Take The Tiktaalik Challenge

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know. Why do you think?

You claimed that there were no actual tetrapods before Tiktaalik.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think she has determined this by the fact that it shows the creature to have the abilities and characteristics that would provide evidence that the tracks were made by what she said they were made by. It seems that is the consensus now due to the fact that when you look up anything about it, it seems that there are considered to be actual tetrapod tracks.

A tetrapod, co-evolving along with T. roseae in the same geological era. Hopefully they'll find a fossil soon.

+1 ToE

 

[Loudmouth]

I think she has determined this by the fact that it shows the creature to have the abilities and characteristics that would provide evidence that the tracks were made by what she said they were made by. It seems that is the consensus now due to the fact that when you look up anything about it, it seems that there are considered to be actual tetrapod tracks.

Why is this a problem? All this does is push the evolution of tetrapods back by 15 million years or so. It does not change the transitional nature of Tiktaalik, nor does it disqualify the other fossil evidence demonstrating tetrapod evolution.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[HitchSlap]

You claimed that there were no actual tetrapods before Tiktaalik.

Where?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where?

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

The same way that we determine that egg laying in mammals like the platypus is a relic of our shared ancestry with reptiles. You look at phylogenies and the fossil record to determine which features are ancestral and which are derived. In Tiktaalik, it is quite apparent that the fish features are ancestral and the tetrapod features are derived since there are only fish before Tiktaalik and there are tetrapods afterwards.
Emphasis mine.
Post #48

​

 

[lasthero]

Um...Hitchslap and Loudmouth are different people.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um...Hitchslap and Loudmouth are different people.

Oh darn, I see I used the wrong post to quote from. Loudmouth asked:

Why is this a problem? All this does is push the evolution of tetrapods back by 15 million years or so. It does not change the transitional nature of Tiktaalik, nor does it disqualify the other fossil evidence demonstrating tetrapod evolution.

What point are you trying to make?

So I was answering that but hit HitchSlap by mistake. Sorry HitchSlap, that was probably pretty confusing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

The same way that we determine that egg laying in mammals like the platypus is a relic of our shared ancestry with reptiles. You look at phylogenies and the fossil record to determine which features are ancestral and which are derived. In Tiktaalik, it is quite apparent that the fish features are ancestral and the tetrapod features are derived since there are only fish before Tiktaalik and there are tetrapods afterwards.
Emphasis mine.
Post #48

​

So what do we see?

In the Silurian we see fish, but no tetrapods.

In the Carboniferous we see tetrapods and fish.

In the Devonian, which sits between these two periods, we see fossils with a mixture of fish and tetrapod features, otherwise known as transitionals.

Does it really take that big of a brain to realize that tetrapod limbs are the derived feature?

 

[AV1611VET]

/unsubscribing

 

[HitchSlap]

/unsubscribing

Good idea. Reality spoken here.

 

[Strathos]

That's not even mentioning the predictive powers of old earth geology in finding oil.

 

[Split Rock]

Why do you suppose Jenny Clack is so adamant about them being a bona fide
tetrapod? Do you think she is not equipped to make that determination?

So I ask you too, why do you think that Jenny Clack is so adamant about it being bona fide Tetrapods?

Why are you so adament that she is right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why are you so adament that she is right?

It really doesn't matter to me either way. However, usually the authority of an expert in the field is considered pretty important. It did make a difference when brought up due to my misunderstanding of the ancestor/transitional question.

 

[HitchSlap]

It really doesn't matter to me either way. However, usually the authority of an expert in the field is considered pretty important. It did make a difference when brought up due to my misunderstanding of the ancestor/transitional question.

Better luck next time?

 

[Loudmouth]

It did make a difference when brought up due to my misunderstanding of the ancestor/transitional question.

This is a common misunderstanding amongst non-experts (i.e. the scientific layperson). Take these two cladograms as examples:

They illustrate the relationships between living and fossil species within the hominidae clade. You will notice that different Homo and Australopithecine species are never shown as one giving rise to the next, and yet those are transitional species. It simply comes down to the fact that we can never determine if a fossil has any living descendants, short of extracting DNA from the fossil.

 

[EternalDragon]

Why are they found in certain strata and not in all the others?

Yeah, you would think they would be found in other places if they were actual transitional fossils representing the very slow and gradual millions of years. They didn't even have to dig down for them. They found the skull sticking out of a cliff. And surprisingly well preserved too!

Curiouser and more curiouser....

 

[HitchSlap]

Yeah, you would think they would be found in other places if they were actual transitional fossils representing the very slow and gradual millions of years. They didn't even have to dig down for them. They found the skull sticking out of a cliff. And surprisingly well preserved too!

Curiouser and more curiouser....

Not exactly.

 

[lasthero]

Yeah, you would think they would be found in other places if they were actual transitional fossils representing the very slow and gradual millions of years.

Are you going to explain your logic, at any point, or is this just the vague, meaningless insinuation that it appears to be?

Oh, and by the way, other Tiktaalik fossils were found. There's several of them. Which you would know, if you actually read the links provided instead of dismissing them out of hand.

 

[USincognito]

I am trying to find out what the fossil bones were in each one.

You might need to dig around a bit, but I'm sure that information is on the Tiktaalik website.
Tiktaalik roseae: Home

 

[Split Rock]

Yeah, you would think they would be found in other places if they were actual transitional fossils representing the very slow and gradual millions of years. They didn't even have to dig down for them. They found the skull sticking out of a cliff. And surprisingly well preserved too!

Curiouser and more curiouser....

Your glib ignorance of basic geology/ stratigraphy is noted. Different strata represent different time periods. Devonian strata are only exposed (by uplift and/or erosion) at the surface in certain areas. Those created by shallow waters expected for fishapods are even more rare. We only find these fishapods in such rare strata. Why?