Tiktaalik: Data vs. Assumptions

[tas8831]

In this thread, pshun2404 had written:


"If you want to discuss Tik open a separate thread...so we can talk about the difference between the actual data versus the assumptions. "


He had earlier written:

"So sad you have been fooled! Have you ever seen what we actually found for the fossil (Tiktaalik)? You could not possibly conclude as you have done, with any sense of assurance if you had. What we found was only mostly the head of the creature and some of the top of the body, and IT was quite flattened and splintered."



I then provided pshun2404 with a link to the Tiktaalik site:

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

Where it is made quite clear that pshun's characterization of this amazing find was, shall we say, not quite accurate.

So, here is the thread pshun suggested I make, to discuss "Data vs. assumptions" regarding Tiktaalik.

So.... Discuss away.

 

[sparow]

In this thread, pshun2404 had written:


"If you want to discuss Tik open a separate thread...so we can talk about the difference between the actual data versus the assumptions. "


He had earlier written:

"So sad you have been fooled! Have you ever seen what we actually found for the fossil (Tiktaalik)? You could not possibly conclude as you have done, with any sense of assurance if you had. What we found was only mostly the head of the creature and some of the top of the body, and IT was quite flattened and splintered."



I then provided pshun2404 with a link to the Tiktaalik site:

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

Where is is made quite clear that pshun's characterization of this amazing find was, shall we say, not quite accurate.

So, here is the thread pshun suggested I make, to discuss "Data vs. assumptions" regarding Tiktaalik.

So.... Discuss away.

It is difficult to communicate without assumptions which may be based on knowledge or may be wild; scientists usually have problems with conclusions, for example, a scientist finds a piece of a pot and dates it at 9 billion years old and concludes that the grandson of the pot maker had buck teeth; there is no assumption here that I can tell.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is difficult to communicate without assumptions which may be based on knowledge or may be wild; scientists usually have problems with conclusions, for example, a scientist finds a piece of a pot and dates it at 9 billion years old and concludes that the grandson of the pot maker had buck teeth; there is no assumption here that I can tell.

Ha, what? The grandson of the pot maker stuff sounds more like wild, irrelevant conjecture more than just assumption. If the scientist publishes those results, one of the basic assumptions would be that he dated the piece of the pot correctly... a stupid assumption, given that our planet isn't even 9 billion years old.

 

[pitabread]

It is difficult to communicate without assumptions which may be based on knowledge or may be wild; scientists usually have problems with conclusions, for example, a scientist finds a piece of a pot and dates it at 9 billion years old and concludes that the grandson of the pot maker had buck teeth; there is no assumption here that I can tell.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Wow. This guy who's talking about buckteeth and 9 billion years?. Religion does exactly this. **MAGIC** (hand waving)

Science isn't like religion, which makes more wild unsupported conjecture then this imaginary "scientist". No matter how much some religious people misunderstand, lie or think it is. That is why science is so awesome and the best tool we have for knowledge and advancement.

 

[tas8831]

a scientist finds a piece of a pot and dates it at 9 billion years old and concludes that the grandson of the pot maker had buck teeth; there is no assumption here that I can tell.

Please do not litter this thread with such irrelevant nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

pshun2404 had written:


"If you want to discuss Tik open a separate thread...so we can talk about the difference between the actual data versus the assumptions. "

Huh...

 

[Ophiolite]

Huh...

Are you surprised?

 

[tas8831]

Are you surprised?

Not in the least.

But I am hoping that if he ever graces this thread - a thread he suggested - with his presence, he uses Menton as a source.

 

[pshun2404]

deleted

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry it took so long, but I have a busy life, and when I looked the thread was not there so this time I went back and clicked on your link.

So here is an image of the actual fossil remains found. Using only what is actually there (badly crushed) it is almost impossible to say anything about the body except very general information, though based on this, assumptions have been made.

Later at the same site we found a rear section.

For an example of assumption, that its chest was more robust and housed primitive lungs of some sort, and that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins, which are both speculative possibilities that cannot be known. The projection of primitive lungs is entirely hypothesis based speculation.

