Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

dad · Apr 6, 2006

Vermithrax said:
You're using Creationism as another goddidit, not as an explanation, and certainly not as one with predictive qualities.

God made a full spectrum of creatures. Things died a lot. WE see fossils of some of those things. All are predicted by creation, either directly, or in adaptations. It is predicted as much as Grannydidit baseless so called predictions. And they are baseless, because you can't tie the evolution to the first lifeform in any meaningful way. You would need more than guilt by association.

Jet Black · Apr 6, 2006

Pure_in_Heart said:
So, you cannot quote some helpful stuffs to support your argument, can you?

I can, but I'm not going to do all your homework for you.

shinbits · Apr 6, 2006

gluadys said:
It is quote mining since you don't put in the qualifier.

Fossils are rare in proportion to the number of individual animals, plants, bacteria, etc. that ever lived. Extremely rare.

That doesn't make them scarce.

Despite the fact that the proportion of organisms which fossilized compared to those which did not is probably well under 1%, we still find lots of fossils.

That's not what the link says at all. No where does the link say what you claim it says, otherwise someone would've copied and pasted it.

The link actually says that even fossil finds are rare. Why would it say that, if it also means to say that fossils aren't really rare, but just rare in comparison to how many organisms existed?

What you've said is NOT what the link says. The entire link is dedicated to showing exactly why transitional forms are rare.

gluadys said:
Actually, physics permits a mathematical calculation of whether legs are likely to support the weight of the body. This is a matter of understanding biological engineering, not a subjective comment based on a quick glance.

What physics were used to determine this? Do you have anything that shows if any physics at all were used?

No. You've just made another assumption.

dad · Apr 6, 2006

Split Rock said:
Perhaps you mistakenly posted in the wrong thread. This thread is not about abiogenesis or where the first life came from. It is about the transition from water to land that the tetrapods (us) made during the Devonian Period.

You say "us" meaning the imaginary journey goes back to the pond.

But as for this creature here is a question:
How can we tell if it is an adaptation from another creature, or one of the created creatures?

It is the entire issue of this thread!! If time isn't an issue for you and you agree evolving went on, then what is your problem, dad??

Time isn't an issue, cause I know how much there was since creation, 6000 years. I say evolving could have went on. How is it, in this instance we KNOW it was evolving?

Fine. Can you provide us with an example of evidence that would disprove the creation account? Or will you say no matter what we find, that it proves creationism?

You can't disprove creation. All you can do is uncover new things about creations. Now if you had some solid evidence of Granny, as our first relative, then that would do it.

Again, please read the O.P. If you think the O.P. is not very interesting ...

It could be interesting if not just sort of a defacto old age evo story recital. Basically, it was a neat creature, so?

Ithink this part is pretty good.
"
It's impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates, she said, but if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, "you'd probably come up with something like this."

Bingo.

Why don't we find turtles, salamanders and frogs? They live in the same type of ecosystem, don't they?

Do they? I never seen one of these in a frog pond yet? How can you be so sure? Guesses?

Also, we find these animals (and not the others) everywhere in the Devonian record, not just in one location.

The Devonion period was a time when the planet was suited to these things. Also, If they did originate near Eden, they were good at getting around, land or sea it seems. This could explain it. Or, if they were not Eden's creatures, but planet at large creatures, with a purpose, this also explains it.

Pure_in_Heart · Apr 7, 2006

Split Rock said:
Will you admit you were wrong when you wrote that the article was based on a few fragments?

LOL! Certainly not! "Tiktaalik" are just a few fragmentary creaturely fossils. That is the fact.

Pure_in_Heart · Apr 7, 2006

awesome liver said:
since the evolution deniers are prone to not reading anything, maybe pictures will work better.

a, Left lateral view; b, dorsal view with enlargement of scales; and c, ventral view with enlargement of anterior ribs. See Fig. 3 for labelled drawing of skull in dorsal view. Abbreviations: an, anocleithrum; bb, basibranchial; co, coracoid; clav, clavicle; clth, cleithrum; cbr, ceratobranchial; ent, entopterygoid; hu, humerus; lep, lepidotrichia; mand, mandible; nar, naris; or, orbit; psp, parasphenoid; ra, radius; suc, supracleithrum; ul, ulna; uln, ulnare. Scale bar equals 5 cm.

