“Tiktaalik”, Why it is a failed Prediction

Tiktaalik is still being used as a successful prediction of something. I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods and B) It was found in the “correct” strata because allegedly no evidence of tetrapods before 385 million years ago- plenty of fish though and plenty of evidence for tetrapods around 365 million years ago- Tiktaalik was allegedly found in strata about 375 million years old- Shubin said that is the strata he looked in because of the 365-385 range already bracketed by existing data.

The thinking was tetrapods existed 365 mya and fish existed 385 mya, so the transition happened sometime in that 20 million years.

Sounds very reasonable. And when they looked they found Tiktaalik and all was good.

Then along comes another find that put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago.

Now had this find preceded Tiktaalik then Shubin et al. would not have been looking for the transitional after the transition had occurred- that doesn’t make any sense. And that is why it is a failed prediction- the transition occurred some 25 million years before, Shubin et al., were looking in the wrong strata.

That said Tiktaalik is still an interesting find, something that no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed. But that is all it does.

Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the “Everythungs” and the “Everythings with limbs”. Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

Just as I have been saying- go figure. Got that- he was looking for evidence of THE transition- he was not looking for any ole transitional form. And there isn’t any reason why a transitional form would be around millions of years after the transition occurred.

But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

245 thoughts on ““Tiktaalik”, Why it is a failed Prediction

  1. How is this “argument” any different from “if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys”?

  2. Don’t you understand that transitional forms (and isn’t everything transitional?) exist in a continuum? Your thoughts don’t reflect how evolution works.

  3. Rich:
    Don’t you understand that transitional forms (and isn’t everything transitional?) exist in a continuum? Your thoughts don’t reflect how evolution works.

    Geez Rich –

    1- He did NOT say he was looking for a transitional form- that is in the OP you didn’t read

    2- There isn’t anything in the theory that says a transitional form will be around millions of years after the transition was made- you don’t have any idea how evolution works

  4. Ido:
    How is this “argument” any different from “if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys”?

    Well perhaps you could actually read the OP as opposed to responding to the title, you would know the answer to that question.

  5. When looking for evidence of the transition- as Shubin said he was- one looks between two data points- as Shubin said.

    However his data points were wrong as (the new data shows) tetrapods existed before his data had them existing.

  6. Joe G: Just as I have been saying- go figure. Got that- he was looking for evidence of THE transition- he was not looking for any ole transitional form. And there isn’t any reason why a transitional form would be around millions of years after the transition occurred.

    No Joe, he was looking for *A* transitional. There was not enough evidence at the time to declare it *THE* transitional. There still isn’t.

    One possibility is the the transition for fish to terrestrial animals happened more than once, in more than one lineage. Another is the complete transition was drawn out a lot longer than previously thought. The finding of fossilized tracks earlier than Tiktaalik’s doesn’t diminish the importance or transitional nature of Shubin’s find in the least.

    What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

  7. Thorton: No Joe, he was looking for *A* transitional.There was not enough evidence at the time to declare it *THE* transitional.There still isn’t.

    One possibility is the the transition for fish to terrestrial animals happened more than once, in more than one lineage.Another is the complete transition was drawn out a lot longer than previously thought.The finding of fossilized tracks earlier than Tiktaalik’s doesn’t diminish the importance or transitional nature of Shubin’s find in the least.

    What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

    Thorton- read my OP- I presented Shubin’s words from his book you never read.

    And your definition of “tarnsitional form” is “it looks like a transitional to me”

  8. So far three evos have responded and not one has demonstrated a reading of the OP.

    Still staring at me Elizabeth?

  9. Joe G: All forms are transitional in a question-begging scenario, yes.

    Oh. Do you believe that evolution has stopped, or perhaps it never happened or it can’t happen? (fixity of species). I’m seeking clarification so I know where I can pick this up.

