossil. This was demonstrated by footprints in Poland being dated older than Tiktaalik.

Also the footprints found were of a reptilian gait meaning it wasn't amphibians it was the next proposed transition by evolutionists.

This means ALL the "fish to land" transitions are out of place in terms of their timing.

 

[dad]

Why would a single species show gradual change that requires a lineage of many different species?

Well, you seem to be claiming tikaalik did not evolve now?

What Tiktaalik has is a mixture of features from earlier fish and later tetrapods like Acanthostega. That is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts we should see, and we do. Creationism makes no such prediction since a creator could have mixed features between fish and birds, or fish and octopi. Boo creationism. Yeah evolution.

False. Creationism embraces changes in earth and creatures that were all created.

Predicting some 'mixture' of features is vague and one could simply claim credit for any features almost that way.

Having a mixture of characteristics from earlier fish and later tetrapods does make it transitional, and your flat denial does not change that fact.

No. One doesn't know if God created creatures with some shared features! Now if we knew He never did, why, we could say that perhaps a tikaalik was a creature in the process of adapting.

Fossils are dead. They can't change.

No wonder evos associate with them.

Yes, we do.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates



The past rates of decay are evidenced. It is not blind belief.

Not even close actually. No ones says decay existed, let alone changed rates. That needs support if you claim it! Oklo requires a series of miracles such as dunking the site miles under ground at the right time, and resurfacing it at the right time. You have no proof at all.

Supernovae must be at the right distance for the size and decay curves to be known. Unless time is the same, you have no distance therefore no size and no possible clue how long whatever we think we saw decay actually took to do it!!! Lose lose lose.


Get off the evo PRATT lists!

Where did you show that it was already there in previous generations?

The article claimed it was already there, no? Don't blame me.

We claim it evolved because that is what the fossil evidence indicates.

Vague. You have no fossil record, get over it. You have a partial record of creatures that could fossilize back then. Utterly insufficient for any intelligent deductions of life in general!

Creationist: Evolution is a belief system because there are no transitional fossils for fish becoming tetrapods.

Evolutionist: What would this transitional need to be?

It would need to be changing! Adapting. You don't show that by sticking it in with a bunch of guppy fossils or whatever and expecting guilt by association!

Evolutionist: There are a whole list of fossil species that have tetrapod features not seen in lobe finned fish, and fish features not found in modern tetrapods. They are part fish and part tetrapod.

Irrelevant! The earth changed a lot and a lot of adapting was needed. God also created a lot of critters with all sorts of stuff in them. You would need an ability to know the difference which you clearly lack!

 

[CabVet]

What evolutionists continually have to ignore is the fact that organisms walked on land long before the oldest Tiktaalik fossil meaning it cannot be claimed as a transition to land organisms since they existed before the oldest Tiktaalik fossil. This was demonstrated by footprints in Poland being dated older than Tiktaalik.

Also the footprints found were of a reptilian gait meaning it wasn't amphibians it was the next proposed transition by evolutionists.

This means ALL the "fish to land" transitions are out of place in terms of their timing.

You don't know much about evolution, do you? The presence of reptiles at the same time as Tiktaalik was around does not invalidate the fact that Tiktaliik is a transitional fossil. There are mammals today, there are also fish today, and there are also lungfish alive today. Reptiles have intermediate morphology between amphibians and birds, yet all three are alive today.

As I keep telling all creationists in this forum, try to learn something about evolution before you criticize it.

 

[dad]

What evolutionists continually have to ignore is the fact that organisms walked on land long before the oldest Tiktaalik fossil meaning it cannot be claimed as a transition to land organisms since they existed before the oldest Tiktaalik fossil. This was demonstrated by footprints in Poland being dated older than Tiktaalik.

Also the footprints found were of a reptilian gait meaning it wasn't amphibians it was the next proposed transition by evolutionists.

This means ALL the "fish to land" transitions are out of place in terms of their timing.

OK, evos, let's see you address this point.