Tiktaalik: Data vs. Assumptions

[pshun2404]

So this is how a Christian admits they were in the wrong - by insulting the person that 'outed' them.

Wonderful.

RE: this rant:

"...limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."

Are you really going to argue that this is necessary???

After I just proved that VERY large terrestrial quadrupeds often lack such a connection?????

Is admitting error really that painful and difficult for you?

So why on earth did you write this, just one sentence prior????

"limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."

???????????

Creationists very frequently contradict themselves and undercut their own naive arguments, but contradicting yourself in the very next sentence is a new one!

And in all of that (mostly dissembling and cherry-picking), no explanation or evidence that there was no appendicular-axial connection, no evidence/explanation that this would be necessary for walking (which you admit even Shubin never claimed, so your whole argument is a strawman), no examples of evolutionists posts claiming that Tik ran around on land, no indication of why you looking at pictures while having no relevant background in the first place trumps the writings of those with relevant background and experience who personally examined the specimens, AND most pathetic of all -

You just could not bring yourself to admit your dopey errors about elephants!

"The forelimb has no clavicles but a large flattened triangular scapula" - from the link you claimed to use all the time!

Or did the simple fact elude you - the clavicle is the bone by which vertebrate forelimbs attach to the axial skeleton.

Surely, your 3 decades of scientific self-teaching exposed you to basic vertebrate anatomy?

What was it you wrote?

Ah yes:
"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)"

LOL!

My gosh - please stop making this so easy (and enjoyable) for me.

See...I did not say “limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton” because this cut and paste takes the point and twists it into the opposite of what I said.

In referring to the two links you provided claiming the limbs of Elephants are NOT attached (your claim not mine), I said “nothing showed that the bones of the limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton.”

And indeed neither demonstrated YOUR point. In all the images I have ever seen of Elephant Skeletons (and having seen an actual one at Harvard’s Natural History museum a number of times), I can say with confidence that of course they are attached. The structure of their anatomy is designed for a four footed animal to support a great weight. Yes cartilage, joints, and attached muscles are necessary for the whole system to do its job but surely if you just look at some skeletons of this creature you can clearly see that the legs are attached to the massive body.

So why on earth did you write this, just one sentence prior????

"limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."

I made it clear I was speaking of in the fossil example of Tik that we were looking at, and conceded that I believed they most likely would have been connected in the living creature.

You say elephants do not have appendicular-axial connections but why would they? They do not have shoulders that are like those in humans and many other mammals! Their shoulders are angled differently and much higher. Also Elephants do have clavicles which are located on the ventral side of their shoulder bones. Their limbs are positioned more vertically to better support that heavy body but they are certainly connected as a consistent skeletal system.

 

[pshun2404]

It is a shame that some simply want to hide their heads in the sand. If Tiktallik was the only transitional fossil they might have a very weak argument, but of course it is not. It is merely the first one found using the theory of evolution and geology together to predict where such a fossil should be found.

Since, and even before then there have been of course more finds. For example we have Acanthostega. It is even more "transitional" than Tiktaalik. It has clear fish and tetrapod traits:

Acanthostega - Wikipedia

"The 60 cm (24 in) Acanthostega had eight digits on each hand (the number of digits on the feet is unclear) linked by webbing, it lacked wrists, and was generally poorly adapted for walking on land. It also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb.[2] "

So still not a modern tetrapod, but not a fish either.

Next we have Ichthyostega:

Ichthyostega - Wikipedia

" Until finds of other early tetrapods and closely related fishes in the late 20th century, Ichthyostega stood alone as the transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods, combining a fishlike tail and gills with an amphibian skull and limbs."

That article lists at least ten different stages between fish and tetrapods. Of course different fossils were discovered at different times. Tiktaalik merely filled one of the "gaps". And of course every fossil found creates two new "gaps". I suppose that some feel by denying one that all can be denied, but one has to look at the big picture and the big picture tells us that land animals evolved from fish.

What the heck, one more article that explains evolution to those willing to learn:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04

First of all good to hear you chime in...I agree that acanthostega would have been a better choice for Tas to have insisted on in that other unrelated thread, but he chose to try and start all this in that other unrelated thread with Tiktaalik, and predictably knowing his intent to spin that one off into all this I suggested he start one on Tik, which this one IS.

If one defines transitional by this revision you refer to then YES, YES, YES, acanthostega should have been the way to go. I am sure if one looks though enough dictionaries one could find one or two that has this revision as the correct definition of that term. I will have to wait to give my view o these two creatures later as it is almost 3 am and I have to go to bed (long day tomorrow).

 

[tas8831]

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.

Did you write those exact words?

No. But it is pretty obvious, given the totality of your claims on the overall fossil specimens, that you think it is a major issue, so surely you are OK with a paraphrase?