  10. Joe G: Thorton- read my OP- I presented Shubin’s words from his book you never read.

    I have the book in front of me Joe. Even the section you quoted agrees with me:

    Shubin: “Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives [plural - T] of the first fish to walk on land.”
    “Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals”

    He was looking for evidence of the transition, not “THE” transitional.

    And your definition of “tarnsitional form” is “it looks like a transitional to me”

    No Joe. A transitional fossil between two lineages means it shows morphological traits of both. That doesn’t necessarily mean the two are related by direct descent.

    What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

  11. Rich: Oh. Do you believe that evolution has stopped, or perhaps it never happened or it can’t happen? (fixity of species). I’m seeking clarification so I know where I can pick this up.

    Again you have no idea what evolution is- as I said if you have a simple change in allele frequency over time, within a population, you have evolution.

    But anyway it would be nice if you could stay on-topic by actually responding to the OP.

    First you have to read it.

  12. Thorton: I have the book in front of me Joe.Even the section you quoted agrees with me:

    Shubin:”Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives [plural - T] of the first fish to walk on land.”
    “Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transitionbetween fish and land-living animals”

    He was looking for evidence of the transition, not “THE” transitional.

    No Joe.A transitional fossil between two lineages means it shows morphological traits of both.That doesn’t necessarily mean the two are related by direct descent.

    What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

    I said he was looking for evidence of the transition, not a transitional- you have something wrong with you.

  13. Joe G: Again you have no idea what evolution is- as I said if you have a simple change in allele frequency over time, within a population, you have evolution.But anyway it would be nice if you could stay on-topic by actually responding to the OP.First you have to read it.

    Please engage me, Joe. I’m trying to find a common starting point, ground that we can both agree on. The very reasonable question I politely put above is a good faith attempt at that. So please answer me.

  14. Joe G: I said he was looking for evidence of the transition, not a transitional- you have something wrong with you.

    What other evidence of a transition other than a transitional would there be, in fossil format? Please be specific, and more polite. Thanks!

  15. Rich: What other evidence of a transition other than a transitional would there be, in fossil format? Please be specific, and more polite. Thanks!

    Read and respond to the OP, please- or go away.

  16. Joe G: Please read and respond to the OP- or go away

    I’ve read it (found parts to be misunderstandings), have repeatedly tried to talk to you about them, and I’m staying right here, thanks. What is YOUR understanding of intermediaries, Joe? A topic highly relevant to ” I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods ” (your words).

  17. Rich: I’ve read it (found parts to be misunderstandings), have repeatedly tried to talk to you about them, and I’m staying right here, thanks. What is YOUR understanding of intermediaries, Joe? A topic highly relevant to ” I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods ” (your words).

    What misunderstandings? Please be specific- Shubin was specific and if he had the new data he would not have looked where he did.

    So with Tiktaalik and the new tetrapod find we have fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod, whereas Shubin wanted to show we have fish->fishapod-> tetrapod.

  18. So on one had you contend:

    Joe G: 2- There isn’t anything in the theory that says a transitional form will be around millions of years after the transition was made- you don’t have any idea how evolution works

    But then you say:

    Joe G: So with Tiktaalik and the new tetrapod find we have fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod, whereas Shubin wanted to show we have fish->fishapod-> tetrapod.

    I hate to break it to you, but “fish” are still with us today! (I try to stay current with breaking scientific news). You might want to revisit one or both of your positions.

  19. Rich:
    So on one had you contend:

    But then you say:

    I hate to break it to you, but “fish” are still with us today! (I try to stay current with breaking scientific news). You might want to revisit one or both of your positions.

    So fish are a transitional form between fish and tetrapods?

    Where are all the transitionals, Rich? Why is tiktaalik extinct?

  20. Still waiting-

    What misunderstandings? Please be specific- Shubin was specific and if he had the new data he would not have looked where he did.

    So with Tiktaalik and the new tetrapod find we have fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod, whereas Shubin wanted to show we have fish->fishapod-> tetrapod.

