Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence

[Junaid0]

I told you already, Jesus put the dinosaur bones there!

 

[Baggins]

I looked for the article where I read the tiktaalik fossil was in rough shape or of poor quality. I know I read it and was sure a scientist who had inspected the fossil made the statement. And you also asked what difference it makes what condition the fossil is in? I said earlier that it seems the worse condition the fossil is in the better the story derived from it is. Anyways, I could not find the article I read but did find this one. Here is an exerpt and the link.

Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.
Ancient fingers and toes :The Scientist [21st September 2008]

I just finished a hard day at work and I get home and had my shower. I sit down by the computer in a pair of cut-offs and as we are speaking of fins turning into legs, I look down at my knee. That is one complicated joint, and man does it put up with ALOT of abuse in a life time, especially if your active as I am. Sports, hiking, running ect. And on the thought of Invertebrates to vertebrates....I cant even find the words to say what I want to say here.I will work on it and post it later maybe. The link I posted in an ealier post might help. I will post it again below if some have not read it. Warning, its from a creationist. Where is the information coming from to want it to change from a fin to a leg to a wing? And by the way, I did read the links you posted, I have been guilty of not reading them all in the past.
12. New article soon!

Your knee is not a complecated joint it is a simple hinge.

This is more evidence of you overestimating your own intelligence when it comes to science. A common trait amongst the more intelligent creationists. that's why they are often lawyers and engineers. They aren't dummies they just think because they are clever enough to get a law degree they can understand and critique evolution without putting in much effort.

Most, like you, make ridiculous errors in what evolution actually is and most, like you, will take one phrase from a paper, or in this case a blog, they don't really understand - in your case that on one specimen the distal radial fin preservation is poor - and extrapolate from that that the palaeontological community is wrong about the fossil and you are right and that therefore evolution is wrong.

Excuse me if I laugh at your hubris.

You still don't seem to have grasped what Tiktaalik was and how palaeontologists are claiming that it lived. You don't even appear to have grasped that they have found multiple Tiktaalik fossils.


You don't even appear to have grasped the very simple idea that the "information" - which is a word that you have not and will not be able to define in this context - to change a fin to a limb comes from the mutation of DNA. There are genes that code for a fishes limb, the same altered genes code for your leg. Why not, cladistically you are just a modified fish?

Basically Thomas you don't know what you are talking about, you desperately want evolution to be wrong because it doesn't match your literal view of the bible.

Tough, evolution is an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of that fact we have come up with, any thing that supplants the ToE is going to have to explain the evidence we already have so it is only going to be an expansion of the ToE not a complete overthrow.

 

[Baggins]

I am exhausted with the tiktaalik, as to the OP of this thread I only brought it up because fossils is considered one of ToE's MILoE and I think its a poor example. Not that it matters what I think.

Well spotted, until you educate yourself enough to understand what you are critiquing then what you think doesn't matter all you provide is a useful exercise for scientists to show lurkers how insufficient your understanding of biological science is.

Questions like what did a peacock look like as a reptile are essentially meaningless, a peacock is a peacock it never looked like a reptile, it shared a common ancestor with modern reptiles and we can surmise what characteristics that ancestor would have had.

Tiktaalik was a wonderful fossil not just because of what it is - there are numerous intermediate fossil species between fish and tetrapods - but because of how it was discovered. It was predicted to exist at a certain time and place and it did.

You are asking lots of questions that science has the answer to, the bible has one answer - God did it - that is no answer at all, it is akin to a parent saying "because I say so " it closes down inquisitiveness and humans are nothing if they aren't inquisitive. It is a dead end. Trying to use the bible to inform yourself about the natural world is barmy, believing the Bible over the natural world strikes me as being an insult to any creator. God created the universe and gave you a brain to fathom it, saying " no thanks I'll stick to this book you gave to some nomads 4000 years ago" strikes me as being insulting to any creator.

The beauty and diversity of life isn't diminished by learning that it was derived through natural means, not for me, that explanation is far more wonderful than a belief that a deity poofed it all into existence 6000 years ago so he could play with it, that explanation doesn't just lack the logic and evidence of the scientific explanation, it also lacks the scientific explanations jaw dropping scale and the simplistic beauty of its mechanism.

Basically its rubbish a simple story for simple minds, it's like being stuck reading Janet & John books when the whole world of literature is out there waiting for you.

 

[dad]

The beauty and diversity of life isn't diminished by learning that it was derived through natural means, ....

You never learned that, though. No one did, you are misinformed. It is based on nothing. How dare you claim life came from natural processes as if it had any basis in fact!? That is a lie. False. You cannot prove it. The fact that you boast to now be a scientist, means that you sully the name of science with false claims. Shame.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I am exhausted with the tiktaalik, as to the OP of this thread I only brought it up because fossils is considered one of ToE's MILoE and I think its a poor example. Not that it matters what I think.

The whole point of pointing out the MILOE that evolution has is to show that the power of evolution goes far beyond any single specimen that you may or may not be able to question. The True power of evolution is the fact that many of its stongest concepts are supported by MILOE that ALL agree. Tens of thousands of genes, tens of thousands of proteins, billions of base pairs, a dozen radioisotopes, etc. Such evidences can be check amongst each other and across methodology and they still agree.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Your knee is not a complecated joint it is a simple hinge.

I am not the one claiming that the knee was never there at one time. That the knee and the entire leg grew from a fin. Even with all the hypothesis from scientists on how it transformed, even they must wonder. This is the first site I came to when I googled the knee.
"Although the knee joint may look like a simple joint, it is one of the most complex. "http://www.arthroscopy.com/sp05001.htm

This is more evidence of you overestimating your own intelligence when it comes to science. A common trait amongst the more intelligent creationists. that's why they are often lawyers and engineers. They aren't dummies they just think because they are clever enough to get a law degree they can understand and critique evolution without putting in much effort.

If your saying that they are wrong, then I disagree.

Most, like you, make ridiculous errors in what evolution actually is and most, like you, will take one phrase from a paper, or in this case a blog, they don't really understand - in your case that on one specimen the distal radial fin preservation is poor - and extrapolate from that that the palaeontological community is wrong about the fossil and you are right and that therefore evolution is wrong.

Excuse me if I laugh at your hubris.

Believe me, it was more than just the one phrase or one fossil I have read about. And it says the specimen was poor not the distal radial fin. Supposedly 370 million years old. I understand it not being in the greatest shape.

You still don't seem to have grasped what Tiktaalik was and how palaeontologists are claiming that it lived. You don't even appear to have grasped that they have found multiple Tiktaalik fossils.

Regardless of what was found is not my problem , it is what is done with what is found that I struggle with.

You don't even appear to have grasped the very simple idea that the "information" - which is a word that you have not and will not be able to define in this context - to change a fin to a limb comes from the mutation of DNA. There are genes that code for a fishes limb, the same altered genes code for your leg. Why not, cladistically you are just a modified fish?
that simple eh? "to change a fin to a limb comes from the mutation of the DNA." There is still a vast amount of info there. Where did it come from?
How is it directed? We are not talking adaptation here. This is some serious transforming. I have to bite my tongue here and move on.

Basically Thomas you don't know what you are talking about, you desperately want evolution to be wrong because it doesn't match your literal view of the bible.

Remember, Jesus walked the earth only 2000 years ago, not 370 million years.

Tough, evolution is an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of that fact we have come up with, any thing that supplants the ToE is going to have to explain the evidence we already have so it is only going to be an expansion of the ToE not a complete overthrow.

Many people observed Jesus as well. Way easier to grasp that.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Many people observed Jesus as well. Way easier to grasp that.

Really? Says who?

 

[Hespera]

I am exhausted with the tiktaalik, as to the OP of this thread I only brought it up because fossils is considered one of ToE's MILoE and I think its a poor example. Not that it matters what I think.

If it does not matter what you think then dont post your thoughts.

I am curious, have you learned anything from what we have taken out time to explain to you?

"Many people observed Jesus as well. Way easier to grasp that. "

Yes, that easy to grasp. It has nothing ti do with ToE; many people also ovserved Michael Jordan, and THAT has nothing to do with ToE.

Evolution, like other aspects of science is not necessarily EASY to understand.

We may be on to something with this whole concept of what is easy and what is hard. You clearly have not done any of the hard work of understanding science. The cheap-shot ignorant stuff from creationist sites is for the lazy mind. It wont work with anyone else. Arguing the nature of reality with some quips taken from that source should be embarrassing.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

Maybe you should start a thread on it then. I would love to be very very impressed.

Yes, I too would love to be impressed by valid scientific logic rather than being dumbfounded by bad English.

 

[Baggins]

Firstly Thomas learn to use the quote function properly you make it difficult to reply to your points

I am not the one claiming that the knee was never there at one time. That the knee and the entire leg grew from a fin.

No you aren't that is what scientists claim and they do so becaus ethey have evidence both palaeontological and genetic to back it up.

All you have is an argument from ignorance, I can't imagine how that happened so it didn't.

Once again weak.

Even with all the hypothesis from scientists on how it transformed, even they must wonder.

That is what scientists do wonder, and they they find evidence, such as the fish tetrapod transitionals that show the development of limbs from lobe fins.