Unlike other tetrapodomorph fishes (1), Tiktaalik has reduced the unjointed lepidotrichia, expanded the radials to a proximal, intermediate and distal series, and established multiple transverse joints in the distal fin. The fin also retains a mosaic of features seen in basal taxa. The central axis of enlarged endochondral bones is a pattern found in basal sarcopterygians and accords with hypotheses that a primitive fin axis is homologous to autopodial bones of the tetrapod limb. In some features, Tiktaalik is similar to rhizodontids such as Sauripterus. These similarities, which are probably homoplastic, include the shape and number of radial articulations on the ulnare, the presence of extensive and branched endochondral radials, and the retention of unjointed lepidotrichia. Figures redrawn and modified from Glyptolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Acanthostega and Tulerpeton.

a, b, Anterolateral view. c, d, Ventral view. a, c, Resting posture with the fin partially flexed at the antebrachium. In this position the radius is slightly more flexed than the ulna. b, d, Resistant contact with a firm substrate entails flexion at proximal joints and extension at distal ones. The shoulder joint is flexed by ventral muscles, including the trans-coracoid muscle. The elbow is flexed (d, arrow 1), with slight pronation of the radius (d, arrow 2) and rotation of the ulna (d, arrow 3). The transverse joints distal to the ulnare and intermedium are extended (d, arrows 4).

I can find nothing to confirm that Tiktaalik is fish yet! Scale is not an exclusive structure of fishes. In amphibian, reptile and bird, scale is a familiar structure. Even one or two mammals have scales, too. There is also no exact evidence for fins. And where are the gills?

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

Pure_in_Heart said:
I can find nothing to confirm that Tiktaalik is fish yet! Scale is not an exclusive structure of fishes. In amphibian, reptile and bird, scale is a familiar structure. Even one or two mammals have scales, too. There is also no exact evidence for fins. And where are the gills?

The fins are visible in the fossils. I'm not going to supply the images to you, since I don't have a publically available copy other than in the paper and I'm not going to violate copyright law for your benefit. needless to say, the presence of the rays extending is really rather obvious.

as for the gills:

"The elongatre and robust ceratobranchials in Tiktaalik extend into the gill chamber and bear a deep, longitudinal vascular sulcus along their ventral surfaces that is indicative of well developed gills"

shinbits · Apr 7, 2006

Grizzly said:
How about dolphins? The poor guys live their entire lives in the water. Wouldn't gills have done better? They are slaves to air, but live in water.

Is that an intelligent design?

Do you have any idea just how well suited dolphins are for water? And do you know how long a dolphin go without breathing air?

God has made a creature that is comfortable in water, and only needs to come up for air every now and then. In fact, dolphins can even sleep underwater.

In light of how well dolphins are designed for water, saying that this is a poor design is simply just your opinion. And it is a poor one at that.

God is a wonderful designer.

But I won't get into anymore ID discussions on this thread unless it is related to something brought up during the natural course of discussing the thread topic, and not as a side debate--- start another thread for that.

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

shinbits said:
[/FONT]
What physics were used to determine this? Do you have anything that shows if any physics at all were used?

No. You've just made another assumption.

"Multiple Features enable the fin to prop the body in a limb like manner: the base of the fin is positioned near the ventral surface of the body; glenohumeral architecture and trans-coracoid musculature augment flexion and stability at the shoulder joint; a broad and deep posterior gland allows transmission of substantial propulsive stress through the pectoral girdle; a robust coracoid plate provides broad areas for flexor muscle origins; elaborate ventral processes on the humerus represent extensive surface area for flexor insertions; flexion/extension, pronation/supination and rotation are all possible at the elbow; there is an expanded series of proximal, intermediate and distal radials distal to the epipodials."

typing errors are most likely mine.

of course course that isn't all, but I am not typing the whole papers out.

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

shinbits said:
Do you have any idea just how well suited dolphins are for water? And do you know how long a dolphin go without breathing air?

not as long as a fish.

God has made a creature that is comfortable in water, and only needs to come up for air every now and then. In fact, dolphins can even sleep underwater.

dolphins don't really sleep.

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

Pure_in_Heart said:
LOL! Certainly not! "Tiktaalik" are just a few fragmentary creaturely fossils. That is the fact.

how are you defining fragmentary here? <100% ? Tiktaalik are nearly complete.