After all, you are the fellow that had no problem altering someone's words and not indicating you had done so - going so far as to leave the doctored parts inside the quotation marks.

Remember? the Blum "quote" from your 'Probability and evolution' thread?

"After years of experimentation and research Professor Harold Blum finally admitted that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968, pg 158 on). "

But in reality, he wrote:

"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein seems beyond all probability." (Blum, 1968, p.158)

Now the creationist may think the two are the same, but the fact that you could not even admit that you had dishonestly doctored the quote said much then. And it says much now, for it was part of the pattern.

So, good for the gander and all that?

It is obvious that you think the 'crushed' (embellishment) nature of the fossils make it all assumption and speculation - that theme runs throughout your 'argument.'

 

[tas8831]

..I agree that acanthostega would have been a better choice for Tas to have insisted on in that other unrelated thread, but he chose to try and start all this in that other unrelated thread with Tiktaalik, and predictably knowing his intent to spin that one off into all this I suggested he start one on Tik, which this one IS.

So cute how you always try to play the victim.

YOU had mentioned Tik in that other thread first.

And as is your norm, after you mention something tangential in a thread and someone responds to that, YOU cry foul that it is not on topic.

Typical creationist propaganda tactic.

 

[tas8831]

This is hilarious!

See...I did not say “limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton” because this cut and paste takes the point and twists it into the opposite of what I said.

So... are you claiming that what you really wrote was:

“limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking ARE attached to their skeleton"

?? Or that that is what you meant?
Because THAT would be the opposite.

In referring to the two links you provided claiming the limbs of Elephants are NOT attached (your claim not mine),

Yes - it IS my claim that elephants do not have clavicles and thus their forelimb is NOT attached to the axial skeleton in a bone-to-bone fashion.

YEC David Menton made that criticism about Tiktaalik's pectoral girdle - that Tik could not have 'walked' on land because such a connection is required.

And YOU made the same argument about Tik's pelvic girdle/fins - remember?

" “Tiktaalik lacks a sacral rib connecting the pelvic girdle with the vertebral column” which is a necessary factor in land walking tetrapods."

YOU added the "which is a necessary factor in land walking tetrapods." which I asked you to provide evidence for, which, of course, you never did.

Just like Menton and the pectoral girdle.

You went on to write:

" “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.”

Note - " as significant as those of" does not mean incapable of bearing ANY stress.

And why don't we add a little more context for that 'damning' quote you provided - what you felt significant in red, pertinent stuff you ignored in bold:



From the abstract:

The pelves of Tiktaalik are paired and have broad iliac processes, flat and elongate pubes, and acetabulae that form a deep socket rimmed by a robust lip of bone. The pelvis is greatly enlarged relative to other finned tetrapodomorphs. Despite the enlargement and robusticity of the pelvis of Tiktaalik, it retains primitive features such as the lack of both an attachment for the sacral rib and an ischium. The pelvic fin of Tiktaalik (NUFV 108) is represented by fin rays and three endochondral elements: other elements are not preserved. The mosaic of primitive and derived features in Tiktaalik reveals that the enhancement of the pelvic appendage of tetrapods and, indeed, a trend toward hind limb-based propulsion have antecedents in the fins of their closest relatives.​

and your quote:

Although Tiktaalik lacks a sacral rib connecting the pelvic girdle with the vertebral column, the iliac blade is relatively more massive and dorsally expanded than in fish; indeed, it rises minimally to the level of the vertebral column​

So odd how you left off "Although" without indicating you did...

But I guess all that other stuff is just "assumption."

And a little more from the paper:

Extant aquatic vertebrates reveal a surprising diversity of locomotor strategies, particularly in walking behaviors. Supported by the neutral buoyancy offered by water and thereby lacking constraints imposed by a gravitational load, finned vertebrates reveal a diversity of bounding, alternating, and axial gaits that could not necessarily be predicted by morphology alone, or even be possible in a terrestrial environment (e.g., ref. 19). Indeed, walking gaits of a variety of types are known in a plethora of finned forms (20⇓–22). Given the range of walking behaviors possible in an aquatic medium, and the expanded size, mobility, and robusticity of the pelvic girdle, hip joint, and fin of Tiktaalik roseae, paddling, station holding, and walking may have all been in the functional repertoire of the appendage.

The recently discovered material allows an updated reconstruction of the skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae (Fig. 6). With robust pelvic and pectoral fins and girdles, a flattened head, loss of the extrascapular and opercular bones, and expanded ribs, among other characteristics, Tiktaalik was likely a denizen of a continuum of channel, shallow water, and mudflat habitats where appendage-based support, locomotion, and head mobility would have been advantageous.​

Amazing what one can learn from context.

Which is why I never trust that creationists are being honest when they provide quotes.

But no, please go on.

I said “nothing showed that the bones of the limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton.”

And that is not exactly what I indicated you wrote? And is that not exactly what you meant?

You wrote:

"Wow, and after all that (mostly rant), nothing showed that the bones of the limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton. "

If you claim (foolishly and erroneously) that nothing showed that, then it very clearly means that in your view you 'won' - and what was there to win?

Ah yes - the notion that "bones of the limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton " which you followed up with:

"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)"

Amazing...

So clearly, you DO think that this bone-to-bone connection is NECESSARY between limbs and trunk for any kind of 'walking' to be possible.



Here are some other relevant quotes from you in this thread regarding what you obviously believe is a major issue:

"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."


"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. "

And so on.

And indeed neither demonstrated YOUR point. In all the images I have ever seen of Elephant Skeletons (and having seen an actual one at Harvard’s Natural History museum a number of times), I can say with confidence that of course they are attached.

LOL!


"Neither" - I provided THREE links:

African Elephant Loxodonta africana - Detailed Anatomy Notes (Literature Reports)

http://www.walkdinosaur.com/pic/other/2015-11-30-02-51-586.jpg

And the artiodactyls (pigs, deer, bison, etc.) - also, no clavicles.
​

one of which you claimed to have used frequently!

In fact, the one you claimed to use frequently indicates this:


"The forelimb has no clavicles..."

But here are some more:

Looking closely at an Indian elephant skeleton : Jake's Bones

"Elephants don't need clavicles (collar-bones in humans) because their legs don't go at a wide angle from the body, so the extra support isn't needed. "

And from that same site - a nice close up of the humero-scapular joint - NO CLAVICLE!

The arrow is pointing to the 1st rib. One can also see the wires holding the ribs in place, and if you look closely at the scapula, you can see at least one, and possibly two screws attaching it to the underlying ribs - just like in real life! LOL!

If one understands basic vertebrate anatomy, one will understand what that means - NO bone-to-bone connection between forelimb and trunk.

I am at a loss as to why you cannot even admit to something so obvious as this - and want to claim that because a museum specimen had wired together bones???

My gosh... Please just stop. I am (almost) feeling bad having to explain this basic stuff over and over.


OK, let me help you out -

in a museum, bones are OF COURSE connected to each other so they DO NOT FALL APART.

Get it?

Did the specimens you pretend to have seen (no proof) have clavicles?

And does the 3-decade autodidact now understand the relevance of that?

The structure of their anatomy is designed for a four footed animal to support a great weight. Yes cartilage, joints, and attached muscles are necessary for the whole system to do its job but surely if you just look at some skeletons of this creature you can clearly see that the legs are attached to the massive body.

LOL!

They are NOT attached via a bone-to-bone connection. Their forelimbs are attached via muscle. NOT bone-to -bone. Because in vertebrates, when there is a bone-to-bone connection between the forelimb and the trunk, it is via the clavicle.

Please see this diagram of the human sternoclavicular joint:

Sternoclavicular joint - Wikipedia

only point of attachment for our forelimb to our trunk. No clavicle, no sternoclavicular joint.

Sinking in yet?

Whole point is this - if an elephant can walk around with no bone-to-bone connection between forelimb and trunk, arguing that Tiktaalik's pectoral/pelvic girdle does not have a bone-to-bone connection thus no walking is at best moot.

So why on earth did you write this, just one sentence prior????

"limbs required for locomotion on land and support of their bodies for walking are not attached to their skeleton."

I made it clear I was speaking of in the fossil example of Tik that we were looking at, and conceded that I believed they most likely would have been connected in the living creature.

All part of the same issue.

which you doubled down on with the whole 'elephants will fall down!' routine - and your continued insistence that you've seen museum specimens with pectoral girdles wired to the trunk, therefore, they are connected....

You say elephants do not have appendicular-axial connections but why would they?

So you have REVERSED your earlier position?


"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)"

Like many creationists, your 'arguments' vary - or can be in direct contradiction - all depending on the day and what point the creationist is trying to make.

Also Elephants do have clavicles which are located on the ventral side of their shoulder bones.

From the page that you claimed to have relied on many times:

"The forelimb has no clavicles"


I'm so sorry, 3-decades of study dude, but you are simply wrong.

Also, bovids lack them (wiki):

"In bovids, the third and fourth metapodials are combined into the cannon bone. The ulna and fibula are reduced, and fused with the radius and tibia, respectively. Long scapulae are present, whereas the clavicles are absent. "

Bovids include sheep, wildebeast, muck ox, bison, etc. - all substantially heavier than Tik.

Their limbs are positioned more vertically to better support that heavy body but they are certainly connected as a consistent skeletal system.

So it looks to me like you finally took the time to look this up (having had no relevant knowledge in the first place) and after trying to save face by doubling down, and now trying to spin it as 'I knew it all along'.

Sorry Charlie - your techniques are known, your words are forever (on the net).


What you call "assumptions', knowledgeable people call conclusions or at worst, extrapolations.

 

[pshun2404]

Ichthyosaurus

Assumption #1

ichthyosaurs evolved from a group of “unknown” land reptiles that over time returned to the sea (for which there is no evidence whatsoever other than hypothesis based conjecture)

Assumption #2, which precedes from belief in the first unfounded narrative attached:

Their limbs, fully developed for land-walking, slowly transformed into flippers when returning to the sea

A recent find in Chile reported 46 excellent examples of Ichthyosaurs, most fully formed, that had preserved soft tissue and even some embryos were found.

Live Science reports that “These "fish lizards" probably hunted in an underwater canyon near the coastline, pursuing a diet of squidlike animals and fish, the researchers said. Occasionally, there would have been mudflows that cascaded into the water like an avalanche, and the researchers think these mudflows killed the ichthyosaurs. The animals likely became disoriented and drowned, getting sucked into the deep sea, where their bodies were entombed in the sediment, the researchers said.”

Ancient 'Fish Lizard' Graveyard Discovered Beneath Melting Glacier

Most of the full adult samples of Ichthyosaurus look shockingly similar to Dolphins yet one is allegedly reptilian and the other mammalian. But is this true? I don’t know?

Some of the soft tissue samples show red blood cells (though smaller and more abundant than would have been thought) which would be unlikely in an aquatic reptiles.

Also though it was believed by many for decades that Ichthyosaurs walked up onto land to lay their eggs, we now detect two other hypothesis based assumptions:

a) That they laid eggs (as ALL reptiles do) and

b) That they did in fact walk up on land

But in reality they were totally pelagic creatures and they never laid eggs, in fact we have found developing embryos in the Chillean cache of fossils still in the mothers, AND evidence of born young’uns.

SO...they did not lay eggs, but birthed their offspring LIVE (like aquatic mammals), and did not walk up on land but birthed while still in the water (like aquatic mammals)! But where is the “My bad, we were wrong (they had jumped to conclusions without the actual facts because it fit the presupposed belief...don’t be offended YEC’s do this all the time)!”

Now then...Could similar anatomical characteristics have developed quite independently in entirely different UNRELATED species (convergent evolution being one possible explanation)?

Of course! We have seen such situations over and over (though many have tried to impose homologous arguments in other examples of different species to demonstrate what they think is proof of lineal relationship).

A third assumption is sometimes attached (related to # 1) to explain away other facts that are not consistent with the stories told in order to explain these facts in light of the presupposed belief. That is, the original four legged land walking vertebrates that developed in the swamps and seas themselves had terrestrial ancestors that eventually took on aquatic life.

So the third assumption that they eventually evolved and came out of the aquatic to the terrestrial is predicated on the second which says that originally they were terrestrial and became aquatic.

So in the sci fi narrative land creatures became sea creatures to only later become land creatures. There is so much conjecture necessary to reach such a conclusion it is unfathomable that such brilliant people would be unable to separate the data from the man made story attached.

All we can really observe is that there were land creatures already extant that had anatomical characteristics SIMILAR TO later aquatic creature (but not the same) and that even later we find land creatures with anatomical characteristics SIMILAR TO these earlier groups. This says NOTHING about one coming from or turning into the other OR that these features developed slowly overtime rather than being present in the earliest forms of these same creatures.

Regarding Ichthy it is entirely possible that two or more independent creatures (in this case Ichthy and Dolphins) can and do share anatomical similarities while being totally UNRELATED! Now apply this well -known and accepted FACT (a reality), to the sharing in Tiktaalik of anatomical characteristics labelled as being SIMILAR TO land walking Tetrapods. Now apply it to the other characteristics of Ichthy noted to be SIMILAR to other creatures.

 

[pshun2404]

TAS wrote

your continued insistence that you've seen museum specimens with pectoral girdles wired to the trunk, therefore, they are connected....

Which I never said (also having looked at skeletal photos provided in texts)...

Then he goes to Jakes Bones (which I also have explored before) as support against the wiring false accusation against the comment I did not make...(which all show wired examples)...

and then...relates his fictional supposition to a separate unrelated comment...

You say "elephants do not have appendicular-axial connections but why would they?"

And by this fictional mix and misrepresentation concludes...

So you have REVERSED your earlier position?

The answer being NOPE! It was YOU TAS that said they did not have THESE connections and I agreed with you, but that does not change the fact their whole skeleton is connected (limbs included which was the point). So imagine if your limbs were suddenly not connected to the rest of your skeleton what would happen?

