Why was Tiktaalik where the scientists predicted it would be (II)

[benjdm]

John, you know that you're pretty close to being delusional?

From which side of the dividing line ?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What did they find a extinct amphibian? There are still lots of amphibians alive today. That still is not proof that fish turned into land animals.

Actually, what they found was a morphological intermediary between fish and amphibians. And even more remarkable is the found in rock strata that they predicted would contain such a fossil based on the evolutionary history of organisms.

Macro evolution is not even all that accepted of a theory. In fact it is losing ground. Less and less people accept it as being valid.

*yawn* The old "evolution is losing ground" lie. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy on your part. You might want to do yourself a favor and learn about the burgeoning field of comparative genomics which is directly predicated on common descent. Or for that matter, read anything about contemporary evolutionary research. Suffice to say, evolution ain't going away despite all the creationist fantasies to the contrary.

What is it that you think I am wrong about?

Well, you are wrong about the transition not existing. It's a transitional fossil given that it demonstrates morphologically intermediate features between two different taxonomic groups.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes, back to the OP! I mean, somebody must have an explanation other than "Tiktaalik doesn't exist". shinbits, perhaps?

 

[JohnR7]

*yawn* The old "evolution is losing ground" lie.

Check the polls, it is slowly losing percentage points, esp amoung the more educated people. Of course I am sure the evos do not want to hear that.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

From which side of the dividing line ?

That's a question far too rarely asked here,I 'm afraid.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Check the polls, it is slowly losing percentage points, esp amoung the more educated people. Of course I am sure the evos do not want to hear that.

No, we don't want to hear it. We want to hear why Tiktaalik was found by using a theory you claim to be incorrect.

 

[JohnR7]

Actually, what they found was a morphological intermediary between fish and amphibians.

That is still not evidence that guppies evolved into tigers. It is just a little bit to much of a stretch for the imagination to take on.

 

[dlamberth]

What point did he make? The bottom line is that land animals did not come from the sea. The Bible is clear that they came from the Earth. So it is a waste of time for science to look for any sort of transition from water to land, because that transition does not exist.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

There is a clear distinction between what the water brings forth and what the earth brings forth.

I do not believe that the creation myth stores of an ancient middle-eastern nomadic tribe of sheep herders is more true than what we actually see happened.

.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Check the polls, it is slowly losing percentage points, esp amoung the more educated people. Of course I am sure the evos do not want to hear that.

Polls schmolls. What the public believes is largely meaningless. What matters is what the people who are actively involved in the field of evolutionary biology accept. And in that regard, evolution is not losing ground (of course, it has nothing to lose ground to, but that's another story). As long as evolution has applicability to the biological sciences (which it does) it will never disappear. That's what creationists don't want to hear and in fact, is probably why they ignore that aspect of evolutionary biology entirely.

 

[dlamberth]

Check the polls, it is slowly losing percentage points, esp amoung the more educated people. Of course I am sure the evos do not want to hear that.

I've never seen or heard of any poll that says that evoluton is losing support. Where's the poll?

.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That is still not evidence that guppies evolved into tigers. It is just a little bit to much of a stretch for the imagination to take on.

Warning: Strawman alert!

 

[Edx]

Check the polls, it is slowly losing percentage points, esp amoung the more educated people. Of course I am sure the evos do not want to hear that.

Creationists have been saying that for decades.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Those who think evolution is going away should read.
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism by Glenn Morton. Both fossil and genomic evidence for evolution accumulate steadily no matter how badly creationists wish it were otherwise.

 

[JohnR7]

The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists

They had to embrace it in the first place in order to abandon it. They never bought into the theory in the first place.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

They had to embrace it in the first place in order to abandon it. They never bought into the theory in the first place.

Eh? What? Nevermind, answer the OP. PLEASE.

 

[JohnR7]

Creationists have been saying that for decades.

I am looking at the polls for the last 10 years. Maybe the internet is having an effect on it.

A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

 

[JohnR7]

Eh? What? Nevermind, answer the OP. PLEASE.

It would have to be a intermediate organism in order for the location to be relevant. They did not use evolution to find the fossil, they used geology to find the fossil. All they found was the fossil of an amphibian that had never been identified before. There could be lots of extinct species out there that have not been discovered yet. They have been claiming for 150 years to have found the missing link. A week does not seem to go by without someone claiming to have found it. Yet with all the people out looking for it, their claims never seem to amount to anything.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It would have to be a intermediate organism in order for the location to be relevant. They did not use evolution to find the fossil, they used geology to find the fossil.

Actually, they used both.

All they found was the fossil of an amphibian that had never been identified before.

It's an intermediate between fish and amphibians. You really should read up on the discovery.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

It would have to be a intermediate organism in order for the location to be relevant. They did not use evolution to find the fossil, they used geology to find the fossil.

So you accept mainstream geology?

 

[JohnR7]

So you accept mainstream geology?

I do not have any reason to question geology. Neither does wise and most christian geologists. The OEC view is based on geology.