Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[Numenor]

but even so, lungs are a stupid idea for something that lives underwater.

Of course it is, this is why shinbits argument is starting to sound desperate. Just imagine if humans couldn't get our oxygen from the air in the atmosphere around us, more that that it would actually kill us, but instead we had to stick our heads underwater to get our oxygen. What kind of design is this? It's not stupid per se, as that's subjective, it's incredible inefficient.

 

[shinbits]

Of course it is, this is why shinbits argument is starting to sound desperate. Just imagine if humans couldn't get our oxygen from the air in the atmosphere around us, more that that it would actually kill us, but instead we had to stick our heads underwater to get our oxygen. What kind of design is this? It's not stupid per se, as that's subjective, it's incredible inefficient.

Your argument is like saying it is stupid for humans to be in a highly advanced, government built submarine, because we have lungs, and we'd to leave eventually to get air.

Just because there's not an infinite supply of air on a submarine, that doesn't mean it's stupid.

"But what if a problem occurs and it can't surface to get air?"

Problems are just a part of life. But hat doesn't take away from the genius of the design of submarines.

The same goes for dolphins.

 

[Split Rock]

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

I say "us" because we are tetrapods by every definition of the term. We are also mammals and apes. Strange that God made us that way, huh?

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?

God would have been constantly creating new species over time just to make it look like life was evolving. Why would he do that, 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?

Well, all life evolves on this planet, so its a good guess.

You can't disprove creation. All you can do is uncover new things about creations.

Emphasis mine.

Now if you had some solid evidence of Granny, as our first relative, then that would do it.

What do you call "solid evidence." I assume it would require somekind of scriptural interpretation, right? Sorry, that's not my bag.

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

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.

Oh dad... now you're quote-mining. I thought better of you. What this person is saying is that we can't tell if it is a direct ancestor, but that it is a very good candidate for the position. Very much like we cannot disprove you're creation model, we cannot determine if a particular candidate is a direct ancestor of a modern species, or just a relative of the direct ancestor.

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

Well lets see... It is not streamlined with a powerful propulsion system, so it isn't a deep sea/ocean animal. It has lungs and gills and fins.... hmm.. I would say it lived in shallow water, just like many frogs, turtles and salamanders. Mayabe you should study some basic zoology.

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.

This still doesn't explain why we don't see other "suited" creatures in Devonian strata.

 

[Split Rock]

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

You can say that after seeing what the fossil looks like? How is it that someone with the post-name "Pure in Heart" can be so disingenuous? For shame...

 

[TeddyKGB]

Saying it's stupid is pure opinion. And again, it's also ignoring the fact that a dolphin's lungs and body are well suited for spending lots of time under water. So even this opinion isn't very substantial, in light of all it's designs to suit it so well for water.

It's stupid because elsewhere there exists an organ specially adapted for absorbing oxygen from seawater.

It's obviously sleep, which is a necessary function. If it isn't, then why do they do it? What is it's purpose in doing so?

If you can't answer that, then it can only be sleep.

So you're right by default if we can't answer your arbitrary, tautological questions? How's that work?

 

[shinbits]

It's stupid because elsewhere there exists an organ specially adapted for absorbing oxygen from seawater.

One, it's an opinion, nothing more. Two, it's an opinion that ignores just how well suited a dolphin's lungs and body is for going under water. Three, not all organisms need to have the same mechanisms or even the best mechanisms for survival in an envirornment; being really well designed for that envirornment is sufficient enough.

So you're right by default if we can't answer your arbitrary, tautological questions? How's that work?

If you're going to claim that dolphin's aren't really sleeping when they clearly are exhibiting behavior similar to sleep, then you'd better be able to have a good reason for making that claim. If you don't, then don't argue.

 

[gluadys]

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?

That's true too. There are actually three filters here:

1. Very few organisms are fossilized in the first place.

2. Of the organisms which did fossilize, some have been destroyed by changes in the sediment they were originally buried in and most of the rest are inaccessible. This leaves proportionately very few fossils available to be found.

3. Of the fossils available to be found, only a very few have actually been discovered. It is estimated that even of the fossils available to be found, less than 1% have been discovered so far.

So, in proportion to the original organisms, and even in proportion to the organisms which became fossils, and the fossils located where they can be found, those fossils which have been discovered are very rare.