But let me take the time here to say I stand corrected on the clavicle issue and yes they DO NOT have clavicles...you are correct on this point (now that IS a reversal of a previous opinion...I love to learn).

 

[tas8831]

All off topic.

Please remain on topic.

Ichthyosaurus

Assumption #1

ichthyosaurs evolved from a group of “unknown” land reptiles that over time returned to the sea (for which there is no evidence whatsoever other than hypothesis based conjecture)

Assumption #2, which precedes from belief in the first unfounded narrative attached:

Their limbs, fully developed for land-walking, slowly transformed into flippers when returning to the sea

A recent find in Chile reported 46 excellent examples of Ichthyosaurs, most fully formed, that had preserved soft tissue and even some embryos were found.

Live Science reports that “These "fish lizards" probably hunted in an underwater canyon near the coastline, pursuing a diet of squidlike animals and fish, the researchers said. Occasionally, there would have been mudflows that cascaded into the water like an avalanche, and the researchers think these mudflows killed the ichthyosaurs. The animals likely became disoriented and drowned, getting sucked into the deep sea, where their bodies were entombed in the sediment, the researchers said.”

Ancient 'Fish Lizard' Graveyard Discovered Beneath Melting Glacier

Most of the full adult samples of Ichthyosaurus look shockingly similar to Dolphins yet one is allegedly reptilian and the other mammalian. But is this true? I don’t know?

Some of the soft tissue samples show red blood cells (though smaller and more abundant than would have been thought) which would be unlikely in an aquatic reptiles.

Also though it was believed by many for decades that Ichthyosaurs walked up onto land to lay their eggs, we now detect two other hypothesis based assumptions:

a) That they laid eggs (as ALL reptiles do) and

b) That they did in fact walk up on land

But in reality they were totally pelagic creatures and they never laid eggs, in fact we have found developing embryos in the Chillean cache of fossils still in the mothers, AND evidence of born young’uns.

SO...they did not lay eggs, but birthed their offspring LIVE (like aquatic mammals), and did not walk up on land but birthed while still in the water (like aquatic mammals)! But where is the “My bad, we were wrong (they had jumped to conclusions without the actual facts because it fit the presupposed belief...don’t be offended YEC’s do this all the time)!”

Now then...Could similar anatomical characteristics have developed quite independently in entirely different UNRELATED species (convergent evolution being one possible explanation)?

Of course! We have seen such situations over and over (though many have tried to impose homologous arguments in other examples of different species to demonstrate what they think is proof of lineal relationship).

A third assumption is sometimes attached (related to # 1) to explain away other facts that are not consistent with the stories told in order to explain these facts in light of the presupposed belief. That is, the original four legged land walking vertebrates that developed in the swamps and seas themselves had terrestrial ancestors that eventually took on aquatic life.

So the third assumption that they eventually evolved and came out of the aquatic to the terrestrial is predicated on the second which says that originally they were terrestrial and became aquatic.

So in the sci fi narrative land creatures became sea creatures to only later become land creatures. There is so much conjecture necessary to reach such a conclusion it is unfathomable that such brilliant people would be unable to separate the data from the man made story attached.

All we can really observe is that there were land creatures already extant that had anatomical characteristics SIMILAR TO later aquatic creature (but not the same) and that even later we find land creatures with anatomical characteristics SIMILAR TO these earlier groups. This says NOTHING about one coming from or turning into the other OR that these features developed slowly overtime rather than being present in the earliest forms of these same creatures.

Regarding Ichthy it is entirely possible that two or more independent creatures (in this case Ichthy and Dolphins) can and do share anatomical similarities while being totally UNRELATED! Now apply this well -known and accepted FACT (a reality), to the sharing in Tiktaalik of anatomical characteristics labelled as being SIMILAR TO land walking Tetrapods. Now apply it to the other characteristics of Ichthy noted to be SIMILAR to other creatures.

 

[pshun2404]

So cute how you always try to play the victim.

YOU had mentioned Tik in that other thread first.

And as is your norm, after you mention something tangential in a thread and someone responds to that, YOU cry foul that it is not on topic.

Typical creationist propaganda tactic.

No I believe it was Sarah that gets first mention...but in either case it was not intended to start a separate discussion...and thus did not merit a post after post diversion.

 

[pshun2404]

All off topic.

Please remain on topic.

I agree but this was a 2nd part of my response to Sub...Zone...who said:

(For example we have Acanthostega. It is even more "transitional" than Tiktaalik. It has clear fish and tetrapod traits:

Acanthostega - Wikipedia

"The 60 cm (24 in) Acanthostega had eight digits on each hand (the number of digits on the feet is unclear) linked by webbing, it lacked wrists, and was generally poorly adapted for walking on land. It also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb")

if he would like to discuss this further I would be glad to participate but it really deserves its own thread...

