Human evolution

[Jimmy D]

I assume the pic @Jimmy D failed at was an attempt at pretending he's smart without actually providing an actual argument.

I've got no argument with you.

I'm merely noting that you spectacularly failed to understand why the finding of Tiktaalik was yet another successful prediction of the TOE.

But yes, my smart alec GIF failed show up.

 

[tas8831]

I think the misconception here is that we are both looking at the same evidence. The only difference is the interpretation of the evidence.

Yes. And one side uses logic, reason, and scientific principles when interpreting the evidence. The other side spins it so it comports with their religious beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

Fixed it for you.

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.

 

[Colter]

Genesis was created by Semitic men, converting ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction using ancient lore from the vantage point of the Baylonian captivity. Faith in the claims of the subsiquent preist class of divine inspiration has stunted the growth of some Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis was created by Semitic men,

No, it wasn't.

 

[Job 33:6]

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

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.

 

[Colter]

No, it wasn't.

Outside of the doctrine of inspiration unbiased minds can see the errors, edits and common sense inconsistencies of Genesis. Observation of the facts within the fossil record, apart from the transitional fossil debate, discredits the Israelites story of their origins. The “gentile dogs” have quite a long history of their own.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here.

That's ..... strange. The post is quite clear.
Up until Tiktaalik's find, no such creature was known to exist. Not extant, not in the fossil record.

And then, based purely on evolution theory and evolutionary history, scientists predicted not only what features such a creature would have, but also where it would be found.

How could they ever be able to do that succesfully, if evolution is false???
Considering that they indeed have found exactly the fossil they expected to find, how is that not fossil evidence FOR evolution?

It is making the claim that if the theory of evolution were true, then there must have been a "transitional form" linking men coming from fish (well, whoop-dee-doo. Stating the obvious).

Yes, stating the obvious. What is also obvious, is that if evolution is false, then such fossils shouldn't exist. But they do exist. Not only do they exist, they are found by prediction. In the exact place, the exact depth, the exact rock and with the exact features that the prediction stated it would be. And there it was.

How do you explain that, if evolution is false?

However, the claim here is that this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.

You think tiktaalik is a hoax?

They found bones and not even a complete set, just the skull and a heavily fragmented half of its body.

Which was enough to confirm it had all the features predicted it should have. You also seem unaware that more then one specimen has been found since then...

Also, didn't you just say it was a hoax?

Sounds like you are confused. Or heavily in denial.

Evolutionists imagined the tiktaalik to having "fin feet". The reconstruction of the tikaalik was mostly out of preconceived speculations.

No.

The reason why most "smart" evolutionists stay away from the tikaalik, is because they found fossilised tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the tikaalik. Why are these evolutionary "predictive powers" so commonly wrong?

You seem to be thinking that it is claimed that the first fossil Tiktaalik was literally the first animal on land (as in, that specific individual). This is off course nonsense. It belonged to a species that already existed at the time that individual died and turned into a fossil. By that time, such fish/tetrapod creatures roamed the earth already.

But all this is besides the point anyway.
You seem to not be getting the important bit here...............

Which is that scientists predicted the finding of a specific fossil, with specific features, in a specific location... that was never found before - not in the fossil record, not in extant life.

And when they went to that spot and started digging, they found it.
In the right place. At the right depth. In the right rock. With the right features.

If evolution is false, then how come it can be used to predict the exact location and feature set of previously unknown fossils (or life forms, for that matter)????

Sure, go ahead. But this time, use your own knowledge on the subject rather than just parroting what others say.

@KomatiiteBIF is actually a scientist who studies these things for a living. Why would I, as a layman, bring my own examples in my own words while there are other people here who are a lot more knowledgeable on this stuff and far less likely to making mistakes due to ignorance?

I'll stick to the Tiktaalik example, which - in all honesty - you haven't actually addressed at all.

You called it a "hoax" and spouted some off topic objections.
Meanwhile, you are ignoring the elephant in the room... That this fossil was found by prediction based on evolution theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

Tiktaalik also has published descriptions on gill ridges by at least a couple researchers.

"The elongate 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 gills29."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04639#ref29




So, it really does have both fish and tetrapod features. It has its flat head, much like a salamander or a crocodile, with the eyes on top for seeing above water. Spiracles indicating that it could breathe air, gills for breathing underwater (which some modern day amphibians can breath in both air and water), robust ribs and a robust pectoral girdle, its neck is unfused so it could turn its head. These are things that fish dont have except for the gills.

But it also has fins, scales and gills. These are fish features. Its lower jaw is morphologically fish-like.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh and one last thing, i think in my earlier post i mentioned that tiktaalik had feet. I didn't literally mean feet. In case anyone wants to be technically specific, I was referring to the rear fins.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's ..... strange. The post is quite clear.
Up until Tiktaalik's find, no such creature was known to exist. Not extant, not in the fossil record.

And then, based purely on evolution theory and evolutionary history, scientists predicted not only what features such a creature would have, but also where it would be found.

How could they ever be able to do that succesfully, if evolution is false???
Considering that they indeed have found exactly the fossil they expected to find, how is that not fossil evidence FOR evolution?





Yes, stating the obvious. What is also obvious, is that if evolution is false, then such fossils shouldn't exist. But they do exist. Not only do they exist, they are found by prediction. In the exact place, the exact depth, the exact rock and with the exact features that the prediction stated it would be. And there it was.

How do you explain that, if evolution is false?



You think tiktaalik is a hoax?



Which was enough to confirm it had all the features predicted it should have. You also seem unaware that more then one specimen has been found since then...