And they are still not scarce.

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

That is what a lot of the numbers in the original report will be about. Measure the length, width, thickness of the limb bones, look at the angle relative to the torso, examine the muscle attachments, weigh the actual fossil and estimate the weight of the living creature and probably a lot more that I have not thought of.

This will give a reasonable estimate of the weight-bearing capacity of the limbs. Not all that different from an engineer determining whether a bridge can bear the weight of a train.

Just what do you think that "study" means? Just what do you think scientists do when they study a fossil. Why do you assume they draw their conclusions out of thin air?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Your argument is like saying it is stupid for humans to be in a highly advanced, government built submarine, because we have lungs, and we'd to leave eventually to get air.
Just because there's not an infinite supply of air on a submarine, that doesn't mean it's stupid.
"But what if a problem occurs and it can't surface to get air?"
Problems are just a part of life. But hat doesn't take away from the genius of the design of submarines.

No one claimed that submarine constructors are omnipotent and infallible.

The same goes for dolphins.

When a supposedly perfect being creates an animal that must regularly leave its medium to survive, one has to wonder about his capabilities, don't you think? Especially when he created millions of animals not hindered by that problem ( like fish)

 

[TeddyKGB]

Your argument is like saying it is stupid for humans to be in a highly advanced, government built submarine, because we have lungs, and we'd to leave eventually to get air.

His argument is not remotely like that.

Just because there's not an infinite supply of air on a submarine, that doesn't mean it's stupid.

A submarine isn't a stupid design because humans - the designers - have not come up with a more effective, efficient means of putting air in a sub.

"But what if a problem occurs and it can't surface to get air?"

Problems are just a part of life. But hat doesn't take away from the genius of the design of submarines.

It would if we had a mechanism capable of removing oxygen from seawater that could also be installed on a submarine.

The same goes for dolphins.

No, dude, it doesn't. The putative creator of the dolphin is stupid because it had an obviously more appropriate oxygen-extracting organ in its repertoire.

 

[Garnett]

It's obviously sleep, which is a necessary function. If it isn't, then why do they do it? What is it's purpose in doing so?

If you can't answer that, then it can only be sleep...

If you're going to claim that dolphin's aren't really sleeping when they clearly are exhibiting behavior similar to sleep, then you'd better be able to have a good reason for making that claim. If you don't, then don't argue.

It is semi-consciousness - since only half of their brain shuits down you cannot say this is the same as sleep in humans, or do you want to argue this?

The fact they need to use this less efficient state of rest is due to the increased risk caused by thier dependancy on air and retaining faculties to wake them should oxygen levels get too low. The "sleep" you mention, therefore, ios a perfect example of a problem they have through imperfect adaptation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

One, it's an opinion, nothing more. Two, it's an opinion that ignores just how well suited a dolphin's lungs and body is for going under water. Three, not all organisms need to have the same mechanisms or even the best mechanisms for survival in an envirornment; being really well designed for that envirornment is sufficient enough.

"Sufficient enough" undermines your whole argument from design, and "really well designed" is undermined by a better design.

You lose. Give up.

If you're going to claim that dolphin's aren't really sleeping when they clearly are exhibiting behavior similar to sleep, then you'd better be able to have a good reason for making that claim. If you don't, then don't argue.

Aquatic mammal sleep is not the same phenomenon as land mammal sleep. But this is of no particular import, so I will leave this sub-topic alone.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you Jet, for taking the time to type this.



This entire paragraph shows why the creature was in fact able to support it's own body. It says "multiple features enable the fin to prop the body in a limb like manner." It then goes on to explain some of these features.

This isn't proof at all that the creatures legs were becoming useless because of evolution. There is obviously design and thought put into it.

No one claimed they were useless or becoming useless. The paper shows Tiktaalik was able to prop the body in a limb-like fashion. But where is it doing this? In an aquatic environment, where the water is supporting its weight.

This is not at all the same thing as supporting the body on land. Supporting the body on land requires greater strength than propping the body in water. It also requires a different conformation of the limbs. Are you forgetting that this creature has no wrists? Try doing a push-up without bending your wrists.

Jet Black obviously has access to the paper. Does it confirm what was said in the press release about the limbs being ill-suited for use in a terrestrial environment?

 

[shinbits]

"Sufficient enough" undermines your whole argument from design, and "really well designed" is undermined by a better design.

