Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Job 33:6]

You didn't address my question. I didn't mention erosion. Let's try again . . .

-----------
Take a careful look at some of the rock layers of the Grand Canyon, each millions of years thick (or, tens of millions), according to the evolution model:

1. Tapeats Sandstone
2. Shale
3. Muav Limestone
4. Redwall Limestone
5. Supai Group (sandstone, siltstone, etc.)
6. Hermit Formation (siltstone, mudstone, etc.)
7. Coconino Sandstone

Think about it? All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?

That is beyond illogical. Rapid layering by a world-wide flood is the only reasonable explanation for that layering, and for those fossils, many of which under the best of initial conditions would require rapid covering in deep sediment to prevent bio-destruction.
-----------

I would like to add that in every case, the fossilized animals appeared abruptly, fully-formed, and without a trace of a transitional ancestor. There is also the presence of polystrates -- some pointing upward through multiple coal seams.

Everything points to a catastrophic global flood.

Dan

Let's examine your statement more closely. Based on the image below, what collection of fossils of the kaibab limestone do you feel are inappropriately placed?

 

[Job 33:6]

Most of the above actually consists of durable things such as shark teeth and shells and exoskeletons.

This is why you have countless amounts of shark teeth fossils but far fewer actual shark skeletons, because they weren't instantaneously buried.

Just about every kid who goes out to collect fossils can find hundreds of shark teeth and ammonites and bivalves and trilobite exoskeletons, very easily. But its far more rare to find something like...a full tetrapod skeleton.

And I said before, there are only maybe 50 t Rex skeletons ever discovered and most of them are incomplete.
So I'm not sure where you have envisioned this fantasy world of perfect preservation of billions of terrestrial vertebrates.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

If a Muslim teacher led students in prayer, would you be okay with that?

In a muslim country, no problem. But this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and it can only survive as a free nation if those principles are maintained. Islam -- the Koran -- promotes a political doctrine contrary to our constitution. It is impossible to be a devout muslim and support our constitution. The same for a socialist. Both promote foreign doctrines and influences that George Washington warned us about:

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. " [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796] ​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, notice how the kaibab limestone consists of all aquatic organisms. Even though prior strata such as terrestrial strata of the Carboniferous, contains things like terrestrial reptiles. But then layers prior to that again, such as marine strata of the ordovician, again only presents aquatic.life forms. Never do we find animals beyond their respective environments. Not unless they're displaced or have tumbled beyond their boundaries.

 

[Job 33:6]

I actually made a post in our other topic. And I think people here might enjoy it, so I'll post it again for you @Bible Research Tools

Near me, by the Appalachian trail, in the Appalachian basin which contains rocks that were, according to Kurt wise, deposited as part of the Tippecanoe sequence...

There is an angular unconformity, in which older ordovician strata, rests in a horizontal position, with vertical silurian strata resting adjacent to it, and in between there is an erosional surface containing conglomerate

Such a feature cannot be explained by a global flood, much less could it be explained as deposited by a single giant wave that produced the megasequence that it resides within.

Please explain to the audience how you propose that a single giant wave passing over north america, which deposited the tippacaneo sequence, formed such a structure.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And regarding this last part

"and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?"

Do you realize that there are only perhaps 50 or so T rex skeletons ever found? For an animal that, from our perspective, lived perhaps 2 million years.

What is your point?

Indeed, most of the billions of fossils you are referring to, are of sea animals, clam shells, gastropod shells, cephalopod shells. Shells. 99.99% of the fossil record actually consists of....hard shells.

The flood model includes a graduated change in the fossil record from marine to marine/terrestrial.

Imagine if life did actually live for millions of years, where countless countless countless terrestrial life forms lived, including T rexes.

And at the end of the day, you only found 50.

At the end of the day, there is not a trace of a T-Rex ancestor.

What if the T-Rex was a corrupted species, as the Bible implies and the intertestamental literature expounds? Why did God destroy both man and land animal?

""And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." -- Gen 6:12-13 KJV" -- Gen 6:12 KJV​

This non-canonical book explains that the sons of the angels (aka, the judges and rulers) corrupted the species:

"And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals." -- Jsh 4:18​

That passage could explain the dinosaurs, including the T-Rex and Velociraptor, as hybrids and not created kinds. If God allowed only created kinds on the ark, the dinosaurs and all other hybrids were left behind, which also explains the mass extinctions.

