Tiktaalik ha ha

[dad]

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

Don't take imaginary time in evo claims as anything but fantasy. It is almost meaningless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't take imaginary time in evo claims as anything but fantasy. It is almost meaningless.

It isn't imaginary. It is supported by evidence.

 

[dad]

What we look for in fossils is the preservation of adaptations that occurred in the earlier stages of evolution.
.

How can you tell if something is an adaptation or a normal part of the creature?

 

[Loudmouth]

How can you tell if something is an adaptation or a normal part of the creature?

Adaptations are a normal part of a creature.

 

[dad]

It isn't imaginary. It is supported by evidence.

Not at all, evidence is colored by beliefs.

 

[dad]

Adaptations are a normal part of a creature.

Not in Eden. If there were a tiktaalik kind at creation, we could not call what it had adaptations. You can't know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all, evidence is colored by beliefs.

Then please tell me what ratios of isotopes a rock should have if it is 60 million years old using your uncolored beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not in Eden. If there were a tiktaalik kind at creation, we could not call what it had adaptations. You can't know.

Are you saying that created species would not be adapted to their environment?

 

[dad]

Then please tell me what ratios of isotopes a rock should have if it is 60 million years old using your uncolored beliefs.

Exactly the ones it does have. What, you thought certain materials should up and vanish when the nature changed?????

 

[dad]

Are you saying that created species would not be adapted to their environment?

How could they be adapted when they were made that day? How darn much evolving can a critter do in a few hours???

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly the ones it does have.

So you admit that the features found in rocks are exactly what they should be if they are millions of years old, correct?

If so, then the evidence supports a very old age.

 

[Loudmouth]

How could they be adapted when they were made that day?

So fish were not adapted to an aquatic environment? None of the features they had were created for them so that they could be in that environment? If I said that I adapted my car to float on water, would you understand that to mean that my car evolved?

How darn much evolving can a critter do in a few hours???

I said adaptation, not evolved feature.

 

[dad]

So you admit that the features found in rocks are exactly what they should be if they are millions of years old, correct?

Let's put it this way...not really. If they were older than creation itself they would look like they were not here! You seem to mean that the present state decay process works with the materials and isotopes that exist, and if we believed that this was all that ever was, then the imaginary years needed to produce certain stuff in this state would take on a sort of reality to the heavily indoctrinated and godless folks. To them, then, it would appear that way.

 

[dad]

So fish were not adapted to an aquatic environment?

No. They were created is a water environment. Any adapting would come after.

None of the features they had were created for them so that they could be in that environment?

Of course they were created to be where they were put. Adapting means changing after we exist!

I said adaptation, not evolved feature.

To do anything at all, like evolve or adapt, or swim, or be cute, or reproduce...etc etc..we need to be. How would you adapt before you were born?

 

[Split Rock]

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 are probably refering to this article in Nature (which I am sure you never read)
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki, Piotr Szrek, Katarzyna Narkiewicz, Marek Narkiewicz & Per E. Ahlberg
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland : Abstract : Nature

From the paper:
"The Zachemie trackways show that very large stem-group tetrapods, exceeding 2 m in length, lived in fully marine intertidal to lagoonal environments along the south coast of Laurussia during the early Eifelian, some 18 million years before the earliest-known tetrapod body fossils were deposited. This forces us to infer much longer ghost lineages for tetrapods and elpistostegids than the body fossil record suggests (Fig. 5a, b). (Ghost lineages are those that must have existed at a particular time, according to the phylogeny, but which are not represented by fossils at that time.) Until now, the replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in the body-fossil record during the mid–late Frasnian has appeared to reflect an evolutionary event, with the elpistostegids as a short-lived ‘transitional grade’ between fish and tetrapod morphotypes (Fig. 5a). In fact, tetrapods and elpistostegids coexisted for at least 10 million years (Fig. 5b). This implies that the elpistostegid morphology was not a brief transitional stage, but a stable adaptive position in its own right. It is reminiscent of the lengthy coexistence of non-volant but feathered and ‘winged’ theropod dinosaurs with volant stem-group birds during the Mesozoic."

Note that the paper refers to "stem-group tetrapods," not reptiles.

 

[CabVet]

You are probably refering to this article in Nature (which I am sure you never read)
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki, Piotr Szrek, Katarzyna Narkiewicz, Marek Narkiewicz & Per E. Ahlberg
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland : Abstract : Nature

From the paper:
"The Zachemie trackways show that very large stem-group tetrapods, exceeding 2 m in length, lived in fully marine intertidal to lagoonal environments along the south coast of Laurussia during the early Eifelian, some 18 million years before the earliest-known tetrapod body fossils were deposited. This forces us to infer much longer ghost lineages for tetrapods and elpistostegids than the body fossil record suggests (Fig. 5a, b). (Ghost lineages are those that must have existed at a particular time, according to the phylogeny, but which are not represented by fossils at that time.) Until now, the replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in the body-fossil record during the mid–late Frasnian has appeared to reflect an evolutionary event, with the elpistostegids as a short-lived ‘transitional grade’ between fish and tetrapod morphotypes (Fig. 5a). In fact, tetrapods and elpistostegids coexisted for at least 10 million years (Fig. 5b). This implies that the elpistostegid morphology was not a brief transitional stage, but a stable adaptive position in its own right. It is reminiscent of the lengthy coexistence of non-volant but feathered and ‘winged’ theropod dinosaurs with volant stem-group birds during the Mesozoic."

Note that the paper refers to "stem-group tetrapods," not reptiles.

The presence of tracks does not invalidate Tiktaalik, even tetrapod tracks. When tetrapods showed up, Tiktaalik didn't immediately disappear.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's put it this way...not really. If they were older than creation itself they would look like they were not here!

They are here, so they are not older than creation, and by your own admission all of the evidence is consistent with them being millions of years old. This means that the creation is millions and billions of years old.

You seem to mean that the present state decay process works with the materials and isotopes that exist, and if we believed that this was all that ever was, then the imaginary years needed to produce certain stuff in this state would take on a sort of reality to the heavily indoctrinated and godless folks. To them, then, it would appear that way.

They aren't imaginary. They are supported by the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. They were created is a water environment. Any adapting would come after.

Are you saying that all fish evolved gills after being created?

Of course they were created to be where they were put. Adapting means changing after we exist!

Designs are adapted all of the time.

To do anything at all, like evolve or adapt, or swim, or be cute, or reproduce...etc etc..we need to be. How would you adapt before you were born?

How do humans adapt designs?

 

[Split Rock]

The presence of tracks does not invalidate Tiktaalik, even tetrapod tracks. When tetrapods showed up, Tiktaalik didn't immediately disappear.

It is quite interesting that these tracks do predate all the known fishapods. Either fishapods continued for a while along side tetrapods, or perhaps legs evolved more than once. The known fishapods do have more than five digits... perhaps tetrapods evolved from a five digit ancestor earlier and these others evolved separately... then their line died out. Another interesting question is, if the fishapods were so successful, why did they die out?

 

[CabVet]

It is quite interesting that these tracks do predate all the known fishapods. Either fishapods continued for a while along side tetrapods, or perhaps legs evolved more than once. The known fishapods do have more than five digits... perhaps tetrapods evolved from a five digit ancestor earlier and these others evolved separately... then their line died out. Another interesting question is, if the fishapods were so successful, why did they die out?

My impression is that they continued to live after the first tetrapods (much like coelacanths are alive today). Everything eventually dies out… As the philosopher would say, the only constant is change.