Why Evolution is True

[createdtoworship]

So you have no opinion on whether tiktaalik has both fish and land dwelling characteristics and why this might be significant?



How would older tetrapod footprints change the importance of what tiktaalik represents?

tiktaalik is a fish as the name signifies:



"This new fish fossil doesn't seem to add much--if anything--to bridge the gap between fish fins and tetrapod limbs. In fact, if anything, the fin of Panderichthys appears closer to a true tetrapod limb than does the fin of Tiktaalik"

states casey luskin regarding this secular image found at evolution news and views:

also more evidence to show tiktaalik was simply a fish from AIG:

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” 5

In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because “the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout.” The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that “a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?

Are the pectoral fins of Tiktaalik really legs?

Before we get into Tiktaalik’s “legs,” it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms “legs,” then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legs—just because we call our arms “legs” doesn’t make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fish—we may call them “legs” but that doesn’t necessarily make them legs.

Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaalik’s bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.6 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaalik’s fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesn’t prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)

The limbs of tetrapods

The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. These unique features meet the special demands of walking on land. In the case of the forelimbs there is one bone nearest the body (proximal) called the humerus that articulates (flexibly joins) with two bones, the radius and ulna, further away from the body (distal). These in turn articulate with multiple wrist bones, which finally articulate with typically five digits. The hind limbs similarly consist of one proximal bone, the femur, which articulates with two distal bones, the tibia and fibula, which in turn articulate with ankle bones; and finally with typically five digits. In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.

The femur of the hind limb articulates with the pelvic girdle, which consists of fused bones collectively called the pelvis (hip bone). It is this hind limb—with its robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column—that differs radically from that of any fish. (The tetrapod arrangement is important for bearing the weight of the animal on land.)

All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

The fins of fish (including Tiktaalik)

Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”


above section from:

https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/tiktaalik-and-the-fishy-story-of-walking-fish-part-2/

 

[CabVet]

tiktaalik is a fish as the name signifies:

A bunch of lies, misdirection and deception. Thanks for reminding me how dishonest that website is. Yes, of course it is a fish. A fish with characters of a terrestrial tetrapod. That's why it is a transitional fossil.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well ... as I'm fond of saying ... in my opinion, pwning evolution is a privilege reserved for Jesus Christ.

Apparently He has already done it.

Exodus 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

Perhaps scientists didn't get the memo?

Edit: Plant life to animal life (and back again), you can't get more diverse than that, can you?

This verse has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true. Asserting that it does means you don't bother with logic or evidence in your debating. I'm sure that makes holding up your side of the debate very easy.

 

[AV1611VET]

This verse has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true. Asserting that it does means you don't bother with logic or evidence in your debating. I'm sure that makes holding up your side of the debate very easy.

So changing a parakeet into a goldfish will pwn evolution, but changing a wood rod into a serpent and back again will not?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So changing a parakeet into a goldfish will pwn evolution, but changing a wood rod into a serpent and back again will not?

It was clearly a special miracle, and therefore irrelevant to whatever happens in the natural course of the world. It is a further question to evaluate what life has done in the natural course of life's history, and that investigation can safely ignore the incidents in ancient pharoah's court.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was clearly a special miracle, and therefore irrelevant to whatever happens in the natural course of the world.

I totally agree.

Now let's see if CabVet agrees, shall we?

So if a deity turned someone's pet parakeet into a goldfish, all of evolution would be disproved?

Not.

Yes, it would.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So changing a parakeet into a goldfish will pwn evolution, but changing a wood rod into a serpent and back again will not?

If a parakeet turned into a goldfish naturally, that would not falsify evolution. It would be its own special event irrelevant to evolution.

But of course, if a parakeet turned into a goldfish, we would not look for a natural explanation, we would look for an intelligent agent that caused that to happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a parakeet turned into a goldfish naturally,

You're playing games, aren't you, Paul?

I'm not really interested.

CabVet clearly stipulated "a deity."

Goodbye, Paul.

Anything else you have to say, please say it to my hand.

 

[justlookinla]

If a parakeet turned into a goldfish naturally, that would not falsify evolution. It would be its own special event irrelevant to evolution.

But of course, if a parakeet turned into a goldfish, we would not look for a natural explanation, we would look for an intelligent agent that caused that to happen.

Would naturalistic mechanisms alone be adequate to turn a goldfish into a parakeet?

