The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[Job 33:6]

Seems like you're shifting the goalposts by saying "between major groups".

No I don't think I asked either of those things, but I may have misunderstood your post. When I read what you said about prediction, I thought you were saying someone had actually predicted a tiktaalik, as they do in hard science like when Einstein predicted starlight bending around the eclipsed sun. After re-reading it I see you were using the word a bit more loosely. My bad.

I've already asked.

I'm asking for actual linkage between anything and anything else.

Are you suggesting that fish to land dwelling tetrapods is not a major transition between two very different and major groups? And yes a tiktaalik Ie a fish with legs was predicted to exist prior to it's discovery. Its location was predicted as well. What other kind of prediction we're you seeking?

 

[Job 33:6]

You said you are asking for linkage. Are you asking for fossils links? That's what tiktaalik is.

 

[Chesterton]

Are you suggesting that fish to land dwelling tetrapods is not a major transition between two very different and major groups?

I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

And yes a tiktaalik Ie a fish with legs was predicted to exist prior to it's discovery. Its location was predicted as well. What other kind of prediction we're you seeking?

You're the one who brought up "prediction". I wasn't seeking that. Although, if you do actually have a successfully predicted animal I'd be interested in hearing about it.

You said you are asking for linkage. Are you asking for fossils links? That's what tiktaalik is.

How do you know that?

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes a tiktaalik Ie a fish with legs was predicted to exist prior to it's discovery.

Probably because the natives reported seeing one.

The name Tiktaalik is an Inuktitut word meaning "burbot", a freshwater fish related to true cod. The "fishapod" genus received this name after a suggestion by Inuit elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory, where the fossil was discovered.

SOURCE

 

[Job 33:6]

@Chesterton

To clarify, fish are found in early devonian rock, tetrapods in the late devonian. If evolution were true, then a half fish half tetrapod should exist in between. There began the prediction of tiktaalik existance. Beyond that, the prediction relies upon the fossil succession and proper dating of strata. Tiktaalik was predicted to exist in strata of shallow marine and river Delta origin. Which is where something like a half fish half tetrapod would live and it was predicted to be present in strata of an age older than early devonian fish dominated strata and late devonian tetrapod dominated strata.

It was predicted in it's existance, it's spacial location and geologic timescale temporal location.

All was proven accurate with tiktaaliks discovery.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was predicted in it's existance, it's spacial location and geologic timescale temporal location.

Either that, or the natives ate them until they went extinct.

 

[Chesterton]

@Chesterton

To clarify, fish are found in early devonian rock, tetrapods in the late devonian. If evolution were true, then a half fish half tetrapod should exist in between. There began the prediction of tiktaalik existance. Beyond that, the prediction relies upon the fossil succession and proper dating of strata. Tiktaalik was predicted to exist in strata of shallow marine and river Delta origin. Which is where something like a half fish half tetrapod would live and it was predicted to be present in strata of an age older than early devonian fish dominated strata and late devonian tetrapod dominated strata.

It was predicted in it's existance, it's spacial location and geologic timescale temporal location.

All was proven accurate with tiktaaliks discovery.

Okay, so what's the prediction on finding the animals that a tiktaalik links backward and forward to?

 

[Job 33:6]

I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

You're the one who brought up "prediction". I wasn't seeking that. Although, if you do actually have a successfully predicted animal I'd be interested in hearing about it.

How do you know that?

You asked how we know that a transitional fossil is a transitional fossil. By definition it is a fossil that morphologically shares traits between major groups before it and major groups after it, such as tiktaalik.

That's what it is. Tiktaalik doesn't need to be biologically proven to be anything because the fossil succession is a stand alone area of research that deals with fossils.

This is why evolution is so powerful because independent fields of science affirm one another. Ie affirmed through prediction, if evolution is true, tiktaalik should exist. It exists, therefore evolution is plausible in our eyes.

And when you predicted the spatial and temporal location of fossils thousands of times over based on the theory of biological evolution, it only affirms precisely what biologists are saying.

I'm a geologist and I study fossils. I would be the first to know if a fossil contradicted the theory. But I'm telling you that such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[Chesterton]

You asked how we know that a transitional fossil is a transitional fossil. By definition it is a fossil that morphologically shares traits between major groups before it and major groups after it, such as tiktaalik.

