I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

[klutedavid]

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

I do not apply an interpretation, I just examine the hard evidence.

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

Dark energy has not been detected either, since when did hard evidence matter to science?

Creationists always complain about "evolutionists" who determine traits about a species based on a single tooth.

Don't stop there, how about Pakicetus and the ear bone, well that must be a whale. You must admit that evolutionists do push the envelope on scant evidence.

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.

I don't make claims as I said before. I need the hard evidence, not hypothesis.

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

Tiktaalik was not an amphibian.

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.

All this amounts to is hypothesis.

A and B are distinct species with very different morphology and very complex differences. Genetic differences, chromosome differences. The Evolutionary theory stretches the fabric of reality to the extreme.

To directly link A to B by a process of mutations is an extreme hypothesis, by any measure. The fossil record must be overflowing with AB prototypes. What do we find in the fossil strata are a few possible candidates. To plug that vast gap between A and B.

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.

This is beside the point.

If I predicted an amphibian should be found in fossil layers of the X epoch. Then you dug up say Tiktaalik. You then have to identify Tiktaalik as an amphibian species. This is what you did.

What happens if Tiktaalik is not an amphibian?

Is the prediction of that amphibian occurring in X fossil layer correct?

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's not my idea as I don't hypothesize or interpret.

It is no coincidence that these tetrapod hybrids and trackways

Who said anything about tetrapod hybrids. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record and they are fully functional. Please pay attention to that word 'suddenly'. Hybrids are the ghosts in the fossil record which you can see.

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.

Hard to say.

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.

Your pushing an hypothesis which you believe to be theoretical. I am demonstrating that an hypothesis is just that, an idea without the stronger evidence to support it.

What you're looking at is affirmation of the fossil succession.

Based on what? Inference and hypothesis so far. Give me that hard evidence and stop playing games.

I have no time for Tiktaalik, Pakicetus, or Trilobytes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nothing in the above post addresses the discovery of tiktaalik. It is a question that you still won't answer.

You keep repeating this idea that Tiktaalik wasn't an amphibian. And asked a question "what happens if tiktaalik is not an amphibian?".

Well, the answer is that nothing happens, because nobody ever called it an amphibian to begin with. It is a fish with traits of tetrapods more specifically, or a fishapod.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here are images to assist in depicting tiktaalik as an intermediate:

Tiktaalik had a neck, it's skull bones are unfused, meaning that it could move it's neck and head independent from it's body, unlike any fish before it.

Tiktaalik had robust pectoral girdles, for lifting of the body against the weight of gravity. Tiktaalik also had an extended rib cage, also for support of the body against the weight of gravity. Again, these traits are not seen in fish before it:

Tiktaalik had a flat triangular head with eyes on top, similar to a crocodile that would stick it's head partially above water. Again, a trait unlike fish before it but much like tetrapods after it:

The unfused neck:

The robust pelvis:

Tiktaalik had a radius (yellow) and ulna (orange), and derived radials (maroon and purple). Tiktaalik had early bones of a tetrapod wrist, not seen in fish:

Tiktaalik also had spiracles at the base of it's skull for breathing air. Some struggle with the idea that fish would have to evolve to breathe air and would need a complete transformation of the respiratory system to accomplish the transition. Well, tiktaaliks spiracles are additional evidence that suggests that fish could already breathe air before the transition occurred.

But beyond all of the above intermediate traits being more tetrapod-like, tiktaalik still had fins and scales of a fish.

 

[Job 33:6]

With the above said, tiktaalik is classified as tetrapodomorpha, and in lay terms is simply called a fishapod.

"If I predicted an amphibian should be found in fossil layers of the X epoch. Then you dug up say Tiktaalik. You then have to identify Tiktaalik as an amphibian species. This is what you did."-klutedavid

A tetrapodomorpha, a hybrid of fish and tetrapod traits was predicted, and that is what was found. You're incorrect in suggesting simply that an amphibian would be found. That was never what was predicted.

 

[Job 33:6]

"To directly link A to B by a process of mutations is an extreme hypothesis, by any measure. The fossil record must be overflowing with AB prototypes."-klutedavid

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

"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 too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians.""


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

Surely you understand that planet Earth is vast and strata runs deep. Finding such a fossil through awareness of the succession is what occurred. Fish dominate the early devonian, tetrapods dominate the late devonian, tetrapodomorpha are in between. And with this, tiktaalik was predicted to exist before it's discovery. The researchers took a helicopter to a remote location in the Canadian Arctic with shallow marine lacustrine mid-devonian strata and found it.

