Human evolution

[Aman777]

Is creationism built on testable models?

Absolutely, when you can stop the evolutionists from running away from the debate.

 

[tas8831]

You want to show me these other 15 specimens of the tikaalik?

Why - are you an anatomist? A paleontologist? If not, why do you want to see them? Will you misrepresent them like David Menton and Jon Sarfati did?

 

[Abraxos]

The descriptions of them has been published.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04637

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16598250

Donald Prothero, which, if you know who Donald Prothero is, he is a very well known technical writer and paleontologists, he is very knowledgeable of paleontolgy, has wrote

"More than 10 individuals of tiktaalik have been recovered, ranging in length from 1 to 3 meters. Even better, the best specimen of tiktaalik is nearly complete with just portions of its hind limbs and tail missing, although the hind limbs are known from other specimens."

Which is exactly what is described here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04637

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.



The initial publication^ with description of the spiracles for breathing air, robust rib bones, the flat head, the mobile neck, the rotating wrist bones, the robust shoulder bones etc. These are not fish features. But this also discusses that tiktaalik has fins and scales, which are fish features. You can see a picture of the scales above.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/3/893

Then theyve returned with more research on additional specimen ^ with a description of the pectoral girdle, which is something that prior fish do not have. In figure 2, you can see the pelvis and associate bones, rib bones, flat triangular head, pelvic fin etc. this is a nearly complete specimen.

Type specimen (NUFV108): ventral surface of cranial block (figured in ref. 6) aligned in preserved position with ventral view of the block containing the pelvic fin. (Inset) Line diagram of lepidotrichia and preserved portions of endochondral bones of pelvic fin. f, fin; i, intermedium?; l, lepidotrichia; r, radials.

Do you have some actual examples... like 15 actual raw skeletal specimens of tikaalik? I'm not really interested in a piece of a bone or drawings. I mean, you do understand why I am hounding you on this point, right?

No, you really didn't.

The creationist interpretation of the evidence is, in fact, to largely dismiss it out of hand. Or to spin it. Look at this forum.

I don't think so... the interpretations of the fossils for the tikaalik as an example are merely based on nothing more than speculations from a very fragmented fossil that was absent of these supposed fin-feet. Is it not fair to say that this interpretation of this heavily fragmented fossil is more speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions rather than actual data that is observed of the fossil?

The best one could really say is that this "transitional form" from sea to land is an inconclusive unsubstantiated claim. And that's being overly generous.

 

[Abraxos]

Why - are you an anatomist? A paleontologist? If not, why do you want to see them? Will you misrepresent them like David Menton and Jon Sarfati did?

No, just an analyst. Care to show me some?

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you have some actual examples... like 15 actual raw skeletal specimens of tikaalik? I'm not really interested in a piece of a bone or drawings. I mean, you do understand why I am hounding you on this point, right?


I don't think so... the interpretations of the fossils for the tikaalik as an example are merely based on nothing more than speculations from a very fragmented fossil that was absent of these supposed fin-feet. Is it not fair to say that this interpretation of this heavily fragmented fossil is more speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions rather than actual data that is observed of the fossil?

The best one could really say is that this "transitional form" from sea to land is an inconclusive unsubstantiated claim. And that's being overly generous.

Did you see the photographs in the research papers? They fossils arent exactly in my bedroom.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you look at the photographs in the research papers, you can see scales, you can see spiracles, fin rays, you can see the pelvic girdle, you can see the unfused neck, the flat head. Its all right there. And there are photographs of multiple specimen as well, which prior to today, you appeared to be unaware of their existence.

And still, there is no actual response to how the prediction in discovering tiktaalik was made.

If you cant see how tiktaalik has both fish traits and tetrapod traits, then you're simply in denial.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is a raw skeletal image. Its not a drawing. High definition scales right there in the bottom left picture.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/3/893

Look in this link above at figure 2, also a high definition image, no drawings. He has 4 different angles in high definition photograph of the acetabulum, ilium, and pubis.

And in figure 3.

Here again ^, hit the reply button if you cant see the image. You can clearly see the scales along its back, its flat head, you can see the unfused skull, you can see the large pectoral girdles

 

[Abraxos]

...Why is "predictive powers" science again?

