Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is this some kind of prosecutorial trick question? I have never seen the tiktaalik fossils -- not even pictures of them. Do you want me to confess, or compose?
Dan
I want you to acknowledge the fact that tiktaalik shares features seen in both fish and amphibians. ie. scales, fins, opposable wrists, flat head, unfused neck etc.
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.
Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae
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.
Tiktaalik roseae, stereopairs of the right pelvis from NUFV108 in (A) ventral (cranial is to the Top), (B) dorsal (cranial is to the Bottom), (C) caudal (lateral is to the Right), and (D) cranial views (lateral is to the Left). A, acetabulum; i, ilium; p, pubis; r, ossified ridge; u, unfinished bone.
Cladogram with right pectoral and pelvic girdles drawn to the same scale. (A) Pectoral girdles in lateral view. (B) Pelvic girdles in ventral view. (C) Pelvic girdles in lateral view. Figures were modified, and relative proportions were derived, from refs. 10, 16, and 17, and NUFV108. Cranial to the Right in A and C; Cranial at the Top in B.
Once you become aware of the fact that tiktaalik has both fish features and tetrapod features, and you become aware of the fact that tiktaalik is present after the onset of the age of fish, and is present after the earliest fish (early devonian), but appears before the carboniferous and late amphibian to early reptile dominance...
Then you will understand that it is by definition a transitional.
Same with the whales. Pakicetus and that whole crew of fossils, all have whale like features, and through temporal locations of rocks, they become more and more like whales.
No whales are observed in the rock record before them, only right after them.
It also makes logical sense because whales breathe air, yet live in the sea. So if evolution were true, we hypothetically would see this. And its testable too. Find a whale before pakicetus. Its never been done, why? because whales evolved. Simple as...
The tiktaalik is no longer on the creation science radar. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?
Will you admit there are substantial incremental steps required for the transition from a fish head, girdle and circulatory system into the unconnected head morphology of the tiktaalik, of which there are no known transitional forms?
At best the tiktaalik is an extinct mosaic.
Dan
Alright, I'm moving on. You're unable to respond to my words.
This isn't a response to me. This is you changing the subject for the 50th time.
You have failed to respond over and over again to my posts.
With that, I'll be moving on now. I'll give you the final word.
Dr. Rob Carter also gives a great talk on Earth's age
Happy Monday, hope you had a good weekend! I wasn't sure I could follow the 100 times around the world/evolution part, but think I can hang with the research demonstrating why soft tissue could not last millions of years: collagen decay rates and DNA decay rates don't support anything beyond ~650k years... nor will iron preserve proteins for such long periods (attached articles with further detail):"Prove it. While we're waiting for the 65-million-year long experiment to run its course, do you have a Bible passage that gives hints of supporting this view? I've got passages for my position."
If you said that someone traveled around the planet 100 times, and you told me that it was evidence against evolution because evolution states that it is impossible, and I turned and said, well, it doesnt seem impossible to me, nor does it seem to contradict evolution....
Then you cant turn to me and say "well, you need to prove that you can travel around the world 100 times, in order to demonstrate that it is possible, in order to refute my claim of impossibility."
Thats not how logic works. You make the claim, and you justify it. Which is why I had asked you if you were aware of any research demonstrating why soft tissue could not last millions of years if protected in a definite crystal lattice after rapid burial.
"how does evolution predict the written records "
The best evidence is the Bible, you keep skipping over this... but even scientifically speaking with regard to soft tissue, millions of years are not supported... then there are also written records and renderings (if listing in order of relevance or weight, the Bible would be first in the list). COLLECTIVELY these all tell a consistent story, and it's not one of tens of millions of years separating humans/dinosaurs. Odd you would adamantly argue radiometric dating of different isotopes present the same age of a rock and this is "irrefutable proof" of it's age in your mind (even though there are generally discrepancies among the various isotopic dating methods), yet here when we're not even talking within the same field (1. The Bible, 2. Scientific research around soft tissue, 3. Secular writings and renderings... completely unrelated to each other) you fail to see they are all supporting the same truth. I'll be interested to see if you address this or if you instead decide to avoid by delving into the topic of radiometric dating. Keep dancing around the conspicuous facts, I'm enjoying the show as a spectator.If the best evidence you can come up with for the recent existence of live dinosaurs, are obscure drawings and odd language about behemoths in old literature, then its no wonder nobody takes such a position seriously.