  21. Joe G: So fish are a transitional form between fish and tetrapods?

    No, between what became before and what came after.

    Joe G: Where are all the transitionals, Rich? Why is tiktaalik extinct?

    What exactly is it you want, a fossil for every tiny morphological change that happened? Is it possible for a father to die but the grandfather and son to still be alive?
    This particular creationist trope is fully debunked here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/casey_luskin_embarrasses_himse.php

  22. Joe G: So fish are a transitional form between fish and tetrapods?

    Well, some modern fish are, in a sense, yes (e.g. lungfish), between ancestral fish and tetrapods except that they’ve done a lot more evolving than a fossil population dating from not so long after the divergence. But yes, that’s why we can do cladistics (as Linnaeus did) using just extant species.

    Where are all the transitionals, Rich? Why is tiktaalik extinct?

    Most populations go extinct.

  23. Joe G:

    So with Tiktaalik and the new tetrapod find we have fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod, whereas Shubin wanted to show we have fish->fishapod-> tetrapod.

    I don’t see where you find support for the fish->tetrapod->fishapod transition. Who besides you supports this? Reference?

    That by dating of the tracks, Tiktaalik appears to be a later descendent or relic of an actual ancestor of tetrapods doesn’t change that it evidences transitional features between fish and tetrapod.

  24. Quite a lot of stuff moved.

    Please read the rules, guys. Joe, I know it’s frustrating when people don’t seem to understand, but it cuts both ways. If this site is going to work, it will require tolerance on everyone’s part, including tolerance of what seems like obtuseness or ignorance on the part of others.

    And name-calling is just silly.

  25. RobC: I don’t see where you find support for the fish->tetrapod->fishapod transition. Who besides you supports this? Reference?

    That by dating of the tracks, Tiktaalik appears to be a later descendent or relic of an actual ancestor of tetrapods doesn’t change that it evidences transitional features between fish and tetrapod.

    Well, for one, there isn’t any evidence for a fishapod before the existence of tetrapods.

    There isn’t any evidence for Tiktaalik in strata predating 390 mya.

    .

  26. Rich: No, between what became before and what came after.

    What exactly is it you want, a fossil for every tiny morphological change that happened? Is it possible for a father to die but the grandfather and son to still be alive?
    This particular creationist trope is fully debunked here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/casey_luskin_embarrasses_himse.php

    Fish came before and after fish. But as I said before I have an idea for an experiment evos can conduct that would help support their claims- it involves fish and fish embryos.

    What do I want?

    For starters I want you to read the OP and actually respond to it, in its entirety. It appears that you don’t have any idea what my post is about.

    So calm down, take some time, relax and come back when you are prepared to respond to what I am saying.

  27. Joe G: For starters I want you to read the OP and actually respond to it, in its entirety. It appears that you don’t have any idea what my post is about.

    Is it about airplanes? Or romantic poetry? Spare me the hyperbole, please Joe. If you want an in depth analysis (as I do) let’s find a common frame of reference. I need to know:

    Rich: Joe G: All forms are transitional in a question-begging scenario, yes.
    Oh. Do you believe that evolution has stopped, or perhaps it never happened or it can’t happen? (fixity of species). I’m seeking clarification so I know where I can pick this up.

    Thanks in advance.

  28. Rich,

    All you need to do is to read the OP- what I think about transitional forms or evolution is irrelevant as the OP has everything to do with what Shubin said- Shubin’s words are the common frame of reference here.

    IOW any hyperbole is all yours…

  29. And for the record no one has argued for the fixity of species for over 200 years- that was also a strawman of Darwin’s…

  30. Joe G: what I think about transitional forms or evolution is irrelevant as the OP has everything to do with what Shubin said- Shubin’s words are the common frame of reference here.

