Tiktaalik ha ha

[CabVet]

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

It was easier for me to address this point than for you to right the message above.

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]

Reptiles have intermediate morphology between amphibians and birds, yet all three are alive today.

Ok. Fair enough. So you basically require belief that things were not created.

'creatures may exist at the same time but we must believe that the amphibians evolved into birds'

 

[CabVet]

Ok. Fair enough. So you basically require belief that things were not created.

No, you are only required to accept reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

I am claiming that Tiktaalik has a mixture of fish and tetrapod features which makes it transitional. You keep pointing to a large tetrapod pelvis inside of a fish. How is that not transitional?

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

So you are claiming that modern tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish?

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

No, they couldn't. If you found a Tiktaalik fossil with feathers it would falsify evolution. The predicted set of features are very specific.

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.

Why do we only see mixtures of features consistent with evolution? Why would a creator be limited to only the transitionals that evolution would produce? Why do all of the fossils match the predictions made by the theory of evolution?

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.

You are ignoring the evidence, again.

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.

You are ignoring the evidence yet again.

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

The article does not say that it was already there in Tiktaalik's ancestors.

Vague. You have no fossil record, get over it.

You are ignoring evidence yet again.

It would need to be changing! Adapting.

Fossils are dead. They don't change or adapt.

You don't show that by sticking it in with a bunch of guppy fossils or whatever and expecting guilt by association!

Then what features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between fish and tetrapods?

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!

Why would God be required to create species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy? Evolution explains it. Creationism does not.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. Fair enough. So you basically require belief that things were not created.

We simply require you to honestly deal with the evidence instead of ignoring it.

 

[dad]

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.

One can find a lot of things in shallow water actually. It doesn't make the water deeper.

The concept of a tree of life is a robust fable.


"The notion that all of life is genetically connected via a vast phylogenetic tree is one of the most romantic notions to come out of science. How wonderful to think of the common ancestor of humans and beetles. This organism most likely was some kind of a worm. At some point this ancestral worm species divided into two separate worm species, which then divided again and again, each division (or speciation) resulting in new, independently evolving lineages. Little did these worms know, those hundreds of million years ago, that some of their number would end up evolving into beetles, while their brothers and sisters would end up as humans or giraffes."

Tree of Life: What is Phylogeny

And this relates back to the thread about creationist inconsistency in using morphology to assess relatedness.

You should talk!!!!!!!!?

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?

Lots of things can be acceptable within reason. However if we take some things too far, we get messed up.

 

[Loudmouth]

One can find a lot of things in shallow water actually. It doesn't make the water deeper.

The concept of a tree of life is a robust fable.

You are ignoring the evidence yet again.

 

[dad]

You are ignoring the evidence yet again.

Preaching about worms to giraffes is not evidence actually. One would need to show the basis at each branch of the tree.

 

[dad]

No, you are only required to accept reality.

A reality of creation would be more than one creature. To claim one came from another instead, would require more than saying the word reality, as if it were on your side.

 

[Loudmouth]

Preaching about worms to giraffes is not evidence actually. One would need to show the basis at each branch of the tree.

The basis is synapomorphies.

"clades are identified (or defined) by synapomorphies (from syn-, "together"). For example, the possession of digits that are homologous with those of Homo sapiens is a synapomorphy within the vertebrates. The tetrapods can be singled out as consisting of the first vertebrate with such digits homologous to those of Homo sapiens together with all descendants of this vertebrate (an apomorphy-based phylogenetic definition).[24]"

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of evolution predicts that if you organize life based on shared and derived characteristics that it will produce a single tree that is statistically objective.

"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

That is exactly what we see. We see the phylogenetic signal in cladistics that the theory of evolution says we should see.

 

[CabVet]

A reality of creation would be more than one creature. To claim one came from another instead, would require more than saying the word reality, as if it were on your side.

Reality, by definition, is based on real things. There is no evidence that the account of creation in Genesis is real. What I say, on the other hand, is based on real things. If I am wrong, at least I am basing my conclusions on reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

A reality of creation would be more than one creature. To claim one came from another instead, would require more than saying the word reality, as if it were on your side.

Again, we are pointing to the mixture of characteristics which is a fact, not a claim. These facts are used to test the theory of evolution, and those predictions continue to be accurate with each new fossil species.

 

[freezerman2000]

I found the entire story..not a piece like the OP..maybe dad should read the ENTIRE article?
Fossil reveals transitional link from fins to feet - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8546-7cb9-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_graphic.html

 

[CabVet]

maybe dad should read the ENTIRE article?

Oh, not gonna happen. And in case he is wrong (which he is), he will never admit it.

 

[freezerman2000]

Oh, not gonna happen. And in case he is wrong (which he is), he will never admit it.

I guess you're right.
It was worth a try anyway!

 

[dad]

Reality, by definition, is based on real things. There is no evidence that the account of creation in Genesis is real.

Jesus confirmed it. Science is in no position to declare otherwise. What is real is not limited to what is in your fridge or town.

What I say, on the other hand, is based on real things. If I am wrong, at least I am basing my conclusions on reality.

What you say? What, we should hire a tea reader to find out? What are you saying exactly??

 

[dad]

I found the entire story..not a piece like the OP..maybe dad should read the ENTIRE article?
Fossil reveals transitional link from fins to feet - The Washington Post
A link between fish and four-legged animals - The Washington Post

yeah yeah...it only gets worse for you the more they speak!!!

"
The exact reasons why the move to land happened remains a mystery, but the environment of the time provides some clues. Tiktaalik and other transitional species lived in the Late Devonian period about 395 million to 362 million years ago.
“You can’t separate the evolutionary history of life from the conditions of the world at the time,” said Daeschler, a Late Devonian expert. A few million years earlier, plants had started growing on dry ground — as opposed to only in the water — and land-based ecosystems slowly began to form.
Before that, he explained, land was barren sand and mud, and provided no incentive for vertebrates to pop out of the water."

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

Sigh. This is where I explain to you the difference between a transitional fossil and a direct ancestor. Being a transitional fossil means having a mosaic of features from different major groups of organism. A direct ancestor is obviously part of the direct line leading to any given organism. A transitional fossil can be an ancestor but need not necessarily be one. Given the spottiness of the fossil record, scientist very rarely declare something to be a direct ancestor (if you read the original description of Tiktaalik you will find no such claim), rather the transitional fossil is considered to be representative of a particular stage of evolution. Tiktaalik possesses a mosaic of fish and tetrapod features and is therefore a transitional fossil despite not being a direct ancestor.

Also I'm pretty certain, having read the paper in question, that the Polish trackways are not proposed to be reptilian in origin. Feel free to quote the part you think says this.

 

[Loudmouth]

yeah yeah...it only gets worse for you the more they speak!!!

"
The exact reasons why the move to land happened remains a mystery, but the environment of the time provides some clues. Tiktaalik and other transitional species lived in the Late Devonian period about 395 million to 362 million years ago.
“You can’t separate the evolutionary history of life from the conditions of the world at the time,” said Daeschler, a Late Devonian expert. A few million years earlier, plants had started growing on dry ground — as opposed to only in the water — and land-based ecosystems slowly began to form.
Before that, he explained, land was barren sand and mud, and provided no incentive for vertebrates to pop out of the water."

A few million years? I thought you said it happened quickly?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Transitional does not mean ancestral. Those are two different things. What we look for in fossils is the preservation of adaptations that occurred in the earlier stages of evolution.

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

Having a gait similar to reptilians does not require a reptile.