Tiktaalik ha ha

[freezerman2000]

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."

Hey Cab..you were right! It WAS a waste of my precious time and effort!

 

[dad]

So you are claiming that the designs of a Mustang and a F150 didn't evolve from the Model T?

Here's a hint, in this example, who did the designing is not the point.

NO MODEL T EVER DESIGNED ANYTHING MORE THAN A ROCK DID ACTUALLY.

 

[dad]

What part are you having difficulty understanding? The trilobite having ancestors, descendants, or both?

It is not I that grapple with the obvious here. The first trilobites were not adapted. Chew on that.

 

[dad]

You are the one claiming that they only developed adaptations after they were created. Gills are adaptations.

No. Why claim that? If fish were created with gills, forget the adaptation business.

Here is a page discussing houses that were adapted by humans for areas under threat from hurricanes.

By humans. Get it? The houses no more adapted than rocks did by themselves.

 

[dad]

Let's look at your "model". Since death had to come after the fall according to you then all animals were able to die.

Says who? They were after the fall, like man was. Before that, for man, and possibly many animals, who knows!?

Yet we do not find any mammals mixed in with the trilobites.

Yes we do, man also. Just not in the record of stuff that could fossilize. Only stuff that could fossilize would be in there.

You have no excuse why fishes, which were according to your model in existence at the same time as the trilobite, are never found with trilobites.

Of course I do. The same deal with plants like grass and mankind...etc. In the former state, we would not have the pollen method of plant reproduction like we had later I assume. That is why we find no grass evidence early on.

Most creatures, such as most fish also could not fossilize. Therefore we would not expect to see them in the record. Of course they were there.

Easy peasy. Got any tough ones?

 

[biggles53]

You know, I think dad provides a valuable service for the 'waverers' ...those folk who are asking questions about the science-faith divide and can't quite work out where they stand...

It's a little bit like a similar service that Westboro Baptists provide.....

 

[dad]

I did supply evidence for a same state past.

None whatsoever actually. Not one tiny speck. Peddle your religion elsewhere.

 

[dad]

Do you understand that trilobites and fish are just one of countless possible examples? The point is that there is no explanation using your model for why certain animals only show up in the record at certain times and why many of them don't ever overlap.

There is in mine though. The former state did not allow most creatures to fossilize. The record is ridiculously partial!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says who? They were after the fall, like man was. Before that, for man, and possibly many animals, who knows!?




Yes we do, man also. Just not in the record of stuff that could fossilize. Only stuff that could fossilize would be in there.

Of course I do. The same deal with plants like grass and mankind...etc. In the former state, we would not have the pollen method of plant reproduction like we had later I assume. That is why we find no grass evidence early on.

Most creatures, such as most fish also could not fossilize. Therefore we would not expect to see them in the record. Of course they were there.

Easy peasy. Got any tough ones?

You failed dad.

The challenge was to find fish and trilobites mixed or an explanation for that lack. Your explanation fails. Fish fossilize regularly. We have millions of fish fossils. We have millions of trilobite fossils. We don't have fish and trilobite fossils together.

Why not?

And don't forget the evidence, dad. Without evidence you lose.

 

[dad]

You know, I think dad provides a valuable service for the 'waverers' ...those folk who are asking questions about the science-faith divide and can't quite work out where they stand...

I am all for people reaching a decision. Chose ye this day who you will serve. If God be God then serve Him. If science be god, then serve it. You cannot serve 2 masters.

 

[dad]

The challenge was to find fish and trilobites mixed or an explanation for that lack. Your explanation fails. Fish fossilize regularly.

Irrelevant. Animals also fossilize regularly. The issue is what fossilized in the far past, not what fossilizes now.

We have millions of fish fossils. We have millions of trilobite fossils. We don't have fish and trilobite fossils together.

Why would we if trilobites died out in the former state? It all agrees perfectly. Win/win. No better explanation exists, does it?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

There is in mine though. The former state did not allow most creatures to fossilize. The record is ridiculously partial!!!

Hey, what a surprise. Dad fails at discrediting Tiktaalik and reverts to his favourite subject: the completely unsupported and conveniently undefined different-state past where absolutely any discrepancy or physical impossibility can be imagined away with a wave of the hand. I understand that it's much easier to just make up a magical state where anything can be any way that supports your beliefs, but that doesn't mean it isn't nonsense. You should know by now that I'm not going to give your fantasy the dignity of discussion. Off you go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant. Animals also fossilize regularly. The issue is what fossilized in the far past, not what fossilizes now.