Now, there are things we can know from this fossil and things that are being assumed (the hypothesis based suppositins) but the problem is that people are believing these assumptions as if they are true or obvious facts.

We can know, for example, that Tik had gills, fins, and certain markings indicating it also had scales. The entire body portion however was totally flattened (many pieces of bone) and the two forward fins demonstrated in the fossil show no direct connection to the rest of the skeletal remains. That they originally could have been connected is a perfectly reasonable possibility, but the fossil itself (the actual data we have) does not demonstrate this.

Now look at the totally artistically contrived reconstruction and note how it exactly images what one would expect if the assumption portions were actually true? The actual fact that it is entirely fiction does not seem to matter among those convinced. Click the IMG



So this is a good place for me to start what I consider valid reasons to question the present interpretation (the hypothesis based narrative) as Tik being a transitional form.

So all the real evidence implies is that the actual fossil is that of an ancient variety of fish! Does it have actual amphibian or land walking tetrapod characteristics? No!

Does the narrative imply it does have these? Yes! Do the artistically contrived reconstructions imply these? Yes! So then what should a rational person put their trust in? The actual or the speculations and fictional images?

 

[pshun2404]

deleted

 

[Motherofkittens]

Sorry it took so long, but I have a busy life, and when I looked the thread was not there so this time I went back and clicked on your link.

So here is an image of the actual fossil remains found. Using only what is actually there (badly crushed) it is almost impossible to say anything about the body except very general information, though based on this, assumptions have been made.

Later at the same site we found a rear section.

For an example of assumption, that its chest was more robust and housed primitive lungs of some sort, and that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins, which are both speculative possibilities that cannot be known. The projection of primitive lungs is entirely hypothesis based speculation.

Now, there are things we can know from this fossil and things that are being assumed (the hypothesis based suppositins) but the problem is that people are believing these assumptions as if they are true or obvious facts.

We can know, for example, that Tik had gills, fins, and certain markings indicating it also had scales. The entire body portion however was totally flattened (many pieces of bone) and the two forward fins demonstrated in the fossil show no direct connection to the rest of the skeletal remains. That they originally could have been connected is a perfectly reasonable possibility, but the fossil itself (the actual data we have) does not demonstrate this.

Now look at the totally artistically contrived reconstruction and note how it exactly images what one would expect if the assumption portions were actually true? The actual fact that it is entirely fiction does not seem to matter among those convinced. Click the IMG



So this is a good place for me to start what I consider valid reasons to question the present interpretation (the hypothesis based narrative) as Tik being a transitional form.

So all the real evidence implies is that the actual fossil is that of an ancient variety of fish! Does it have actual amphibian or land walking tetrapod characteristics? No!

Does the narrative imply it does have these? Yes! Do the artistically contrived reconstructions imply these? Yes! So then what should a rational person put their trust in? The actual or the speculations and fictional images?

What kind of science and lab tests have you been doing for 30 years? What do you know about paleontology? You my think this is irrelevant but I don't want to offend you and/or waste time on information you already know.

Not that I am in expert, quite the contrary, but I can help you find out, or at least do it faster. "Because two is better than one...la de dah..."

 

[Motherofkittens]

That is the most perfect reply, eva'!
I showed my husband and we both laughed a bunch. Where is that GIF from, by the way?

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry it took so long, but I have a busy life, and when I looked the thread was not there so this time I went back and clicked on your link.

So here is an image of the actual fossil remains found. Using only what is actually there (badly crushed) it is almost impossible to say anything about the body except very general information, though based on this, assumptions have been made.

Later at the same site we found a rear section.

For an example of assumption, that its chest was more robust and housed primitive lungs of some sort, and that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins, which are both speculative possibilities that cannot be known. The projection of primitive lungs is entirely hypothesis based speculation.

Now, there are things we can know from this fossil and things that are being assumed (the hypothesis based suppositins) but the problem is that people are believing these assumptions as if they are true or obvious facts.