How? Are you saying that being reall well designed isn't good enough?

That's unintelligent.

Aquatic mammal sleep is not the same phenomenon as land mammal sleep. But this is of no particular import, so I will leave this sub-topic alone.

.....it's still sleep. No one said it's the same as non-aquatic mammels, but it is still sleep.

 

[dlamberth]

.....it's still sleep. No one said it's the same as non-aquatic mammels, but it is still sleep.

I think the point that should be made is that what you want to force into the box we call "sleep" is really "rest". There is a huge difference.

Because of the nature of it's environment, the dolphin at all times needs to always be aware of what's going on around them. Sleep would deprive them of that awareness.


.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No one claimed they were useless or becoming useless. The paper shows Tiktaalik was able to prop the body in a limb-like fashion. But where is it doing this? In an aquatic environment, where the water is supporting its weight.

This is not at all the same thing as supporting the body on land. Supporting the body on land requires greater strength than propping the body in water. It also requires a different conformation of the limbs. Are you forgetting that this creature has no wrists? Try doing a push-up without bending your wrists.

Jet Black obviously has access to the paper. Does it confirm what was said in the press release about the limbs being ill-suited for use in a terrestrial environment?

This is from the article, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb:

"The interpretation that the fins of Tiktaalik were used in supporting the body on a substrate is corroborated by the architecture of the axial skeleton. Expansion and imbrication of the ribs is a feature previously unknown in fish but seen in some early tetrapods such as Ichthyostega. The mechanical reinforcement of the spine engendered by costal overlap, together with a robust and mobile fin, suggest that both the axial and appendicular systems were playing a role in supporting the weight of the animal. With a dorsoventrally compressed head and body, raised and dorsally placed eyes, and a mobile head that is independent of the shoulder girdle, Tiktaalik possesses a range of features consistent with locomotion on the water bottom, along the water margins, and on subaerial surfaces—an interpretation that is in accord with the shallow meandering stream deposits from which Tiktaalik was recovered." (emphasis mine)

So they seem to be suggesting that it could walk on land.

 

[shinbits]

I think the point that should be made is that what you want to force into the box we call "sleep" is really "rest". There is a huge difference.

You are saying a dolphin never sleeps? Because if so, that's in correct since part of it's brain actually shuts down---the way animals that sleep do.

 

[dad]

With all due respect, you are being disingenuous. Creationism makes no predictions. Creationism has never made nor published a single prediction. It is a magic wand that you wave. A discovery like the one in the OP is made, and you say "Creationism predicts this." A shame you can't prove that you made such a prediction. Retroactive predictions are like prophecy after the predicted event. Completely useless.

Creation is where God created all life in a few days. It is expected that some things went extinct, and some things adapted. This is news? Therefore, when we find remains of departed creatures, it is no surprise. What is it about dead creatures no longer with us you find doesn't fit this picture!?

 

[TeddyKGB]

How? Are you saying that being reall well designed isn't good enough?

No, I'm saying the sentiment, "Look how brilliantly designed that is; there must have been an intelligent agent behind it" is wholly unwarranted if there is a structure demonstrably more effective for the given task.

That's unintelligent.

That's a cheap shot. I am expecting less and less intellectual honesty from you as we go along.

.....it's still sleep. No one said it's the same as non-aquatic mammels, but it is still sleep.

Ah, of course. A member of the 'sleep' kind.

 

[dad]

I say "us" because we are tetrapods by every definition of the term. We are also mammals and apes. Strange that God made us that way, huh?

The insinuation is that we decended from a long line of things.

God would have been constantly creating new species over time just to make it look like life was evolving. Why would he do that, dad?

I don't believe He would do any such thing. He made a full spectrum to begin with. And if some conditions arose on the planet that required adapting to, the creatures came equiped to do just that.

What do you call "solid evidence." ..

Her pond location, perhaps? Where it came from? How everything that lives MUST have decended from it, and could not have been created, things like that. Not just observing some of the past full spectrum of life and making a claim it all started in the pond!

SO????

So prove the neat creature was not created or adapted, if that is your claim.

Oh dad... now you're quote-mining. I thought better of you. What this person is saying is that we can't tell if it is a direct ancestor, but that it is a very good candidate for the position.