 

[createdtoworship]

A bunch of lies, misdirection and deception. Thanks for reminding me how dishonest that website is. Yes, of course it is a fish. A fish with characters of a terrestrial tetrapod. That's why it is a transitional fossil.

you obviously didn't look at the information I provided. And you secondly are not addressing the post I gave but clipped a small section from the beginning.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So changing a parakeet into a goldfish will pwn evolution, but changing a wood rod into a serpent and back again will not?

Nope, because it's such a common parlor trick that even the Pharaoh's men were able to do it.

Exodus 7:11-12

Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

"And now, for my next trick..."

 

[Dizredux]

Grady, I am going to shorten this quite a bit and only include current focus.

Dizredux

What all this says is that microevolution concerns the changes in a population (species) and macroevolution concerns evolution above the level of a single species. In other words, once you have speciation you have more than one population and therefore have macroevolution.

Grady[

I believe everything you just stated supports my view and not yours. However I assume you mean macroevolution to be not on the genus level, is that what you are stating. I only had time to look at berkleys site, but from the two quotes you submitted it definitely supports the fact that "level" in my definition refers to taxa. (but again I couldn't see all the berkley sites in my browser). I will look at the rest of your post later.

it is later:

I found this etymology of macroevolution that supports the "level as taxa" theory that I hold.

"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0.00045.x/full

This article did not really discuss the difference between macro and micro evolution. Also be aware that Filipchenko was working back in the 1920's and there have been some changes since then and he did not see much if any differences between micro and macro evolution.

now I didn't read the whole thing but with the introduction of non taxa related heirarchies I adhere to the original definition of macroevolution. Again, you can argue your case but you would have to prove not that macro evolution is speciation, but that macro evolution excludes evolution out of or into another genus from a separate one.

Again Dobzhansky was active in the 20's. things have changed since thing and to limit the discussion to his ideas is not very productive

Also once you go to speciation and past that any determination of genus is strictly the domain of how taxonomists decide to define it. There are no firm dividing lines between genus or any other classification. It is simply a function of taxonomists and naming. But to answer you, once you have speciation evolution can move populations from one taxa to another if the taxonomists decide so.

secondly, punctuated equilibrium suggests that speciation occured very rapidly, and as such one group of mammal would thus become another group of mammal. Ape to human,

Grady you know better than this. First no one says it was existing Ape to human. Whale to doglike creature, or bird to dinasaur is reversed but I suspect this was just a writing error. As far as PE is concerned Gould is considered to have overstated his case and while PE often applies other patterns are seen also.

You would have to encorporate your definition to include all these higher taxa units.

No not really as speciation continues on and over time and speciation events result in what you are calling higher taxa.

The primary evolutionary event is speciation. I gave you enough examples of microevolution being defined as within a single species and macroevolution being concerned with two or more species that it should no longer be an issue. Microevolution is evolutionary changes within a single species. Macroevolution is evolutionary patterns in separate populations or species as you wish to term it. Higher taxa is just more speciation unless you can show some limit to evolutionary changes or speciation.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady, I am going to shorten this quite a bit and only include current focus.

Dizredux Grady[ This article did not really discuss the difference between macro and micro evolution. Also be aware that Filipchenko was working back in the 1920's and there have been some changes since then and he did not see much if any differences between micro and macro evolution.

Again Dobzhansky was active in the 20's. things have changed since thing and to limit the discussion to his ideas is not very productive

Also once you go to speciation and past that any determination of genus is strictly the domain of how taxonomists decide to define it. There are no firm dividing lines between genus or any other classification. It is simply a function of taxonomists and naming. But to answer you, once you have speciation evolution can move populations from one taxa to another if the taxonomists decide so.

Grady you know better than this. First no one says it was existing Ape to human. Whale to doglike creature, or bird to dinasaur is reversed but I suspect this was just a writing error. As far as PE is concerned Gould is considered to have overstated his case and while PE often applies other patterns are seen also.No not really as speciation continues on and over time and speciation events result in what you are calling higher taxa.

The primary evolutionary event is speciation. I gave you enough examples of microevolution being defined as within a single species and macroevolution being concerned with two or more species that it should no longer be an issue. Microevolution is evolutionary changes within a single species. Macroevolution is evolutionary patterns in separate populations or species as you wish to term it. Higher taxa is just more speciation unless you can show some limit to evolutionary changes or speciation.

Dizredux

speciation from higher taxa is exactly what Dobzhansky meant. I take the original meaning of most words to keep their original intent intact. I do so with the term athiesm as well, as athiests attempt to change the bars on their definitions so much. The same is the case with macro evolution, see, you can't change the bars on your definitions everytime someone proves you wrong. This is why I quoted Dobzhansky. But more importantly everything you say is revolved around speciation, I never said speciation was not involved with it. But what Dobzhansky said was that it involved higher taxa. That traps you. Because, higher taxa than species is genus, which is my exact definition. I guess you bring this up, to lose the same debate twice?, not really sure why you bring it up again.