    He used words that I ascribe a certain meaning to. You also ascribe meaning to them – but are they the same meaning? Given your post regarding the definitions of “evolution” I would have thought you’d be sympathetic to that. So, I’m politely asking again, and I know to clear things up and advance your argument you’ll want to respond:

    Rich: Rich on March 4, 2012 at 11:27 pm said:
    Joe G: All forms are transitional in a question-begging scenario, yes.
    Oh. Do you believe that evolution has stopped, or perhaps it never happened or it can’t happen? (fixity of species). I’m seeking clarification so I know where I can pick this up.

  31. Joe G:
    Rich,

    All you need to do is to read the OP- what I think about transitional forms or evolution is irrelevant as the OP has everything to do with what Shubin said- Shubin’s words are the common frame of reference here.

    IOW any hyperbole is all yours…

    We’ve all read the OP Joe. Did it have a point besides more “Evilution is BAD!!” raving?

    If you’re arguing that Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional form between fish and later tetrapods, you’ve already been soundly refuted. If you had another point in mind, please spell it out.

  32. Oh BTW Joe, I’m still waiting for your answer:

    What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

  33. Thorton: We’ve all read the OP Joe.Did it have a point besides more “Evilution is BAD!!” raving?

    If you’re arguing that Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional form between fish and later tetrapods, you’ve already been soundly refuted.If you had anotherpoint in mind, please spell it out.

    Wow, just wow- strange that I never made the point you claimed.

    And yes Tiktaalik is a transitional form if by transitional form you mean “it sure as heck looks like a transitional form to me”.

  34. Thorton:
    Oh BTW Joe, I’m still waiting for your answer:

    What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

    What’s the blind watchmaker’s explanation? Oh that’s right- there isn’t one…

    ID cares about BIOLOGY

  35. Joe G: And for the record no one has argued for the fixity of species for over 200 years- that was also a strawman of Darwin’s…

    Really?

    http://bible.cc/genesis/1-11.htm

    “…After its kind. – This phrase intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied.”

    The internet must be older than I thought! ;-)

  36. Joe G: Well I don’t see how answering your tripe will advance the argument I made in the OP, so I will pass

    It’s a shame that you don’t want to clarify and support your ideas further, a pervasive frustration many have with ID in general.

  37. Thorton: What is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

    I’d also love to hear this, so I can calmly compare and contrast the two versions of explanatory power. Thanks in advance!

  38. Joe G: What’s the blind watchmaker’s explanation? Oh that’s right- there isn’t one…

    Sure there is. Tiktaalik represents one of the earliest transitional forms between fish and early tetrapods. There is evidence that it may not be the first or the only such transition.

    Now what is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

    While you’re at it, why don’t you give us your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it. I already provided my definition above; it’s your turn.

    ID cares about BIOLOGY

    Then why can’t ID provide any answers about BIOLOGY?

  39. Joe, don ‘t give ammunition to those that claim “All ID does is bash evolution, it has no theory of its own”. Show them the ID version of how these events occured.

  40. Thorton: Sure there is.Tiktaalik represents one of the earliest transitional forms between fish and early tetrapods.There is evidence that it may not be the first or the only such transition.

    Now what is ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks?

    While you’re at it, why don’t you give us your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.I already provided my definition above; it’s your turn.

    Then why can’t ID provide any answers about BIOLOGY?

    Umm the blind watchmaker doesn’t predict fish nor tetrapods- so that would be a big issue.

    And ID has more answers wrt biology than your position has-

    Now stop trying to hijack my thread.

  41. Manuel Vargosa Llano:
    It’s a waste of time arguing with Joe.He’s proven repeatedly that (a) he can’t learn anything (b) he’s not interested in learning anything and (c) he will never, ever admit a misunderstanding despite (d) not being very bright.So my advice is, don’t waste your time.

    And another evotard chimes in-

    Strange how they all avoid the OP….

  42. Rich: Really?

    http://bible.cc/genesis/1-11.htm

    “…After its kind. – This phrase intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied.”

    The internet must be older than I thought!

