I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

[Stephen P]

Thanks for this PrincetonGuy
To support your comments,
Shroeder can prove that creation of 6.5 days From God's perspective, not ours, can be Astrophysically possible.

And Ive just seen a vague Science article that has pushed back photosynthesis by a billion years.
"suggest that photosynthesis may have begun about 3.4 billion years ago"
"Oxygen levels in rocks suddenly rise starting 2.5 billion years ago"

You can see the problem, and I do not see why Science is seen as infallible.
I thought people were still taught to question in schools?
However, the main issue I see is Science has something that can be put up on a whiteboard, and We do not seem to be able to do so. "Because I/it said/s so" is treated as abusive comments aren't they?
Elon can put his hand up and go "look we are stuffing up" but look a how well he has managed to go forwards.
My feeling is we think God is infallible, so anything we say about the Bible must be also infallible otherwise we are heretical.
Thomas doubted.
Jesus said "look, friend, I'll show you the wounds"
Jesus didn't say - "Right you heretic, Your'e in Hell."
I believe we are not going to Hell for saying, what if God meant this? or saying "I think God created x" when He didn't.

Write stuff down, stuff things up; make mistakes, discuss, and come up with at least some scientific reasons for Genesis.

I really wish Christians could have a whiteboard for each topic like Fall, Flood, and start actually writing stuff down. In one common area.

Because there'd be less people feeling that they have to turn away like the person that created this post.
s.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your after direct proof of creationism. I am after direct proof of evolution.

We are travelling past each other in opposite directions.

All I see are sudden appearances in the fossil record of species, not the transitional species which should be abundant.

Species rarely adapt to environmental changes rather they become extinct. Well that is what the fossil record states, 97% of all species are now extinct.

The trilobite appears suddenly and fully formed, raring to go.

Where is that gradual, gentle transition from one species to another. Oh, I miss the old days when you could believe something, without any evidence. These days the evolutionary theory is listing badly, too much evidence of abrupt change.

 

[klutedavid]

New evidence gleaned from CT scans of fossils locked inside rocks may flip the order in which two kinds of four-limbed animals with backbones were known to have moved from fish to landlubber.

Both extinct species, known as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, lived an estimated 360-370 million years ago in what is now Greenland. Acanthostega was thought to have been the most primitive tetrapod, that is, the first vertebrate animal to possess limbs with digits rather than fish fins.

But the latest evidence from a Duke graduate student's research indicates that Ichthyostega may have been closer to the first tetrapod. In fact, Acanthostega may have had a terrestrial ancestor and then returned full time to the water, said Viviane Callier, who is the first author of a report on the findings in Science. (Science20.com)

 

[Job 33:6]

New evidence gleaned from CT scans of fossils locked inside rocks may flip the order in which two kinds of four-limbed animals with backbones were known to have moved from fish to landlubber.

Both extinct species, known as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, lived an estimated 360-370 million years ago in what is now Greenland. Acanthostega was thought to have been the most primitive tetrapod, that is, the first vertebrate animal to possess limbs with digits rather than fish fins.

But the latest evidence from a Duke graduate student's research indicates that Ichthyostega may have been closer to the first tetrapod. In fact, Acanthostega may have had a terrestrial ancestor and then returned full time to the water, said Viviane Callier, who is the first author of a report on the findings in Science. (Science20.com)

Notice how both tetrapods both appear at roughly the same time in Earth history, post-dating fish dominated ordovician and silurian, but still long predating amphibian and reptile dominated carboniferous.

They're also both younger than tiktaalik. And all the lobe finned fish of the sequence (such as eusthenepteron and panderichthys). As they ought to be.

 

[Job 33:6]

To add to my last post, sometimes it helps to think of the fossil succession much like a series of notes.

Where we have A B C D E F G.

And in between those notes we have our sharps and flats.

And in the world of paleontology, we find our series of fossils. Invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. And in between these groups we find fish with tetrapod traits and tetrapods with fish traits, reptiles with bird traits, birds with reptile traits, mammal-reptile hybrids etc.