For the record, other intertestamental literature explains that the demons (those whom Jesus confronted during his brief time on earth) were the disembodied spirits of the hybrid sons of the angels and earthly women. The scripture identified those hybrid sons as "giants":

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." -- Gen 6:4 KJV​

No, lets re examine your question. "in most layers are found billions of fossils", oh so you mean shells? "some in perfect condition?", well a shell is a shell. Its hard, its durable, its long lasting.

There are also soft-bodied fossils.

Now, if you were referring to terrestrial fossils, such as those of T rex, there are not billions, there are perhaps 50, and most of those are incomplete skeletons.

Why? Because of the millions of T rexes that perhaps existed over 2 million years, 99.99% of them were eaten, and destroyed and decayed.

They didn't exist over 2 million years. At the most, maybe 2,000 years; and if they were hybridized creations of the fallen angels, as I suspect, their presence may have been less than 1,000 years -- even much less.

Dan

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Creation scientists are scientists who seek the truth about creation, unlike evolutionists.

and by evolutionists, I imagine you mean non-creationists. In that respect, I agree that unlike creation scientists who seek the truth about creation, other scientists just seek the truth.

 

[pitabread]

But this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and it can only survive as a free nation if those principles are maintained.

I find it curious that some Americans think they live in a theocracy, when both the First Amendment and the Treaty of Tripoli suggests otherwise...

 

[pitabread]

Again, there is not a trace of evidence for macroevolution

You appear to have adopted a position based on denialism. I can't help you with that and there is no room for discussion with someone who is blatantly stone-walling.

All I can say is that if you ever want to learn about the evidence that supports evolution, including common descent and its applications thereof, there are plenty of resources at hand to assist. I have provided you some initial sources, it's up to you whether you want to make the effort and learn.

 

[Speedwell]

But this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and it can only survive as a free nation if those principles are maintained.

If you want that to be true you had better be prepared to bring it about by force of arms, because that's the only way it's going to happen.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

It would be the appropriate and comradely thing to do, since you've given me a good laugh.

I did? I didn't call evolution a science, did I? That would have been funny, if I did.

You need to be corrected here. While the theory of evolution supports the estimates as to the age of these layers, such age has been determined quite independently of evolutionary theory. This was done, initially, by considering such things as sedimentation rates, nature and pace of isostatic and eustatic adjustments, probable duration of lacunae, etc.

More accurately, it was done by circular reasoning. Index fossils were used to date the rocks, and the rocks were used to date the fossils. A quite clever scam, I must admit.

Then the more powerful tool, for absolute dates, of radiometric dating was applied. Parallel use of biostratigraphic techniques to determine relative ages still does not rely on an evolutionary model, but simply on the observed consistent sequence of fossils found in any undisturbed sequence globally. This sequence was acknowledged by Creationists and Evolutionists alike in the 19th century.

Those "more powerful tools" are also "force-fit" to make them appear to date accurately. They are anything but accurate. So-called "radiometric dating" of rocks is pseudo-science.

I make this correction since it reveals a persistent problem with the content of your posts. Your observations are simple to the point of being incorrect on important points such as this. This simplicity appears to be the result of parroting what you have gleaned, uncritically it seems, from Creationist literature. I also aim for simplicity, but the simplicity is deliberate in order to make my technical posts digestible by as much of the thread readership as possible. If this were a serious discussion, with individuals educated in the matter, I'd ramp up the technicalities and subtleties and complexities by several levels.

Please refrain from attempting to confuse the issue, which is, 1) there is no evidence of macroevolution, and 2) no evidence the geologic column was laid down gradually over millions of years. What's left?

IBefore you mention it, I am aware that the foregoing is incidental to the point you are trying to make. However, that point is based upon a flimsy foundation of misunderstanding and misinterpretation well illustrated by this particular error.

What error is that?

Just as an aside, The Grand Canyon is the most astounding natural vista I have yet seen on the planet. Although not prone to using expletives. when I first glimpsed it I uttered a single expletive, repeatedly, for a full fifteen minutes, so impressed was I. (In contrast, when I first saw the pyramids at Giza I remarked, "They are smaller than I imagined".)

And?

See, once again in the simplicity of your remarks you are revealing your ignorance of these matters. I would need to give you a couple of days worth of lectures on basic sedimentology* to start you on the right road, but in the meantime here are some (over-simplified) headlines.

• The sequences in other parts of the world do not, for the most part, follow the same sequence and in most cases they follow nothing like the same sequence

Kurt Wise said in a lecture that the sequences are typically the same, world-wide. Some layers may be missing here and there, but the sequences are typically the same.

How do you account for the clear evidence (including animal tracks) that the Coconino sandstone was deposited by wind in a terrestrial, not marine, environment?