    Really- Linne- you know Linneaus- put the Created Kind at least to the level of “Genera” meaning speciation has been accepted for at least twoo hundred years- baraminology does not advocate the fixity of species.

    IOW you have bought the strawman and refuse to give it up.

    Now I understand you issues…

  43. Joe G: Umm the blind watchmaker doesn’t predict fish nor tetrapods- so that would be a big issue.

    And ID has more answers wrt biology than your position has-

    Now stop trying to hijack my thread.

    I’m only asking you the exact same questions you asked everyone else in this thread Joe. You were given our answers. Why is it wrong to ask for your answers those same questions?

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.

    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

  44. Joe G: Really- Linne- you know Linneaus- put the Created Kind at least to the level of “Genera” meaning speciation has been accepted for at least twoo hundred years- baraminology does not advocate the fixity of species.

    Joe, what “kind” was Tiktaalik?

  45. Joe G: Thorton- you off-topic whining, while entertaining, is still whining-

    Transitional fossil- I do not engage in question begging- it is up to the people making the claim to support it. Take some fish and fish embryos, perform targeted mutatgenesis and see what develops and select from there and do it again – support your claims with biology, not imagination- or just say “we don’t know”

    Now get back on topic please

    I’m dead on the OP topic, which makes one of us. Please answer the questions you demanded everyone else answer:

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.

    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

  46. Joe G: one species being developed from another is denied.”

    This is what’s written, Joe. So it’s not a “strawman”. Moreover, it refutes your claim. With hindsight, perhaps such sweeping statements aren’t wise?

  47. If the claim were “Tiktaalik is the transitional form between fish and tetrapods,” and if that claim logically entailed “no tetrapods older than Tiktaalik will be found,” then yes, the discovery of older tetrapod tracks would falsify the prediction.

    However, I don’t think that Shubin made such a claim about Tiktaalik (at least, not on a reasonably charitable interpretation of what he did say), so I don’t think that the tetrapod tracks invalidate the claims that he did make — which are that Tiktaalik gives us a lot more evidence than we had before about how the transition from fish to tetrapod was made. It’s a data-point, after all, not a data-set.

    More to the point: there aren’t any “transitional forms” or “missing links”, if we construe those notions in terms of the Great Chain of Being. The post-Darwinian view of natural history is that there isn’t any Great Chain of Being, and pouring post-Darwinian wine into pre-Darwinian skins will produce only confusion.

    Carl

  48. Oh and Joe, there has been new evidence discovered that the 390 MYO “tetrapod” footprints you’re crowing about may actually have been made by Sarcopterygian fishes (i.e early lungfish) is shallow marine environments.

    Fins, not feet, may have made fossil ‘footprints’

    “Scientists studying fossil ‘footprints’ may have followed fish where they thought they tracked tetrapods.

    This morphological mix-up is suggested by a paper demonstrating ‘walking’ behaviour in the African lungfish (Protopterus annectens).

    Heather King, Neil ‘Tiktaalik’ Shubin and their colleagues at the University of Chicago set out to confirm claims that this animal indeed walked on four legs. As you can see in the video below, they did. Using video evidence they report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that lungfish use their pelvic fins to lift themselves off the bottom of rivers and streams and walk and even bound, despite lacking feet.”

    The whole paper is here

    Behavioral evidence for the evolution of walking and bounding before terrestriality in sarcopterygian fishes

    Poor Joe, left behind by science again.

  49. Joe,

    That said Tiktaalik is still an interesting find, something that no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed.

    Joe, if it was in fact a transitional as is claimed how would you recognise that?

    What is your definition of transitional, as in “transitional fossil”. How would you recognise one if you saw it?

    Do you accept they can even exist? If not, it changes the tone of the OP considerably.

  50. Joe,

    Now had this find preceded Tiktaalik then Shubin et al. would not have been looking for the transitional after the transition had occurred- that doesn’t make any sense.

    When you say “the” transition, what transition do you mean? The one and only transition that happened, or something else?

