Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence

[Jester4kicks]

See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the ToE box, you cannot and will not see out side of it. You want me to see things in your biased indoctrinated way but you cannot see my point of veiw. The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box. Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG. But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.
Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth. Its all assumptions. Why cant you see and accept that. I see it with ease, it is so obvious. Has it been repeated in the lab? Do we see it happening now? Were we there when it happened? No, No, No. So whats the problem then? Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way. Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.

You're officially more annoying than AV. At least that guy can form a coherent sentence.

Here's a hint... we can't see your point of view because you haven't presented YOUR point of view. All you've done is loosely criticized a theory.

As for scales on a chicken... you might want to take 5 seconds to LOOK at a chicken's foot before you call someone stupid for saying that. (However, it's good to know that we don't have to pay much attention to your posts, when even BASIC information is obviously being overlooked and dismissed.)

 

[Cabal]

See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the ToE box, you cannot and will not see out side of it. You want me to see things in your biased indoctrinated way but you cannot see my point of veiw.

Seeing as your expressed point of view largely consists of LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL INDOCTINATED AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH and other INCREDIBLY mature statements, I think I'll pass, thanks.

The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box.

Erm...no. You can post contrary things without having to always resort to copy and paste. Or post whole links, instead of random quotes. I'm pretty sure those quotes about the tiktaalik limbs, if they're from serious scientific sources, will paint quite a different picture from the one you're painting.

Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG.

Uh-huh, and did you stop to reconsider or think that you might be wrong when I countered "poor quality" with "Actually, I think you'll find that several fossils of this species have been found" and "fins could not of (sic) supported its legs(?!)" with "But what does that have to do with anything, the form is still as evolution predicted"?

Or had you just sufficiently quote-mined in order to back up your beliefs (not that it really helps, as I've said already, disproof of evolution is not proof of creationism) and now you don't feel you need to look any closer?

But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.

I ask you, AGAIN, given that you are not any kind of scientist, have YOU read through all the peer review literature on tiktaalik to know what kind of crossexamination they have put tiktaalik through? These baseless conspiracy accusations are getting quite tiresome. Some evidence, PLEASE.

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

Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth.

Again, how old are you supposed to be?

Its all assumptions. Why cant you see and accept that. I see it with ease, it is so obvious. Has it been repeated in the lab? Do we see it happening now? Were we there when it happened? No, No, No. So whats the problem then?

No reason why it couldn't happen - although given that CHICKEN LEGS HAVE SCALES ON THEM

Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way.

Yeah, Thomas, until you stop with constantly accusing scientists of being indoctrinated, conspirators, and the LOLOLOLOLOL AHAHAHAHAHA etc, people really aren't going to be inclined to think that highly of you or what you have to say.

That, and so far you have offered no evidence to back up your creationist position, only attempted to take down a strawman of evolution.

Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.

Don't start the stand-up career just yet.....

 

[Hespera]

See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the ToE box, you cannot and will not see out side of it. You want me to see things in your biased indoctrinated way but you cannot see my point of veiw. The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box. Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG. But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.
Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth. Its all assumptions. Why cant you see and accept that. I see it with ease, it is so obvious. Has it been repeated in the lab? Do we see it happening now? Were we there when it happened? No, No, No. So whats the problem then? Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way. Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.

Well that is really something, a guy who has never seen a birds leg and noticed that they have scales. "leg wingy thingies". Oh my.

When equipped with that level of ignorance its no wonder that there is nothing left to use in a discussion but coarse attempts at sarcasm. (the lowest form of humour, AND the lowest form of rhetoric)

 

[Baggins]

See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the Christian box, you cannot and will not see out side of it.

makes about as much sense.

Saying someone can't think outside the ToE box when you don't even understand what the ToE is is laughable.

The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box.

No the reason is you are too lazy to write out your arguments in your own words.

Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG. But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.

Oh dear, he is going off the deep end again, I predict manic pretend laughter and capital letters may be coming up.

It would be easier to have some respect for you if you actually made an effort to understand what you fear so much.

Its fins could easily support its legs in water, which is where it lived.

You do not seem to be able to grasp why this is such a brilliant find and why it supports the predictive power of both the ToE and palaeontology so well.

No loss, everyone else gets it.

Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth.

The only stupidity is from you someone who has never even looked at a chicken leg.

that is pretty stupid.

I was right about the manic pretend laughter as well

hahahahahahahah

Its all assumptions.

A chicken leg that is both feathered and scaled is not an assumption it is a chicken leg

Why cant you see and accept that.

Because a chicken leg is a chicken leg not an assumption and it is both scaled and feathered.

I can't believe you've never observed a chicken leg.

I see it with ease, it is so obvious.

Lots of things are obvious when all you have to do is believe a book and ignore reality, it is why so many people who haven't the capacity for real learning do it.

Has it been repeated in the lab?

What? Evolution has been shown in the lab, I carried out experiments in evolution in the lab 25 years ago in Biology 1 and Edinburgh University.

Do we see it happening now?

Do you think every evolutionary change happens on an endless loop?

You should really try to understand something about evolution before you try and critique it, all you are doing is giving the rest of us a good laugh and making yourself look poorly educated and intransigent.

Were we there when it happened? No, No, No.

Were you there when Jesus happened? no no no. therefore Jesus and Christianity are wrong.

Is that the intellectual level you want to debate at?

So whats the problem then? Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way.

I think you should get your head out of your Christianity box and try and engage with reality

Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.

What a card you are.

More please, you are the funniest thing on here since I put Dad and AV on ignore .

Scratch that you haven't caught up with Juvenissum in the hilarity stakes yet, not until you try and lay claim to the highest possible level of education anyway.

A Christian who views the whole of existence through the words in one book telling others they can't think outside of a box is comedy gold

Bravo

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - check.

Attempt at derailing thread due to lack of answers to the OP - check.

Cheap shot at the scientific method and / or community as a whole based on a single accident, misjudgement or fraud - check.

No mention that the accident, misjudgement or fraud in question has never occurred again, has been condemned or has not had any supporters in centuries - check.

No understanding of how science works in the real world as opposed to Chick tracts - check.


Based on these multiple independent lines of evidence I declare the above to be a genuine AV1611VET post.

you forgot Poe.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I open with an apology to you Hespera for saying what you said about scales on a chicken. When I made my post I opened it with "reply" button and not the "quote" and because a number of posts went up quickly I scimmed through them before posting mine and I did not have yours to refer to,only in my memory I thought you had said the feathers were scales on a chicken not that they had both. So it was my mistake, I humbly apoligize for jumping to conclusions and you are in no way stupid,(of course you know that) I did not mean it that way.When I said :

"Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth."

I honestly feel REAL bad for saying this, I was not accurate in my memory of your post of what you were actually saying. The way I should of phrased it is its "stupid for anyone to believe that legs turn into wings and then scales to feathers ." I really am sorry Hespera, I am a new creation. I know without a DOUBT I am a different man than I use to be, but sometimes the old me rallies against the new and I let the old win. But I am growing and learning and only through humility do I find growth. And this incident of my outburst might not seem like any big deal to any of you, but I know there is someone working in me, to better me. I have learned a lesson.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Erm...no. You can post contrary things without having to always resort to copy and paste. Or post whole links, instead of random quotes. I'm pretty sure those quotes about the tiktaalik limbs, if they're from serious scientific sources, will paint quite a different picture from the one you're painting.

So these serious scientific sources, do they exclude creationists?


Uh-huh, and did you stop to reconsider or think that you might be wrong when I countered "poor quality" with "Actually, I think you'll find that several fossils of this species have been found" and "fins could not of (sic) supported its legs(?!)" with "But what does that have to do with anything, the form is still as evolution predicted"?

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.







I ask you, AGAIN, given that you are not any kind of scientist, have YOU read through all the peer review literature on tiktaalik to know what kind of crossexamination they have put tiktaalik through? These baseless conspiracy accusations are getting quite tiresome. Some evidence, PLEASE.

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.
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.

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"

Again, how old are you supposed to be?

I know I get like that sometimes, sorry.

No reason why it couldn't happen - although given that CHICKEN LEGS HAVE SCALES ON THEM
Misunderstanding on my part, I admit.


Yeah, Thomas, until you stop with constantly accusing scientists of being indoctrinated, conspirators, and the LOLOLOLOLOL AHAHAHAHAHA etc, people really aren't going to be inclined to think that highly of you or what you have to say.

