• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Another Fossil Transitional Species that shouldn't exist ... Meet Pappochelys

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Split Rock, Jun 29, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
    Nope. I am not having any confusion. the issue I am addressing is simple. Its not even immediately about what the fusion symbolizes . Its about verifying a prediction based upon theorizing of common ancestry by itself rather than actual research. Basic drop down simple point of logic. In order to verify a prediction after the fact you should present evidence of the prediction before the fact.

    Whats so terribly hard to understand in that? To use a biblical example since we are on a Christian site. I never even attempt to present a prophecy as being fulfilled unless I can verify it was given before the fact.

    Same principle.
     
  2. capnhi9er

    capnhi9er New Member

    5
    +2
    Protestant
    Sorry, what Dr. Shubin found was NOT a tetrapod, it was a fish with two bones in its fins that kind'a look like two of the many bones in the wrists of tetrapods. It was his FAITH in Evolutionism that caused him to interpret it as a transitional fossils.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/an_ulnare_and_an_intermedium_a009651.html

    Even if Tiktaalik were a transitional fossil, here are the steps that would have been required just to complete the evolution of its wrist as documented in the above article.
    • Shrink Tiktaalik's radius and reposition it so that it articulates other bones further down the limb.
    • Evolve a radiale.
    • Dramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out to form digits.
    • Evolve metacarpals and phalanges so that there are real digits extending distally from the radius.
    • Evolve the "lotsa blobs," i.e. evolve other carpal bones between the radius, ulna, and the now-aligned digits to form a real wrist. In other words, evolve the bulk of the wrist-bones.

    That is to say nothing of all the other changes required to soft tissue as well as bones. In total you need to account for thousands, tens of thousands, probably millions of individual changes. Which means there should be a very large number of transitional fossils that can be arranged to show a clear transition from fish to tetrapod.
     
  3. The Cadet

    The Cadet SO COOL

    +4,735
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    Right (HitchSlap, shame on you - Tiktaalik is no more a fully formed tetrapod than Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird). It also wasn't a fish. It was a creature clearly showing signs from both groups, making it an ideal transitional fossil.

    Do you really think that's the only significance? You can find all of the significant features on this handy-dandy interactive website. Yes, the bones in the fin are of particular significance, as they show a clear relation to the telling tetrapod structure (which you are extremely unlikely to find outside of that clade), but they aren't the only thing that clearly identify Tiktaalik as not merely a fish with some weird bones. The positions of its eyes, the shape of its head, the disconnect between the head and the shoulders allowing for head movement, the ribs - none of these are features you will find in fish. They are, however, perfectly typical of tetrapods. On the other hand, it has fins, scales, and gills, which are very atypical of tetrapods but which are standard for fish.

    As Shubin said in his book on the subject:

    [F]or me the greatest moment of the whole media blitz was . . . at my son’s preschool. . . . The first child said it was a crocodile or an alligator. When queried why, he said that like a crocodile or lizard it has a flat head with eyes on top. Big teeth, too. Other children started to voice their dissent. Choosing the raised hand of one of these kids, I heard: No, no it isn’t a crocodile, it is a fish, because it has scales and fins. Yet another child shouted “Maybe it is both.” Tiktaalik’s message is so straightforward even preschoolers can see it (p. 25).​

    There isn't exactly some huge debate with paleontology of the significance of Tiktaalik, despite the protestations of the Discovery Institute.

    ...All of which means very little if fossilization is a rare thing to happen. Which it is.
     
  4. SteveB28

    SteveB28 Well-Known Member

    +2,397
    Atheist
    Yes, I can see that. Oddly, our correspondent can't.

    I've yet to decide as to whether his ignorance is genuine or wilful.
     
  5. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    We do not know what these tetrapods looked like that left these footprints. Perhaps they were an earlier type that went extinct and left no descendents? We don't know yet. The fact is we find fishapods only during the Denovian period and before we have any actual fossils of terrestrial tetrapods. Why is that?
     
  6. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,015
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Not knowing what the origins of each Kind originally were,
    there is no problem with intermediates. I'm not sure who
    you're picking a fight with.

    Who said that no species existed with said features?
    That would be dumb to argue from lack of data.
     
  7. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
    Hard to tell what you are trying to float here. They are confirmed tetrapods tracks not transitional . so um they left no decendants and what?? titaalik was just another line that evolved into tetrapods AGAIN. Is there any hole in Darwinism that you can't plug the just so beg of "Convergent evolution" into? You can still hang on that Tiktaalik being transitional (as if having one step and missing hundreds more proves anything) as a hold over for 20+ million years but the claim that was made that Tiktaalik is the right time we predicted correctly is dead. We d o know that.

    The one thing that logically would falsify Darwinism is finding species with features similar to others but NOT based on inheritance. So as soon as we started to find just that Darwininsts ratched up "Convergent evolution" for every hole. Even when it s not just similar morphology but actual Molecular genetic simlarity

    http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679

    its still begged that its convergent. This is why some people say rightfully Darwinism doesn't have the science qualification of falsibility. Theres a philosophical invented answer ready to handwave away any proof of falsification. Its also why Darwinists have to claim superior intelligence to the public as a kind of emperor with no clothes. They have to do something to berate the public for the rational intelligent doubt they have that the eye (just one of thousands of examples) just happened to evolve convergently hundreds of time without a design or designer behind it.
     