  51. Joe,

    Got that- he was looking for evidence of THE transition- he was not looking for any ole transitional form. And there isn’t any reason why a transitional form would be around millions of years after the transition occurred.

    And yet he found a transitional form, of the specific form he predicted. As it turned out, it may (or may not) have been the earliest. But nonetheless it still represents a transitional form (or do you also deny that it has features of both earlier and later forms in a single form?)

    So perhaps the misunderstanding is yours, in that you think there was a single transition? So when evidence is (may have been) found for an earlier one, to your mind that invalidates the later one? Is that your position?

  52. Just one of the things joe doesn’t realize is that even if there were NO fossils of anything, anywhere, ID would still be what it actually is: a religious and political agenda with no science to support it.

  53. Joe G,

    Why don’t you conduct your own experiments, joe? You’ve said you have a basement lab, so what’s stopping you?

    You also say that you want to be paid to reveal your alleged knowledge and authorship of GAs. Are you willing to pay some real scientists to conduct the experiments that you want to be done?

    And joe, have you ever in your life found a fossil? If so, please describe the fossils you’ve found and where you found them and any other pertinent information, and exactly what you were looking for when you found them.

  54. Joe G: Probably one of a kind-

    So then, how did Tiktaalik come about? Was it just poofed into existence by the alleged designer? Are you claiming that it had no ancestors, no relatives, and no connection to any other life forms?
    And if you’re not against evolution, as you constantly claim, then are you willing to admit that Tiktaalik evolved from an earlier organism? Earlier in the Tiktaalik line of descent that is.

    By the way, joe, I once found some fossilized parts of a prehistoric bird in younger sediments than they had ever been found in before. The find expanded the range of that bird in time by quite a lot. Previous to that find, fossils of that bird had never been found in that formation. Guess what? The ToE was, and is, still safe from being overturned.

    If I ever find a rabbit fossil in Cambrian sediments I’ll let you know, but it still won’t provide any support for ID.

  55. The whole truth: And if you’re not against evolution, as you constantly claim, then are you willing to admit that Tiktaalik evolved from an earlier organism?

    It’s interesting because in the GA thread Joe seemed to be arguing that evolution (with assistance from his cellular GA) can in fact do everything ascribed to it. Yet in this thread it appears a transitional form is beyond even GA assisted evolution. Seems Joe want’s it both ways.

  56. Another interesting and relevant thread here. The great thing about TR is that a lot of palaeontologists post there, including experts on the fish-tetrapod transition.

    Also re:

    Thorton: Oh and Joe, there has been new evidence discovered that the 390 MYO “tetrapod” footprints you’re crowing about may actually have been made by Sarcopterygian fishes (i.e early lungfish) is shallow marine environments.

    Sort of interesting thread here. Funny, anyway.

  57. Thorton:
    Oh and Joe, there has been new evidence discovered that the 390 MYO “tetrapod” footprints you’re crowing about may actually have been made by Sarcopterygian fishes (i.e early lungfish) is shallow marine environments.

    Fins, not feet, may have made fossil ‘footprints’

    The whole paper is here

    Behavioral evidence for the evolution of walking and bounding before terrestriality in sarcopterygian fishes

    Poor Joe, left behind by science again.

    Umm that paper does not deal with the tracks found in Poland

  58. OM:
    Joe,

    And yet he found a transitional form, of the specific form he predicted. As it turned out, it may (or may not) have been the earliest. But nonetheless it still represents a transitional form (or do you also deny that it has features of both earlier and later forms in a single form?)

    So perhaps the misunderstanding is yours, in that you think there was a single transition? So when evidence is (may have been) found for an earlier one, to your mind that invalidates the later one? Is that your position?

    1- Shubin did not know nor did he predict what the transitional form would look like

    2- As I said in my OP and you ignored, as usual, he was not looking for a transitional form- he said he was looking for evidence of THE transition

  59. And Thorton, if fins made those trackways found in Poland then those fins were indistinguishable from tetrapod feet.

    Or do you think scientists can’t tell the difference?

