I understand the idea Frum, only it never happened. No fish ever even with 20000 little changes over 50000 generations ever became a reptile! Fish varieties abundant but not a amphibian. If so show some examples.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evolution doesn't involve 'cross-overs' of one type into another, just sequential modifications into new species. After a lot of changes, the distant descendant species may look very different from the ancestor species.
See National Geographic for proof of way older than Tik Tetrapod landwalkers
Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution
Since they already existed Tik was not in between at all. Dawkins was wrong (as he is with so many things) Tik split nothing and does not represent a Transition from fish to Tetras at all.
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).
But I didn't say it walked on land (although it may have done for all I know) I don't know what your argument is here.
Glad to hear it.
You put such a negative spin on it though, seems a bit unnecessary.
"Real meaning"? Is that the one used frequently in scientific discourse or the one you prefer? It sounds like you believe transitional = missing link, and maybe it does to you and your creationist cousins over at AIG or whatever, but that's not how scientists define it.
There you go again, Tik is not the"missing link", it is representative of the split.
Oh the irony! I feel feint!
You are attempting to redefine "transitional" to the point it where it would be an impossible standard to meet.
Right, right, just a fish. A fish with wrists.
Anyway, I'm clocking off until Monday.... have a good weekend!
According to the article 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', by Spencer G. Lucas (2015), Ichnos, 22:3-4, 136-154, http://www.researchgate.net/publica...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints , the Zachelmie 'tracks' are probably not tetrapod tracks at all. In the abstract the author says,
The evidence for this reinterpretation is presented in detail on pages 147-150 of the paper.
I have already drawn attention to this paper somewhere else in this forum, so you shouldn't be citing the National Geographic article as if its conclusions were well-established facts.
does evolution also predicted this one?:
| Biology Letters
""Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."
"It is extremely unlikely that Tikiguania is an advanced agamid from the Triassic, and that the draconine jaw ‘morphotype’ has persisted largely unchanged for 216 Myr."
"Tikiguania estesi is widely accepted to be the earliest member of Squamata, the reptile group that includes lizards and snakes. It is based on a lower jaw from the Late Triassic of India"
"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade"
it is much more conceivable that Tikiguania is a Quaternary or Late Tertiary agamid that was preserved in sediments derived from the Triassic beds that have a broad superficial exposure. This removes the only fossil evidence for lizards in the Triassic.
Ah, back to semantics. How can arguments from semantics ever resolve anything?Transitional: an object or agent of transition, movement , passage or change from one position, stage, state to another ; of or relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition.
Cambridge Oxford unabridged on Transitional describes it as belonging or relating to a change, or the process of change, from one form or type to another.
My language is called English, and this IS the meaning of the term. Not MY definition, THE definition. However, you can continue to pretend YOUR definition is correct, since the idea it pretended to define by re-definition is all about pretend.
You have that completely backwards. Read the caption.
...
Consider Ambulocetus displayed here (I mean REALLY LOOK)...note all we really have is in black....what the did to it to make it appear an understandable creature that fits the "belief" is all the white areas (over 90% fiction)...they made it up Jim! They made it up!
You have that completely backwards. Read the caption.
The white represents what was found in this particular specimen. What about the black? Is that wild guesses? No. Read the caption. The black was added in based on other specimens. So what we have are many specimens, each of which tell part of the story. One particular specimen tells nearly the whole story of that skeleton, showing everything found in white above.
So this sure looks like a transitional (CSRTA in your dialect) to me.
Of course all dog varieties came from a few early types like Grey Wolf but not from reptiles!
And yes all varieties of birds came from a few types of early avians but not reptiles!
I know it is conviction without real proof. And yes they do say teach it as truth, you are correct. But again I challenge you to show a single such transformation.
First off this summation indicates it did in fact NOT walk up on land, and also that it lived in water.
It is said that further that paleontologists surmise that it probably lived in shallow, weed-choked swamps, the legs having evolved for some other purpose than walking on land (legs being assumption #1, and that they “evolved” being assumption #2).
Now if one really looks at the language (surmise? probably? Interpreted as?), nothing found actually indicates they ever did.
But in fact he lied! It does not fall in between fish and land walking tetrapods at all because both already existed. But what does reality have to do with it?
Thanks for sharing this. I've had a hunch that we would find this, that the early "tetrapod tracks" were not really tracks. In the meantime I had to do what scientists do, accept the new finding tentatively and see how it works in with existing findings, while studying more to clarify the apparent discrepancy. I will find time to read the whole article.According to the article 'Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints', by Spencer G. Lucas (2015), Ichnos, 22:3-4, 136-154, http://www.researchgate.net/publica...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints , the Zachelmie 'tracks' are probably not tetrapod tracks at all. In the abstract the author says,
The evidence for this reinterpretation is presented in detail on pages 147-150 of the paper.
I have already drawn attention to this paper somewhere else in this forum, so you shouldn't be citing the National Geographic article as if its conclusions were well-established facts.
Per your request:Fish varieties abundant but not a amphibian. If so show some examples.
No sir, this is special pleading. You cannot say that you get to use an argument only when you choose, and get to ignore an argument with the same logic if you choose not to.i only said that any spinning motor is evidence for design. as far as we know.
... , parts that are quite similar to other parts in similar bacteria.complex systems like flagellum, that need several parts to be functional.
But I just did.you cant compare it with mutations that make a new species of finch.
If you want to move from a Merychippus to a Zebra you can't do it by kaboom, there is a zebra.if you wnat to move from one kind to another, you cant do it stepwise.