I liked the part where they said, if you set out to design such a thing, this would 'you'd probably come up with something like this'

Very much like we cannot disprove you're creation model, we cannot determine if a particular candidate is a direct ancestor of a modern species, or just a relative of the direct ancestor.

So don't make claims if you don't really know what it is you are talking about! Is that too much too ask?

Well lets see... It is not streamlined with a powerful propulsion system, so it isn't a deep sea/ocean animal.

OK, so it, unlike clams, or lobster, can't be a sea creature, OK. The only things in water are powerfully propelled?

It has lungs and gills and fins.... hmm.. I would say it lived in shallow water, just like many frogs, turtles and salamanders. Mayabe you should study some basic zoology.

I don't doubt it did live perhaps in shallow water, maybe also on land somewhat. As I said, it got around the new, wet planet real good. I am not claiming things about this thing, you are. What would I care if it was created or adapted to conditions on the new planet here? Your whole point seems to be, that because God fitted, or made creatures that were multi habitat capable, they must have evolved from the pond. Sorry, that is ridiculous.

This still doesn't explain why we don't see other "suited" creatures in Devonian strata.

How do you know they were suited? Just being wet doesn't mean it needs to be full of frogs and salamanders. If frogs, etc were creatures made like most plants and animals, I believe, right in or near Eden, why would we expect them way out in various locales around earth in general? Only certain things were made for that job. Now, all that remains is to decide if this was one of the creatures of special purpose - or, if it was one of Eden's creatures that was real good at getting around in the conditions of the planet at the time. Simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

The insinuation is that we decended from a long line of things.

No, that's the conclusion drawn from evidence.

I don't believe He would do any such thing. He made a full spectrum to begin with.

Actually, there is not a full spectrum, which is the whole problem for creationism. We do not see species that violate the twin nested hierarchies predicted by the theory of evolution. We don't see any bats with feathers or birds with teats, yet both are part of a full spectrum.

And if some conditions arose on the planet that required adapting to, the creatures came equiped to do just that.

They did? Then why doesn't this transitional have claws for climbing trees?

Her pond location, perhaps? Where it came from? How everything that lives MUST have decended from it, and could not have been created, things like that. Not just observing some of the past full spectrum of life and making a claim it all started in the pond!

I find it strange that creationists ask for transitional fossils and then dismiss them categorically when shown them. The theory of evolution predicted the age and morphological characteristics of this transitional. Creationism is incapable of making these predictions. Therefore, the theory of evolution is by far the better explanation.

So prove the neat creature was not created or adapted, if that is your claim.

Of course it adapted, that's the whole point. The problem for you is to show us why this adaptation has to stop.

Secondly, this transitional is a fulfilled prediction of the theory of evolution. It is exactly what we would expect to find if the theory of evolution is true. If your type of skepticism were extended to the courtroom, then you would expect the prosecutor to rule out Leprechauns plantin fingerprints at the scene of a crime before physical evidence is accepted.

I liked the part where they said, if you set out to design such a thing, this would 'you'd probably come up with something like this'

Yes, if you were to design the transitional expected if evolution were true. What they were saying is that this fossil fits predictions to a tee.

So don't make claims if you don't really know what it is you are talking about! Is that too much too ask?

It's obviously more than you are able to do.

OK, so it, unlike clams, or lobster, can't be a sea creature, OK. The only things in water are powerfully propelled?

Fish in the open or deep see are strong and powerful swimmers. What they are saying is that the fish is shaped differently than what would be expected in a fish found in the deep or open water.

Your whole point seems to be, that because God fitted, or made creatures that were multi habitat capable, they must have evolved from the pond. Sorry, that is ridiculous.

Again, this transitional fits the predictions of the theory of evolution. What follows this transitional is a series of species more and more adapted to life on land, and behind it a series of species less and less adapted to life on land.

How do you know they were suited? Just being wet doesn't mean it needs to be full of frogs and salamanders. If frogs, etc were creatures made like most plants and animals, I believe, right in or near Eden, why would we expect them way out in various locales around earth in general? Only certain things were made for that job. Now, all that remains is to decide if this was one of the creatures of special purpose - or, if it was one of Eden's creatures that was real good at getting around in the conditions of the planet at the time. Simple.

Name one tropical wetland that does not have amphibians and reptiles. If you can't then your arguments is null and void.