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?

 

[Stephen P]

"To directly link A to B by a process of mutations is an extreme hypothesis, by any measure. The fossil record must be overflowing with AB prototypes."-klutedavid

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

"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 too are fish clearly distinct from amphibians.""


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

Surely you understand that planet Earth is vast and strata runs deep. Finding such a fossil through awareness of the succession is what occurred. Fish dominate the early devonian, tetrapods dominate the late devonian, tetrapodomorpha are in between. And with this, tiktaalik was predicted to exist before it's discovery. The researchers took a helicopter to a remote location in the Canadian Arctic with shallow marine lacustrine mid-devonian strata and found it.

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?

The fish that crawled out of the water : Nature News
Strong-arm tactics drove creatures from the pond

In support of KomatiiteBIF

I've seen a website - and having a hell of a problem finding it again.
It described the steps taken, fairly close to this..
[Edit, they are called transitional fossils]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step 1. Work out the order - example only one change per design..
A modern xy and t features - z changed to x
B 100 million zy and t features - ??
## Here are the two possible changes
C1. D to C = x to y, Leaving the C to B change as u to t
C2. D to C = u to t, Leaving the C to B change as x to y
D 700 million years zx and u features - D changed to E

Step2. C Missing link proposed - C.1 zx and t features or C.2 zy and u features
Work out the time scale, C = 200- 650 million years ago

Step3. The long, and expensive bit. Scientists have a world map coloured by time period from drilling boreholes, current excavations etc..
They match the colour to the time period and then head out in teams to each of 120 locations around the world, and see if they can find the missing gap, and I can see this has been done in the case of tiktaalik.
They may never find it because it could be at the bottom of the Mariiana trench, a small fossil in the Andes, buried under Kīlauea or completely subducted by a continental plate.

~~

The Bible even asks us to dig deeper into the world, not to blindly just say "God dunnit"
Job 12:7-10 (NIV): “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you."

 

[Stephen P]

The fish that crawled out of the water : Nature News
Strong-arm tactics drove creatures from the pond

In support of KomatiiteBIF

I've seen a website - and having a hell of a problem finding it again.
It described the steps taken, fairly close to this..
[Edit, they are called transitional fossils]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step 1. Work out the order - example only one change per design..
A modern xy and t features - z changed to x
B 100 million zy and t features - ??
## Here are the two possible changes
C1. D to C = x to y, Leaving the C to B change as u to t
C2. D to C = u to t, Leaving the C to B change as x to y
D 700 million years zx and u features - D changed to E

Step2. C Missing link proposed - C.1 zx and t features or C.2 zy and u features
Work out the time scale, C = 200- 650 million years ago

Step3. The long, and expensive bit. Scientists have a world map coloured by time period from drilling boreholes, current excavations etc..
They match the colour to the time period and then head out in teams to each of 120 locations around the world, and see if they can find the missing gap, and I can see this has been done.
They may never find it because it could be at the bottom of the Mariiana trench, a small fossil in the Andes, buried under Kīlauea or completely subducted by a continental plate.

At Step2. C Missing link proposed - C.1 zx and t features or C.2 zy and u features
Work out the time scale, C = 200- 650 million years ago
**
There is no reason that what I proposed before cannot happen here - Choosing the (David) descendants, God deliberately created C1 to be the way forward.
**
~~
WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!
https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html Heres the explanation of how Scientists work out and try to find the intermediate species in pictures.

"Not only was it exciting to find a new species, but it was made all the better by the fact that scientists had predicted the existence of a creature like this all along. We only needed to do some detective work to find it. Another affirmation of our theory!"

The Bible even asks us to dig deeper into the world, not to blindly just say "God dunnit"
Job 12:7-10 (NIV): “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you."

https://www.quora.com/How-do-archaeologists-know-where-to-dig
https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

 

[Stephen P]

"The fossil succession has never been about the quantity of fossils, it has always been about the sequence." - KomatiteBIF
And that is also what I'm wanting to do.
Match some sequence in Genesis with the sequence in Science so far.
Even if Shroeders Time Contraction theory is not correct for the Bible (is IS correct though for astrophysicists), it does give support to there being a different way of seeing ancient time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

What sequence? Tiktaalik for example evolved into nothing. It’s line ends on itself as do all of them.

In each and every case this sequence is composed of missing common ancestors where the claimed evolution took place.
Imaginary creature A became known creature B and also imaginary creature C. Then imaginary creature C became known creature D and imaginary creature E. Then imaginary creature E became known creature F, etc, etc, etc.

Your common descent is composed purely of fictional creatures that never existed..... Not one single known creature evolved into anything on any evolutionary tree.... it’s only in the imagination where it occurs....

I’ll repeat.... Tiktaalik evolved into nothing.... none of them did. Your common descent is pure imagination....

 

[Job 33:6]

What sequence? Tiktaalik for example evolved into nothing. It’s line ends on itself as do all of them.

In each and every case this sequence is composed of missing common ancestors where the claimed evolution took place.
Imaginary creature A became known creature B and also imaginary creature C. Then imaginary creature C became known creature D and imaginary creature E. Then imaginary creature E became known creature F, etc, etc, etc.

Your common descent is composed purely of fictional creatures that never existed..... Not one single known creature evolved into anything on any evolutionary tree.... it’s only in the imagination where it occurs....

I’ll repeat.... Tiktaalik evolved into nothing.... none of them did. Your common descent is pure imagination....

This response is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

You don't have to see one animal giving birth to another, nor do you need a time machine to see a succession of fossils.

In regards to tiktaalik we have a fish dominated early devonian, a tetrapod dominated late devonian, and in between (mid to late devonian) we have tiktaalik with fins and scales like a fish, but an unfused neck, spiracles for breathing air, flat head with eyes on top, with a robust pectoral girdles and rib cage, all of which are traits more of tetrapods than fish (fish don't have necks for example).

And this is just one example, but the overall point is that we have fish in the early devonian, tetrapods in the late devonian, and fish-tetrapod hybrids in between. And you don't need much more than a grade school education to understand that this succession of fossils exists.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

It can be a source of irritation, sometimes distress, living with the thought that God-- our one stay, anchor, and certainty --- seemingly falls short in his accounting of technical details.

There are all sorts of remedies for the seeming science failure of Genesis 1-- 9 and other parts of Scripture. Pages thereof. You may have noticed? But the answer, as always, was right there -- in God's miracle words. Documented forthwith:

I am a geologist, set out to teach geology in a classroom, hit the brick wall of seeming impossibility of fully aligning the technicalities of Genesis with anything making clear sense, told the Almighty that he would have to make it clear or there was no way -- which he already knew! -- and went back to reading the biblical script yet again. That most perplexing sentence, Gen.2, 4&5, suddenly became a key. Scripture interprets Scripture. Because I am a geologist I knew exactly the implications. The implications change history. Genesis is hard science, word by word. I literally got on my knees. With the help of God, and much time, cost, and discouragement, today we have the book, The Tree of Life and the Origin of the Species, supplemented by the internet site, Creationtheory dot com . In the process, I have, of course, been called almost every adjective in the book. Love it!

Gen. 2,4&5. tells us: 1). What went before these verses is the complete account of physical creation in its time sequence: what follows is a commentary on already completed action. 2). The time involved was 6 'evening and morning' days of work action, implication of no night, the 7th having no description at all. All creation was nevertheless completed in a day, exact same Hebrew word. The days were therefore by definition not literal 24hr. 3). All simple or plant grade life -- trees, the lot, had been made with a latent capacity to actuate and become tangible only when needed or conditions were suitable. That is the bible script, literal, unavoidable. (The most exact, literal rendition of the bible in English is the Authorized or King James.)

Find how living species can be stored and the riddle solves! The geologic record solves. The origins puzzle solves. Suddenly, there was no problem. Find how species pre-existed!

Within 30 years of this revelation science advanced to answer the question of how species became tangible long after their creation. It revolves around information technology. Information is timeless, it is storable and transmittable. Place a living cell in the Earth, set up a system to automatically store and transmit information which re-programs the DNA etc in the cell -- you have a living species which will not appear until signalled. The creation of all species at varied times with, subsequently, earth and waters being 'let' bring them forth, suddenly placed Genesis right out in front. Ahead by light years. Information basis of matter, quantum computation, DNA itself a computer component .. on and on. Stunning. Suddenly, Genesis and the history and future(!) of our planet rise to the highest levels of cutting edge discovery. The proofs keep flowing in.

Creationtheory dot com at your service.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

You don't have to see one animal giving birth to another, nor do you need a time machine to see a succession of fossils.