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, and so far you have offered no evidence to back up your creationist position, only attempted to take down a strawman of 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.

Don't start the stand-up career just yet.....[/quote]
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)

PS For Baggins; If you put all your opposition on ignore how are you gonna look smart in your rebuttles?

 

[Baggins]

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.

You are presupposing that palaeontologists have suggested that Tiktaalik's fins did support their weight or need to support their body weight in order to be transitional.

I don't think either of those things are true.

There are many reasons why Tiktaalik is transitional between fish and tetrapods- you have been shown them - the transitional state of their front fins/limbs is just one of them.

I ask you, AGAIN, given that you are not any kind of scientist, have YOU read through all the peer review literature on tiktaalik to know what kind of crossexamination they have put tiktaalik through? These baseless conspiracy accusations are getting quite tiresome. Some evidence, PLEASE.

I have read the original descriptive paper and the commentary on it.

What else should I have read?

The consensus amongst palaeontologists is that it shows remarkable transitional qualities between fish and tetrapods and what was more remarkable - to the layman - was that the finders were able to predict where the fossil would be found because they knew at what age and in what palaeo-environment evolution predicted such a fossil would be found.

T

rue, 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?

Because people were focussing on the transitional nature of its head and neck region which is what is interesting about Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

Here is an academic page with a layman's introduction to the importance of Tiktaalik where it actually states boldly and up front that fins are one of the fish like characteristics of this transitional.

The supporting fin skeleton is also transitional and shows much of the bone structure associated with tetrapods.

here it goes on to speculate about what such a limb structure could achieve:

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik
next page

It suggests that the most likely use for the front limbs/fins would be as paddles, but they have also inferred from the bone structure - which is well preserved in some of the 10 specimens of Tiktaalik so far found - that the creature could prop up its body.

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.

You are biased and indoctrinated, you see everything through the prism of how it matches your ( or more likely your Pastor's ) interpretation of an ancient religious text.

Science gets things wrong it is how it progresses. Maybe someone will find a fossil of Tiktaalik that shows that it couldn't have lived in shallow water as has been put forward so far. If so science will change in line with the new evidence.

The massive weakness of your position is that you have decided on a world view that contradicts reality and you must spend the rest of your life ignoring reality to shore up your world view.

a very sad situation to be in.

This was REALLY big for me. For the tiktaalik in its poor quality cannot

Where have you got this idea that all 10 current specimens of Tiktaalik are poor quality and who in the name of dawkin's decides what quality fossils should be anyway?

It seems like you have fastened on to one arbitrary talking point from a creationist web site and you are clinging to it for all you are worth.

You'll have to explain why the fossils of Tiktaalik are poor, they look good enough to make the point to me, and to the rest of the palaeontological community.

If the experts say the fossils are of a good enough quality to draw the conclusions they do who are you to say they are wrong?

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.

This is just so much waffle, you have neither the evidence or the training to make your claims.

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.[/SIZE]

So your ecvidence for Creationism is a verse of the bible. How weak.

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.

When I look at that all I see are things that are perfectly explainable through the laws of physics and the theory of evolution.

I think you are confusing your own personal ignorance of how these things occur with a general inability to explain them.

What do do you see when a wasp paralyses a caterpillar and lays her eggs in it and those eggs hatch and eat the caterpillar alive?

Perhaps god was a bit bit grumpy with caterpillars that morning eh?

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.

All you have done is copy a creationist web site talking point with no real understanding.

If you want to build your faith on the foundation that science is wrong be my guest, science will carry on describing reality and making the lives of people easier with you or without you.

PS For Baggins; If you put all your opposition on ignore how are you gonna look smart in your rebuttles?

There is no point rebutting Dad he is either a very persistent parody or he has mental problems -seriously - and AV accused me of lying and refused to retract when he was shown to be wrong, I don't need that sort of behaviour in my life.

I am here to debate the science, neither of them are so it is no big deal to ignore them

Everyone else I have on ignore was because we were flaming each other and that is the easiest way to avoid a banning.

 

[theFijian]

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.