Also, didn't you just say it was a hoax?

Sounds like you are confused. Or heavily in denial.



No.



You seem to be thinking that it is claimed that the first fossil Tiktaalik was literally the first animal on land (as in, that specific individual). This is off course nonsense. It belonged to a species that already existed at the time that individual died and turned into a fossil. By that time, such fish/tetrapod creatures roamed the earth already.

But all this is besides the point anyway.
You seem to not be getting the important bit here...............

Which is that scientists predicted the finding of a specific fossil, with specific features, in a specific location... that was never found before - not in the fossil record, not in extant life.

And when they went to that spot and started digging, they found it.
In the right place. At the right depth. In the right rock. With the right features.

If evolution is false, then how come it can be used to predict the exact location and feature set of previously unknown fossils (or life forms, for that matter)????



@KomatiiteBIF is actually a scientist who studies these things for a living. Why would I, as a layman, bring my own examples in my own words while there are other people here who are a lot more knowledgeable on this stuff and far less likely to making mistakes due to ignorance?

I'll stick to the Tiktaalik example, which - in all honesty - you haven't actually addressed at all.

You called it a "hoax" and spouted some off topic objections.
Meanwhile, you are ignoring the elephant in the room... That this fossil was found by prediction based on evolution theory.

I dont think people quite understand how improbable such a discovery would be, if evolution were not true.

It would be like taking a dart board, the size of planet earth, and blindly throwing a dart at it, and coming up with a fossil that you predicted would be there.

The researchers literally took a helicopter to the abyssal canadian tundra, and went to shallow marine rock of prehistoric meandering streams of the mid devonian, and found precisely what one would expect to be there, if evolution were true.

And if it were all false, it should be so easy for deniers to find something like, an ordovician tiktaalik, or a silurian or cambrian tiktaalik. It it were all false, it should be easy for deniers to find paleozoic mammals or birds, or early devonian reptiles or reptiles in any rock superpositionally prior to that.

I think the initial issue here is that a lot of deniers just dont understand geology. And so they read about this stuff and they just have no idea what it means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I dont think people quite understand how improbable such a discovery would be, if evolution were not true.

It would be like taking a dart board, the size of planet earth, and blindly throwing a dart at it, and coming up with a fossil that you predicted would be there.

The researchers literally took a helicopter to the abyssal canadian tundra, and went to shallow marine rock of prehistoric meandering streams of the mid devonian, and found precisely what one would expect to be there, if evolution were true.

And if it were all false, it should be so easy for deniers to find something like, an ordovician tiktaalik, or a silurian or cambrian tiktaalik. It it were all false, it should be easy for deniers to find paleozoic mammals or birds, or early devonian reptiles or reptiles in any rock superpositionally prior to that.

I think the initial issue here is that a lot of deniers just dont understand geology. And so they read about this stuff and they just have no idea what it means.

And off course, the fact that they come to the party with preconceived dogmatic beliefs that they already have the answer and that "the others" can simply NOT be correct if they disagree, no matter how sound and valid their case might seem to be, doesn't help................

It's the typical fundamentalist position:

"If reality disagrees with my dogmatic beliefs, then reality is wrong".

 

[tas8831]

Tiktaalik also has published descriptions on gill ridges by at least a couple researchers.

"The elongate 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 gills29."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04639#ref29




So, it really does have both fish and tetrapod features. It has its flat head, much like a salamander or a crocodile, with the eyes on top for seeing above water. Spiracles indicating that it could breathe air, gills for breathing underwater (which some modern day amphibians can breath in both air and water), robust ribs and a robust pectoral girdle, its neck is unfused so it could turn its head. These are things that fish dont have except for the gills.

But it also has fins, scales and gills. These are fish features. Its lower jaw is morphologically fish-like.

This is all well and good, but the thing was FULLY FORMED! Can't possibly be transitional!

 

[Job 33:6]

Lol^

 

[tas8831]

Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.

Are you a paleontologist? A scientist?

Is creationism built on testable models?

 

[tas8831]

I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here.

I thought you were going to "show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models", not filibuster.

...this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.

So, you are not a serious debater at all, I see.

When creationists feel that they must make such false claims about evidence in order to dismiss it and to make their "argument" work, they are disingenuous and not worthy of the effort.

 

[Aman777]

Not as convenient as the fact that creationists are unable to produce any physical evidence for their claims at all, and then hide behind 'faith.'

False, as evidenced by the running away of every evolutionist here who CANNOT tell us HOW ancient men of 3k years ago, KNEW and WROTE correctly that "every living creature that moveth" had it's origin in WATER. Science announced confirmation of this event 2 years ago. https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/looking-for-luca-the-last-universal-common-ancestor/

It's now time to quit posting that creationists are not able to produce ANY evidence since doing now, will be in violation of the Truth. We're out of hiding from the lies of the False assumptions of "so called" Science.

 

[Aman777]

Apparently neither do you.

It's not me who is paranoid. I look forward to the return of Jesus. Those who don't, live in fear since they know their future. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Scientists interpret the evidence.
Creationists just ignore the evidence.

False, as evidenced by you, since you cannot explain HOW ancient men of 3k years ago, knew and correctly told us that ALL life came from water. Genesis 1:21 Today's "advanced Science" announced the SAME 2 years ago. Only those who stick their heads in the sand and reject God's Truth haven't noticed. They keep posting falsehoods.

 

[Aman777]

Creationists ignore all that and just wave their bibles instead.

We wave our Bibles while evolution worshipers run away from God's Truth.