Tiktaalik: Data vs. Assumptions

[tas8831]

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,

Says you.

Other than your disbelief, what evidence is there that only very limited information can be gleaned from a 'crushed' specimen?

I have a background in anatomy and cell biology, studied and taught human and vertebrate anatomy, and evolution, and I can observe and draw conclusions from pieces of bone that I find in the woods or that students bring me - and that is not even really my area of expertise. There are people that study this stuff for a living - why denigrate them so? You expect people to believe that because you claim 30 years of reading that your opinions are valid and unimpeachable, and at the same time you want us to dismiss the evidence-based opinions and conclusions of people that do pretty much ONLY this as their profession.

Do you also dismiss the opinions of surgeons and architects, or just evolutionary biologists and paleontologists?

though based on this, assumptions have been made.

You must mean conclusions.

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

How is that an assumption? Do you think they just dreamed that up? Could it have been due to, maybe, looking at the anatomy and understanding the relevance? The structure of the ribs, for example, were overlapping (like an air breather) and robust (not like fish).

, and that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins, which are both speculative possibilities that cannot be known.

That is an hypothesis, not an assumption.

And it is based on evidence.

The projection of primitive lungs is entirely hypothesis based speculation.

Wow.

Hypothesis-based speculation.

I guess if all you do is look at the picture, think to yourself "I know all about all this stuff, and I can't see what they are talking about, so it is obviously all just made up", then sure, I guess you would conclude "speculation."

But I have read Shubin's actual papers, and seen more pictures than are at that site, and have a background that is at least relevant to the issues at hand, and I see evidence-backed hypotheses, not mere 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.

Actually having the specimen in hand and understanding anatomy probably allows one to draw conclusions that a person looking at pictures and it out to dismiss the conclusions cannot make.

What is this 'many pieces of bone' thing? How does that diminish anything?

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?

I see your question begging here. artistic reconstructions are nice to look at, but surely you don't think those are presented as evidence, do you?

The actual fact that it is entirely fiction does not seem to matter among those convinced. Click the IMG

http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1686_1e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg

So, in one post, we've gone from 'Hypothesis-based speculation' to assumption to 'entirely fiction'.

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.

Finally - remind me again about all of the work you have done in paleontology and your background in anatomy?

So all the real evidence implies is that the actual fossil is that of an ancient variety of fish!

Well, yes. A fish with scales and gills. [url=http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6182/1617/1600/NUFV108.jpg] But also with a flattened skull, distinct cervical vertebrae, a unique shoulder girdle, tetrapod-like ribs, etc... But you used an exclamation point, so you must be on to something...

Your line of argumentation is reminiscent of the great creationists of yore like Gish, who would dismiss the notion that creatures like Homo habilis or Homo erectus were 'ancestors', claiming that they were fully human because they are in the genus Homo!

Does it have actual amphibian or land walking tetrapod characteristics? No!

According to you and creationists that have no relevant background and have not actually looked at the detailed photos of the fossils.

But do tell us all about the fish with cervical vertebrae, won't you?

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?

The actual, since that is what the artistic renderings and the conclusions of tetrapod-like anatomy are based on.

So basically, in order to support your charge of assumptions v. data, you have essentially re-defined evidence-based conclusions (or even, yes, speculations - but speculation based on the available data) as "assumptions", artistic extrapolations of the fossil evidence as "entirely fiction", and implied via your conclusions that you, by virtue of looking at some photos and already being dead-set against Tiktaalik being a transitional of any kind (despite it meeting the criteria you laid out as being one) that your picture-based biased interpretations trump the conclusions drawn by actual paleontologists with relevant expertise.

Got it.




it is funny - you earlier defined that for you, a transitional is a creature with a mix of traits from the 'old' and 'new' forms (paraphrasing, of course), yet when such a specimen is presented, you go all out to dismiss it.

This DESPITE the fact that you claim to accept evolution?![/url]

 

[pshun2404]

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?

That particular example came from http://imgarcade.com/tiktaalik-fossil.html

But you can find many (different) artistic representations and reconstruction on many sites and posted in many articles even in Tas's Understanding Evolution link. I would only hope that your sense of maintaining your intellectual integrity would allow you to recognize the difference between what actually is and what is artistically contrived to create the unconscious impression. Have fun exploring...

 

[pshun2404]

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?

"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?"

I am aware of the other crushed flattened partial pieces found and did in fact read all the parts of the Understanding Evolution link regarding Tik that TAS provided (though I had read this before I read it again to avoid the exact accusation you are now using to divert to make this about ME instead of addressing the matters mentioned). And of course I thoroughly read all the information I referenced. Sadly this response style (I call it pseudo-hominem approach) is so predictable that it makes me sad for you!

See how 6 posts have already been wasted? Sad...really...

 

[pshun2404]

Says you.

Other than your disbelief, what evidence is there that only very limited information can be gleaned from a 'crushed' specimen?

I have a background in anatomy and cell biology, studied and taught human and vertebrate anatomy, and evolution, and I can observe and draw conclusions from pieces of bone that I find in the woods or that students bring me - and that is not even really my area of expertise. There are people that study this stuff for a living - why denigrate them so? You expect people to believe that because you claim 30 years of reading that your opinions are valid and unimpeachable, and at the same time you want us to dismiss the evidence-based opinions and conclusions of people that do pretty much ONLY this as their profession.

Do you also dismiss the opinions of surgeons and architects, or just evolutionary biologists and paleontologists?

You must mean conclusions.

How is that an assumption? Do you think they just dreamed that up? Could it have been due to, maybe, looking at the anatomy and understanding the relevance? The structure of the ribs, for example, were overlapping (like an air breather) and robust (not like fish).

That is an hypothesis, not an assumption.

And it is based on evidence.
Wow.

Hypothesis-based speculation.

I guess if all you do is look at the picture, think to yourself "I know all about all this stuff, and I can't see what they are talking about, so it is obviously all just made up", then sure, I guess you would conclude "speculation."

But I have read Shubin's actual papers, and seen more pictures than are at that site, and have a background that is at least relevant to the issues at hand, and I see evidence-backed hypotheses, not mere speculation.

Actually having the specimen in hand and understanding anatomy probably allows one to draw conclusions that a person looking at pictures and it out to dismiss the conclusions cannot make.

What is this 'many pieces of bone' thing? How does that diminish anything?

I see your question begging here. artistic reconstructions are nice to look at, but surely you don't think those are presented as evidence, do you?

So, in one post, we've gone from 'Hypothesis-based speculation' to assumption to 'entirely fiction'.

Finally - remind me again about all of the work you have done in paleontology and your background in anatomy?

Well, yes. A fish with scales and gills. But also with a flattened skull, distinct cervical vertebrae, a unique shoulder girdle, tetrapod-like ribs, etc... But you used an exclamation point, so you must be on to something...

Your line of argumentation is reminiscent of the great creationists of yore like Gish, who would dismiss the notion that creatures like Homo habilis or Homo erectus were 'ancestors', claiming that they were fully human because they are in the genus Homo!

According to you and creationists that have no relevant background and have not actually looked at the detailed photos of the fossils.

But do tell us all about the fish with cervical vertebrae, won't you?

The actual, since that is what the artistic renderings and the conclusions of tetrapod-like anatomy are based on.

So basically, in order to support your charge of assumptions v. data, you have essentially re-defined evidence-based conclusions (or even, yes, speculations - but speculation based on the available data) as "assumptions", artistic extrapolations of the fossil evidence as "entirely fiction", and implied via your conclusions that you, by virtue of looking at some photos and already being dead-set against Tiktaalik being a transitional of any kind (despite it meeting the criteria you laid out as being one) that your picture-based biased interpretations trump the conclusions drawn by actual paleontologists with relevant expertise.

Got it.

it is funny - you earlier defined that for you, a transitional is a creature with a mix of traits from the 'old' and 'new' forms (paraphrasing, of course), yet when such a specimen is presented, you go all out to dismiss it.

This DESPITE the fact that you claim to accept evolution?!

What an utter waste of time. I also have read Shubin's papers with excitement but that does not change the facts. Clearly some things CAN BE interpreted according to this belief system through the lens of the presupposed conclusions. Who knows perhaps Tik could breathe through his skin for a time (like mudskippers)..could be...

