Tiktaalik: Data vs. Assumptions

[Almost there]

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.

Just based on what little information you shared about the pot and its age, it is clear that the scientist was dead wrong and that it was the grandDAUGHTER who had buck teeth.

 

[tas8831]

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.

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 RESPONDS TO THE ABOVE:

Also, Elephants shoulder bones are indeed connected to its skeleton (or it 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).

What does that word salad even mean?


Are you really now trying to claim you were being sarcastic?

Seems that you could have said that - IF it were true - when I first called you out on it.

I do not believe thing you write any more.

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.

You discredit yourself by refusing to admit to even the most obvious of errors.

If that hurts you so much, STOP DOING IT.

 

[pshun2404]

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 RESPONDS TO THE ABOVE:

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

What does that word salad even mean?

Are you really now trying to claim you were being sarcastic?

Seems that you could have said that - IF it were true - when I first called you out on it.

I do not believe thing you write any more.

You discredit yourself by refusing to admit to even the most obvious of errors.

If that hurts you so much, STOP DOING IT.

What? Do I sense a backhanded apology for previously accusing me of presenting Menton's view? Or an attempt to get around it? Why can't you just say you were incorrect and misjudged what I said. Kind of like I would have if I were incorrect (like regarding the clavicle issue we discussed...you were correct and I was incorrect...no problem with honesty as far as I can tell_)

So what about Tik Talk...tik talk...no time for it?

 

[tas8831]

Somehow they are self deceived into thinking if "the other" can be discredited, then this makes themselves correct.

Hilarious projection.

Again, in the end, the data that p did not like was defined as 'assumption.'

 

[pshun2404]

Hilarious projection.

Again, in the end, the data that p did not like was defined as 'assumption.'

Great!~ Thanks for your opinion, now what about Tik?

 

[tas8831]

What? Do I sense a backhanded apology for previously accusing me of presenting Menton's view?

Do I sense a purposeful distortion of events in yet another sad and feeble attempt to save face?

i NEVER wrote or implied that you used Menton's argument - that is just your usual desperation oozing through.

Or an attempt to get around it? Why can't you just say you were incorrect and misjudged what I said.

Funny that the person that i caught red-handed doctoring quotes and plagiarizing yet refused to admit it is wondering why I am not "admitting" to something I never intended, implied, or wrote.

Kind of like I would have if I were incorrect (like regarding the clavicle issue we discussed...you were correct and I was incorrect...no problem with honesty as far as I can tell_)

So what about Tik Talk...tik talk...no time for it?

Your "arguments" are trite, predictable, and boring.

You simply defined conclusions and inferences drawn from the data that do not prop up your anti-evolution fantasies as "assumptions" and insisted that we all interpret them to your liking.

Sorry, not buying it. I'm tired of documenting evidence and even your own claims to demonstrate the failure of your arguments only to have to go off on tangents, play martyr, etc.


You failed yet again, and I see no reason to keep wasting time on your repetitious mantras and sad attempts to save face.

Each and every one of the threads you start and the rare comments you make on other threads on scientific topics show that despite your attempts at arguing via your own 'appeal to (your own) authority' premised on a supposed 3-decades of self-teaching and talking with people is no match for having relevant knowledge, education and experience.

 

[pshun2404]

It was YOU who started this thread...so speak some more about what you see in Tiktaalik...or perhaps address some of what I wrote about TIKTAALIK if you have no original thoughts or insights (now do not claim I said you do not, I said IF you do not)...

 

[PsychoSarah]

It was YOU who started this thread...so speak some more about what you see in Tiktaalik...or perhaps address some of what I wrote about TIKTAALIK if you have no original thoughts or insights (now do not claim I said you do not, I said IF you do not)...

-_- I see that it has traits of both fish and amphibians. No more and no less.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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 RESPONDS TO THE ABOVE:

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

Are you really now trying to claim you were being sarcastic?

Seems that you could have said that - IF it were true - when I first called you out on it.

I do not believe thing you write any more.

.......Oh, So Close!

-_-

I thought for a brief moment there (5 pages) in light of the vast preponderance of evidence against him, that a Creationist was going to admit he was mistaken.

<sigh>

 

[pshun2404]

-_- I see that it has traits of both fish and amphibians. No more and no less.

Yes as the also non-transitional platypus (came between neither of the two this mammalian "mosaic" can be misconstrued to represent).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes as the also non-transitional platypus (came between neither of the two this mammalian "mosaic" can be misconstrued to represent).