There is no evidence the Coconino is an aeolian formation. To the contrary, the tracks on the Coconino are typical of those made in a wet environment. Professor Leonard Brand and his students did some pioneering research in that area:

Brand, L. R. --- Footprints in the Grand Canyon​

Formations frequently include the name of the dominant lithology, but it is rare for that lithology to be the only one present (it may not even make up 5-% of the formation).

So, there is some contamination. What is the primary lithology of the Tapeats, Muav, Redwall, Coconino, and the Kaibab layers? What about the Dover cliffs? How did those lithologies remain consistent for "millions of years", then change to another lithology for "millions of years", and so forth?

You will have to humour me further and spell out, in detail, why you think it is illogical.

This is what I believe to be illogical:

"All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?"​

What is logical about that, absent a flood? For the record, how do you explain the existence of so many fossils, when fossilization is a rare event, except in times of rapid deposition?

You will have humour me further and explain why, for example, the Coconino sandstone is, in some parts of the Grand Canyon, 600' thick and in other parts only 60'.

Currents and topology?

You will have to humour me further and explain why the Coconino sandstone is covered by thousands of feet of younger sediments in the Grand Canyon, yet not many miles away, at the Barringer Meteor Crater, it is at the surface.

Currents and topology?

And, if you wish, you could humour me further and explain why Creationists seem so hung up on the Grand Canyon. I'm guessing it's because American geologists, when seeking to educate the public, keep bringing it up to illustrate their lessons, whereas in Europe we have less spectacular, but more relevant and interesting examples.

Visible layering that screams of a massive flood, combined with limited resources?

Almost forgot, this is a brochure on the White Cliffs of Dover:

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/White-Cliffs-Dover.pdf​

And links of a few other sites the creation scientists have explored:

Devil’s Tower National Monument
Cape Town geology - creation.com​

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v3/geomorphology-uluru.pdf​

*I am willing to give you a couple of days worth of sedimentology lectures, but would only be willing to do so if you were willing to truly commit to listening to them sincerely and devoting the necessary follow up study with an open mind. You can let me know by pm or in this thread if you are interested. Please note this would be a long term issue as I would first need to construct the lectures.

Spare me, until you drop the outdated old-earth world view.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I think that...the theory of evolution without the fossil record, and without geology, would be nothing to speak of.

Both the fossil record and the geologic column support a catastrophic, global flood. Neither support evolution.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

So, you were unable to address the coccyx in any way, and true to form, have dove into the gutter claiming Darwin was a racist. Classic!

What are you talking about? I addressed the myth of vestigial organs, didn't I?

Here is a passage from Henry Morris, PhD, YEC, minister:

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites" -- Henry M. Morris, 1991​

How does that prove racist anything? He was merely quoting biblical history. Henry Morris is on record that we are all of one race, as are all creation scientists. This article by a geneticist may help you understand:

One Race​

Quote from the article:

"We are all one race (“one blood” in Acts 17:26), the human race, descended from two ancestors, Adam and Eve." [Georgia Purdom, "One Race", Answers in Genesis, 2010]​

In other words, creationists and creation scientists believe we are all cousins: descendants of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and his wife. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe we are cousins to the apes, and descendants of God-knows-what -- maybe a hamster, or an Indian Fruit Bat! LOL!

Now that we have established that creationism supports racism, please address the issue of creationists engaging in obfuscation, ignorance, and dishonesty re: the coccyx?

You haven't established anything except you have been reading too many evolutionism comic books.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Do you understand the relevance of pseudogenes in assessing phylogeny?

Here is a hint:

It has little to do with whether or not they are functional.

Here is another hint: pseudogenes have nothing to do with common descent, and phylogeny is helpful only in determining the classification of the various kinds.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

So, your skepticism comes from reading creationist essays. And not from your own relevant knowledge, education, experience, etc. What I like to do is ask 'new' creationists (at least new to me) how it is that they are so confident that the claims made by the Discovery Institute and the like are accurate and honest and correct. SO, how is it?

Their arguments make logical sense; while evolutionism arguments are silly, and, from an origins perspective, impossible.

And I see that no, you do not grasp the relevance of pseudogenes re: phylogeny.

There is no relevance to grasp, that I have seen, that cannot be better explained by a common designer. Besides, since everything looks designed (life, the planet, the solar system, the universe), would not the scientific approach naturally lead one to believe there is a designer?

Dan

 

[Ophiolite]

I did? I didn't call evolution a science, did I? That would have been funny, if I did.