And the above groups of animals are found in their sequence, much like notes of a staff.

And uncovering fossils is much like tuning a guitare. Where you're plucking strings, one after another, as you investigate the order of sound.

And sometimes you get sounds, like an A and an A flat, that are similar sounding. And so paleontologists look at these notes and sometimes there is dispute over if it's A or A flat. Sometimes the two even switch back and forth as we continue to come up with more and more evidence and better and better arguments. Sometimes we might find 20-30 transitional between two groups. Sometimes they overlap one another temporally as well, so we have to pluck those strings over and over to determine the precise order of closely related sounds.

But at the end of the day, there isn't dispute between A and B, or F and G. What we dispute are the finer details. Is the animal a reptile-like-mammal? Or is it a Mammal-like-reptile. Sometimes they're so close, that a clear answer doesn't even exist.

But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so to are fish clearly distinct from amphibians.

And it's this observed pattern that defines what a transitional fossil is. The Fish to Fish/amphibian hybrid to amphibian, to reptile, to bird/mammal series.

And if people deliberate over if ichthyostega is more tetrapod-like or fish-like than it's contemporary acanthostega (or vise versa), it's more of a fine tuning discussion than it is one challenging if they're transitional or not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It doesn’t matter which creature you look at. They one and all remain the same for their entire existence until they go extinct.

It doesn’t matter if it is Tiktaalik or any of them.

Notice that Tiktaalik didn’t evolve into anything. It’s line ends on itself. Instead in each and every case it is this imaginary missing common ancestor that diverged to become Tiktaalik and the next imaginary missing common ancestor that then diverged to become supposedly the next in line. Said line also ending only on itself just like Tiktaalik.

Then this imaginary missing common ancestor diverged to become supposedly the next in line which ends on itself and another imaginary missing common ancestor.

The claimed links are in every single case imaginary. Each line is a distinct line and goes nowhere except to extinction.

Not just for this evolutionary tree and these creatures, but for every single creature on every single evolutionary tree. Every solitary link between the distinct lineages is in every case imaginary.

 

[klutedavid]

To add to my last post, sometimes it helps to think of the fossil succession much like a series of notes.

Where we have A B C D E F G.

And in between those notes we have our sharps and flats.

And in the world of paleontology, we find our series of fossils. Invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. And in between these groups we find fish with tetrapod traits and tetrapods with fish traits, reptiles with bird traits, birds with reptile traits, mammal-reptile hybrids etc.

And the above groups of animals are found in their sequence, much like notes of a staff.

And uncovering fossils is much like tuning a guitare. Where you're plucking strings, one after another, as you investigate the order of sound.

And sometimes you get sounds, like an A and an A flat, that are similar sounding. And so paleontologists look at these notes and sometimes there is dispute over if it's A or A flat. Sometimes the two even switch back and forth as we continue to come up with more and more evidence and better and better arguments. Sometimes we might find 20-30 transitional between two groups. Sometimes they overlap one another temporally as well, so we have to pluck those strings over and over to determine the precise order of closely related sounds.

But at the end of the day, there isn't dispute between A and B, or F and G. What we dispute are the finer details. Is the animal a reptile-like-mammal? Or is it a Mammal-like-reptile. Sometimes they're so close, that a clear answer doesn't even exist.

But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so to are fish clearly distinct from amphibians.

And it's this observed pattern that defines what a transitional fossil is. The Fish to Fish/amphibian hybrid to amphibian, to reptile, to bird/mammal series.

And if people deliberate over if ichthyostega is more tetrapod-like or fish-like than it's contemporary acanthostega (or vise versa), it's more of a fine tuning discussion than it is one challenging if they're transitional or not.

I have issues with the sharps and the flats.

The fossil record records the sudden appearances of species in over 97% of observed species.

If you step back and view the larger tree, I can still only see these distinct notes, A, B, C, e.t.c.