Please do not misquote and misuse scripture, ntoe that Romans 1:20 says 'Creation', not CreationISM. The two are distinct and should be kept that way. That verse is talking more about naturalism/materialism and not evolution.

 

[Hespera]

I open with an apology to you Hespera for saying what you said about scales on a chicken. When I made my post I opened it with "reply" button and not the "quote" and because a number of posts went up quickly I scimmed through them before posting mine and I did not have yours to refer to,only in my memory I thought you had said the feathers were scales on a chicken not that they had both. So it was my mistake, I humbly apoligize for jumping to conclusions and you are in no way stupid,(of course you know that) I did not mean it that way.When I said :

"Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth."

I honestly feel REAL bad for saying this, I was not accurate in my memory of your post of what you were actually saying. The way I should of phrased it is its "stupid for anyone to believe that legs turn into wings and then scales to feathers ." I really am sorry Hespera, I am a new creation. I know without a DOUBT I am a different man than I use to be, but sometimes the old me rallies against the new and I let the old win. But I am growing and learning and only through humility do I find growth. And this incident of my outburst might not seem like any big deal to any of you, but I know there is someone working in me, to better me. I have learned a lesson.

Well thank you Thomas, we dont see many people here who show the self awareness and class that it takes to recognize when they strayed, and apologize.

That said, you are still using the word stupid, and meaning to or not, applying it to me as well as a great swath of the world scientific community.

"stupid for anyone to believe that legs turn into wings and then scales to feathers "

There is nothing at all stupid about observing that the wings of bat or bird have the same muscle and bone structure as any other front legs. Or that evolutionary experiments in flying are going on around the world now; frogs with big webs between their toes that glide from tree to tree, for example. As for scales and feathers, there were a lot of now-extinct reptiles with feathers.

If you take time to study it, you will find that scales and feathers are not so far apart as you think! Same origin, same material, different shape. Then you can stop saying its stupid to say they are different forms of the same thing, or as you put it "scales turn into feathers". Feathers ARE scales.

Cactus thorns are leaves. So are flowers. Same origin, different shapes. They dont look much like leaves, but any botanist will tell you they are, and explain it if you want to hear it. You can SAY "it is stupid to think cactus spines are leaves" but its a groaner. You cant expect to be taken seriously. And if you took time to learn for yourself, you'd be embarassed to have said such a thing.

Now as to the old and new you, and efforts at self improvement. I hope all of us are trying to improve ourselves. i have said a lot of intemperate and emotional things in thes forum, and Im not pleased with myself for it.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I cant find the article but I know it was National Geographic where I read the tiktaalik fossil was of "poor quality" and if you are unaware of this and can just accept everything that is said about it then I know I am right. You are proof that evo's will only except evidence that supports their theory and over look data that is contrary to it. My point is , and its a great point is that the fossil is in rough shape so how can you come to all the matter of fact information from it?

the Fijian, I guess you didn't understand why I used that verse Romans 1:20 or why I used the examples I did. Read this 12. New article soon!

 

[Baggins]

I cant find the article but I know it was National Geographic where I read the tiktaalik fossil was of "poor quality" and if you are unaware of this and can just accept everything that is said about it then I know I am right.

You can't find the article, you are unaware that there is more than one Tiktaalik fossil, and you know you are right.

Yep that sounds like a creationist to me, doesn't know what he is talking about can't produce documentary evidence to back up his assertions and is sure of his own infallibility.

text book case

You are proof that evo's will only except evidence that supports their theory

No I am proof that scientists only accept evidence. You are proof that creationists never seem to have it a hand but they read it somewhere once and anyway they are right

and over look data that is contrary to it. My point is , and its a great point is that the fossil is in rough shape so how can you come to all the matter of fact information from it?

What the heck is rough shape as it pertains to a fossil? That is just so much rubbish, you obviously don't have a clue how palaeontologists work or even what fossils are and what they look like.

Personally I will take the peer reviewed testimony of the palaeontological team that discovered Tiktaalik over some thing that you claim to have read once somewhere but can't find.

That is just so weak.