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

dad said:
But as for this creature here is a question:
How can we tell if it is an adaptation from another creature, or one of the created creatures?

no creatures wee created dad, they are all the result of the last-thursday metamaphysical split. you're completely stuck in your PO box, it's sad to see.

dad · Apr 7, 2006

Jet Black said:
no creatures wee created dad, they are all the result of the last-thursday metamaphysical split. you're completely stuck in your PO box, it's sad to see.

Too bad you can't show me. You are all talk! Ha. Just because a creature was either made or adapted to get around the wet, changing new planet, like this baby, doesn't mean it is related to cockcroaches, like you actually , really, seriously think you are!!!!!! God help us!

Pure_in_Heart · Apr 7, 2006

dad said:
I must be missing something. I can't see how very fast adapting in the past is a problem? Either God made this thing the way it was, or it adapted to the changing new planet as it was supposed to.
How could this in any way negate the creation of man, and sea creatures, and animals, etc, and Eden?

The ability to evolve and adapt in creations can't be a bad thing? We know God made sea creatures, and birds, and animals, this doesn't affect that in any way, save by assumptions on some unproven common ancestor nonsense?

It's a matter of truth and falsehood, fact and lie, not good and evil.

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

dad said:
Too bad you can't show me. You are all talk! Ha. Just because a creature was either made or adapted to get around the wet, changing new planet, like this baby, doesn't mean it is related to cockcroaches, like you actually , really, seriously think you are!!!!!! God help us!

don'T be silly dad, I'm not even related to my parents! how could I be, remember everything came to be as it is in last thursday's metamaphysical split. It's only people who are stuck in the box like you who think that there was anything before last thursday, with your evidence and science-falsely-so-called.

Pure_in_Heart · Apr 7, 2006

Jet Black said:
The fins are visible in the fossils. I'm not going to supply the images to you, since I don't have a publically available copy other than in the paper and I'm not going to violate copyright law for your benefit. needless to say, the presence of the rays extending is really rather obvious.

as for the gills:

"The elongatre and robust ceratobranchials in Tiktaalik extend into the gill chamber and bear a deep, longitudinal vascular sulcus along their ventral surfaces that is indicative of well developed gills"

Forced interpretations! Nothing more.

dad · Apr 7, 2006

Pure_in_Heart said:
I must be missing something. I can't see how very fast adapting in the past is a problem? Either God made this thing the way it was, or it adapted to the changing new planet as it was supposed to.
How could this in any way negate the creation of man, and sea creatures, and animals, etc, and Eden?

The ability to evolve and adapt in creations can't be a bad thing? We know God made sea creatures, and birds, and animals, this doesn't affect that in any way, save by assumptions on some unproven common ancestor nonsense?

It's a matter of truth and falsehood, fact and lie, not good and evil.

I agree. Now how does that relate to the quote you snipped? I am a bible believing young earth creationist. Are you suggesting that rapid evoltion of cretaures God cretaed in the past may be bad? Or...? Who's the good guys here, and what is the bad?

dad · Apr 7, 2006

Jet Black said:
don'T be silly dad, I'm not even related to my parents!

Really? No wonder it seems a challenge to identify what sex you are supposed to be. You used to have a male avatar. Now it seems a mystery. You have admitted being related to rats and cockcroaches, yet now you won't admit being related to your parents.

Behold, kids, one of the old age evo would be heavy hitters here!
Remember, this is not me putting words in 'her' mouth!

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

Pure_in_Heart said:
Forced interpretations! Nothing more.

lol. so now it has obvious fossilised find parts, and all the bones in the right arrangement for gills and it's just forced interpretation. That is the most pathetic rebuttal I have seen. gosh what are you going to do next, say that all these are actually fossils of chimpanzees, but all those people saying they are fish are just forcing interpretations?

http://images.google.com/images?svn...resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=fossil+fish&spell=1

Jet Black · Apr 7, 2006

dad said:
Really? No wonder it seems a challenge to identify what sex you are supposed to be. You used to have a male avatar. Now it seems a mystery. You have admitted being related to rats and cockcroaches, yet now you won't admit being related to your parents.

Behold, kids, one of the old age evo would be heavy hitters here!
Remember, this is not me putting words in 'her' mouth!

you're just denying the metamaphysical-last-thursday split now. you'll see how wrong you are when the IPU treads you under her hooves. You have no evidence, none at all, just your In the Box old earth thinking!

Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

Undefeated!

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Active Member

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Undefeated!

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

Active Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency