klutedavid
Well-Known Member
I do not apply an interpretation, I just examine the hard 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
Dark energy has not been detected either, since when did hard evidence matter to science?Are you aware that not a single bone has been found in association with these trace fossils?
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.Creationists always complain about "evolutionists" who determine traits about a species based on a single tooth.
I don't make claims as I said before. I need the hard evidence, not hypothesis.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.
Tiktaalik was not an amphibian.It has further been suggested that even species such as Tiktaalik or those like it too could potentially make such trace markings.
All this amounts to is hypothesis.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.
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.
This is beside the point.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.
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?
It's not my idea as I don't hypothesize or interpret.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.
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.It is no coincidence that these tetrapod hybrids and trackways
Hard to say.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 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.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.
Based on what? Inference and hypothesis so far. Give me that hard evidence and stop playing games.What you're looking at is affirmation of the fossil succession.
I have no time for Tiktaalik, Pakicetus, or Trilobytes.
Upvote
0