As I indicated earlier in the thread, this part is really interesting to me. How does sharing traits equate to being transitional? It doesn't unless you've already assumed the TOE to be true.

It exists, therefore evolution is plausible in our eyes.

I agree evolution is plausible, I just have some questions about it.

 

[pitabread]

I believe I already answered you. Life may be divided by separate ancestry. That part is not complicated at all. Could or could not the origin of separate ancestral groups create actual boundaries between life?

Life certainly diverges and evolves along separate lineages. But that doesn't mean those lineages don't share common ancestry.

That is the claim I'm trying to get after: if there is a way of demonstrating that these lineages do not share common ancestry (e.g. some sort of biological disconnect).

No more odd than your inability to identify an actual (not hypothesized) morphological/molecular gradation between any major animal groups. Just gaps in the theory, right? Science is still working on it.

Not sure what you mean by "actual". If you're asking for 100% perfect information, science can't provide that.

That said, all of the available evidence does point to shared ancestry and not independent creation. If you want to argue independent creation and want to argue that there are biological limits to evolution whereby organisms cannot share ancestry, then you need to demonstrate that. Simply trying to flip this around and make it all about evolution isn't going to help you here. A negative argument against evolution is not a positive argument for creation.

From what I understand, there's been plenty of creationist arguments and proposals for likely division of kinds based on animal characteristics. (such as baraminology) Can they demonstrate ironclad proof that these are indeed the original kinds? No, it's just a theory.

I'm aware of creationist attempts to classify organisms as "kinds". I'm also aware that they don't have any sort of consistent definition for classifying organisms as such; which is why I think every creationist on these forums has their own private definition.

Creationists must always demonstrate airtight, ironclad proof for everything, and their reasoning or hypotheses are disregarded as irrelevant.

This is false. I've never demanded this level of standard from creationists. What I am demanding is something other than baseless claims that there are biological barriers to evolution.I don't care if it's purely hypothetical, at least present something tangible for discussion.

If there is a biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain degree of change then what is it? If you want to argue that there are discontinuities in biology indicating separately created life forms, then where are they?

Put something on the table.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I indicated earlier in the thread, this part is really interesting to me. How does sharing traits equate to being transitional? It doesn't unless you've already assumed the TOE to be true.

I agree evolution is plausible, I just have some questions about it.

The theory of evolution is something constructed by evidences of many fields. For example, cytochrome C studies, biogeographic distributions, chromosome 2 fusion, protein studies, erv studies...these independent fields are deriving their own phylogenies. Or orders. And they independently do this. They independently make conclusions based on common descent. Paleontology is just one more field that has it's own phylogeny.

Because biology and genetics independently derive the same order that is derived in ERV studies and comparative anatomy and cytocrome C studies and protein studies...

This demonstrates that the fossil succession, comparative anatomy and genetics are all strongly correlated in that the only plausible explanation is common descent.

And so what mechanism exists that can explain how common descent occurs? Well that's the theory of evolution.

It is the only theory that can explain why these independent fields of study are all deriving the same pattern. Mutations shape genetics. Genetics define morphology, morphology defines the fossil record. So they all match one another.

And to make things simple, we can see it happening. We see the mutations, we see speciation, we see fossilization.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I indicated earlier in the thread, this part is really interesting to me. How does sharing traits equate to being transitional? It doesn't unless you've already assumed the TOE to be true.

I agree evolution is plausible, I just have some questions about it.

A transitional can exist independently of darwinian gradualism. One doesn't have to assume biological change as a source for the succession in order to recognize the existance of a transitioning succession.

It is simply the best explanation.

As a matter of fact, I was aware of the succession and transitional fossils before I knew anything about biological evolution.

 

[Chesterton]

A transitional can exist independently of darwinian gradualism. One doesn't have to assume biological change as a source for the succession in order to recognize the existance of a transitioning succession.

It is simply the best explanation.

As a matter of fact, I was aware of the succession and transitional fossils before I knew anything about biological evolution.

So if I agree with you that the tiktaalik was transitional, can you tell me which way it was transitioning?

 

[Job 33:6]

So if I agree with you that the tiktaalik was transitional, can you tell me which way it was transitioning?

