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.
Shannon told us that information is a reduction in uncertainty. That’s what I’ve been after.
Tell you what take a step back. Compare these two scenarios, which is more likely?
1. Schubin travelled thousands of miles to a remote region of the globe and accidental found the right creature in the wrong place.
2. You might not have a complete understanding of what’s going on.
Joe: “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 ”
That’s why it’s entirely relevant.
It has everything to do with the OP, because you seem to be using a definition of “transitional fossil” that is vastly different from the scientifically accepted one.
I’ll ask for the sixth time:
Please give us your definition of a “transitional fossil”, and tell us how to recognize one when you see it.
LoL! Nothing says that you didn’t read or didn’t understand the OP quite like that Rich! Thank you.
3- Rich doesn’t undersatnd my OP.
Rich- here’s a clue- read what Shubin said and then read what I wrote under it.
Again you prove tat you did NOT understand the OP
Try again…
No Rich- Shubin said he was looking for evidence of “the transition” which should be BEWTWEEN the two data points SHUBIN said.
Evidence for “the transition” has to be in strata pre-dating tetrapods.
Joe G,
Joe, I’ve read the OP many times. You might think I don’t understand it, I may claim you don’t understand the subject. For either claim to be investigated, further dialogue is required. Why are you so unwilling, and all other parties actively seeking it? What would happen in a ‘good faith’ discussion?
The Keene, NH address Joe gave to “meet him and he’d teach you a lesson” was actually an empty parking lot. Joe actually lives about 30 miles away, in Mass. He’s easy enough to find in the public records, though I don’t know why anyone would want to.
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.
Evidence of “the transition” has to pre-date tetrapods. The transition between governments takes place before the new governemnt comes into power, not after.
LoL! Then obvioulsy you have other issues- and I don’t see anything of “good faith” in any of your posts.
You’ve been there or are you talking out of your ass again, as usual?
And was he correct? Was there evidence in rocks about 375 million years old? Did he find anything?
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.
Evidence of “the transition” has to pre-date tetrapods. The transition between governments takes place before the new governemnt comes into power, not after.
He did not find what he was looking for.
Again, a throw away one liner with no engagement of the subject. You’ve not ‘unpacked’ your ideas at all. This really doesn’t shower ID with glory, a common criticism is that they refuse to engage on specifics. Now before you moan at evolution, your questions on other threads are being addressed, until you finally ask for a list of mutations that turned X in to Y.
Do I have your permission to post the address?
LoL! I gave you the specifics and you ignore them.
Why does it? Americans largely came from Europe. Do you contend we will find no European history after we find the first evidence of European history?
Sorry I missed it. I’ll ask again that, “what exactly do you mean and understand by a ‘transitional” “?
…and it was.
Not if the transition happened more than once, at different places and in different lineages. Or if the complete transition took tens of millions of years.
When will you be giving us your definition of “transitional fossil” Joe? You’ve avoided the question since the opening post.
LoL! That is the definition of “the transition”- look it up.
LoL! Thank you- nothing says you don’t have a clue quite like your own words.
Right- this ever evolving made-up evolutionary story of thorton.
Strange taht all of this alleged transitioning isn’t taking place now- heck by thorton’s “logic” Shubn could have looked just about anywhere to find what he was looking for!
1- Shubin says nothing about multiple transtions
2- Shubin said he was looking for evidence of THE transition
3- THE transition had to take place between TWO data points, just as SHUBIN said
4- Tiktaalik was NOT found between the two data points
Sorry I missed the part in the OP which deals with my understanding of transitional….
And Rich- I am OK with evos thinking that Tiktaalik is a transitional form between fish and tetrapods. Given that the definition of “transitional form” boils down to “it sure as heck looks like a transitional form to me” it seems pretty subjective and reeks of question-begging.
Actually, I’m interested in your thoughts on transitionals.
Thanks for finally giving us your definition of “transitional”.
No wonder you’re so confused and don’t understand the topic.
LoL! Look it up and you will see what I said is correct.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03
Right- “it sure as heck looks like a transitional form to me”
Nothing about convergence that could produce trasitional-looking forms-
I’m sure in you mind you’re always correct.
Not so much out here in reality with the rest of us though.
1- Shubin says nothing about multiple transtions
2- Shubin said he was looking for evidence of THE transition
3- THE transition had to take place between TWO data points, just as SHUBIN said
4- Tiktaalik was NOT found between the two data points
I believe this thread has now runs its course unless there is still someone who can provide a coherent argument against the OP
transition-
2.
the period of time during which something changes from one state or stage to another
I will discuss the topic- why should I post something and discuss something that is irrelevant?
Yes, your understanding of transitionals, as that is what you’re opining about.
I don’t want the dictionary definition of transition, I want your understanding of transitional forms, like tiktaalik. Don’t you normally get upset over equivocation?
My understanding of transitionals is irrelevant to the topic of the OP.
As I said, you obvioulsy have other issues.
Shubin was talking about the TRANSITION, Rich
Do TRY to focus.
and what type of fossized evidence was he looking for? I believe you’ve been asked for this before.
LoL! It isn’t they type of fossil that is important- it is the TIMING of the fossil which concerned Shubin.
As I said by your “logic” he could have looked anywhere to find a “transitional”- anywhere except before fish, I would assume
So the type od fossil isn’t important? How curious! So any fossil would have done! Tell me more, this is indeed a most intriguing depature from current understanding.
As SHUBIN SAID- the TIMING of the fossil was the important part of finding evidence of the transition.
Leave it to Rich to make something else out of that.
The type of fossilized evidence that was found BETWEEN two data points.
He didn’t find it because science moved the data points.
In order to find something between two data points you have to know what those two data points are. It’s pretty basic if you think about it.
Okay – but what do those that points represent? The first ever something? the last ever something? Or most likely something in between?
LoL!
You’re KILLING me, Rich- I am pretty sure what those data points represent is in the OP’s provided Shubin quote. Take a looksie… (again, for the first time)
Joe, I will give you one teensy point: Shubin was too conservative with the upper boundary of the transition.
However, that is completely irrelevant to whether the prediction was a success or not. They set the time window for success more narrowly than they need have done, but that made it harder, not easier, as it reduced the number of places where the creatures might be found. However, one of those places was in strata that is near the surface in Ellesmere Island, Canada, and indeed, they found the creatures there.
The fact that there are also other, earlier strata in which there is evidence for transitional tetrapods does not make the Shubin prediction any less good – nor any less successful. They predicted that they would find a transitional on Ellesmere Island and they found one.
Predictions don’t come much better than that.
ETA: oh, and Joe, please read this, re moderation.
Elizabeth-
The data he used was wrong. Had he had the new data, he would not have looked where he did.
As I said in the OP- there isn’t any reason why a transitional form would be around millions of years after the transition occurred.
By that logic he should have been able to find that transitional form at any one of his previous digs in the US.
IOW the “window of success” was shattered by a Polish rock.
Joe G,
Okay, so what do they represent. Please tell me, as you are sure.
Why would he not have looked where he did? It would have been a sensible place to look, had he known the window was wider than he thought or not.
It was still strata that had been a litoral habitat during the period of fish-tetrapod transition. Why would it not have had early tetrapods in it?
As, in fact, it did!
Exactly what Shubin said- read it for yourself:
In my words- they represent the time when there were fish, and no tetrapods-> 385 mya and a time when there were fish and tetrapods-> 365 mya.
However now we know the 365 mya data point has been moved back to 390+ mya.
He wouldn’t have looked where he did because he was looking in strata 375 my old and what he was looking for is in strata older than 390 my.