There is far to much inference involved in this Evolutionary theory. Species should never appear suddenly in the fossil record, given that this evolutionary theory is correct. Let's say that 10% of species appear suddenly with no known ancestors. That would strongly favor the evolutionary theory.

Either the fossil record is very incomplete or the evolutionary theory is incorrect. It is one of only two options.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have issues with the sharps and the flats.

The fossil record records the sudden appearances of species in over 97% of observed species.

If you step back and view the larger tree, I can still only see these distinct notes, A, B, C, e.t.c.

There is far to much inference involved in this Evolutionary theory. Species should never appear suddenly in the fossil record, given that this evolutionary theory is correct. Let's say that 10% of species appear suddenly with no known ancestors. That would strongly favor the evolutionary theory.

Either the fossil record is very incomplete or the evolutionary theory is incorrect. It is one of only two options.

And what is your explanation for the series of notes, A B C D E and F? If not common descent?

The fossil succession has never been about the quantity of fossils, it has always been about the sequence. Though to be fair, in Darwin's day we had 0 known intermediate skeletons, now we have hundreds of classic cases and even thousands when looked at in a broad sequence.

The reason quantity is not necessary, is because the A B C D E and F are also observed in various fields of study, as noted above.

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so to are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

 

[Job 33:6]

Take the following sequence for example:

It is true that we cannot see every single bone change millimeter to millimeter for every single individual that likely lived.

But at the same time, we are not completely blind. A sequence is still clearly evident.

Tiktaalik for example had fins and scales, just like fish before it. But it also had an amphibian like head with eyes on top like a crocodile, spiracles for breathing air, a neck for turning it's head while keeping the body stationary, an extended rib cage and robust girdles etc.

It truly had features of both fish before it and amphibians after it, all in one hybrid animal. And it was found temporally after fish and before tetrapods.

So the point is that there is significance not necessarily in the sheer quantity of fossils, but rather in the quality of them, their morphology and their temporal locality.

And once we understand that the succession exists, we can then enter the discussion of what the most feasible explanation is for it.

 

[coffee4u]

Maybe, perhaps, possibly - the language of evolutionists. Who then have the hide to criticise those who disagree with their point of view. Evolution is a crock. Fish do not survive low O2 levels in water. They die, as we find too often in Australia. So no, low O2 levels did not drive fish from the water to land.

Bob to Frank
"These low 02 levels really make me feel like developing lungs and going up on land, what do you say Frank?"
....
"Frank?"
Oops, Frank is dead.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Bob to Frank
"These low 02 levels really make me feel like developing lungs and going up on land, what do you say Frank?"
....
"Frank?"
Oops, Frank is dead.

Thanks for speaking so Frankly.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Thanks for this PrincetonGuy
To support your comments,
Shroeder can prove that creation of 6.5 days From God's perspective, not ours, can be Astrophysically possible.

And Ive just seen a vague Science article that has pushed back photosynthesis by a billion years.
"suggest that photosynthesis may have begun about 3.4 billion years ago"
"Oxygen levels in rocks suddenly rise starting 2.5 billion years ago"

You can see the problem, and I do not see why Science is seen as infallible.
I thought people were still taught to question in schools?
However, the main issue I see is Science has something that can be put up on a whiteboard, and We do not seem to be able to do so. "Because I/it said/s so" is treated as abusive comments aren't they?
Elon can put his hand up and go "look we are stuffing up" but look a how well he has managed to go forwards.
My feeling is we think God is infallible, so anything we say about the Bible must be also infallible otherwise we are heretical.
Thomas doubted.
Jesus said "look, friend, I'll show you the wounds"
Jesus didn't say - "Right you heretic, Your'e in Hell."
I believe we are not going to Hell for saying, what if God meant this? or saying "I think God created x" when He didn't.

Write stuff down, stuff things up; make mistakes, discuss, and come up with at least some scientific reasons for Genesis.