You say about a mammal that lays reptile-like eggs and produces milk from very basic mammary glands. I would think an early mammal would have those traits, honestly.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes as the also non-transitional platypus (came between neither of the two this mammalian "mosaic" can be misconstrued to represent).

How is it you've decided it's a 'non-transitional' ? It has all the traits of an in-between life form that doesn't neatly fit into one or the other cladistic classifiication - not quite reptillian, yet not entirely mammalian either...

 

[pshun2404]

You say about a mammal that lays reptile-like eggs and produces milk from very basic mammary glands. I would think an early mammal would have those traits, honestly.

Indeed they may have, and honestly I do agree that Tiktaalik is a fish with some characteristics that could be interpreted as amphibian-like...much like lungfish and a few others...so by the modified definition of the concept it would be counted as transtitional (but not in between...not a middle point between fish and land walking tetrapods).

 

[pshun2404]

How is it you've decided it's a 'non-transitional' ? It has all the traits of an in-between life form that doesn't neatly fit into one or the other cladistic classifiication - not quite reptillian, yet not entirely mammalian either...

Because as you know (unless you are in your 20s or maybe 30s), "transitional" always and only meant something in between in a process of growth or development. Thus fish becoming Tik-like (not Tik specifically) eventually BECAME land-walking Tetrapods over millions of years. That land walking Tetrapods CAME FROM creatures much like Tik (only in reality they are still fish).

Systems of classification are man made instruments of convenience thus not actual! This is why early cladists and taxonomists had differences of opinion as to where one or another creature might be placed. Clades are much more mathematical and so more believable, where taxonomic systems are more based on homological constructs, but still just man made boxes we fit things into.

If we were to make ven diagrams of different unrelated fruits they all still converge in the generally labeled category called "Fruit".

And besides being the only person here that HAS IN FACT admitted they were incorrect on some point, I am curious as to how you define "creationist". What is it a "creationist" (in your opinion) believes?

 

[tas8831]

How is it you've decided it's a 'non-transitional' ? It has all the traits of an in-between life form that doesn't neatly fit into one or the other cladistic classifiication - not quite reptillian, yet not entirely mammalian either...

Why, by idiosyncratic and highly-selective re-definitions, of course!

All bolstered by 3 decades of self-teaching and hubris!

 

[pshun2404]

Why, by idiosyncratic and highly-selective re-definitions, of course!

All bolstered by 3 decades of self-teaching and hubris!

No Hubris here, but I will say that one cannot fully grasp the import of the unique subject of "humanity" unless one understands that humanity is the unification of all fields of study (anthro, Archae, paleo, biology, philosophy, chemistry, physics, psychology, soc, and even different theologies) and one cannot acquire an education into that wholism by any one or another specialty. Besides the many courses I have taken over the years, grasping this unification as what is necessary for the (IMO) greater insights, the need to intentionally become a generalist and do my own research and study of many many people and many many perspectives was obvious. I was always in "self-study" mode even when in college this tendency was what led me to NOT become fixed into one mold (believing what all the alleged experts claim to be what these things mean and that goes for any in any of these fields).

Looking only through the lens of one area or another and seeing the whole as a reflection of this or these parts is a limitation (whether a particular view of evolutionism or a particular view of creationism) I liken to the story of the Elephant and the 6 Blindmen. Each becomes convinced of the part they are able to explore as THE explanation of the whole...of course all such persons doing this are wrong due to their shortsightedness and unable to catch the necessity of unification of these views to better grasp the reality of the whole.

But as usual this comment predictably had ZERO to do with Tiktaalik...and was a shot against my person and intellectual considerations.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Because as you know (unless you are in your 20s or maybe 30s), "transitional" always and only meant something in between in a process of growth or development. Thus fish becoming Tik-like (not Tik specifically) eventually BECAME land-walking Tetrapods over millions of years. That land walking Tetrapods CAME FROM creatures much like Tik (only in reality they are still fish).

In Palaeontology, Biology, and pretty much every other science this point applies, the term 'Transitional form' has generally referred to something that has traits of two groups or clades or species, regardless whether this 'transitional form' was indeed the ancestor to one of the comparative groups/clades/species, or not. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone saying we are unequivocally descendants of these particular fossils but Tik does indeed have traits of both fish and early land walking tetrapods. You've acknowledged that tetrapods are likely descended from something similar around the same time period, so is there an issue here?