 

[tas8831]

I have four issues with your post

1. Misleading use of rhetoric.
2. False statement regarding content of the abstract.
3. Misrepresentation of Shubin's position.
4. Contradictory views on the significance of specimen preservation

Misleading use of rhetoric
In post #31 you stated "A five year study on propaganda and brainwashing opened my mind to lot of these techniques."
It seems the five years was not wasted. In your short post you used emotive words to falsely characterise actions/observations/comments by the paper's authors. Namely:

• Shubin himself admits
• despite the constant re-emphasis of the story line, he also admits
• In the abstract these very scientists admit

The word "admits" implies, perhaps even requires, a guilty action recognised by the person admitting guilt. Your use of these words appears designed to cast doubt on the integrity of the paper's authors.
"Very" and "story line" are less troublesome, but still contain subtle elements suggesting shennanigans of one sort or another.

False Statement Regarding the Abstract
You state the following:
"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.” "

Here is the abstract:

A major challenge in understanding the origin of terrestrial vertebrates has been knowledge of the pelvis and hind appendage of their closest fish relatives. The pelvic girdle and appendage of tetrapods is dramatically larger and more robust than that of fish and contains a number of structures that provide greater musculoskeletal support for posture and locomotion. The discovery of pelvic material of the finned elpistostegalian, Tiktaalik roseae , bridges some of these differences. Multiple isolated pelves have been recovered, each of which has been prepared in three dimensions. Likewise, a complete pelvis and partial pelvic fin have been recovered in association with the type specimen. The pelves of Tiktaalik are paired and have broad iliac processes, flat and elongate pubes, and acetabulae that form a deep socket rimmed by a robust lip of bone. The pelvis is greatly enlarged relative to other finned tetrapodomorphs. Despite the enlargement and robusticity of the pelvis of Tiktaalik , it retains primitive features such as the lack of both an attachment for the sacral rib and an ischium. The pelvic fin of Tiktaalik (NUFV 108) is represented by fin rays and three endochondral elements: other elements are not preserved. The mosaic of primitive and derived features in Tiktaalik reveals that the enhancement of the pelvic appendage of tetrapods and, indeed, a trend toward hind limb-based propulsion have antecedents in the fins of their closest relatives.

Note that your quoted words do not appear. For the last couple of years, in addition to the Abstract, PNAS papers have included a summary paragraph or two on the Signficance of the paper. I considered that you may have lifted the statement from there and inadvertently identified it as being from the abstract. The words are not there either.

I am reasonably sure they can be found elsewhere in the paper, but my issue is this. If you make errors of this nature it calls into question everything you post here. That makes addressing your posts tiresome, since before one can get to the beef, one has to check whether or not there is any horse meat present. (Metaphor for the amusement of UK residents and Anglophiles.)

Misrepresentation of Shubin's Conclusions
Your post states that certain of Shubin's observations reveal a flawed and incoherent conclusion, whereas, in total, the observations lead to the conclusion stated in the last paragraph of the Abstract, quoted above.

Contradictory views on the significance of specimen preservation
You expressed strong reservations, at least once, about the condition of the specimens. Here are your words:
"Using only what is actually there (badly crushed) it is almost impossible to say anything about the body except very general information . . "

Hereis the conflict. The statement above is clear and yet in this paper the authors note that "Multiple isolated pelves have been recovered, each of which has been prepared in three dimensions".

It is from these that the authors have been able to make the detailed observations you have used to challenge the significance of Tikaalik. Yet it is "almost impossible to say anything about the body".

So, either you still maintain that position, in which case your objections here are groundless, since that observations could not have been extracted. Or, you concede that in the light of techniques to restore original form, or as a consequence of multiple specimens, your original objection no longer stands.

I don't think that is a false dichotomy, but if I missed an option do let us know. Otherwise, which explantion is the correct one. (I hope it means you have changed your mind on one point at least. It would hold out a glimmer of hope.)

Strange that there was no response.

 

[Ophiolite]

Strange that there was no response.

Not so strange, unfortunately. I am considering keeping journal entries to track non-responses. I have several posts awaiting replies. Some, I am sure, have been overlooked. I know I sometimes do this myself, but in other cases mutliple reminders evoke no response. I find that both rude and cowardly, but it does have the advantage of giving us insight into character.

 

[pshun2404]

Strange that there was no response.

I responded to the first two....

Misleading use of rhetoric was not even in the ball park of accuracy and was nothing more than opinion.

False Statement Regarding the Abstract was addressed. I apologized (stood corrected which I have no problem doing) it was from the Discussion section of the article and I re-posted a larger segment of text.