Temporally, the succession goes from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik is in the middle. So the direction would be from sea based life to land based.

And if we follow the succession we later find part amphibians part reptile animals. Then part reptile part mammals fossils and part reptile part bird fossils.

And in every field of study, this same order exists. And if hypothetically, a mammal or bird were found before reptiles or if reptiles were found before amphibians or amphibians before fish or any other odd order , it would turn the theory of evolution on it's head.

 

[Chesterton]

Temporally, the succession goes from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik is in the middle. So the direction would be from sea based life to land based.

How do we know the tiktaalik wasn't a land animal seeking to become a whale?

 

[Job 33:6]

How do we know the tiktaalik wasn't a land animal seeking to become a whale?

Because it was predated by lobe finned fish and post dated by tetrapods. Its about the temporal sequence. If hypothetically evolution were true, tetrapod qualities would not exist in tiktaalik if it were transitioning in the direction of water based life. For example, it wouldnt have traits indicating the presence of lungs.

Also, tiktaalik would not have historically originated from land because terrestrial tiktaaliks of the silurian do not exist.

 

[Job 33:6]

If someone found a silurian or ordovician tiktaalik, one probably could make an argument that through common descent, land based tiktaaliks transitioned to the sea (and then perhaps back to land), based on the order of fossils. But such things do not exist (to anyones knowledge).

 

[Job 33:6]

Really, transitional fossils could be viewed as predictions of the theory of evolution, in which case someone who has a preconceived idea about evolution might predict where a fossil will be based on the theory.

Or a transitional could be considered transitional, in the sense that a sequence or order exists, independent of the theory of evolution. I mentioned earlier that I recognized a transition of fossils from land to sea and from reptile to bird and bird to mammal, before i actually know anything about the theory of evolution.

And, i noticed this and pondered why this could be. And, later i found that biologists already had a plausible explanation. And after studying their explanation and comparing it to my own findings, i came to agree with their conclusions. And Ive considered paleontology and the fossil succession in light of other explanations as well. But hands down, common descent easily makes the most sense. And whether that means darwinian gradualism, or some form of alternate version of biological descent with modification, its irrelevant to me.

Issac newton derived equations for gravitation. While his theory was later overwritten by einsteins relativity, his equations still hold true to this day with respect to our solar system. I suspect the same holds true with darwinian gradualism. As time passes, people discover more and more of the technical nuances of how evolution and common descent occurs, but in large part, Darwin, much like Isaac Newton, had it right. And since his original discoveries, he opened the doors for the modern understanding that we have today.

 

[Chesterton]

Because it was predated by lobe finned fish and post dated by tetrapods.

You speak of "succession" and we hear the phrase "fossil record". I did listen to a bit of that second video you posted. The guy mentions that we have to look for fossils on the surface, and that a fossil 5 miles under the earth does us no good since we'll likely never see it. It seems like an important albeit obvious point. Given all the geologic activity like continental shift, mounting forming, earthquakes, volcanism, erosion, flooding, etc., isn't the fossil record very, very incomplete? More like a collection of snapshots than a "record"?

Its about the temporal sequence. If hypothetically evolution were true, tetrapod qualities would not exist in tiktaalik if it were transitioning in the direction of water based life. For example, it wouldnt have traits indicating the presence of lungs.

Why not?

Also, tiktaalik would not have historically originated from land because terrestrial tiktaaliks of the silurian do not exist.

You've mean they've never been found?

 

[Dirk1540]

Because it was predated by lobe finned fish and post dated by tetrapods. Its about the temporal sequence. If hypothetically evolution were true, tetrapod qualities would not exist in tiktaalik if it were transitioning in the direction of water based life. For example, it wouldnt have traits indicating the presence of lungs.

Also, tiktaalik would not have historically originated from land because terrestrial tiktaaliks of the silurian do not exist.

These transitional fossils between the transitional fossils that people ask for (the catch 22), might they not exist at all? Can a parent species spit out a transition in a single generation?

Is there actually a debate inside of TOE believers about how fast & drastic these transitions could have occurred? I wonder if having a ton of transitions between the transitions is even possible, because you can’t end up with a species that’s neither fit for land or for water.