Second part is in principle correct -- but you have not answered the question. The question is implicit in the first half. If there is a sequence of species -- yes, there are all but millions of sequences of fossil species -- how did species A get to be species B? It can not have been solely by increase of genetics of species B in species A. There is almost no bulk difference in the DNA of any number of species -- yet they remain species. The difference, as Google googles it for all to see, the difference which segregates species and stops them interbreeding has to do with the immune systems, which would try to abort a foreign species embryo, and the so-called sex cells which refuse to get together and start the embryo off to begin. Hybridization is a red herring as we were all taught 50 years ago and although it happens it obviously hasn't led to the breakdown of species barriers and never will. You have provided no pathway. Please feel free to peruse my couple of poor entries here -- one is above. I always welcome analysis. I take the liberty of appending a few references etc. from my books and site, Creationtheory dot com.

Probable evidence of such "latent modifications" has been unearthed by scientists studying genes involved in limb development (Hox genes). Researchers have "found that the genetic capability seen in tetrapods to build limbs is present in ... primitive fish" (New Genetic Data Overturn Long-held Theory Of Limb Development). The discovery that fish possessed genes associated with tetrapod limb development long before the appearance of tetrapods indicates that advanced genetic information was latent in early species.

University of California - Santa Barbara (2013, December 4). How to change cell types by flipping a single switch. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from How to change cell types by flipping a single switch. QUOTE: "With C. elegans as the animal model, lead author Misty Riddle, a Ph.D. student in the Rothman Lab, used transcription factor ELT-7 to change the roundworm's pharynx cells into intestine cells in a single-step process. Every cell has the genetic potential to become any kind of cell. However, the cell's history and the signals it receives changes the transcription factors it contains and thus determines what kind of cell it will become. A transcription factor is a protein that causes genes to turn on.
"This discovery is quite surprising because it was previously thought that only early embryonic cells could be coaxed into changing their identity this readily," Riddle said. "The committed cells that we switched are completely remodeled and reprogrammed in every way that we tested."" COMMENT: The idea that one species can transform to another as a product of time without information technology of the highest order was rightly dismissed by Sir Richard Owen and indeed by every recognized and respected thinker. Human technology is clearly pointing to the methods involved and of course the Bible was already there. In theory, an individual of one species can be transformed into the parent of a new species and given all the genetic information pertaining to the new species. The new species is not in ultimate reality a new species, because its information base already existed. It only remains for human technology to fill in the gaps.

 

[Chris35]

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.


Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Jesus is the rock, the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

Alot start with creationism or Biblical inerrancy. However like people say, there is so many theories, and so called extra biblical books and what seems like proofs surrounding that, the wind blows and their faith is shaken.

Its because the core of their faith wasnt built on Jesus in the first place, but other things. Eg. I believe in the bible, because of creationism (God must of created us) When that foundation ia shaken then comes the questions and doubt if any of the bible is real.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Well said. Been there, done that, myself (education related to Geology). You may be interested to know this scene has now dramatically changed. Feel free to investigate, see my two entries on page 14 -- entries at about 270 as I recall. Or go direct to my educational site, Creationtheory dot com . Thank you for your entry.

 

[Smokie]

Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

You do not need proof of this, you want it, because you will never have this making your need irrational

 

[BobRyan]

Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

I have a suggestion -- look at this thread -->
Dec 29, 2020 #1

Read all of my posts on page on (3 or 4 posts). I am in a discussion with atheist evolutionists there and notice how many "details" I provide and then at times they either respond with "well of course everyone agrees with that" or "nope I cannot see that detail" -- which is a sign they are not actually taking the details seriously since they are sooooo compelling in favor of creationism.

 

[BobRyan]

If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He?

good points all... you are absolutely right about the "alternative" to creationism!!

IN fact atheists are for that reason "the most logically consistent evolutionists" you will ever find. IT is the logical conclusion ans former Christians like Dawkins and Darwin also freely admitted.

===================

hmmmm "and he never came back"??

 

[BobRyan]

You do not need proof of this, you want it, because you will never have this making your need irrational

sorta not true

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing in the above post addresses the discovery of tiktaalik. It is a question that you still won't answer.

You keep repeating this idea that Tiktaalik wasn't an amphibian. And asked a question "what happens if tiktaalik is not an amphibian?".

Well, the answer is that nothing happens, because nobody ever called it an amphibian to begin with. It is a fish with traits of tetrapods more specifically, or a fishapod.

depends on who is drawing the arbitrary lines

 

[Job 33:6]

depends on who is drawing the arbitrary lines

There's nothing arbitrary about physical measurements of morphology. Remember, this is paleontology, not taxonomy.