Systems of classification are man made instruments of convenience thus not actual! This is why early cladists and taxonomists had differences of opinion as to where one or another creature might be placed. Clades are much more mathematical and so more believable, where taxonomic systems are more based on homological constructs, but still just man made boxes we fit things into.

Sure. Again though, is there an issue here?

If we were to make ven diagrams of different unrelated fruits they all still converge in the generally labeled category called "Fruit".

And besides being the only person here that HAS IN FACT admitted they were incorrect on some point, I am curious as to how you define "creationist". What is it a "creationist" (in your opinion) believes?

My personal working definition of a "Creationist" is someone who believes that the universe, world and living things are created independently and uniquely by an agent, usually supernaturally. Generally when I'm talking about Creationists, it's of the YEC variety, so all this allegedly happened within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years and all the species are (generally speaking) individual creations by said agent. It's a broad definition, I know - but this is always open to clarification. Also, I've been wrong & have been corrected on many occasions myself, more times than I can remember... unless of course you're speaking of this and only this thread on record of accepted corrections?

 

[pshun2404]

In Palaeontology, Biology, and pretty much every other science this point applies, the term 'Transitional form' has generally referred to something that has traits of two groups or clades or species, regardless whether this 'transitional form' was indeed the ancestor to one of the comparative groups/clades/species, or not. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone saying we are unequivocally descendants of these particular fossils but Tik does indeed have traits of both fish and early land walking tetrapods. You've acknowledged that tetrapods are likely descended from something similar around the same time period, so is there an issue here?

Sure. Again though, is there an issue here?

My personal working definition of a "Creationist" is someone who believes that the universe, world and living things are created independently and uniquely by an agent, usually supernaturally. Generally when I'm talking about Creationists, it's of the YEC variety, so all this allegedly happened within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years and all the species are (generally speaking) individual creations by said agent. It's a broad definition, I know - but this is always open to clarification. Also, I've been wrong & have been corrected on many occasions myself, more times than I can remember... unless of course you're speaking of this and only this thread on record of accepted corrections?

a) I know the convenient redefinition (that was the point)
b) Glad I am not what you call a creationist

 

[Ophiolite]

a) I know the convenient redefinition (that was the point)

You really do like to use weasel words to drive your sub-text. I'm OK with that, except that you deny you are doing it.

The redefinition was not convenient, it was a recognition that initial palaeontological research had formed conclusions that were overly simplified. As we realised that the phylogenetic tree was much more bush-like than tree-like it was appropriate to amend the defintion to better reflect our improved understanding. Why do you find that problematic? Please don't rattle on about how that is abused by so-called science popularisers. That is irrelevant to the science.

 

[pshun2404]

I don;

You really do like to use weasel words to drive your sub-text. I'm OK with that, except that you deny you are doing it.

The redefinition was not convenient, it was a recognition that initial palaeontological research had formed conclusions that were overly simplified. As we realised that the phylogenetic tree was much more bush-like than tree-like it was appropriate to amend the defintion to better reflect our improved understanding. Why do you find that problematic? Please don't rattle on about how that is abused by so-called science popularisers. That is irrelevant to the science.

I don't find it problematic at all. It is simple. When the term was first used (right up until recent times) it was always used to imply that those organisms called "transitional" were of a form that represented a state IN BETWEEN a former organism and a later organism...like a creature IN BETWEEN fish and amphibian and was not used in the sense of sharing characteristics in common (which is more homological). When this did not work (because sometimes the latter was eventually shown to precede the alleged middle form) they needed to change it rather than admit "we were incorrect!"

Changing the meaning of the term was the creation of a weasel word. They did this in order to evade or retreat from their former direct statement of position. Now they can use it which implies the former to the hearer and then equivocate when exposed to be doing this.

The University of Chicago says "Tiktaalik roseae, the 375-million-year-old fossil animal that represents an important intermediate step in the evolutionary transition..."

a)from fish to
b)animals that walked on land

Dawkins claimed it perfectly splits fish to amphibians as a missing link (a link goes between the former and the latter thus showing a transition)...but it is not because animals that walked on land PRECEDED creatures like Tik. So just be intellectually honest and say "Sorry, we were incorrect" or "Sorry, we were too hasty and formed an erroneous conclusion before all the evidence was in because it fit the theory"!!!