  8. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    Did it occur to you that fishapods also evolved earlier? After all, boneless fish evolved before bony fish, yet we still have boneless fish. Jawless fish evolved before fish with jaws, yet we still have some (though not many) jawless fish. If these were fully terrestrial tetrapods, then I predict that there were fishapods that evolved before them. You still haven't answered my question, btw. Here it is again: The fact is we find fishapods only during the Denovian period and before we have any actual fossils of terrestrial tetrapods. Why is that?

    How does your model of creationism explain what we find better than evolution? Why do we find jawless fish before fish with jaws? Why do we find boneless fish before fish with bones? Why do we find fishapods before we find tetrapods? Why do we find reptiles before mammals? Why do we find primates before humans? Where are your answers?

    In another thread you went off about the Cambrian. You never answered my questions about that either. Where are the lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and yes fish... what most of us recognize as fish.. ones with jaws and either bone or cartilage... your nitpicking aside bringing up very primitive lancet type creatures that were found there. No answers there either, from your creationism model.

    You complain about convergent evolution. Do you have any actual criticisms of any convergent evolution models? Can you show us how any are not possible?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  9. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
    This is an excellent point because it underlines why it is Darwinist think their evidence is so compelling. They assume wrongly that the species we know of now is a reference point. Here's a classic one they have argued for years as you can see from one of their favorite source sites

    http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

    Under the vestigial section they argue that some features of modern whales make no sense from a design perspective. Why? because MODERN whales only have vestigial olfactory nerves. As if Whales have no design reason for smell ever in history. Its a classic example of using our knowledge of modern animals as THE reference point for determining what features are supposedly transitional.
     
  10. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
    I didn't answer your question because

    A) you made the ridiculous claim that no fish were in the cambrian which is false and you had to later ammend as "modern fish" to save face for your blunder
    B) you never answer my questions and no one appointed you chief inquisitor that gets all your answers and answers none yourself. You are not in charge here

    Heres a classic example of your strategy to beg I must answer all your questions where you answer nothing

    Notice how this works Guys and gals? The Darwinist proposes out of thin air that Tetrapods evolved twice because titaalik is now shown to be 20+ million years late to be a accurately timed prediction of Darwinisn but rather than the Darwinist offering a SLIVER of proof to that just so claim I must now answer him and prove that his no evidence claim (made strictly to save Darwinsits claim Titaalik showed up at the right time) is not possible.

    In legal terms his argument would look like this in court.

    "Sure we have no proof whatsoever the defendant was in the room or at the scene at the time of the murder but it is the defenses job to show that their client could not possibly have been in the room or our charges stand"

    ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  11. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,036
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Are you a paleontologist?
     
  12. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,015
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others

    Talk Origins = in class to a Penny dreadful
     
  13. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
    Ne need to insult Penny dreadfuls :) . Even they are better.
     
  14. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
    Lets face it. If Crocodiles had gone extinct and a darwinist dug one up it would be heralded as a transitional fossil as well.
     
  15. crjmurray

    crjmurray The Bear. Not The Bull.

    +1,132
    Deist
    Private
    If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Saturnalia.
     
  16. MikeEnders

    MikeEnders Newbie

    655
    +116
    Calvary Chapel
  17. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,015
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Much more entertaining.
     
  18. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,015
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others

    Let's just face reality:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  19. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +736
    Baptist
    Married
    I don't mind evolutionist rejoicing when they think they have found one of the many transitional fossils needed to support their faith. Since evolutionist predicted thousands if not millions of transitional fossils it's near impossible to not find a few fossils to fit their theory. (even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day) Yet as it's revealed in the Dover trial evolutionist has to cherry pick the features in order to support their tree. Homology is useless to evolution as a good example is how evolutionist cherry picking features when they compare thylacine vs wolf vs kangaroo.
     
  20. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    We know why you didn't answer my questions, even though I do my best to answer your questions. And that is because you have no answers. You claim not to be required to answer my questions (because I am not a "chief inquisitor," yet you apparently are), even though you expect me to answer your questions. Double standard, anyone? Also the term "fish" is not a technical term at all. Most people here understood what I meant, but you have to split hairs like a lawyer because you have no answers of your own for what we see in the Cambrian layers. Even now you harp on about how "ridiculous" my claim was not considering lancet type creature to be "fish." This, even after I clarified what I meant afterward. Please do continue to harp on about it. Let everyone here recognize your tactics of evasion and misdirection.

    I offered a couple of different possibilities for the footprints found earlier than the Devonian of what appear to be tetrapods. While its possible a case of convergent evolution, I actually think it is more likely that fishapods simply evolved earlier than the Devonian, before the creatures that left the footprints did. We just haven't found fossils yet in these earlier layers, just like we have no fossils of the actual creatures who made the footprints. The fishapods continued to survive until the Devonian and then went extinct. The fact remains that we don't know what these creatures that made the footprints actually looked like, so its hard to judge.

    From now on, if you aren't going to even attempt to answer my questions, don't bother asking me to answer yours.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...