The crushed chest area is NOT robust and the rib bones do not equal a cavity for lungs (though they COULD HAVE been so)

 

[pshun2404]

"I see your question begging here. artistic reconstructions are nice to look at, but surely you don't think those are presented as evidence, do you?"

No! But image imprinting is a common technique used to convince students and the gullible masses (one picture is worth 1000 words). When such images in texts and presentations (sadly even on PBS documentaries) are planted over and over through the years the image sticks as if it is an established and accepted understanding. It is a form of conditioning by association that is unnecessary in the presentation of evidentially based truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What an utter waste of time. I also have read Shubin's papers with excitement but that does not change the facts. Clearly some things CAN BE interpreted according to this belief system through the lens of the presupposed conclusions.

Ow my...

I agree though. Clearly, indeed, things CAN BE interpreted according to one's belief system.

Uhu.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"I see your question begging here. artistic reconstructions are nice to look at, but surely you don't think those are presented as evidence, do you?"

No! But image imprinting is a common technique used to convince students and the gullible masses (one picture is worth 1000 words). When such images in texts and presentations (sadly even on PBS documentaries) are planted over and over through the years the image sticks as if it is an established and accepted understanding. It is a form of conditioning by association that is unnecessary in the presentation of evidentially based truth.

So, it's a conspiracy? Is that what you're saying?

ps: as a student, I was told that artist renditions are nice to look at and fun to try and give us a clue on how the creatures might have looked like, but should not be regarded as facts or evidence of any kind. In fact, it was right there in the textbook as a footnote, right under the pictures. It read "artist interpretation".

 

[pshun2404]

So, it's a conspiracy? Is that what you're saying?

ps: as a student, I was told that artist renditions are nice to look at and fun to try and give us a clue on how the creatures might have looked like, but should not be regarded as facts or evidence of any kind. In fact, it was right there in the textbook as a footnote, right under the pictures. It read "artist interpretation".

You were taught well then. When I was a child (and a teen) I use to always believe this is what the creatures actually looked like. My grandson when he saw "Walking with Dinosaurs" really believed this is what THEY looked like and he 100% trusted the stories being told as trustworthy. Being raised by a strict naturalist I thought "They must know. After all, they are the experts!" and so I trusted my teachers and my textbooks. Why else would they associate these images with the stories as told by the experts in the text?

 

[Speedwell]

You were taught well then. When I was a child (and a teen) I use to always believe this is what the creatures actually looked like. My grandson when he saw "Walking with Dinosaurs" really believed this is what THEY looked like and he 100% trusted the stories being told as trustworthy. Being raised by a strict naturalist I thought "They must know. After all, they are the experts!" and so I trusted my teachers and my textbooks. Why else would they associate these images with the stories as told by the experts in the text?

The same kind of naivety that leads creationists to complain, "They teach it as a FACT in science class!" But you have to blame it on the schools, not science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You were taught well then. When I was a child (and a teen) I use to always believe this is what the creatures actually looked like. My grandson when he saw "Walking with Dinosaurs" really believed this is what THEY looked like and he 100% trusted the stories being told as trustworthy. Being raised by a strict naturalist I thought "They must know. After all, they are the experts!" and so I trusted my teachers and my textbooks. Why else would they associate these images with the stories as told by the experts in the text?

Maybe that's your problem and not a problem of the sciences.
None of this matters to evolution theory.

 

[pshun2404]

Maybe that's your problem and not a problem of the sciences.
None of this matters to evolution theory.

A five year study on propaganda and brainwashing opened my mind to lot of these techniques. Now I see them plainly. The only difference is that politicians and public relations people use them on purpose to manipulate and deceive. Most "scientists" could care less. And I do not have a problem with "the sciences" just some of the interpretations of some scientists.

 

[pshun2404]

MoK see this one

New Fossils of Tiktaalik roseae Amaze Scientists | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

 

[PsychoSarah]

"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?"

I am aware of the other crushed flattened partial pieces found and did in fact read all the parts of the Understanding Evolution link regarding Tik that TAS provided (though I had read this before I read it again to avoid the exact accusation you are now using to divert to make this about ME instead of addressing the matters mentioned). And of course I thoroughly read all the information I referenced. Sadly this response style (I call it pseudo-hominem approach) is so predictable that it makes me sad for you!