I really wish Christians could have a whiteboard for each topic like Fall, Flood, and start actually writing stuff down. In one common area.

Because there'd be less people feeling that they have to turn away like the person that created this post.
s.

The fact is that nobody but God knows for sure. There are other explanations that permit an older earth, not the 4 billion of some estimates, but way more than is implied in Genesis. Personally, I believe the "gap theory". Of course, young earth people do not. So what? Science can only attempt to describe the natural world. God reveals Himself through the wonders of His creation. God says that there is enough evidence for His reality. It's real simple. You believe it or you do not.

If the seeker asks God, even if the seeker does not believe in God or is agnostic, God will reveal Himself. He has promised to do so. God is not like humanity. He does not lie.

 

[Stephen P]

The fact is that nobody but God knows for sure. There are other explanations that permit an older earth, not the 4 billion of some estimates, but way more than is implied in Genesis. Personally, I believe the "gap theory". Of course, young earth people do not. So what? Science can only attempt to describe the natural world. God reveals Himself through the wonders of His creation. God says that there is enough evidence for His reality. It's real simple. You believe it or you do not.

If the seeker asks God, even if the seeker does not believe in God or is agnostic, God will reveal Himself. He has promised to do so. God is not like humanity. He does not lie.

Absolutely agree for sure that only God knows.
But then logically anything the Bible says in the Torah about creation is about God saying roughly (to people 2500 years ago) how the world was created.
So my next thought is:
1. Why did God bother describing the process if He didn't want us to have a look at it?
2. Why did God say in Job that we should to talk to the animals and the earth to find God?
3. Why did God / Jesus show Peter how to walk on water? Jesus said it was Peter's Faith failure, not that Jesus was somehow holding Peter up.
Jesus could have said, "You will never be able to walk" or "Sorry but I was actually holding you up"
Jesus credited Peter with the full effort.
Walking on water - unless you are running 180 miles an hour - must be a Creation based thing, Creation stopped day 6.5, so it was already setup for Human / Peter to walk on water.

Theres 2 choices: Believe the Bible and try to walk on water by Faith like Peter did.
Believe the Bible did miracles and that we are not meant to replicate them and automatically have no Faith to attempt them.

"Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "the Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified),"
Coffe4U is also GapTheory
"First thing to know is that I am a literal 6 day creationist, so I am never going to agree with any of that evolution stuff that you have posted -just so you know. "

Did you manage to check out the Shroeder video?
I've now got it on my Sig block amongst others.
Shroeder supports this theory. I tried to explain the astrophysical theory via a baseball parrallel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, what I'm hoping to do is below:

BIBLE -------- Science
xyz --------- xyz
sdu ---------
ahe --------- ahw
____--------- sdu

 

[klutedavid]

Take the following sequence for example:
View attachment 278788
It is true that we cannot see every single bone change millimeter to millimeter for every single individual that likely lived.

But at the same time, we are not completely blind. A sequence is still clearly evident.

Tiktaalik for example had fins and scales, just like fish before it. But it also had an amphibian like head with eyes on top like a crocodile, spiracles for breathing air, a neck for turning it's head while keeping the body stationary, an extended rib cage and robust girdles etc.

It truly had features of both fish before it and amphibians after it, all in one hybrid animal. And it was found temporally after fish and before tetrapods.

So the point is that there is significance not necessarily in the sheer quantity of fossils, but rather in the quality of them, their morphology and their temporal locality.

And once we understand that the succession exists, we can then enter the discussion of what the most feasible explanation is for it.

There seems to be far to much inference and can you see the pattern, going on, in that Evolutionary theory.

I need the transitional species and strong evidence linking these species, to other specified species. I need the hard evidence and it must be observational evidence in the fossil record.

I do not want to see sudden explosions of species in the fossil record.

 

[Job 33:6]

There seems to be far to much inference and can you see the pattern, going on, in that Evolutionary theory.

I need the transitional species and strong evidence linking these species, to other specified species. I need the hard evidence and it must be observational evidence in the fossil record.