 

[Baggins]

In fact just to blow poor old Thomas "I know I am right" Anderson completely out of the water I found this:

Fossil Fish With "Limbs" Is Missing Link, Study Says

The new fossils are so complete and well preserved that they "answer questions that previous material has been unable to answer,"

Perhaps you just misread your national geographic and saw what you wanted to see, a bit like you claim scientists do

In fact here's a search on the national Geographic site on Tiktaalik

National Geographic Search: tiktaalik

see if you can find the bit where they claim the fossils are of "poor quality" - your quotes.

 

[Hespera]

I cant find the article but I know it was National Geographic where I read the tiktaalik fossil was of "poor quality" and if you are unaware of this and can just accept everything that is said about it then I know I am right. You are proof that evo's will only except evidence that supports their theory and over look data that is contrary to it. My point is , and its a great point is that the fossil is in rough shape so how can you come to all the matter of fact information from it?

the Fijian, I guess you didn't understand why I used that verse Romans 1:20 or why I used the examples I did. Read this 12. New article soon!

Now Thomas... honestly. The attitude and behavior of one person can no more "prove" something about all of the people involved in studying the science of evolution than George Bush proves something about "all" Americans. We request that you dont say such as that if only for the sake of your own credibility.

The idea that "evos" (whoever they are, you may want to define that) only look at things that support their theory is really just an ad hom and is as weak an argument as it is untrue.

Brief lecture here.... the people who go into science do so because they are curious interested people who want to know things, learn how they work, what they are.

Looking at only one type of evidence is absolute anathema to people of that sort.

But lets say one such does get thru his college courses up to a point.
He only looks at the evidence for his theory, in say, oh, geology.
He has been studying a rock formation out in the desert, whatever it is.

So then he presents his Masters Thesis. The committee then starts asking him quesitons. Did you consider this? What about that? Uh no I didnt consider that, because it didnt supposrt my theory.

It would be the humiliation of a lifetime, and our hero would leave with his tail between his legs, a legendary laughingstock at the U.

Now, you are saying that there is data that 'evos" overlook? Please tell.
If there is some valid data, then I am going to use it to overthrow the ToE and make myself famous.

 

[theFijian]

the Fijian, I guess you didn't understand why I used that verse Romans 1:20 or why I used the examples I did. Read this 12. New article soon!

It's quite clear what Romans 1:20 is about so to try and use it to defend some creationist idea of 'information' is, as I've already said, a misuse of the text.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the ToE box, you cannot and will not see out side of it. You want me to see things in your biased indoctrinated way but you cannot see my point of veiw. The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box. Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG. But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.

So no matter how many scientists tout it as a stunning example of a fossil transition, a few handpicked quotemined statements are enough for you to completely dismiss it? isn't that the definition of indoctrinated thinking and bias?

Poor quality could mean a lot of things. preservation in general or preservation of a key bone. Even if the preservation were poor it doesn't mean that meaningful conclusions can't be drawn from it. Scientists work with what they have. There have been some fairly horrid preservations that have yielded critical evidence. Lucy is FAR from the quality of most specimens you would display at a museum. But there are enough key features that are intact enough that conclusions can be drawn about the locomotion of that animal.

The fins of tiktaalik were weight-bearing, they just couldn't walk in any real sense of the term. Anyway being that this is an incipient stage there is no requirement for it to perform precisely the function that it does in later tetrapods. There are MANY examples of traits originally arising for reasons and functions other than those of modern animals. Feathers originally evolved for endothermy, not unlike fur in mammals.

Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth. Its all assumptions. Why cant you see and accept that. I see it with ease, it is so obvious. Has it been repeated in the lab? Do we see it happening now? Were we there when it happened? No, No, No. So whats the problem then? Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way. Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.

I don't see how you could make a comment like this if you'd read my explanation of why we think feathers evolved from scales. pssst...birds aren't descended from any group of lizard.

1. Feathers and scales are embryologically derived from the same tissue.
2. Feathers and scales are both made of B-keratin.
3. Birds retain reptilian scales on their feet.
4. All animals with structurally modern feathers are reptiles or descended from a group of reptile.
5. Velociraptor had feathers as evidenced by quill knobs in its forearms and other members of its group (Dromeosauridae) possesed feathers that were structurally identical to those of modern birds. Dromeosaurids are considered a sister group to birds.

BTW great way to raise the level of discourse. Which elementary school grade are you trying to emulate?