Nope, extremely relevant. You don't have an answer. Once again you are defeatded.

Why would we if trilobites died out in the former state? It all agrees perfectly. Win/win. No better explanation exists, does it?

Nope, you can't keep making this weak excuse. Even if that was the case something would have to have caused them to die. Why did not one fish die at the same time?

Once again dad is defeated. Mostly by himself, but I helped!

 

[EternalDragon]

You failed dad.

The challenge was to find fish and trilobites mixed or an explanation for that lack. Your explanation fails. Fish fossilize regularly. We have millions of fish fossils. We have millions of trilobite fossils. We don't have fish and trilobite fossils together.

Why not?

And don't forget the evidence, dad. Without evidence you lose.

Um, hello? Yes we do have fish and Trilobites together in the Devonian.
Pictures even.

"Sea levels in the Devonian were generally high. Marine faunas continued to be dominated by bryozoa, diverse and abundant brachiopods, the enigmatic hederelloids, microconchids and corals. Lily-like crinoids (animals, their resemblance to flowers notwithstanding) were abundant, and trilobites were still fairly common. Among vertebrates, jaw-less armored fish (ostracoderms) declined in diversity, while the jawed fish (gnathostomes) simultaneously increased in both the sea and fresh water."

Devonian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dad]

Hey, what a surprise. Dad fails at discrediting Tiktaalik and reverts to his favourite subject:

Why would I need to 'discredit' a silly dead fish???? Tiktaalik is just an excuse to revel in the fails of so called science claims, and mock the fable or godless evolution. Naturally, when the fossil record comes up, or other abused and misused bits of evidence, proper and true light must be shone on the issues.

I understand that it's much easier to just make up a magical state where anything can be any way that supports your beliefs, but that doesn't mean it isn't nonsense. You should know by now that I'm not going to give your fantasy the dignity of discussion. Off you go.

Hold your breath till you turn blue if you like also. I won't make the Good Man's record go away.

 

[dad]

Um, hello? Yes we do have fish and Trilobites together in the Devonian.
Pictures even.

"Sea levels in the Devonian were generally high. Marine faunas continued to be dominated by bryozoa, diverse and abundant brachiopods, the enigmatic hederelloids, microconchids and corals. Lily-like crinoids (animals, their resemblance to flowers notwithstanding) were abundant, and trilobites were still fairly common. Among vertebrates, jaw-less armored fish (ostracoderms) declined in diversity, while the jawed fish (gnathostomes) simultaneously increased in both the sea and fresh water."

Devonian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you think creation was in the Devonian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, hello? Yes we do have fish and Trilobites together in the Devonian.
Pictures even.

"Sea levels in the Devonian were generally high. Marine faunas continued to be dominated by bryozoa, diverse and abundant brachiopods, the enigmatic hederelloids, microconchids and corals. Lily-like crinoids (animals, their resemblance to flowers notwithstanding) were abundant, and trilobites were still fairly common. Among vertebrates, jaw-less armored fish (ostracoderms) declined in diversity, while the jawed fish (gnathostomes) simultaneously increased in both the sea and fresh water."

Devonian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You pulled dad's bacon out of the fire and he did not thank you.

Of course with a slight shift of the goal post my claim still stands. Many species of trilobites went extinct before fishes appeared. Not all of them did. Now in dad's world all of them appeared at the same time so we should still find fish mixed in with the Cambrian trilobites. His claim still fails.

 

[dad]

Nope, extremely relevant.

Not to one who does not blindly believe in your claimed past nature. You are in no poistion to preach to us about how things decomposed or not in the unknown past.

Even if that was the case something would have to have caused them to die. Why did not one fish die at the same time?

Who cares what caused trilobites to die? Either they did or they are here now. I go with facts and evidence and reality. Dinos died too. Lots of stuff died, new stuff evolved...and round and round goes the world.

Once again dad is defeated. Mostly by himself, but I helped!

Sad. You do seem to crave to win. You must come over to the winning side first. Only here will you finally taste what you always missed.

 

[dad]

in dad's world all of them appeared at the same time so we should still find fish mixed in with the Cambrian trilobites..

Try to get this. I don't have unlimited patience. If fish could not fossilize, but trilobites could, then we would not see fish fossilized early on in the fossil record. It seems simple to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try to get this. I don't have unlimited patience. If fish could not fossilize, but trilobites could, then we would not see fish fossilized early on in the fossil record. It seems simple to me.

Fish can fossilize. We have all sorts of fish fossils.

You failed dad.