More accurately, it was done by circular reasoning. Index fossils were used to date the rocks, and the rocks were used to date the fossils. A quite clever scam, I must admit.



Those "more powerful tools" are also "force-fit" to make them appear to date accurately. They are anything but accurate. So-called "radiometric dating" of rocks is pseudo-science.



Please refrain from attempting to confuse the issue, which is, 1) there is no evidence of macroevolution, and 2) no evidence the geologic column was laid down gradually over millions of years. What's left?



What error is that?



And?



Kurt Wise said in a lecture that the sequences are typically the same, world-wide. Some layers may be missing here and there, but the sequences are typically the same.



There is no evidence the Coconino is an aeolian formation. To the contrary, the tracks on the Coconino are typical of those made in a wet environment. Professor Leonard Brand and his students did some pioneering research in that area:

Brand, L. R. --- Footprints in the Grand Canyon​

So, there is some contamination. What is the primary lithology of the Tapeats, Muav, Redwall, Coconino, and the Kaibab layers? What about the Dover cliffs? How did those lithologies remain consistent for "millions of years", then change to another lithology for "millions of years", and so forth?



This is what I believe to be illogical:

"All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?"​

What is logical about that, absent a flood? For the record, how do you explain the existence of so many fossils, when fossilization is a rare event, except in times of rapid deposition?



Currents and topology?



Currents and topology?



Visible layering that screams of a massive flood, combined with limited resources?

Almost forgot, this is a brochure on the White Cliffs of Dover:

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/White-Cliffs-Dover.pdf​

And links of a few other sites the creation scientists have explored:

Devil’s Tower National Monument
Cape Town geology - creation.com​

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v3/geomorphology-uluru.pdf​

Spare me, until you drop the outdated old-earth world view.

Dan

I lack the skill, the patience and the tact to deal with self-indulgent ignorance on this scale. I have done my best. You have no interest in facing reality. You reject the opportunity to be edcuated. I have no interest in pandering further to your delusions. Thank you for the effort and time you have taken for your responses. I shall do my best not to trouble you further.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No.

I have 5 or 6 creationist books, including "Icons of Evolution" and "Refuting Evolution". I have 4 volumes of CRSQ. I have a copy of ReMine's book. I have corresponded with about 6 creationists. I have read dozens of creation 'science' articles, and probably thousands of their essays. I have gone to public lectures by creationists and attended one debate. And I also have a graduate degree in a relevant science and have published research on evolution as well.

You?

I am happy to hear you are at least possessing some creation science materials.

I am an old, retired engineer who foolishly, and unquestionably believed everything the evolution orthodoxy threw at me, until fairly late in life. It was then I began to seriously research the subject.

I had never heard of creationism, or knew of any creation websites, until I began to study evolution-ism literature. It seemed to be the rule, rather than the exception, that every evolution author/publication was required to take at least one swipe at creationism, so naturally I looked up the creation references to see what all the fuss was about.

But even then I was a "local flood" type, until, less than a decade ago, a friend pointed out the problems with the fossil record (which are HUGH!) About 5 years ago, and out of necessity, I started developing software to assist me in my research, primarily to help me store and organize publications, and to create and store footnotes from those publications.

For example, when I searched the Footnote Tab "Notes" for the word "icon", I found these, among others:

"It is precisely because evidence for the two basic elements of Darwin's theory is so thin that my critics defend the icons of evolution rather than replace them with better examples. Pigliucci and his fellow Darwinists are not protecting their theory from naïve falsificationism--they are protecting it from falsification altogether. One doesn't have to be a Popperian to see that this is not good empirical science--and perhaps not science at all." [Jonathan Wells, "Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution." Discovery Institute, 2002] ​

"Museums and textbooks today claim that whale fossils provide the clearest proof of evolution—they have mostly dropped horse evolution because that story no longer withstands scrutiny. Three key fossils in the whale story are Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus, which are claimed to link a land animal with very long and slender whales known as basilosaurids. Without these three the story collapses. Dr Carl Werner, author of Evolution: the Grand Experiment, has checked out the claims, interviewing the researchers and others. He found that none of the fossils holds up as transitional to whales. His findings, published in a major 25-page Appendix to the new 2014 edition of his book, utterly destroy the whale evolution story. . . Without these three supposed transitional creatures, the story of whale evolution collapses. Another evolutionary icon bites the dust!" [Batten, Don, "Whale Evolution Fraud." Creation Ministries International, 2014] ​

When I searched the Footnote "Search Tags" (Key Words) for "icon", I found these, among others:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." [Dawkins, Richard, Explaining the Very Improbable, "Blind Watchmaker." 1986, Chap 1, Gen 1:11, p.1] ​