I do not want to see sudden explosions of species in the fossil record.

When you have an explanation for this (aside from biological evolution):

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

Feel free to let me know.

Did you know that you can also predict the sequence and order in which fossils can be found in the earth, not only based on DNA phylogenies, but also with virology based phylogenies as well?

You could construct a phylogenetic tree based on viral DNA in modern day species and then use that same tree to predict how superpositionally deep underground fossils exist and their correct order as well (fish to amphibian to reptile to bird/mammal).

Here is part two to the earlier series, if you felt you needed to see more fossils.

 

[klutedavid]

When you have an explanation for this (aside from biological evolution):

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

Feel free to let me know.

Did you know that you can also predict the sequence and order in which fossils can be found in the earth, not only based on DNA phylogenies, but also with virology based phylogenies as well?

You could construct a phylogenetic tree based on viral DNA in modern day species and then use that same tree to predict how superpositionally deep underground fossils exist and their correct order as well (fish to amphibian to reptile to bird/mammal).

Here is part two to the earlier series, if you felt you needed to see more fossils.

Molecular phylogenetics makes inferences of the evolutionary relationships that arise due to molecular evolution and results in the construction of a phylogenetic tree. (wikipedia)

When you have an explanation for this (aside from biological evolution):

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

Feel free to let me know.

Did you know that you can also predict the sequence and order in which fossils can be found in the earth, not only based on DNA phylogenies, but also with virology based phylogenies as well?

You could construct a phylogenetic tree based on viral DNA in modern day species and then use that same tree to predict how superpositionally deep underground fossils exist and their correct order as well (fish to amphibian to reptile to bird/mammal).

Here is part two to the earlier series, if you felt you needed to see more fossils.

You could construct a phylogenetic tree?

A phylogenetic tree, you say?

Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists aren’t willing to re-evaluate is the assumption that universal common ancestry is correct. They appeal to a myriad of ad hoc arguments — horizontal gene transfer, long branch attraction, rapid evolution, different rates of evolution, coalescent theory, incomplete sampling, flawed methodology, and convergent evolution — to explain away inconvenient data which doesn’t fit the coveted treelike pattern. As a 2012 paper stated, “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.”118

[118.] Liliana M. D�valos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 87:991-1024 (2012).

 

[Job 33:6]

Molecular phylogenetics makes inferences of the evolutionary relationships that arise due to molecular evolution and results in the construction of a phylogenetic tree. (wikipedia)
You could construct a phylogenetic tree?

A phylogenetic tree, you say?

Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists aren’t willing to re-evaluate is the assumption that universal common ancestry is correct. They appeal to a myriad of ad hoc arguments — horizontal gene transfer, long branch attraction, rapid evolution, different rates of evolution, coalescent theory, incomplete sampling, flawed methodology, and convergent evolution — to explain away inconvenient data which doesn’t fit the coveted treelike pattern. As a 2012 paper stated, “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.”118

[118.] Liliana M. D�valos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 87:991-1024 (2012).

This isn't really a response, it's just an unjustified claim suggesting we don't know what we're doing. Rates of evolution aren't going to change order. Horizontal gene transfer isn't occurring vertebrates (we aren't talking about archean microbes). Convergent evolution isn't changing a species genome and is still otherwise identifiable in morphology of species. "Flawed methodology" is just a broad unspecified statement.

While the above topics are good to be aware of, nothing in the above post actually addresses what is being said. This is all just smoke screen and hand waving.

As usual, Creationists don't actually have a credible counter argument to anything. Their best counter argument is to simply suggest that scientists are all wrong.

Why don't you try to actually respond to what was said:

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

You tried responding to the predicted discovery of tiktaalik by noting that two amphibians could have been out of order in the succession, though such a change would be irrelevant to the succession at large (fish to amphibians with intermediates between).

Why don't you actually try explaining how tiktaalik was found? Was it sheer luck? Perhaps "random chance"? Or do you have an actual explanation for the succession aside from biological evolution?

