Are there transitional fossils?

[pshun2404]

By definition a transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibit traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

Hence an ancestor, then the transitional, then the descendant...NOT the ancestor being the descendant...it is not logically possible (and you know it inside) whether or not you will admit it.

 

[pshun2404]

Tiaktaalik IS a transitional. Just because you keep saying it isn't, does not mean that you are right. Again: you making claims while not providing evidence does not mean you are right.

Why were their alleged descendants an ancestor?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why were their alleged descendants an ancestor?

You haven't shown that they are once.

 

[Astrophile]

Sure, we have a seeming uniformity, but it's conventionally marine animals are in lower strata and dinosaurs and birds (even right next to each other) etc in higher strata.

Whales and other marine mammals occur in Tertiary and Quaternary strata, above the last dinosaurs. Ammonites, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs were contemporary with dinosaurs. Charles Lyell arranged the Tertiary series (above the dinosaurs) in order of age by measuring the proportion of living species among their marine invertebrate fossils.

 

[Astrophile]

It doesn't matter. they still "out of order".

You are missing the point. The fact that the animal that made the Zachelmie footprints didn't evolve from Tiktaalik doesn't change the fact that it must have had Early Palaeozoic ancestors that were not tetrapods.

What evidence? there is no scientific evidence that a tetrapod can evolve from a fish.

The evidence is that the Lower or Middle Devonian tetrapod that made the Zachelmie footprints must have had a chain of ancestors extending back into Silurian time (remember that all life comes from life), that there are no known Silurian fossil tetrapods, and therefore that the Silurian ancestors of the Devonian tetrapods were not themselves tetrapods. The only Silurian vertebrates that we know of were fish (although they were very different from modern fish), therefore the most likely ancestors of Devonian tetrapods were Silurian fish.

 

[pshun2404]

You haven't shown that they are once.

For starters try Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Tetrapods preceding Tik by 18 million years...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For starters try Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Tetrapods preceding Tik by 18 million years...

Do you have anything more recent? A seven year old article is not really much of a silver bullet you think it is.

 

[pshun2404]

Do you have anything more recent? A seven year old article is not really much of a silver bullet you think it is.

Ah! 'Stacking the Deck' so that eventually the only articles and studies deemed acceptable will be very recent articles, by those who agree with your position, and only those who are published in Peer Reviewed Journals that hold your position...this is a legitimate article from a scientist who believes in transitional forms in a legitimate peer reviewed journal...to disregard the evidence it reveals would indicate a closed minded bias.

Just look at the evidence, accept it simply for what it is, and adjust your notion to fit the data. Land walking tetrapods existed before Tiltaalik therefore Tik is not the transitional that led to land walking tetrapods.

The last person I spoke with about this was insisting we throw out the evidence (or disregard it) because it is only an impression fossil (imagine that?) but when shown that most of the fossil record we rely on (which is about 1% of the possible creatures that lived) is largely impression fossils the argument was quickly avoided.

Usually people only complain of "OLDNESS" of research when it is older than the 2000s because of the genome but now limiting it to a few years ago..,well thats a new twist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah! 'Stacking the Deck' so that eventually the only articles and studies deemed acceptable will be very recent articles, by those who agree with your position, and only those who are published in Peer Reviewed Journals that hold your position...this is a legitimate article from a scientist who believes in transitional forms in a legitimate peer reviewed journal...to disregard the evidence it reveals would indicate a closed minded bias.

Just look at the evidence, accept it simply for what it is, and adjust your notion to fit the data. Land walking tetrapods existed before Tiltaalik therefore Tik is not the transitional that led to land walking tetrapods.

The last person I spoke with about this was insisting we throw out the evidence (or disregard it) because it is only an impression fossil (imagine that?) but when shown that most of the fossil record we rely on (which is about 1% of the possible creatures that lived) is largely impression fossils the argument was quickly avoided.

Usually people only complain of "OLDNESS" of research when it is older than the 2000s because of the genome but now limiting it to a few years ago..,well thats a new twist.

No, it's not 'stacking the deck', it's called "looking for anything recent". If this find was as big as you say it is, then there would be more finds of the same kind. It's really that bloody simple.
Don't try and overinflate this and your own ego at the same time.

 

[pshun2404]

People don't usually like the idea of stacking the deck because it is a form of cheating so I call it "Shrinking the Box". This is an often used propaganda technique, and it is happening in discussions with and among many Evolutionists (not all).

This happens among an in-Group/out-Group psychology is an attempt for one group to exercise power over or maintain power amidst the presence of another. In these discussions this usually is default strategy used when one appears to disagree with the status quo “accepted view” insisted upon by the power pedagogues in that group or field.

Suddenly views or interpretations of others MUST BE dismissed or re-explained though the rose colored glasses of the modern consensus view (which historically in science has proved to ever be replaced, modified, or expressed differently over time, even if that means re-defining previously commonly accepted terms).

Shrinking the box happens whereby one is consistently placing particular parameters onto the discussion by which one can slowly but surely (if the other falls for it) position the discussion so that the only opinions accepted are of those which support only the box shrinker’s view....

In discussions about controversies in Evolution it goes like this...

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones" (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 years unless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two).

But who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back much further insisting on alleged relevance.

Then next, any scientific insights except from specific fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting even smaller, one is told to only appeal to articles written in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications (even peer reviewed but from different or related fields), which in some cases might be fine, but...then they narrow it to only in peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who shrinks the box. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

This discussion/debate strategy is based in prejudice, and does not allow freedom of thought, honest doubt, or reasonable questions which may rock the proverbial boat. Alternative possibilities or varying explanations of the same evidence simply will not be allowed. In effect “shrinking the box” not only closes the mind which hinders intellectual integrity, but it manipulates the discussion and debate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People don't usually like the idea of stacking the deck because it is a form of cheating so I call it "Shrinking the Box". This is an often used propaganda technique, and it is happening in discussions with and among many Evolutionists (not all).

This happens among an in-Group/out-Group psychology is an attempt for one group to exercise power over or maintain power amidst the presence of another. In these discussions this usually is default strategy used when one appears to disagree with the status quo “accepted view” insisted upon by the power pedagogues in that group or field.

Suddenly views or interpretations of others MUST BE dismissed or re-explained though the rose colored glasses of the modern consensus view (which historically in science has proved to ever be replaced, modified, or expressed differently over time, even if that means re-defining previously commonly accepted terms).

Shrinking the box happens whereby one is consistently placing particular parameters onto the discussion by which one can slowly but surely (if the other falls for it) position the discussion so that the only opinions accepted are of those which support only the box shrinker’s view....

In discussions about controversies in Evolution it goes like this...

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones" (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 years unless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two).

But who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back much further insisting on alleged relevance.

Then next, any scientific insights except from specific fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting even smaller, one is told to only appeal to articles written in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications (even peer reviewed but from different or related fields), which in some cases might be fine, but...then they narrow it to only in peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who shrinks the box. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

This discussion/debate strategy is based in prejudice, and does not allow freedom of thought, honest doubt, or reasonable questions which may rock the proverbial boat. Alternative possibilities or varying explanations of the same evidence simply will not be allowed. In effect “shrinking the box” not only closes the mind which hinders intellectual integrity, but it manipulates the discussion and debate.

Okay, since you're obviously insulted by being asked for something more recent, I'll narrow it down: anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

 

[pshun2404]

No, it's not 'stacking the deck', it's called "looking for anything recent". If this find was as big as you say it is, then there would be more finds of the same kind. It's really that bloody simple.
Don't try and overinflate this and your own ego at the same time.

Yet what we were talking about is Tiktaalik, a single example from 13 years ago, and the conclusions people had made (2004 - 2005)...so by your logic the find and the opinions are old hat so disregard them. Fine nothing counts especially Darwin (200 years) and forget the Human Genome Project (2001) or Encode (2003)...can't you see how illogical and anti-progress this way of thinking is?

All these are important and contribute much and the evidence they have produced is all necessary to and open to objective consideration.

 

[pshun2404]

Okay, since you're obviously insulted by being asked for something more recent, I'll narrow it down: anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

Not insulted at all just shaking my head while I chuckle...

Can a descendant precede its own ancestor?

Come on...Yes or No...its easy....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet what we were talking about is Tiktaalik, a single example from 13 years ago, and the conclusions people had made (2004 - 2005)...so by your logic the find and the opinions are old hat so disregard them. Fine nothing counts especially Darwin (200 years) and forget the Human Genome Project (2001) or Encode (2003)...can't you see how illogical and anti-progress this way of thinking is?

All these are important and contribute much and the evidence they have produced is all necessary to and open to objective consideration.

We are talking about your claim that tetrapods have been found in sediment dated to be earlier than fishapods and tiktaalik. You gave me an article from seven years ago, all I am asking you for is if you having more recent. A lot can change in seven years.
I am asking you a simple yes or no question: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik? And try and stick to this topic instead of moving the goalpost.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not insulted at all just shaking my head while I chuckle...

Can a descendant precede its own ancestor?

Come on...Yes or No...its easy....

No, it can't, but what you gave does not definitely point to an actual tetrapod. All you gave were tracks, which aren't fully definitive proof.

Now I asked you a question: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now I asked you a question: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

Sorry ... I don't got nothing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry ... I don't got nothing.

Good because I didn't ask you.

 

[Astrophile]

No, it can't, but what you gave does not definitely point to an actual tetrapod. All you gave were tracks, which aren't fully definitive proof.

Now I asked you a question: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

If I may throw in my two pence, I have found a paper by Spencer G. Lucas, entitled 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', published in Ichnos, volume 22, issue 3-4 (2015) - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491?journalCode=gich20 . In the abstract the author says,

The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zachelmie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zachelmie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus).

I am certainly not competent to judge Lucas's work; I am merely putting this paper forward as a recent contribution by a professional scientist to this matter.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I may throw in my two pence, I have found a paper by Spencer G. Lucas, entitled 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', published in Ichnos, volume 22, issue 3-4 (2015) - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491?journalCode=gich20 . In the abstract the author says,


I am certainly not competent to judge Lucas's work; I am merely putting this paper forward as a recent contribution by a professional scientist to this matter.

I do think some attention does need to paid to the phrasing in the abstract. "Supposed tetrapod tracks" and "no convincing case". Although again, tracks without fossils don't really give that much of a case to build on, especially that far back in history.

 

[Astrophile]

I do think some attention does need to paid to the phrasing in the abstract. "Supposed tetrapod tracks" and "no convincing case". Although again, tracks without fossils don't really give that much of a case to build on, especially that far back in history.

I know that you were asking for recently published papers that support the claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the Tiktaalik, whereas Lucas's paper tends to refute the claim. Nonetheless, I thought that the paper was an interesting contribution.