Misrepresentation of Shubin's Conclusions. I had no issue with this one as I see the difference between what we can know for sure and what he is supposing based on the paradigm he holds to which I know neither of you two can see. I do not feel I misrepresented what Shubin said at any point I just do not agree with all his conclusions.

As for Contradictory views on the significance of specimen preservation It is true that I did NOT respond because the issues he or she mentioned (and the reasons why I hold the view I do) had already and were being discussed.

 

[Ophiolite]

I responded to the first two....

Misleading use of rhetoric was not even in the ball park of accuracy and was nothing more than opinion.

False Statement Regarding the Abstract was addressed. I apologized (stood corrected which I have no problem doing) it was from the Discussion section of the article and I re-posted a larger segment of text.

Misrepresentation of Shubin's Conclusions. I had no issue with this one as I see the difference between what we can know for sure and what he is supposing based on the paradigm he holds to which I know neither of you two can see. I do not feel I misrepresented what Shubin said at any point I just do not agree with all his conclusions.

As for Contradictory views on the significance of specimen preservation It is true that I did NOT respond because the issues he or she mentioned (and the reasons why I hold the view I do) had already and were being discussed.

Where did you respond to the first two?

How was I meant to know you had no issue with Shubin's conclusions? More to the point, your description of his conclusions was inaccurate. You did not address this inaccuracy. You did not state this - anywhere that I can see - nor did you state that you disagreed with his conclusions.

I raised the fourth point because your justifications on this point were (and still are) inadequate.

You have an opportunity now to make a sound case against each of my assertions in clear, focused manner. Please do so. I find your comments on the first issue above to constitute a satisfactory first response. However,

Do you agree that the word admit generally implies a sense of guilt, or concealment of a fact preferably hidden, or the revelation of a viewpoint one is somewhat ashamed of. Examples of the use of admit:
"I admit that taking occassional small items of stationary from ones place of work is actually theft."
"I admit that I generally eat more junk food than I should."
"I admit I have not always approved of immigrants."

By using admit to describe some of Shubin's statements in the paper do you agree it could create the impression that Shubin had reservations about these statements? I am not asking you to agree that this use of admit was made deliberately. I am asking whether or not you agree that its use might create this negative impression. If you do not agree, what is your argument?

 

[pshun2404]

Do you agree that the word admit generally implies a sense of guilt, or concealment of a fact preferably hidden, or the revelation of a viewpoint one is somewhat ashamed of.

Not at all, I take it to mean being openly truthful, to be honest, NOT hiding a fact that could be contrary to one's own opinion or purpose (to grant to be real, valid, or true; to acknowledge or concede). Though it can be used in the way you suggested, I believe only a guilty person would get stuck focusing on the secondary meaning. Its use in no way speaks to creating a "negative impression" but speaks rather to his intellectual integrity.

The article contains facts indicative of possible support for his belief and yet includes facts of possible contrary implication. He states what HE thinks these things mean but does not insist that IS what they mean (because they may not).

 

[tas8831]

When a person 'argues' like this:

pshun :

Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)

but later:

pshun:

You say elephants do not have appendicular-axial connections but why would they?

one can draw certain conclusions about that person.

 

[tas8831]

The 'distortion to save face' continues....

TAS wrote

your continued insistence that you've seen museum specimens with pectoral girdles wired to the trunk, therefore, they are connected....

Which I never said (also having looked at skeletal photos provided in texts)...

Which you misinterpret/don't understand, having no background in anatomy.

"Which I never said" - did you write that the museum bones were wired together - no, but THEY ARE, which was my point.

I did not do what you have been caught doing - doctoring quotes. I did not quote you at all, I merely added some fact-based reality to the gist of your whine.

This just means that when you went to the museum you either didn't pay attention or you are just weaseling out of reality to prop up your anti-science beliefs.

You wrote:

"And indeed neither demonstrated YOUR point. In all the images I have ever seen of Elephant Skeletons (and having seen an actual one at Harvard’s Natural History museum a number of times),"


What you saw was a specimen whose bones were wired together to keep them from falling apart.

How could you not know that?

Then he goes to Jakes Bones (which I also have explored before

If you have "explored" it, why didn't the fact that you were wrong register? So now we have 2 sites that you claim to have used and/or explored, both supporting my claim, but you continued insisting that I was wrong:

"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)"


Meaning that you DID declare that there is a bone-to-bone connection - a DIRECT contradiction to your later claim!

as support against the wiring false accusation against the comment I did not make...(which all show wired examples)...

False accusation? I never indicated that you made a comment. Why do you do this?

Do you think that nobody on the internet has the ability to, um, SCROLL UP? Or hit the 'previous page' button?


Are you really trying to say that you are unaware that museum skeletons/fossils are WIRED and SCREWED together so they do not fall apart???

30 years of science study and you think museum skeletons just stand there by magic?

and then...relates his fictional supposition to a separate unrelated comment...