 

[klutedavid]

This isn't really a response, it's just an unjustified claim suggesting we don't know what we're doing. Rates of evolution aren't going to change order. Horizontal gene transfer isn't occurring vertebrates (we aren't talking about archean microbes). Convergent evolution isn't changing a species genome and is still otherwise identifiable in morphology of species. "Flawed methodology" is just a broad unspecified statement.

While the above topics are good to be aware of, nothing in the above post actually addresses what is being said. This is all just smoke screen and hand waving.

As usual, Creationists don't actually have a credible counter argument to anything. Their best counter argument is to simply suggest that scientists are all wrong.

Why don't you try to actually respond to what was said:

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

You tried responding to the predicted discovery of tiktaalik by noting that two amphibians could have been out of order in the succession, though such a change would be irrelevant to the succession at large (fish to amphibians with intermediates between).

Why don't you actually try explaining how tiktaalik was found? Was it sheer luck? Perhaps "random chance"? Or do you have an actual explanation for the succession aside from biological evolution?

Tiktaalik? Claim?

Tiktaalik was up to nine feet long, a very large and heavy species. Tiktaalik only had fins not legs and your trying to somehow imagine that Tiktaalik walked on land?

I don't know if your serious or not.

Definition
Hypothesis; a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further
investigation.

Was Tiktaalik a transitional species between fish and tetrapods?

Tiktaalik
We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up
overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow
animals to exploit land.[18] (wikipedia)

That is one very weak hypothesis.

Tiktaalik
Prof. Narkiewicz, co-author of the article on the Zachelmie trackways, claimed that the Polish "discovery has disproved the theory that elpistostegids were the ancestors of tetrapods",[40] a notion partially shared by Philippe Janvier.[41] There have been a number of new hypotheses suggested as to a possible origin and phylogenetic position of the elpistostegids (including Tiktaalik): their phylogenetic position remains unchanged and the footprints found in the Holy Cross Mountains are attributed to tetrapods but as a result there are at least six long ghost lineages separating Zachelmie trackmakers from various elpistostegalian and ichthyostegalian species;[25]
they were "late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms";[38][42]they were "an evolutionary dead-end";[43]
they were a result of convergent or parallel evolution so that apomorphies and striking anatomical similarities found in both digited tetrapods and elpistostegalians evolved at least twice.[44][45][46]Convergency is considered responsible for uniquely tetrapod features found also in other non-elpistostegalian fish from the period like Sauripterus (finger-like jointed distal radial bones)[47][48] or Tarrasius (tetrapod-like spine with 5 axial regions).[49] Estimates published after the discovery of Zachelmie tracks suggested that digited tetrapods may have appeared as early as 427.4 Ma ago and questioned attempts to read absolute timing of evolutionary events in early tetrapod evolution from stratigraphy.[45] Until more data become available, the phylogenetic position of Tiktaalik and other elpistostegids remains uncertain. (wikipedia)

Some hypothesis that turned out to be.

I asked for strong evidence of an evolution of a species. Not some very weak hypothesis proposed by some true believers.

Strong evidence!

 

[Job 33:6]

Tiktaalik? Claim?

Tiktaalik was up to nine feet long, a very large and heavy species. Tiktaalik only had fins not legs and your trying to somehow imagine that Tiktaalik walked on land?

I don't know if your serious or not.

Definition
Hypothesis; a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further
investigation.

Was Tiktaalik a transitional species between fish and tetrapods?

Tiktaalik
We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up
overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow
animals to exploit land.[18] (wikipedia)

That is one very weak hypothesis.