 

[Hespera]

Thomas... we will all try to help you out here but you only are entitled to the degree of respect that you earn. Put some time and thought into your posts, and make them brief!

 

[Thomas Anderson]

In fact just to blow poor old Thomas "I know I am right" Anderson completely out of the water I found this:

Fossil Fish With "Limbs" Is Missing Link, Study Says

Well you never blew me out of the water, matter of fact you barley rocked my boat. Its quotes like these that always make me realize that they are just assumptions, not facts.
"Fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible"
key words "may have" and when you place the mouse pointer on the "enhanced drawing" it states "Fossil fish with fins like limbs appeares to walk". Key word "appears".
There are fish alive today that appear to walk, or pull themselfs along on their belly with the help from their pectoral fins on dry land for some distance. There is a catfish, snakehead, mudskipper and a perch that climbs. These I have read about, there might be more. There are a couple types of lungfish alive today as well that look somewhat like eels.

Perhaps you just misread your national geographic and saw what you wanted to see, a bit like you claim scientists do

In fact here's a search on the national Geographic site on Tiktaalik

Acctually one of the articles I read on tiktaalik in National Georgraphic was one in your search list . Titled "Ancient Fish had Primitive Fingers, Toes." And actually found these statements to be interesting.

First "Curiously, the radial bones of Panderichthys are more finger-like than those of Tiktaalik, a fish with stubby leg-like limbs that lived about five million years later. "

Secondly comes an assumption"
"One possibility, Alhberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form. "

and last comes the confusion"

Michael Coates, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, called the new findings "intriguing" but is not convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.
For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones, Coates said. "Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."

So what conclusion am I suppose to come to with all this?
National Geographic Search: tiktaalik

see if you can find the bit where they claim the fossils are of "poor quality" - your quotes.

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!

 

[Split Rock]

The way I should of phrased it is its "stupid for anyone to believe that legs turn into wings and then scales to feathers ." .

There is nothing stupid about this. Not only do chickens have scales on their legs, but there are varieties that have feathers instead of scales on their legs. http://www.jdmpics.com/animals/cochin-chicken.jpg

In addition, we know of theropod dinosaurs with feathers. The connection is obvious, not stupid.

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.

Even before Tiktaalik was discovered, the latest hypothesis was that lobe-finnied fish evolved legs to walk underwater before they ventured onto land. Thus, there is no need for Tiktaalik to have been capable of supporting its weight on land. Yes, there are some similarities to the coelacanth. Is it also a coincidence that lungfish have both lungs and gills? Or that lungfish also existed during the Devonian?

 

[Thomas Anderson]

There is nothing stupid about this. Not only do chickens have scales on their legs, but there are varities that have feathers instead of scales on their legs. http://www.jdmpics.com/animals/cochin-chicken.jpg

In addition, we know of theropod dinosaurs with feathers. The connection is obvious, not stupid.

Often I fail to find the appropriate word or words I want to say. I know what I want to say but often chose the wrong words and can be misunderstood quite easily. Not always but often. "stupid" was not a good choice.Actually what words does a person use when they cant grasp or fathom scales and legs turning into feathers and wings? I have been reading up on the vast differences and its mind boggling to accept one becoming the other. Cold blooded verses warm blooded, barbules (tiny hooklets and grooves in feathers) avian lung much different than reptiles. Someone said in here that the proteins were the same in scales and feathers but then I read this "feather proteins (Φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins)" I am not sure which statement is true. Feathers are lost one at a time but scales come off in a sheet. The pelvic bone (might have wrong bone) is in the back in a bird but up front in a reptile. There is much more but I am trying to keep this short. When I see birds like this

http://subjunctive.net/photoblog/2003/peacock-wooing-peahen.jpg

I have to ask why beauty and design would evolve? What purpose? And there are lots of beautiful birds. What did the peacock look like as a reptile?

Even before Tiktaalik was discovered, the latest hypothesis was that lobe-finnied fish evolved legs to walk underwater before they ventured onto land. Thus, there is no need for Tiktaalik to have been capable of supporting its weight on land. Yes, there are some similarities to the coelacanth. Is it also a coincidence that lungfish have both lungs and gills? Or that lungfish also existed during the Devonian?

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.