 

[stevevw]

Evidence requires no belief. Speaking of evidence, have you ever looked at it and understood it?
Yes I have been debating and looking at all the evidence on both sides for a while now. I dont fully understand evolution as form a experts point of view but then I would imagine not many do. They may say they do but I doubt that many would completely understand all the aspects in detail to make a qualified judgement with any great confidence.

Evolution doesn't predict that either.

Then where do the new species come from. If there were no birds originally where did they come from if they didn't come from another species that eventually turned into a bird. I realize that there may have been a number of other transitions along the way which should also be classified as other species as well before it eventually becomes a bird. But if you consider that at one stage you have a creature with no wings and then there is a creature with wings its a new creature. Its not just the wings either there are a number of other changes both external and internal that need to change. If you take a land animal that changes to a whale then there are some pretty big changes that need to happen. But if a creature is to get wings then how does it work, do they grow wings in one generation or do they get small stubby wings at first or a few feathers or a heap of feathers in one go. Then where are all the transitional fossils if it takes several generations of transitions showing the wings for example gradually becoming fully extended and functional wings. What we see in that whole process is a creature with no wings and then a creature with fully functional wings.

That is what evolution says.

Then if they are limited to what genetics are already there how do you get the new genetics needed to produce the new features that were not there in the first place. If the new creature needed new complex genetics to make things like different metabolisms or grow wings and feet or lings how does that come about. Whereas if it is limited to just variations within the same species then you can understand and accept that genetics can add things like size and colour because the genetics are already there to adjust that. Is there any evidence that say any animal including humans is currently on the way to adding something new like wings or a tail or say growing a brain or changing eternal organs and systems that never had them before happening now. Like I said I am not a geneticist so there is more to it than that but this is my understanding.

That is simply not true. If you "believe" that, you simply have not looked or ignored the evidence.

Then can you give me examples. I have heard of the bacteria that can now eat nylon but as far as I have read this is something that is within their current genetics. They are still bacteria.

Again, that is what evolution says.

Well then I am understanding what evolution is for one. If this is the case then it is limited to what is already there and cant add new info outside the gene pool some of which is needed if the creatures are going to change into new ones. If it is limited to what is already there then evolution can happen but it can only change the features of creatures in that group up to a point so they can adapt. Like the colour of the moth so they can be camouflaged. But it cant change the moth into a grass hopper it is still a moth.

Only a deity can turn a bird into a fish, and if that were to happen, evolution would be disproved. I am sorry to say this, but evolution is not what you think it is.

Well maybe bird to fish is a bad example. Doesn't evolution say like a dino to bird or a dog creature to a ocean dwelling creature or a sea dwelling creature to a land one. The point is somewhere along the line the new feature has to be beneficial. If a creature doesn't get a full set of wings to use and keep then it would not be beneficial. Stumpy wings or half wings are no good and will not be kept for the next generation. Then if they are kept the creature then has to still have that feature being beneficial through the changing circumstances of their environment. The part wings or wings on their way to being wings may not be required as a beneficial addition thousands of years later in the time it takes to get the full set of working wings. Its all random and chance so how does that change become imbedded if things change and it doesn't know it needs to keep building wings. It all just sounds a little to mixed up and ad hock to me.

 

[biggles53]

Then where do the new species come from. If there were no birds originally where did they come from if they didn't come from another species that eventually turned into a bird. I realize that there may have been a number of other transitions along the way which should also be classified as other species as well before it eventually becomes a bird. But if you consider that at one stage you have a creature with no wings and then there is a creature with wings its a new creature. Its not just the wings either there are a number of other changes both external and internal that need to change. If you take a land animal that changes to a whale then there are some pretty big changes that need to happen. But if a creature is to get wings then how does it work, do they grow wings in one generation or do they get small stubby wings at first or a few feathers or a heap of feathers in one go. Then where are all the transitional fossils if it takes several generations of transitions showing the wings for example gradually becoming fully extended and functional wings. What we see in that whole process is a creature with no wings and then a creature with fully functional wings.

You live in Australia....never seen an emu...? What use does it make of its wings...? Seen a penguin...? Not all wings are used for flying, so why would you not expect some of the early bird transitions to likewise have wing-like structures that weren't for flying...?

And feathers...? My understanding is that many of those 'feathered dinosaurs' utilised the feathers for warmth,rather than flight.....why is that hard to accept...?