What they don't do is wonder say " God did it" and walk away as you do.

This is the first site I came to when I googled the knee.
"Although the knee joint may look like a simple joint, it is one of the most complex. "http://www.arthroscopy.com/sp05001.htm

Compared to what?

It is more complex than the neck, less complex than the wrist.

it is a hinge, hinges aren't that complex as far as I am concerned.

Believe me, it was more than just the one phrase or one fossil I have read about. And it says the specimen was poor not the distal radial fin. Supposedly 370 million years old. I understand it not being in the greatest shape.

Well you commented on one phrase on one fossil. We have multiple Tiktaalik fossils and multiple fish-tetrapod transitionals I will take the word of professional palaeontologists as to what the Tiktaalik forelimbs are capable of over that of a a creationist who by his own estimation knows nothing about the subject.

First you said this talk of poor preservation came from the National Geographic, I showed that in fact the National Geographic said the preservation was excellent.

So we have at least one Tiktaalik rosea with excellent preservation of teh fore limbs, and that is good enough to see that the bone structure of the fore limb is starting to develope the characteristics associated with tetrapods.

Once again I have read the original paper on Tiktaalik and the commentary and I have seen no controversy about the fore limb development.

You are grasping at straws and talking about things you obviously don't understand, Why?

Regardless of what was found is not my problem , it is what is done with what is found that I struggle with.

Well why don't you just accept the work that professional palaeontologists have done on this fossil then?

Do you argue with all experts that you come across, do you take issue with the diagnosis of your doctor?

t

hat simple eh? "to change a fin to a limb comes from the mutation of the DNA." There is still a vast amount of info there. Where did it come from?

The information came from the DNA, where else would it come from?

I think you have a fundamental ignorance of genetics as well.

How is it directed?

Why would you think evolution is directed, scientists don't?

We are not talking adaptation here. This is some serious transforming. I have to bite my tongue here and move on.

we are talking mutation and selection what else would we be talking about, that is all there is to evolution - broadly.

I think you just do not understand what evolution is and how it works.

Remember, Jesus walked the earth only 2000 years ago, not 370 million years.

Non-sequitur

I have seen no evidence that Jesus ever walked the Earth anyway

Many people observed Jesus as well. Way easier to grasp that.

Is it, it was just written in a book, I've read a book where people observed Harry Potter.

Until there is believable extra-biblical evidence of Jesus walking the Earth I'd say the jury is out on that one.

It least with Tiktaalik rosea I can see the evidence

 

[Hespera]

Thomas... I ask this of people some times. Can you just pick ONE item that you think contradicts / disproves evolution at a time. Pick one good one, we can show you are wrong, then we can go to the next. This gets too complex trying to do a whole bunch of things at the same time.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Thomas... I ask this of people some times. Can you just pick ONE item that you think contradicts / disproves evolution at a time. Pick one good one, we can show you are wrong, then we can go to the next. This gets too complex trying to do a whole bunch of things at the same time.

Creationist/ID attack protocol: Launch as many strawman and red herring grenades as possible, so as to distract from what is real. Confuse the enemey with blather. Then retreat as quick as you can when confronted with real evidence.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Many people observed Jesus as well. Way easier to grasp that.

Which is why each document of Jesus's life has its own details, sometimes contradictory.

 

[dad]

Which is why each document of Jesus's life has its own details, sometimes contradictory.

Example...?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Example...?

Jesus has two conflicting family trees:

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Why does one man need two family trees which differ?

 

[Cabal]

So these serious scientific sources, do they exclude creationists?

No, I just hadn't looked for the National Geographic article by that point, so I wasn't sure if you were quote-mining an actual source, or quoting a creationist detractor.

On the whole however, creation "science" sources are pretty weak. Post them if you want, but chances are they've been hacked to shreds already.

No, it was that the fins could not have supported the weight of the fish because not only were the pelvic fins small they were not connected to the skeleton. They are very fin like fins. Similarities to the coelacanth.

As Baggins and others have pointed out, those weren't the single defining feature of its transitional nature.

True, I am not a scientist of any form, but I can read, and in EVERYTHING that I have read pertaining to or about tiktaalik, either in these forms or on line, or in a book. NOT ONCE was it mentioned in anything I had read by hardcore evolutionists that the tiktaalik was of very poor quality, and that its pelvic fins were not only small but were not connected to its skeleton and could not support its weight. And that its fins were just that "fins". WHY?When I asked you to see things from my point of veiw, you then might understand why I use biased and indoctrinated. Often I hear evo's say creationists twist the truth. Well it seems evos only tell half truths in many situations. Beware of half truths, you might have the wrong half.