 

[Job 33:6]

...Why is "predictive powers" science again?

How do you think tiktaalik was found if not through prediction based on the theory of evolution?

Its science because its testable, its repeatable, it demonstrates that if evolution is true, X type of fossil will exist in Y location. And its been supported time and time again.

And, for people who are deniers, you have the capability of finding a tiktaalik from the cambrian or ordovician or even the early silurian to prove all of this wrong. Or you can find any mammal fossil or any bird fossil anywhere in the paleozoic (permian, carboniferous, ordovician, silurian, devonian or cambrian rock). Or find pleistocene megafauna anywhere in the paleozoic or the mesozoic, or find any dinosaur prior to the mesozoic etc.



Not only can evolution tell us where fossils will be found in the earth, but it also tells us where they will not be found. If it isnt the theory of evolution that allowed for tiktaaliks accurate prediction, then what other explanation is there?

 

[Job 33:6]

If evolution is true, and fish evolved into tetrapods in the devonian, then we should find tiktaaliks in the devonian. And not anywhere in the devonian, but in the middle devonian in shallow marine rock, particularly rock formed in or adjacent to ancient streambeds.

If evolution is true, and amphibians evolved into reptiles, we should also find such transitionals.

If evolution is true, and reptiles evolved to be mammals and birds, we further should find these as well.

And if in any occasion, a mammal or bird is found before reptiles, or a reptile is found before amphibians, or amphibians are found before fish, then it would disprove the theory, at least with respect to paleontology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe i should just repeat the initial statement.

 

[Job 33:6]

For people who are having a hard time understanding why the predictions of fossil locality support evolution, read below: If you have questions, feel free to ask.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
People can, and have used genetics, to predict the location of fossils.

And I always turn to the popular example. The devonian is the age of fish. Fish dominated devonian strata. Terrestrial life dominates the Carboniferous. If evolution were true. Then fish-like tetrapods should exist in the mid to late devonian, after domination of fish but before the terrestrial takeover of the Carboniferous.

Not only that, but genetically, amphibians according to evolution will also be found between fish and reptiles, as reptiles are those that dominate the Carboniferous and fish dominated the devonian.

Knowing this, a team of scientists from Philadelphia and Chicago used a geologic map to find middle aged devonian rock, aged between the dominance of fish and the dominance of terrestrial vertebrates. This rock was in a random area in the Canadian tundra. That's just where the rock extends. They traveled specifically to rock consistent of shallow marine deposits, things like stream deposits and alluvial fan deposits, and they found a fish with legs.

That is tiktaalik. It has scales like a fish, but it also has rotating wrists, robust shoulders, eyes on top of it's head like an alligator. But had find Ray's rather than toes, and it had gills and spiracles on it's head indicating that it could breath both air and water. Neck vertebrae are unfused like a tetrapod, but it's jaw is shaped like a fishes.

So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a devonian outcrop in Canada.

So what is the response from evolution deniars? Do they believe the discovery of tiktaalik was pure chance? What if I named another fossil also discovered through prediction based on the theory of evolution? What if I named 10 more? Or 100?

And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional.

 

[Abraxos]

Well, the thing with that is another find put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago according to evolutionists own timeline. So the tikaalik was not a successful prediction and a demonstration of the scientific method. Quite the opposite.

Doesn't make much sense if you had some animal walking around millions of years before the tikaalik. The predictive power of the tikaalik was a failed prediction. "Predictive powers" is simply at best an educated guess lacking in the scientific method of empiricism.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, the thing with that is another find put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago according to evolutionists own timeline. So the tikaalik was not a successful prediction and a demonstration of the scientific method. Quite the opposite.

Doesn't make much sense if you had some animal walking around millions of years before the tikaalik. The predictive power of the tikaalik was a failed prediction. "Predictive powers" is simply at best an educated guess lacking in the scientific method of empiricism.

And how old do you think tiktaalik is?

 

[AV1611VET]

So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a devonian outcrop in Canada.

You know what?

I predicted we'd find letters in the soup aisle at the grocery story.

And guess what!?