Do yourself a favour....jump on a cheap flight to Sydney and visit the Australian Museum near Hyde Park. They have an excellent dinosaur exhibition on show at the moment....it would help answer many of your questions...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Would naturalistic mechanisms alone be adequate to turn a goldfish into a parakeet?

The statistical chances of a modern creature eventually having decendant populations that matched that closely to another creature that once existed at the same time as that very different ancestor goldfish population are ridiculously small.

 

[stevevw]

So you have no opinion on whether tiktaalik has both fish and land dwelling characteristics and why this might be significant?

Well that what I was saying before. Just because a creature may have some features from another doesn't mean one came from the other. It could also mean that this is how they were made. All creatures have some features from each other. It could also be that the variation with a creature has some features that extend over to other creatures. They are not here for us to test and see if they did come from each other. If you look at horses, deers, cows and all the other hoofed animals with 4 legs they have things in common but that doesn't mean they came from each other. In the past evolutionists have used similar features to link animals and it has been shown to be wrong. So this alone is not enough to prove any transitions. It could just mean common design. Like with different models of the same car. They will all have some features of the previous car with modifications. But each is separately designed and built.

How would older tetrapod footprints change the importance of what tiktaalik represents?

Because tiktaalik was presented as the first and original creature that moved from water to land. It is held up as the great transitional that eventually developed legs and feet to walk on land. So if there is evidence of another creature that is 20 million years earlier walking on land with feet already developed then tiktaalik cant be the original. So that means there was another creature that done this and where is it.

 

[stevevw]

You live in Australia....never seen an emu...? What use does it make of its wings...? Seen a penguin...? Not all wings are used for flying, so why would you not expect some of the early bird transitions to likewise have wing-like structures that weren't for flying...?

Well there is some evidence that its the other way around. That emus, ostriches and creatures like kiwis were once birds that flew and they lost their ability to fly. So its more of a de evolution than evolution. This is what we would expect with the genetics a loss of info.

Penguins are different. They have even less features of a bird. Their bones are solid and they are very heavy for their sizes. Their so called wings are more like flippers and enable them to glide through the water with precision. They can also use their flippers to help them on land as they as very awkward on their feet. Their fossils show they have been much the same throughout their history and dont really show any evolution form a bird type creature.

And feathers...? My understanding is that many of those 'feathered dinosaurs' utilised the feathers for warmth,rather than flight.....why is that hard to accept...?

Thats the point that some dinos had feathers and they were not in the bird family. They were dinos who happen to have bird like features. Some creatures can have similar features to other animals without being related. This shows that variations within a creature can cross over into other different creatures.

Do yourself a favor....jump on a cheap flight to Sydney and visit the Australian Museum near Hyde Park. They have an excellent dinosaur exhibition on show at the moment....it would help answer many of your questions...

I use to live in Sydney and in fact grew up there. I have visited the Sydney Museum but havnt been for years. It would be great but I try to avoid Sydney now as its become to expensive and busy with a lot of crime. They are also finding some of the biggest Dinos in the world. In fact they are located here in Queensland so thats one place I would like to go. You can actually go out there and help with the digs as a volunteer. There is a museum setup in the outback because they have found so many.
Largest Dinosaur Bones In Australia Discovered -- ScienceDaily

 

[CabVet]

speciation from higher taxa is exactly what Dobzhansky meant. I take the original meaning of most words to keep their original intent intact. I do so with the term athiesm as well, as athiests attempt to change the bars on their definitions so much. The same is the case with macro evolution, see, you can't change the bars on your definitions everytime someone proves you wrong. This is why I quoted Dobzhansky. But more importantly everything you say is revolved around speciation, I never said speciation was not involved with it. But what Dobzhansky said was that it involved higher taxa. That traps you. Because, higher taxa than species is genus, which is my exact definition. I guess you bring this up, to lose the same debate twice?, not really sure why you bring it up again.

You have no idea what Dobzhansky meant, and I doubt you ever read a line he wrote outside of quote mines.

 

[biggles53]

Thats the point that some dinos had feathers and they were not in the bird family.

Because there WEREN'T any birds at that point in time...!

They were dinos who happen to have bird like features. Some creatures can have similar features to other animals without being related. This shows that variations within a creature can cross over into other different creatures.

What the hell do you think evolution is....!??

The reason we share features with chimps is because those features "crossed over" via our common ancestor. The reason we share features with other mammals is because those features "crossed over" via the common ancestor of all mammals. The reason we share features with other vertebrates is because those features "crossed over" via the common ancestor of all vertebrates....

Good grief man...!