Good thing too, since that's not a claim of evolution.There is no proof that any of these started as one and over time changed into the other.
Having children is not a requirement for a fossil to be classified as a transitional.You have a bunch of different skulls of different beings. Of which you cannot prove if it even had children and if it did, how long they survived.
Your classification of 99% of all biologists and geologists as storytellers and liars, or stupid, doesn't carry much weight when we consider your lack of knowledge of what the theory of evolution entails.This is all speculation, extrapolation, assumption and faith. You believe it because someone told you that it was true, and someone told them.
The display of the skulls is not the entirety of evidence garnered from the discovery, unearthing and study of the skulls and the locations from which they came. That you don't seem to know this, is evidence enough that your opinion on the matter cannot be trusted to come close to reality.Nobody has any evidence or proof that these evolved from one to the other.
This is proof of only one thing... each of the owners of these skulls lived once.... that's it.
Originally Posted by Papias View Post
First - as PS is pointing out, there is a lot more to it than that.
Second - it included the type of mammal, such as the fact that rodents will only be found in the last 80 of those 400. Multiply that by group after group, and the level of specificity is even more powerful.
Ok good. Now you can be the first evolutionist ever to explain how Evolution predicts when rodents will evolve in the history of life on earth. (or any other mammal groups for that matter.)
Evolution theory simply adapted to the fossil record ad hoc. It does not predict anything specific.
When did they ever think that Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor? Even in the original publication they have Tiktaalik as an offshoot.
"Here we describe the pectoral appendage of a member of the sister group of tetrapods, Tiktaalik roseae, which is morphologically and functionally transitional between a fin and a limb."
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb : Nature
That's what direct ancestor means, a direct ancestor of a living descendant.
Are you playing the definition game again?
Papers from the 1800's are not my criteria.
You are grasping at straws.
The transitional sequence does have to be in phylogenetic order, which it is.
The platypus is transitional in that it has a mixture of reptilian and mammalian features.
However, no one expects it to be a direct ancestor, nor would we expect to find platypus fossils in the same sediments as mammal-like reptiles that mark the beginning of mammalian evolution.
Are you incapable of following a simple discussion? The time period is irrelevant.
Again, you assert that a "mixture of traits" establishes a "transitional sequence". I show you prior "transitional sequences" based on the same criteria that completely contradict present evolutionary models.
Evolution theory simply conforms itself to whatever data patterns are present.
Now we're back to my original point. There is no phylogenetic order predicted by Evolution, not in any specific sense.
I'm sorry I should have said direct transitional rather than direct ancestor.
There is no such thing as a direct transitional since a transitional is never assumed to be a direct ancestor or a direct lineal descandant of any prior fossil species, any subsequent fossil species, or any living species.
It seems this falsifies your claim:
But it is their age that makes these tracks so special: 18 million years older than the earliest known tetrapod body fossils, and 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegids — Tiktaalik , Panderichthys and their relatives, seen as transitional forms between fishes and tetrapods. The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates. Emphasis mine.
Four feet in the past: trackways pre-date earliest body fossils : Nature
.....
Thank you for conceding the argument. You were forced to avoid quoting almost everything I wrote because you have no counter. Readers can see for themselves.
Till next time you need to be educated.
Thank you for conceding the argument.
You conceded the argument when you lied about it.
The liar accusation again? Really?
Now, what you wish you could say is that the fossils match the phylogenetic ordering. But we know that isn't true. The fossils don't have to be in order, as we see in the case of fish-tetrapods and dino-bird model.
No one ever thought Tiktaalik was any kind of ancestor of lobed-fin fish. Lobed-fin fish aren't tetrapods. What are you talking about?No one NOW thinks Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of lobed-fin fish. The first known tetrapod.
Let's start with this misrepresentation.
This misrepresents what a transitional form is. A transitional form is never assumed to be a direct ancestor. Never. There is no need for a transitional feature to disappear in all sister groups. As we see with the platypus, transitional features can hang around for a long time in a lineage. Finding a living platypus and a fossil placental mammal in no way falsifies the evolution of placental mammals from egg laying mammals.
What the theory does predict is that the mixture of features will produce the predicted nested hierarchy, and they do.
No one ever thought Tiktaalik was any kind of ancestor of lobed-fin fish. Lobed-fin fish aren't tetrapods. What are you talking about?
You didn't address his example given by Huxley.
What do you mean? They believed it was a lobed-fin fish in transition to a Tetrapod.
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?