Common ancestor between chimps and humans

[AV1611VET]

I said he predicted where and what he would find. I never said anything about 'every shovel full.' Stop lying for Jesus, it makes him cry.

Did you read the link in my post?

Show me where it says he predicted where he would find it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Um ... no.

Um, yeah. They found T. rosae in exactly the sediments they predicted they would find the species.

 

[Loudmouth]

notice the word ASSUMPTION in relation to hard inheritance, orthogenetic direction, and adaptation by natural selection.

Notice how you didn't show that these assumptions have any impact on the evidence demonstrating common ancestry between humans and chimps.

explain to me how natural selection would allow DNA to evolve that REDUCED the fitness of the organisms that bear them?

Why don't you present that data for us.

 

[AV1611VET]

They found T. rosae in exactly the sediments they predicted they would find the species.

After how many tries?

And by that, now I mean:

After how many other types of rock did they try before they predicted sediments?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Did you read the link in my post?

Show me where it says he predicted where he would find it.

No problem at all

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

Step 1: Use the distribution of known fossils to determine where the gap is: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik2.html
Step 2: Determine the age of the rocks the transition fossil should be in: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik3.html
Step 3: Find where the right rocks are at the surface and exposed: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik4.html
Step 4: Go to the most promising site and look for it: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/collecting.html

They found it. Prediction confirmed.

 

[Loudmouth]

After how many tries?

And by that, now I mean:

After how many other types of rock did they try before they predicted sediments?

Then it would be the first try, by your definition. The try just lasted 3 or 4 years. They already had tetrapod transitional fossils in sediments in Lithuanian. What they did was find sediments in Canada that used to be close to those in Lithuanian when there was a supercontinent. They also found the layer in those sediments that was a little younger than the sediments carrying tetrapod transitionals in Europe. Once they identified those sediments, they dug into them for 3 or 4 years before finding the transitional they were looking for.

 

[AV1611VET]

They found it. Prediction confirmed.

Let me quote from Wikipedia again:

After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt:

After five years of digging, they finally find this thing.

And you're telling me they found it exactly where they said they would?

If so, why did it take five years?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Let me quote from Wikipedia again:After five years of digging, they finally find this thing.

And you're telling me they found it exactly where they said they would?

If so, why did it take five years?

Because fossilization is rare and it takes time to find them. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? The place they were looking for it is also covered by snow and ice the majority of the year. They can only look in the summer time. This isn't difficult to understand

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you read the link in my post?

Show me where it says he predicted where he would find it.

Nah, I read Dr. Shubin's book.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it would be the first try, by your definition. The try just lasted 3 or 4 years. They already had tetrapod transitional fossils in sediments in Lithuanian. What they did was find sediments in Canada that used to be close to those in Lithuanian when there was a supercontinent. They also found the layer in those sediments that was a little younger than the sediments carrying tetrapod transitionals in Europe. Once they identified those sediments, they dug into them for 3 or 4 years before finding the transitional they were looking for.

Interesting.

Thanks for the info.

So they found one like it before in sediments, so they predict they'll find another one like it in ... sediments?

Isn't that like saying:

I found a tiger shark in water.

I now predict I'll find a great white shark in water.

Or saying:

I found x-species of bat in a cave.

I now predict I'll find y-species of bat in a cave.

 

[HitchSlap]

Let me quote from Wikipedia again:After five years of digging, they finally find this thing.

And you're telling me they found it exactly where they said they would?

If so, why did it take five years?

Right, maybe they shoulda' prayed about it.

On the real tip though, science is actually hard work, performed by dedicated individuals, unlike televangeleists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because fossilization is rare and it takes time to find them. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Because frankly, I smell a rat here.

This is nothing more than scientists trying to dupe the public by fake accuracy.

They aren't telling us the whole story, are they?

Anyone can find something in the ground ... even accidently.

But saying you found it "exactly where you predicted you would find it" -- but conveniently leaving out:

1. What you really meant by "exactly where" was "exactly what type of rock" -- not "exact location."
2. How many tries it took to find it.

... is doing nothing more than trying to dupe the public.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the real tip though, science is actually hard work,

I'll bet it is.

It's not easy to dupe the public anymore, is it?

Are we getting too suspicious?

I mean, after Phlogiston, Thalidomide, L'Aquila, and Deepwater Horizon ... I'd be raising my eyebrows too.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

This is nothing more than scientists trying to dupe the public by fake accuracy.
They aren't telling us the whole story, are they?

What would science have to gain by duping the public? Sounds like you are terrified of this evidence. There is no reason to be paranoid.

Anyone can find something in the ground ... even accidently.

Not an accident when you accurately predict what you'll find

But saying you found it "exactly where you predicted you would find it" -- but conveniently leaving out:

1. What you really meant by "exactly where" was "exactly what type of rock" -- not "exact location."
2. How many tries it took to find it.

Because they did find it where they predicted they'd find it. Science takes hard work. Ellesmere Island is 75,000 square miles.

The fact here is that the transitional fossil they predicted they would find was found. It adds to the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

This isn't even remotely guessing.
Because evolution does not have a goal in mind. Again you demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about and have no understanding of evolution.

Yes, it's guessing....let me point out the guesses for you....

""The adaptations (guess) it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the stepping stones (guess) for vertebrates to climb onto dry land (guess) — but of course, Tiktaalik was not "aiming" to evolve features for land-living. Tiktaalik was simply well-adapted for its own lifestyle and later on, many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle."(guess).​

Not a guess at all. The hypothesis for evolution is: "All living things on earth are related and they evolved by natural selection"

Guess, supposition.