Kaboom cannot make the transition to flagellum. Evolution can. See Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex .so evolution cant make this transition.
agree.
Sorry, to get from a wolf to a poodle required evolution. Small scale yes, but definitely evolution.not at all. any variations in the creature cant consider as evolution. because its basically the same creature (like wolf vs dog).
Actually no, 29.actually its zero evidence for evolution.
Electric motors need copper wires and a designer. If everything that is true about electric motors has to be true about flagellum, then flagellum have electric wires.but its a fact that a spinning motor nened a designer.
so we have a belief vs a fact. and you also believe in a natural evolution. so it make it even worse.
Do you know it can come into existence by your method--kaboom? I have evidence for my method.yes. 1) we know that a motor need a d esigner and 2) we know that it cant evolve stepwise. so the only logical conclusion is that this motor created at once.
...as Eohippus had multiple toes, no real hooves, different teeth and diet, was much smaller than modern horses, etc.
first: its not a rhino (it doesnt have even horn). secondly: even your own example isnt a missing link:
New fossils are no "missing link"
"So, why then, if cambaytheres are so closely related to rhinos and horses, can't we call them a "missing link?" Because of their position on the Tree of Life. As shown below, if cambaytheres were a "missing link," it would imply that they are part of the ancestral lineage of either horses or rhinos and "link" these two animals to one another. Neither are cambaytheres the common ancestor of horses and rhinos. In fact, cambaytheres are not part of the ancestral lineage of rhinos or horses at all; they are simply close relatives of those ancestors"
No sir, this is special pleading. You cannot say that you get to use an argument only when you choose, and get to ignore an argument with the same logic if you choose not to.
Electric motors are different from flagellum.
One has wires, one doesn't.
One is made in factories, one isn't.
One is made by a designer, one isn't.
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
If you want to move to a bacteria with a flagellum, you can't do it by kaboom, there is a bacteria with a flagellum. If you think you can, prove it.
You would need to convince scientists with peer reviewed articles.
Sorry, to get from a wolf to a poodle required evolution. Small scale yes, but definitely evolution.
Actually no, 29.
Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
...as Eohippus had multiple toes, no real hooves, different teeth and diet, was much smaller than modern horses, etc.
If Eohippus is a horse, then how can you explain that it is very close to such creatures that are not horses?
That's your assumption based on your presuppositions and worldview. You have no evidence to support this speculation.
Indeed. Non-avian dinosaurs did not evolve directly from a basal reptile or even a basal archosaur, but from theropod dinosaurs. The remain, as with all extant taxa, what their ancestors were so birds are still theropods, archosaurs and amniotes.
It would be really nice if Creationists could learn what science is, and is not, and what evolution proposes, and does not, before trying to critique it.
Per your request:
Holy Cow! You mean a fish to land transtional in the earliest stages of that transition would have been still aquatic? That's impossible? Everyone knows that marine to terrestrial transition happened when a fish flopped onto the water, and layed eggs with fry that had legs and lungs and walked away from their nest in one generation.
Oh no! Scientists making provisional statements about evidence based conclusions instead of averring an eternal and unchanging TRVTH ™? (wailing and moaning) How can we trust anything they say. Do we even know that Dr. Phil is a real doctor?
What makes you think that the existence of fish (or more specifically sarcopterygians) makes the fact that Tiktaalik is a tetrapod tranistional (from fish) a "lie"? And no, the Polish tracks have not been conclusively identified nor would their being tetrpod in origin make Tiktaalik being a transitional a "lie" either. It seems you don't comprehend the difference between transitional and ancestral.
so what? they both are still spinning motors. we know that a spinning motor (from any kind) need a designer.
Of course not. The flagellum evolved years ago. The point is that proteins very close to what the flagellum uses would have been available.not realy. first: those proteins are not identical but similar. so they arent the same proteins.
Again, millions of years ago, bacteria would have been different. There is nothing that would have prevented some bacteria back then from having proteins close to flagellum protein.secondly: even if they was identical they exist in many species and not just one. so you cant mix several proteins from many species to form a flagellum in one species.
What are the odds that the trillions upon trillions of proteins needed to form the bacteria from scratch just happened to combine, as per your kaboom hypothesis?3) even if you can mix all those parts what is the chance to mix about 4-5 parts in one milion bases genome to form a minimal flalgellum?
i dont need to prove that a motor... need a designer.
Then write a peer reviewed article that proves them wrong.maybe all those scientists just arent aware about those evidences.
So? Most scientists also believe in evolution.
Please. To get from a wolf to a poodle you need mutations and selection. That is evolution. To grow a zit does not require evolution.only if you consider any change as evolution. if so you can say that even a zit in the
forehead is evidence for evolution.
I bring up horse evolution because it is readily documented evolution. And you agree that the Eohippus at least could have evolved into the horse and zebra, yes? I bring it up because that is one example of evolution on which we are close to agreement.maybe this kind of evolution is possible and maybe not. those changes arent clear enough to know if they are possible stepwise or not. smaller size for instance can be see also among dogs and horses. so this trait is possible even a ccording to the design model. why you are keep bring this non-clear exmaple?
How do you know for sure a fish cannot evolve into an amhibian, other than the fact that you have said it over and over?what about the fish transition? this is much more clear example that i can say for sure that it's impossible by design model to be the same kind.
This has nothing to do with what I was saying.on the same logic that two cars from the same company can be very similar- a common designer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?