Tiktaalik
Prof. Narkiewicz, co-author of the article on the Zachelmie trackways, claimed that the Polish "discovery has disproved the theory that elpistostegids were the ancestors of tetrapods",[40] a notion partially shared by Philippe Janvier.[41] There have been a number of new hypotheses suggested as to a possible origin and phylogenetic position of the elpistostegids (including Tiktaalik): their phylogenetic position remains unchanged and the footprints found in the Holy Cross Mountains are attributed to tetrapods but as a result there are at least six long ghost lineages separating Zachelmie trackmakers from various elpistostegalian and ichthyostegalian species;[25]
they were "late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms";[38][42]they were "an evolutionary dead-end";[43]
they were a result of convergent or parallel evolution so that apomorphies and striking anatomical similarities found in both digited tetrapods and elpistostegalians evolved at least twice.[44][45][46]Convergency is considered responsible for uniquely tetrapod features found also in other non-elpistostegalian fish from the period like Sauripterus (finger-like jointed distal radial bones)[47][48] or Tarrasius (tetrapod-like spine with 5 axial regions).[49] Estimates published after the discovery of Zachelmie tracks suggested that digited tetrapods may have appeared as early as 427.4 Ma ago and questioned attempts to read absolute timing of evolutionary events in early tetrapod evolution from stratigraphy.[45] Until more data become available, the phylogenetic position of Tiktaalik and other elpistostegids remains uncertain. (wikipedia)

Some hypothesis that turned out to be.

I asked for strong evidence of an evolution of a species. Not some very weak hypothesis proposed by some true believers.

Strong evidence!

Are you aware that the zechelmie trace fossils have been reinterpreted as fish feeding traces?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2015.1063491

Are you aware that not a single bone has been found in association with these trace fossils?

Creationists always complain about "evolutionists" who determine traits about a species based on a single tooth. Here we have what are arguably fish feeding traces, with no bone at all, literally not a single bone, yet Creationists would swear to their deathbed that they were tetrapod trackways.

It has further been suggested that even species such as Tiktaalik or those like it too could potentially make such trace markings.

But beyond that still, even if hypothetically they were tetrapod tracemarks, they would still post date the fish dominated ordovician and silurian, and predate the tetrapod dominated late devonian, thereby still affirming the fossil succession.

To put things into perspective, if earth history from the Cambrian explosion to today we're a 600 page book, the zachelmie trace fossils and tiktaalik are perhaps a mere 10-20 pages away. If earth history going back to the archean were a 2,000 page book, indeed tiktaalik and the trace fossils would be on the same page of earth history.

So much like your idea on tetrapods from earlier, what we see isn't a re writing of the fossil succession, but rather a fine tuning of a single page or a single chapter, in an entire dense book of a sequence.

It is no coincidence that these tetrapod hybrids and trackways are all appearing side by side in this devonian period. It isn't a coincidence that such discoveries aren't made anywhere in the mesozoic, cenozoic, proterozoic, ie carboniferous, permian, Jurassic, Triassic, ediacaran, cambrian etc.

Your counter argument to tiktaalik is a weak suggestion that tetrapods existed in the mid devonian. But the reality is that tetrapods have been known to have evolved in the devonian (the broader period) all along. Which indeed, upon closer examination isn't a counter argument at all.

This is not a giant coincidence. What you're looking at is affirmation of the fossil succession.

 

[Job 33:6]

But all the above aside, I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question.

I'll simply quote myself again:

"But the succession at large is still clear as day. And that same succession is observed at large in genetics, biogeographic distributions, anatomy, in this case morphology, it's observed in homology, in protein studies, ERV phylogenies, and more. Just as A sounds clearly distinct from B, so too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians."

You tried responding to the predicted discovery of tiktaalik by noting that two amphibians could have been out of order in the succession, though such a change would be irrelevant to the succession at large (fish to amphibians with intermediates between).

Why don't you actually try explaining how tiktaalik was found? Was it sheer luck? Perhaps "random chance"? Or do you have an actual explanation for the succession aside from biological evolution?

Indeed, there is no logical answer but biological evolution.

Perhaps rather than trying to make an evidence based argument. Maybe I should try asking why evidence doesn't matter to you at all. Maybe I should ask why it is that no amount of evidence would convince you? Maybe then I would understand this state of denial.