Sure enough, we found cans of alphabet soup ... not in the bread aisle ... but the soup aisle!

So if fish dominate the Devonian, why would they look in the Carboniferous?

Scientist One: Hey, guys. Let's go find a transitional fish.
Scientist Two: Okay, let's go look in the Carboniferous.
Scientist One: Silly man! The Carboniferous is for Homos.
Scientist Two: Then where?
Scientist One: The Devonian, brainiac. Don't you know your computer programs?
Scientist Two: But ... but what if there ARE fish in the Carboniferous!?
Scientist One: Do you know ANYONE who looks in the Carboniferous for fish!?
Scientist Two: No, but ...
Scientist One: Then don't make us a laughingstock. Think what would happen if someone saw us fishing in the Carboniferous!

 

[AV1611VET]

"Predictive powers" is simply at best an educated guess lacking in the scientific method of empiricism.

I'd say they found this Ticktock in spite of science; not with respect to it.

For every "prediction" that comes true, they probably have a thousand that don't.

And what does the Bible say?

If just ONE prophecy doesn't come true, it can take a hike.

 

[Colter]

You know what?

I predicted we'd find letters in the soup aisle at the grocery story.

And guess what!?

Sure enough, we found cans of alphabet soup ... not in the bread aisle ... but the soup aisle!

So if fish dominate the Devonian, why would they look in the Carboniferous?

Scientist One: Hey, guys. Let's go find a transitional fish.
Scientist Two: Okay, let's go look in the Carboniferous.
Scientist One: Silly man! The Carboniferous is for Homos.
Scientist Two: Then where?
Scientist One: The Devonian, brainiac. Don't you know your computer programs?
Scientist Two: But ... but what if there ARE fish in the Carboniferous!?
Scientist One: Do you know ANYONE who looks in the Carboniferous for fish!?
Scientist Two: No, but ...
Scientist One: Then don't make us a laughingstock. Think what would happen if someone saw us fishing in the Carboniferous!

YEC One: Everything was created in a week, they all lived together, then a crafty beast arrived in the confused narrative to undermine Gods work. The omniscient God pretends to be surprised, puts an unclear curse on some aspect of humanity, more imperfection ensues, in further disappointment God drowns the whole earth with the exception of a distant relative of the people who invented the story, and a boat with 2 of every living thing on earth. After a year, 601 year old Noah and his mixed race family dock, the world rapidly regenerates with millions of living things. Eventually the only righteous man in all the world is found drunk, passed out naked in his tent. Still, nothing has gone according to mans projected plans for earth.

Even where scientist have been wrong they present a better story than that!

 

[Brightmoon]

The problem is, AV, is that they don’t find truly out of place fossils . If they’re out of place at all is because they were moved after being fossilized. Paleontologists can tell because the original matrix is still surrounding the fossil. Please don’t bother with “ polystrate trees” as there are a lot of different reasons for trees to be found like that. Which is why mainstream scientists don’t use the term.

Abraxos doesn’t get it. Scientists found Tiktaalik were they predicted it would be . They didn’t know ahead of time where it would be. And by the way,finding fossils in this manner confirms that dating methods aren’t arbitrary either . This is probably the main reason that creationists reject it.

 

[Aman777]

YEC One: Everything was created in a week,

Amen to the above. God's 6 Day/Age creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven continues today at Genesis 1:27. God is currently filling the 3rd Heaven with ***ALL*** of it's "host". When the present 6th Day comes to an end, the 3rd Heaven will be finished or brought to perfection, along with ALL of it's "host".

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and ALL the host of them.

See? God is still creating today and won't rest or cease creating until His perfect 3rd Heaven is brought to perfection, a FUTURE event. His perfect Heaven will NOT be perfect until the last member of Heaven's "host" is saved. The YECs have been telling us God's Truth for thousands of years now, while suffering the arrogant and ignorant views of many who THINK they know more than God. God has but 7 Days and the 7th Day is Eternity. Amen?

 

[USincognito]

Why - are you an anatomist? A paleontologist? If not, why do you want to see them? Will you misrepresent them like David Menton and Jon Sarfati did?

I always love that gambit. As if they have the knowledge to do any more than look at it and recognize it as a fossil.