Thankfully, it is we the scientists who are in control of the classrooms. Thats about all I can say in response to the above comments.
"Even secular scientists have admitted that life abruptly shows up and abruptly ends in the fossil record. Not true?"
I'm not a proponent of Gould's positions on origins so might as well have referenced beliefs held by Richard Dawkins. As I stated before, there are no mechanisms that support life abruptly showing up... but perhaps clarifying that there are no natural mechanisms that have been demonstrated to support life abruptly showing up. We can believe in things like natural selection and random mutation being the drivers, but we just don't see it demonstrated in either the lab or in nature - yes we can see the finch beaks getting bigger, but it doesn't support the first flying life form... from nothing. Genesis 1:20 seems to give us a good hint of how the first flying creatures came about, but it directly involved a supernatural God (not natural selection and random mutation) and if God created flying creatures on day 5, well that would explain why they abruptly show up in the fossil record and that goes for every other form of life He created too. Going back to your illustration of the 100 times around the world, I guess I can believe I can travel around the world 100 times, but if I never actually do it... then we just call it blind faith.Even Gould acknowledged forms of speciation via mutation and natural selection as a potential means by which common descent has occurred. You should read his research so that you understand what he is saying.
Happy Monday, hope you had a good weekend! I wasn't sure I could follow the 100 times around the world/evolution part, but think I can hang with the research demonstrating why soft tissue could not last millions of years: collagen decay rates and DNA decay rates don't support anything beyond ~650k years... nor will iron preserve proteins for such long periods (attached articles with further detail):
Solid Answers on Soft Tissue
Can Iron Preserve Fossil Proteins for Eons?
I'm not a proponent of Gould's positions on origins so might as well have referenced beliefs held by Richard Dawkins. As I stated before, there are no mechanisms that support life abruptly showing up... but perhaps clarifying that there are no natural mechanisms that have been demonstrated to support life abruptly showing up. We can believe in things like natural selection and random mutation being the drivers, but we just don't see it demonstrated in either the lab or in nature - yes we can see the finch beaks getting bigger, but it doesn't support the first flying life form... from nothing. Genesis 1:20 seems to give us a good hint of how the first flying creatures came about, but it directly involved a supernatural God (not natural selection and random mutation) and if God created flying creatures on day 5, well that would explain why they abruptly show up in the fossil record and that goes for every other form of life He created too. Going back to your illustration of the 100 times around the world, I guess I can believe I can travel around the world 100 times, but if I never actually do it... then we just call it blind faith.
I'll leave it at what I've provided. The research was done by well-qualified scientists and you attempting to discredit on the basis of their faith comes as a surprise and I'm kind of disappointed.Do you have sources that aren't religiously motivated? It is nice hearing from our Christian brothers and sisters, but at times, they aren't necessarily more accurate, just because of the faith we share.
I agree PE doesn't actually state that species abruptly appear... but rather is a response to the apparent lack of transitional forms that were once expected to be found... even by the loose standards of evolutionists. The research done on soft tissue demonstrated collagen and DNA doesn't last for even a million years (let alone 65+Ma), both of which are being found in dinosaur bones. You asked for sources, and I provided. In fairness though, if you wish to not agree with their results, that is fine.Well Gould doesn't propose that life...abruptly showed up. The person in the video, Kurt Wise, described some kind of a stasis and related it to punctuated equilibrium. But PE, doesnt actually state that species abruptly appear. Because Gould's descriptions are referring to...long spans of time, like millions of years. Abrupt in the eyes of a geologist, is eons in the eyes of a biologist. Its a matter of perspective.
Regarding the 100 times around the world thing, to simplify it, I was basically just asking for sources demonstrating that long term preservation of pliable tissue, is not possible.
Thanks Mouse
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?