We can know, for example, that Tik had gills, fins, and certain markings indicating it also had scales. The entire body portion however was totally flattened (many pieces of bone) and the two forward fins demonstrated in the fossil show no direct connection to the rest of the skeletal remains. That they originally could have been connected is a perfectly reasonable possibility, but the fossil itself (the actual data we have) does not demonstrate this.

Now look at the totally artistically contrived reconstruction and note how it exactly images what one would expect if the assumption portions were actually true? The actual fact that it is entirely fiction does not seem to matter among those convinced. Click the IMG



So this is a good place for me to start what I consider valid reasons to question the present interpretation (the hypothesis based narrative) as Tik being a transitional form.

So all the real evidence implies is that the actual fossil is that of an ancient variety of fish! Does it have actual amphibian or land walking tetrapod characteristics? No!

Does the narrative imply it does have these? Yes! Do the artistically contrived reconstructions imply these? Yes! So then what should a rational person put their trust in? The actual or the speculations and fictional images?

Did you bother to read the website that tas8831 provided a link for? You know, the one that clearly stipulates that ten examples have been found, not just the two you mention. This is an attack on the quality of your argument:

• Either you could not be bothered to study the material you provided, in which case what reliance can be placed on anything you say?
• Or you chose to mislead others by suggesting only two specimens had been found, in which case what reliance can be placed on anything you say?

The question asked by Mother of Kittens is especially relevant. In what way does your experience in studying and interpreting fosssils, especially fossil vertebrates, match or exceed that of experts who have devoted their lives to the practice?

 

[tas8831]

What kind of science and lab tests have you been doing for 30 years? What do you know about paleontology?

Good questions.

I have gleaned from his posts that he did some kind of basic cell biology stuff. Of course, doing assays and the like does not mean you understand why they were being done and what the results were used for.

He is in face-preservation mode. These internal contradictions tell me this:

"For an example of assumption, that its chest was more robust and housed primitive lungs of some sort, and that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins, which are both speculative possibilities that cannot be known. The projection of primitive lungs is entirely hypothesis based speculation."



Hypothesis based speculation.

Supported by anatomical evidence, such as the relative robustness of the ribs and that they overlapped (not seen in fish).

Creationists seem to believe that if something is not obvious to them, regardless of their lack of relevant background or experience, then it is just 'speculation" and "assumption."

More later.

 

[Job 33:6]

A whole collection of "tiktaaliks" we're found at the site.

Just wanted to state that in reference to the statement about just one splintered head being found.

Over 10 individual specimen were discovered.

 

[Job 33:6]

Tiktaalik also has neck vertebrae and rotating wrist bones. And of course the eyes are on top of its head like a crocodile. Fish fossils do not display these qualities.

 

[pitabread]

That is the most perfect reply, eva'!
I showed my husband and we both laughed a bunch. Where is that GIF from, by the way?

Glad you like

My understanding it's from a British show called Misfits. Never seen the show myself, but I'd seen the GIF around the 'web and it seems a good response when words just won't do.

 

[pshun2404]

What kind of science and lab tests have you been doing for 30 years? What do you know about paleontology? You my think this is irrelevant but I don't want to offend you and/or waste time on information you already know.

Not that I am in expert, quite the contrary, but I can help you find out, or at least do it faster. "Because two is better than one...la de dah..."

I am no expert either Mok and my personal love of science (*since I was a kid) with more years of keeping up with new discoveries and articles than you are old (the over 30 years), and my experience trained in Biomedical technique (and work in Biotech for over a decade) is what is irrelevant, and was only brought up as a response to accusation in an unrelated thread long past to say I am not "ignorant of science" and "uneducated in evolutionary theory" or presenting a "God of the gaps" argument and so on.

And NO I am also NOT a Paleontologist (which does not mean the observations I posted are not worthy of being considered). Appeal to authority and consensus based conclusions of the like minded (in this case those who want the story to be the facts not the actual observable facts) is a default usually used by "creationists" (YECs) so please do not try and make that the basis of this discussion. Thanks...

Notice that your post and this response are separate from and a diversion from the issues? Let's not make it about these unrelated things, please.