You say "elephants do not have appendicular-axial connections but why would they?"

And by this fictional [sic] mix and misrepresentation concludes...

So you have REVERSED your earlier position?

Fiction?

Not even close.

pshun:
The answer being NOPE! It was YOU TAS that said they did not have THESE connections and I agreed with you,

And the distortions continue.

You VERY OBVIOUSLY reversed your earlier position.


Tiktaalik: Data vs. Assumptions

TAS:
Menton had declared that Tik lacked a bone-to-bone connection between the shoulder girdle and axial skeleton, and that this is REQUIRED for moving on land.

pshun:

Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground)

Please explain - with a straight face - how on earth your response above can, in ANY way, be interpreted to mean that you really meant that their forelimbs are attached somehow but not by bone-to-bone connections?


Are you OK?

Are you really trying now to claim that you did NOT originally insist that elephants have clavicles and thus bone-to-bone connections between their forelimbs and axial skeletons?

Who do you take the people on here for? Fools?

but that does not change the fact their whole skeleton is connected (limbs included which was the point). So imagine if your limbs were suddenly not connected to the rest of your skeleton what would happen?

Are you for real?

Are you now really claiming that what you meant was that the limbs were connected somehow??? But not by bone? Despite the fact that you wrote:

"Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it would fall to the ground) "

???????

But let me take the time here to say I stand corrected on the clavicle issue and yes they DO NOT have clavicles...you are correct on this point (now that IS a reversal of a previous opinion...I love to learn).

You love to learn, yet INSISTED over the course of several posts that you were correct and I was wrong - even after I presented MULTIPLE sources demonstrating that I was correct, to include one site that you claimed you used several times that supported my true claim?

And with all this denial of what you wrote and false accusations against me...



Why are so many creationists like this?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you agree that the word admit generally implies a sense of guilt, or concealment of a fact preferably hidden, or the revelation of a viewpoint one is somewhat ashamed of.

Not at all, I take it to mean being openly truthful, to be honest, NOT hiding a fact that could be contrary to one's own opinion or purpose (to grant to be real, valid, or true; to acknowledge or concede). Though it can be used in the way you suggested, I believe only a guilty person would get stuck focusing on the secondary meaning. Its use in no way speaks to creating a "negative impression" but speaks rather to his intellectual integrity.

The article contains facts indicative of possible support for his belief and yet includes facts of possible contrary implication. He states what HE thinks these things mean but does not insist that IS what they mean (because they may not).

I agree that the word admit could be used in the way you describe. I find it an exceptional use of the word, but accept that this is how you use it.

Usage can differ significantly between cultures, social strata and individuals. Perhaps your usage is the more common one. I tend to think not. Consequently, independent of your intent, use of the word "admit" casts a false impression of Shubin's position.

Your second sentence implies that I am a guilty person. That's a rather obvious charge, since we are all guilty of something. What specifically are you implying I am guilty of?

Before I move onto the second issue I raised, would you identify where you had responded to the first two issues, as I asked you in the first sentence of post #114 above.

 

[tas8831]

Not so strange, unfortunately. I am considering keeping journal entries to track non-responses. I have several posts awaiting replies. Some, I am sure, have been overlooked. I know I sometimes do this myself, but in other cases mutliple reminders evoke no response. I find that both rude and cowardly, but it does have the advantage of giving us insight into character.

I tried that several years back and found it too frustrating to continue.

I also get annoyed when you write a post that has maybe , say, 7 points in it, but the creationist only replies to one point, then later makes claims that were refuted in one of the 6 other points that they had ignored...

 

[pshun2404]

For one...yes I claim that all the bones of the Elephant skeleton are indeed connected (some only through cartilage, ligaments, tendons, and so on). The limbs ARE connected to the rest of the skeleton and if they were not the creature would fall to the ground.

The sarcastic comment to your claim they are NOT connected stands (because the incorrectness of this statement was SO obvious).

For the other...the definition I gave for the word "Admit" (the definition I was applying) IS the primary definition not the exception. It is okay to to say..."Sorry I was incorrect!" I did...

Now can we get back to talking about Tiktaalik? In the fossil we were discussing there was no connection. That it was connected is thus an assumption. Was there one in the remote past? I believe so...it IS most probable! But the fossil itself did not (could not) prove this. Therefore differing OPINIONS or INTERPRETATIONS must be allowed to arise and should be considered (even discussed as adults) until further evidence unfolded or was demonstrated.

Then upteen posts began...attacking credibility, education, character and so on. Avoid the issue, rationale, and content (some of course being opinion) and go after the person...some people think if they can discredit a person this avoids having to deal with these things. Somehow they are self deceived into thinking if "the other" can be discredited, then this makes themselves correct.