Yeah, but Thomas, surely you can understand when IN THE SAME ARTICLE someone says the fossil is well preserved, people might feel somewhat moved to at least counter that argument of yours?

Honestly, one round of counters doesn't make us indoctrinated. If there's something wrong with this fossil, or evolution in general, one 15000 character post on an internet message board is unlikely to disprove the whole shebang. This kind of back and forth is natural, it's what people do, more so if they're scientists

This was REALLY big for me. For the tiktaalik in its poor quality cannot and should not be used as a tansitional but what it can be used as is a PERFECT specimen for biased results from hardcore evos. Not using the data that might contradict the theory. No one even hinted to the problems with tiktaalik. The poorer the quality of the fossil it seems the better the story evo's are able to write.

Again, there are ten of them, and most of them are well preserved enough to see several transitional features.

And while you're at it, evidence for creationism too, not stuff that attempts to disprove evolution either.

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

We all personally have "NO EXCUSE" for I see evidence of creationism ALL the time. A spider spinning a web, a hummingbird hovering by a flower, a woodpecker pecking at a tree, a caterpillar turning into a beautiful butterfly, an apple tree that can only come about by an apple seed. Countless examples.

(Psalm 19:1). "I will praise Thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Thy works are wonderful and my soul knows this full well"

Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't buy this. I can appreciate the beauty of nature, I can even accept that God made it, but there is nothing empirical about that. Your proof is entirely subjective, it's YOUR feelings on seeing these aspects of nature - not the aspects of nature themselves.

And nature appreciation does not provide evidence of any mechanism for creation. And I wonder what a Muslim thinks when he looks at those things, or a Jew? I'm sure they all assign the wonder elsewhere.

I know I get like that sometimes, sorry.

Misunderstanding on my part, I admit.

I can stop with the hahahahahah, and lololololol , but when encountered with biased and indoctrinated information like the tiktaalik then I will point it out and why I think so.

That's somewhat of an improvement thanks, but still, as I said previously, offering one or two rounds of counters hardly counts as indoctrination in a field that bases itself around serious questioning. You are perfectly entitled to raise what you consider to be issues - but we are perfectly within our right to then counter those arguments.

Honestly, taking down the theory of evolution is most likely to be done by an evolutionary biologist, after years of study. The reason why it would be so hard to take down is because for 150 years evolution has worked so WELL at explaining biodiversity. If a theory that works this well is still WRONG, then you're gonna need a real genius to think of an alternative theory that explains everything that we thought confirmed by evolution.

The evidence is for creation is there, its just that many dont see it as that or accept it as that. But its still there.

Its basis is entirely subjective though, so it would never be in the same realm of evidence as that for scientific theories.

Have you heard the lastest evolutionary species. What has four legs and an arm? A pitbull. sorry animal lovers, I know old joke. Lots of people dont get this joke so incase you didn't, the pitbull has somebody elses arm (in its mouth)

Ehhhh. Somewhat better.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

So these serious scientific sources, do they exclude creationisQUOTE//////////////////



Hespera sez:

No Thomas, people are not excluded from publication on the basis of race, age, sex, political party, how they comb their hair, or religious affiliation.

The problem for creationists like flat earthers or bigfoot / Nessie hunters is that they have no data. You wont have any luck publishing in a journal of higher math if you have nohting to contribute.

The door is always open for someone to find some real data tthat they would care to contribute. Go forth and get some, or dont complain that you cant get in.








​

 

[dad]

Jesus has two conflicting family trees:





Why does one man need two family trees which differ?

Because He had two fathers. One real one, and Joseph, who was supposed to be the dad. Both Mary and Joesph came from David.

 

[earthbound misfit]

So which Joseph? The son of Heli (Luke 3:23), or the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16)? And where does it place Mary in the line of David? (Notes Joseph as husband in Matthew, but does not indicate patriarchal lineage for Mary.)

 

[Gracchus]

I am exhausted with the tiktaalik, as to the OP of this thread I only brought it up because fossils is considered one of ToE's MILoE and I think its a poor example. Not that it matters what I think.

OK! But here is another of the multiple independent lines of evidence. You dropped this one like a hot potato, but let's go back to the bird reptile divergence and the scale to feather transition:

Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial appendages
Commentary
Cheng-Ming Chuong*, Rajas Chodankar, Randall B Widelitz
and Ting-Xin Jiang
Addresses
Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Southern
California, Hoffman Medical Research Building 315B, 2011 Zonal
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA
*e-mail: chuong@pathfinder.hsc.usc.edu
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2000, 10:449–456

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf

There are some big words in this one, but you can easily look them up. After all, it is not a question of whether it matters what you think, if you can't really think at all.

Show us you can think by critiquing this paper.