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.
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.
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.
Joe,
When you say “the” transition, what transition do you mean? The one and only transition that happened, or something else?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW there was an interesting discussion at Talk Rational in a thread started by Per Ahlberg when the trackways paper first came out.
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:
Sort of interesting thread here. Funny, anyway.
Umm that paper does not deal with the tracks found in Poland
Written where?
“species” and “kind”
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
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?
Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.
Nope, you are mistaken, as usual.
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.
Please explain what any of that has to do with the OP you didn’t read or didn’t understand.
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?
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?
Who says it did?
Who says it did?
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?
It predicts a nested hierarchy. And that’s what we observe.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
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.
Joe,
How many such “transitions” were there Joe?
Guys, read the rules please.
Might as well delete OM’s off-topic comments too.
Why am I mistaken? Must I quote your own words?
Nothing seems to be on topic with you Joe so I’ll just leave you to it.
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.
and another piece-of-shit chimes in…
LoL_ the topic is on-topic- again don’t blame me because you are too stupid to follow along
whatever Joe, whatever. you’ve had your moment in the spotlight. Let’s see how long it lasts.
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?
Thanks for proving my points, joe.
I am only interested in answering questions that pertain to the OP.
And obvioulsy you can’t ask those types of questions.
Joe G,
Hey joe, have you booked a flight to Portland yet?
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.
Why does your mother miss me?
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.
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…
Do you even know who your mother is?
Says the big man who gives his address as a garage and is scared of clowns.
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”.
Joe,
Do *any* transitional fossils/forms exist, even in principle?
LoL! I never said that was my address-
Move forward? LoL! With you involved how can any discussion go anywhere but down?
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.