  60. OM: It’s interesting because in the GA thread Joe seemed to be arguing that evolution (with assistance from his cellular GA) can in fact do everything ascribed to it.

    Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.

    Yet in this thread it appears a transitional form is beyond even GA assisted evolution.

    Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.

  61. OM:
    Joe,

    When you say “the” transition, what transition do you mean? The one and only transition that happened, or something else?

    Umm SHUBIN SAID he was looking for evidence of THE transition- it’s in the OP that you C&Ped but obvioulsy did not read.

  62. OM:
    Joe,

    Joe, if it was in fact a transitional as is claimed how would you recognise that?

    What is your definition of transitional, as in “transitional fossil”. How would you recognise one if you saw it?

    Do you accept they can even exist? If not, it changes the tone of the OP considerably.

    Please explain what any of that has to do with the OP you didn’t read or didn’t understand.

  63. Joe G:

    And ID has more answers wrt biology than your position has-

    Then why can’t you provide ID’s answers to these simple questions?

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.

    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

    You were given science’s answer to those, now let’s see your answers.

  64. Thorton: Then why can’t you provide ID’s answers to these simple questions?

    Please provide ID’s explanation for Tiktaalik and the earlier fossilized tetrapod tracks.


    Please provide your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.

    You were given science’s answer to those, now let’s see your answers.

    Again what does any of that have to do with the OP?

    Or are you admitting that you are too much of a coward to actually address the OP?

  65. 1- Science did not predict the exiisrence of fish

    2- Science did not predict the existence of tetrapods and science did not predict Tiktaalik

    And the blind watchmaker didn’t predict anything.

  66. Joe G:
    1- Science did not predict the exiisrence of fish

    2- Science did not predict the existence of tetrapods and science did not predict Tiktaalik

    And the blind watchmaker didn’t predict anything.

    Er…science DID predict predict a fish/tetrapod transitional form like Tiktaalik would be found. That was the whole reason Shubin et al searched in the location they did.

    What did ID predict on the subject Joe?

  67. Joe G: 1- Science did not predict the exiisrence of fish

    Who says it did?

    Joe G: 2- Science did not predict the existence of tetrapods

    Who says it did?

    Joe G: science did not predict Tiktaalik

    No, a person did. Using science. And he was right. Or how do you explain finding exactly what you wanted to find at the place you expected to find it? What are the chances of digging somewhere randomly and finding that?

    Joe G: And the blind watchmaker didn’t predict anything.

    It predicts a nested hierarchy. And that’s what we observe.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

    Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the “twin nested hierarchy”.

  68. Joe G: Too bad it didn’t actually read the paper that was supposed to refute me and now it has to throw a hissy fit.

    you have not stated a position with sufficient detail in order to allow it it to be refuted.

    E.G. you refuse to define “transitional” as you understand it. Or admit if there are in fact *any* transitional fossils.

  69. Joe,

    Got that- he was looking for evidence of THE transition- he was not looking for any ole transitional form.

    How many such “transitions” were there Joe?

  70. Joe G: Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.

    Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.

    Why am I mistaken? Must I quote your own words?

  71. Joe G:
    Might as well delete OM’s off-topic comments too.

    Nothing seems to be on topic with you Joe so I’ll just leave you to it.

  72. OK, this thread is done.

    Joe G’s OP claim were refuted, his lack of understanding of the topic was demonstrated, and his failure to provide his claimed alternate explanation was noted.

    Business as usual.

  73. Thorton:
    OK, this thread is done.

    Joe G’s OP claim were refuted, his lack of understanding of the topic was demonstrated, and his failure to provide his claimed alternate explanation was noted.

    Business as usual.

    Liar.

    So thortard is clueless and thinks its ignorance is a refutation.