This is then demonstrated to be true based on substantial evidence from several lines of study. It is a fact. This is reality. You don't have to accept it but the evidence is overwhelming in support of the theory. FACT

Simply offer one peer reviewed body of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms, based on the scientific method, produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. While you may reference links, please don't offer the 'find the needle in the haystack' response, actually point out, within the link, where this evidence is offered.

If you do this, you'll be the first one to offer such evidence.

The theory of evolution is one of the most substantiated theories in all of science.

A baseless claim. You're not being completly forthright concerning evolution. There are many views of evolution, including Darwinist evolution which isn't based on evidence, but on a series of guesses and suppositions. We have evidence, based on the scientific method for micro evolution, not true for macro (Darwinist) evolution.

Clearly you didn't comprehend what was being presented to you. Tiktaalik is just another piece of evidence for the theory. Again, you can say that it's fraudulent until you're blue in the face, you'll still be wrong.

Many of the conclusions concerning Tiktaalik is based on subjective guesses and suppositions. Tiktaalik offers not one whit of evidence for HOW, the process of the formation of Tiktaalik from the alleged single life form of long ago. You may claim that Tiktaalik is just another piece of evidence, but it's offers nothing based on the scientific method for the HOW, the process.

Tiktaalik is a transitional form. It is a confirmation for evolution.

You're still misleading, purposely or not, those reading and suggest that "evolution" only means one thing, only has one view, when in fact it doesn't. Tiktaalik isn't a confirmation for evolution. It doesn't offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process of it's formation from an alleged single life form of long ago. You need to address this fact, this colossal failure of the Darwinist view of evolution. Simply ignorning the issue will not make it go away and attempting to use "evolution" as a monolithic term will not make the issue disappear.

Take what we know about evolution, make a prediction of where you'd find this fossil and what it will look like, prediction confirmed. Go ahead and scream till you're blue in the face that you don't think this theory is substantiated, this amazing discovery is just more evidence for it.

Go ahead and attempt to ignore the suppositions and guesses, the lack of scientific evidence, for the HOW, the process which produced Tiktaalik from an alleged single life form of long ago, but because you'll not address the complete failure of the Darwinist evolutionary view doesn't mean that there's not a complete failure.

Wrong. It's confirmed in the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA. It's not a guess. The hypothesis that all life is related and evolved by natural selection over millions of years is confirmed through several lines of study. It's a fact.

"Evolved by natural selection over millions of years" has absolutely no basis in the scientific method. You have no evidence, no support, based on the scientific method, for the claim. You're doing nothing but making a faith-based statement concerning a view of how Tiktaalik was produced.

You've demonstrated over and over and over and over again that you have no understanding for what the theory of evolution is, how it works and how it's been confirmed. I ask again Do you want my copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth"?

Why would I want that? Isn't there a link (not with the needle in the haystack suggestion) which you can reference in which you can point out the evidence for the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method. Offer a link, reference the portion of the site which you believe offers the evidence. We'll discuss it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would science have to gain by duping the public?

Obedience to its master.

Why don't you ask the Antichrist Lovers Union?

They did just that in 1925.

Even planting one of their own into the system to bring the courts down on creationism.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yes, it's guessing....let me point out the guesses for you....

""The adaptations (guess) it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the stepping stones (guess) for vertebrates to climb onto dry land (guess) — but of course, Tiktaalik was not "aiming" to evolve features for land-living. Tiktaalik was simply well-adapted for its own lifestyle and later on, many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle."(guess).​

​

The adaptation features are observed. Not a guess. We....have the fossil. We can observe it.
You are demonstrating you don't know the definition of a guess.
You're changing the definition in the most nonsensical way I have ever seen. It's laughable.

Simply offer one peer reviewed body of evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms, based on the scientific method, produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. While you may reference links, please don't offer the 'find the needle in the haystack' response, actually point out, within the link, where this evidence is offered.

I could offer you thousands. And sources have been provided to you in the past, which you ignored. It would take you centuries to read. And going off your last post, that isn't something you enjoy doing. You have demonstrated time and time again that no matter what evidence is presented to you, you don't have a desire to learn. Feel free to look back at our past conversations. There are plenty of references addressed to you. It's not my job to teach you. I won't patronize you and treat you like a child. You're perfectly capable of studying on your own.

Here is a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Obedience to its master.

Science is neutral. It works to explain the natural world. It relies on the evidence to give the best explanation. It doesn't bow to anyone. To think it has a master it must be obedient to is completely delusional.

Even planting one of their own into the system to bring the courts down on creationism.

Creationism is not science. That is why it is not allowed in the science classroom. It's nonsense. If you want to teach it in a religious studies class, be my guest.

 

[Loudmouth]

Interesting.

Thanks for the info.

So they found one like it before in sediments, so they predict they'll find another one like it in ... sediments?

They dug in some very specific sediments, just not any old sediments. If they were digging in any sediments, they would have dug in their backyard instead of going to the barren wastelands in Canada.

I found a tiger shark in water.

I now predict I'll find a great white shark in water.

Or saying:

I found x-species of bat in a cave.

I now predict I'll find y-species of bat in a cave.

Not even close. In order for the selection of sediments to be correct there are other things that also have to be correct. First, radiometric dating has to be correct because they used the radiometric age of the rocks to select which sediments to dig in. They also have to right about continental drift over the last 300 million years since they were looking for sediments in America that used to be directly next to sediments in Europe. The theory of evolution also has to be correct in that we should see more advanced transitionals in younger sediments.

If radiometric dating, continental drift, and evolution are all wrong, then they shouldn't find that transitional where they found it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obedience to its master.

Why don't you ask the Antichrist Lovers Union?

They did just that in 1925.

Even planting one of their own into the system to bring the courts down on creationism.

If you mean the ACLU, perhaps you are completely unaware of all the cases where they have defended the religious rights of Christians.