"Peptides are merely really short versions of proteins, so the scientists essentially cheated and the RNA replication process was not exclusively RNA-based. Nor was it very efficient or reliable. As fate would have it, the famous study also contained some major errors and could not be replicated. Thus, the famous—now infamous—paper had to be retracted. The authors—one of them a Nobel Laureate—later confessed, 'In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief' and 'we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.' So not only did this so-called RNA World study cheat by using peptides, meaning it really wasn't just an RNA World, but the research was misinterpreted and unrepeatable. This led to its complete retraction. Even if the study had been a success, the conditions surrounding it were carefully engineered by humans in a state-of-the-art laboratory—a classic case of intelligent design, not an example of purposeless random evolutionary processes." [Tomkins, Jeffrey, "RNA World Paper Retracted." Institute for Creation Research, 2018] ​

With a single click, I can go directly to the footnote article/publication, and even directly to the page where the footnote is found if it is a local pdf or ebook. I can also quicky find bible verses and display them; for example:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." -- Gen 7:11 KJV​

In the 600th year, 2nd month, and 17th day? That is a little overboard in detail for a "myth", don't you think?

I currently have direct access to nearly 8,000 publications in my library, either locally or via a link, or both. And if I cannot find what I am looking for, I also have access to over 2,500 authors and nearly 800 publishers, most with direct URLs to their websites for quick access.

The library grows most every day. My most recent addition is this link posted recently on this thread by xianghua:

A meta-analysis of the genomic and transcriptomic composition of complex life​

Anyway, that is what I have been doing since retirement, besides, fishing, woodworking, gardening, and debating brainwashed evolutionists.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

He described the pelvic fins BEFORE the pelvic fins had been described in the literature.
He also claimed that Tiktaalik could not have walked on land since it did not have a bone-to-bone articulation between its shoulder girdle and its humerus, which he claimed is necessary for terrestrial locomotion. :

"...the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

Which means that Menton is unaware that many terrestrial vertebrates, to include some of the largest, lack this feature.

I look forward to your attempt at rescuing your hero. It should be a hoot.

Let me see if I can follow this. First, Martin's claim:

"Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I've seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin." [Martin Brazeau, "Dr. David Mention is a Liar." The Lancet, 2007]​

I believe this is the Menton passage in question:

"The hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins." [David Menton, "Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish." Answers in Genesis, 2007] ​

And this is a passage from a Menton footnote of a Nature article by Ahlberg and Clack that supports Menton's statement:

"In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic. In other regards, Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys. The bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout . . . The fossils [of the Tiktaalik] are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely." [Ahlberg & Clack, "A Firm Step From Water to Land." Nature, 2006]​

A Firm Step From Water to Land​

The size of the pelvic girdle of the Panderichthys (and thus, the Tiktaalik) was determined from this article, which is footnoted in the Ahlberg & Clack article:

"The pelvic girdle itself is small: it measures 3.5 cm for a 90.5 cm long pre-pelvic body, corresponding to 3.86% of the body size as compared with 5% in Eusthenopteron and 7% in Acanthostega (measured from reconstructions)." [Catherine A Boisvert, "The Pelvic Fin and Girdle of Panderichthys and Theorigin of Tetrapod Locomotion." Nature, 2005]

The pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys and the origin of tetrapod locomotion​

These are Menton's footnotes:

1. Daeschler, E. B., N. H. Shubin, and F. A. Jenkins, 2006. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body
plan. Nature 440(7085):757–763.

2. Ahlberg, P. E. and J. A. Clack, 2006. News and Views. Nature 440(7085):747–749.​

The Boisvert, C. A. reference was footnoted in both the Daeschler, E. B. and Ahlberg et al reference.

Now, where did Menton go wrong? What am I missing?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No need to go further - Tomkins' claims have been debunked all over the place, including on this forum.

Debunked by whom, and how?

But great example of creationists making claims that they do not think through - if we accept Tomkins' accounting techniques, then we must apply them universally.
This means that the sequence similarities between ALL pairs of taxa go way down. And then whatever shall we do about pairs of Kinds that creationists claim are derived from the same 'original' Kind?

How are those two subjects related?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Your posts are a great example of the creationist cult of personality.
You adore these people because they are creationists and tell you what you want to hear, not because you understand their claims.

Still nothing on the coccyx from creationists 11 pages in...

You haven't been paying attention. The Evolutionism Icon of "Vestigial Organs" is on it last, dying breath.

Dan