  74. The whole truth: You’re the one who ALWAYS throws a hissy fit, joe. And you’re the coward who ALWAYS runs away from answering relevant questions, and from producing any evidence, and from producing coherent definitions of your rhetorical talking points, and from the real definitions of scientific terms, and from the real discoveries made via scientific research, and from dealing with the FACT that you don’t have the slightest clue about science, evidence, nature, evolution, or anything else that matters.

    and another piece-of-shit chimes in…

  75. OM: Nothing seems to be on topic with you Joe so I’ll just leave you to it.

    LoL_ the topic is on-topic- again don’t blame me because you are too stupid to follow along

  76. whatever Joe, whatever. you’ve had your moment in the spotlight. Let’s see how long it lasts.

  77. Joe G: Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.

    Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.

    Nope, he’s not mistaken at all. You’re going around in circles joe, as usual. Tell me joe, are there such things as transitional fossils? Are there such things as transitional organisms? Can your alleged front loaded internal GA create transitional organisms? If so, what does it create them from? If not, why not?

    Does your alleged front loaded internal GA always skip the transitional forms and make huge changes (like fish to frogs) in a single generation? Do all individuals of a species, no matter where they’re located at the time, all change (evolve) by the same amount at the same time, and do they do so because their alleged internal front loaded GA directs them to, regardless of their environment?

  78. Thorton:
    Joe, why don’t you try honestly answering the questions that were asked of you instead of making all the extra work for Dr. Liddle having to clean up your insults?

    That goes for all the threads you’ve participated in.

    I am only interested in answering questions that pertain to the OP.

    And obvioulsy you can’t ask those types of questions.

  79. damitall: Point proved, I think.
    Amazing how you can manage to control your foul language at UD, but not here…

    perhaps Elizabeth might consider mimicking some of their “moderation” policies, and save herself some work.

    This site will soon die if joe is allowed to continue to post here.

  80. The whole truth: This site will soon die if joe is allowed to continue to post here.

    This site will turn into just another evoTARD clueless circle-jerk if all IDists leave- and there are only two and sometimes 3 of us here now.

  81. Thorton: Er…science DID predict predict a fish/tetrapod transitional form like Tiktaalik would be found.That was the whole reason Shubin et al searched in the location they did.

    What did ID predict on the subject Joe?

    Did science predict an alleged transitional form like tiktaalik would be found many millions of years AFTER the transition occurred? No, it did not as there isn’t any reason for something like that to happen.

  82. Joe G: Why does your mother miss me?

    So, instead of backing up your implied threats, you bring my mother into it and make insulting remarks about her, and it’s not the first time you’ve done so. I’m only going to tell you once joe: If you ever mention my mother again I’ll come there and rip your deranged head off of your neck and stuff it down your throat, and unlike you I’m not bluffing.

  83. The whole truth: So, instead of backing up your implied threats, you bring my mother into it and make insulting remarks about her, and it’s not the first time you’ve done so. I’m only going to tell you once joe: If you ever mention my mother again I’ll come there and rip your deranged head off of your neck and stuff it down your throat, and unlike you I’m not bluffing.

    So your mother doesn’t miss me.

    I’ll be waiting…

  84. Joe G:
    Do you even know who your mother is?

    Says the big man who gives his address as a garage and is scared of clowns.

  85. Its going to be hard for us all to move forward if we can’t get clarification and dialogue. referring us to the OP doesn’t remove any ambiguity. Its like having a dictionary that defines “Car” as “A car”.

  86. Rich:
    Its going to be hard for us all to move forward if we can’t get clarification and dialogue. referring us to the OP doesn’t remove any ambiguity. Its like having a dictionary that defines “Car” as “A car”.

    Move forward? LoL! With you involved how can any discussion go anywhere but down?

  87. OM:
    Joe,
    Do *any* transitional fossils/forms exist, even in principle?

    What does that have to do with the OP? Please be specific.

    What I say about transitionals has nothing to do with anything in the OP nor the subject of it.

Comments are closed.