See how 6 posts have already been wasted? Sad...really...

I have a huge problem with your line of arguments lately; you keep stating that "oh no, the remains are too badly crushed to accurately piece the organism back together", but every single species you have brought up doesn't have that apply to them. For example, none of the Tiktaalik fossils are crushed to the extent necessary to even make reconstruction difficult.

In fact, one of the noteworthy aspects of their discovery is that they all had intact skeletons.

 

[pshun2404]

I have a huge problem with your line of arguments lately; you keep stating that "oh no, the remains are too badly crushed to accurately piece the organism back together", but every single species you have brought up doesn't have that apply to them. For example, none of the Tiktaalik fossils are crushed to the extent necessary to even make reconstruction difficult.

In fact, one of the noteworthy aspects of their discovery is that they all had intact skeletons.

I do not remember posting ""oh no, the remains are too badly crushed to accurately piece the organism back together" but maybe you can show me. The picture you provided is great. I always loved this one. The reconstructions sadly do not really demonstrate what the creature looked like or demonstrate Tik breathed in any other way but through gills (and more). But thanks...

 

[tyke]

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.

I can see that you're going to have to use it a helluva lot in this forum then!!

 

[Ophiolite]

Sadly this response style (I call it pseudo-hominem approach) is so predictable that it makes me sad for you!

I object to your characterisation of my post as pseudo-hominem on two grounds:

First, the pedant in me suggests that you meant pseudo-ad hominem.

Secondly, in attacking the quality of your argument I was implicitly and unavoidably attacking your own qualities. Consequently the adjective "pseudo" is not applicable.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I do not remember posting ""oh no, the remains are too badly crushed to accurately piece the organism back together" but maybe you can show me. The picture you provided is great. I always loved this one. The reconstructions sadly do not really demonstrate what the creature looked like or demonstrate Tik breathed in any other way but through gills (and more). But thanks...

It wasn't a direct quote from you, but you did say as much in multiple discussions we've been having recently... as well as mentioning crushed pieces in the post I quoted in the post you responded to with this. Also, deleting posts doesn't really hide your commentary when other people have already quoted you "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". I don't know if you deleted this before or after I made my response.

 

[pshun2404]

Great! Now go back to the subject of Tiktaalik...

In analyzing the pelvic girdle found, we do not see a new development on the way to becoming a land walking tetrapod at all. Shubin himself admits the architecture of the bones are pleisomorphic therefore similar to earlier ancestors, and despite the constant re-emphasis of the story line, he also admits that “Tiktaalik lacks a sacral rib connecting the pelvic girdle with the vertebral column” which is a necessary factor in land walking tetrapods. See Shubin, N.H., Daeschler, E.B., and Jenkins, F.A. Jr., Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae, PNAS 111(3):893–899, 21 January 2014 | doi:10.1073/pnas.1322559111

In the abstract these very scientists admit that “the pelvic fin was not capable of bearing stresses and strains as significant as those of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, nor was the musculature as well-developed for appendage retraction.”

So what they are not telling us is that this means it COULD NOT walk on land for any significant length of time. Since we do not assume Icthy walked on land, and these features in Tik are not even as capable as in Ichthy, then WHY should we assume Tik did so?

And yes I know Shubin and his team did not claim that Tik was a landwalker, but so many others on discussion forums like these envision that very thing in their minds. Talk about a leap of faith...wrong architecture, not connected in necessary ways, similar to other earlier non-landwalking FISH, and yet????

 

[pshun2404]

I object to your characterisation of my post as pseudo-hominem on two grounds:

First, the pedant in me suggests that you meant pseudo-ad hominem.

Secondly, in attacking the quality of your argument I was implicitly and unavoidably attacking your own qualities. Consequently the adjective "pseudo" is not applicable.

Well at least your honest about your defense strategy. It shows your under crust!

 

[DogmaHunter]

A five year study on propaganda and brainwashing opened my mind to lot of these techniques. Now I see them plainly. The only difference is that politicians and public relations people use them on purpose to manipulate and deceive. Most "scientists" could care less. And I do not have a problem with "the sciences" just some of the interpretations of some scientists.

Soooooo... conspiracy?