Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2018 12:43 PM
302 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 296 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,276 Year: 5,099/29,783 Month: 1,031/1,467 Week: 228/462 Day: 15/42 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition
jar
Member
Posts: 30135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 31 of 42 (418694)
08-29-2007 9:04 PM


Lancet provides more reason to laugh at the Discovery Institute.
Maybe this should go into the Humor thread like most things involving the Discovery Institute, but it also involves "Tiktaalik" so this might be the place.

The Lancet provides the quotes from DI and explains how silly their rebuttal is. It shows that even DI, when they are being honest, admits that it is an intermediate form. Of course DI then goes on to try to misdirect folks attention hoping no one notices them palm the pea.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2007 9:08 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 08-29-2007 9:35 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16011
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 32 of 42 (418696)
08-29-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
08-29-2007 9:04 PM


Re: Lancet provides more reason to laugh at the Discovery Institute.
Heh heh.

By convincing themselves, by misintepreting a single quotation from Stephen Jay Gould, that mosaics are not transitional, they can actually tell the truth about the anatomy of an intermediate form and not notice that they're doing so.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 9:04 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 08-30-2007 8:58 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6399
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 33 of 42 (418700)
08-29-2007 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
08-29-2007 9:04 PM


Re: Lancet provides more reason to laugh at the Discovery Institute.
Huh? What does the DI have to do with Tiktaalik? I thought that Intelligent Design wasn't supposed to be necessarily opposed to macroevolution?

So much for that Trojan horse!


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 9:04 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 34 of 42 (418703)
08-29-2007 9:50 PM


Yet more humor
It appears that AIG also tried to weigh in on the subject and as usual, just provided more laughs.

Lancet looks at the AIG kinda response.

Looks like as usual AIG just can't get anything right.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 42 (418768)
08-30-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
08-29-2007 9:08 PM


Re: Lancet provides more reason to laugh at the Discovery Institute.
I think what is happening is that scientific discovery is catching up with Darwin's use contra his own position that otherwise people are complaining about catastrophes or laws of the extinction of forms.

In the only letter I directed to Henry Morris, I suggested that he find a way "to predict" the gaps. Then creationists could have a subject that evolutionists, (still arguing over Fisher, Wright, and Gould), who do not generally see HOW the plan of strucutres can be actually, rather than case by case, cut out of space. Morris responded to me about "simulation" which is what Wright is(was) arguing about to Fisher over computer simulations(caried on by Wade vs etc.) of generations vs popuations vs number of alleles etc. So there was no go there.

Darwin was clear about the use of terms "infinite complexity", series of forms, and Agassiz had his own use, with God, of "Earth's forms" which David Jordan changed into "present forms" and segregation/selection being extensive to the intensive science of inheritance and variation.

If there are laws for the non-extinction of forms, and this seems to be what Darwin used Malthus for, perhaps wrongly, then THIS is what this fossil is about. But because evolutionists are too held up on sexual and selection since the 60s I always expected creationists to look closer at how Gould may be wrong about D' Arcy Thompson (all is not Kaufmann order for free). Darwin had said he could not single file a class of creatures. This fossil is suggesting that Darwin was wrong.

I have given some thoughts "to the soft" parts, as I had not, so far , in my contribution above in this thread. But the rough results, which explain electric field receptivity in fish, reptiles and mammals, may be more coarse than Wright's complaint to Fisher, but I will post it nonetheless, in the near future. This may show how bones can exist in muscle and not be supportaive of caught flat footed weight and in the extended implication of the relation of force and form show how the creationist position is not lessened. It was Darwin who raised the issue of electric organs in fish. Faraday asked if fish can be ALTERNATIVELY a conductor and an insulator BUT NO ONE HAS SHOWN how Wright's surface of peaks and valleys may be related to co-optation of the lateral line system into a general nerverous system functionality of the sphere of Maxwell's thought that Heavyside dissed for vectors. I think quarternions show that an average environment under Darwin's notion of laws of extinction of forms can be revised under computer simulations of roations in 3-space thus Lewontin would also be wrong to say that no such thing exists for biology as does motion in a straight line without impressed forces does (did ) for physics.

Off soap box, substance pending...

Edited by Brad McFall, : link-->thread


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2007 9:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 36 of 42 (716373)
01-15-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
04-05-2006 3:19 PM


New finds adds information
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

quote:
However, only specimen blocks containing the front portion of Tiktaalik have been described thus far. As the researchers investigated additional blocks recovered from their original and subsequent expeditions to the dig site in northern Canada, they discovered the rear portion of Tiktaalik, which contained the pelves as well as partial pelvic fin material. The fossils included the complete pelvis of the original 'type' specimen, making a direct comparison of the front and rear appendages of a single animal possible.

The scientists were immediately struck by the pelvis, which was comparable to those of some early tetrapods. The Tiktaalik pelvic girdle was nearly identical in size to its shoulder girdle, a tetrapod-like characteristic. It possessed a prominent ball and socket hip joint, which connected to a highly mobile femur that could extend beneath the body. Crests on the hip for muscle attachment indicated strength and advanced fin function. And although no femur bone was found, pelvic fin material, including long fin rays, indicated the hind fin was at least as long and as complex as its forefin.


If it walks like a duck ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 04-05-2006 3:19 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 01-15-2014 12:06 PM RAZD has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1442
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 37 of 42 (716375)
01-15-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-15-2014 11:49 AM


Re: New finds adds information
The only thing creationists will read in the whole article:

quote:
The scientists were immediately struck by the pelvis

What I am curious about is how well this find matches what was proposed for the back half based on previous finds of only the front portion.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2014 11:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2014 12:17 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 38 of 42 (716377)
01-15-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by herebedragons
01-15-2014 12:06 PM


Re: New finds adds information
Too bad it wasn't a jawbone, eh?

What I am curious about is how well this find matches what was proposed for the back half based on previous finds of only the front portion.

What excites me is that the pelvis is for the same fossil as the front portion, so there should be no complaints about mashing together fossils from different finds to make a skeleton based on assumption. But they probably will anyway (see Lucy's knee "controversy")


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 01-15-2014 12:06 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 01-16-2014 4:58 AM RAZD has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 39 of 42 (716411)
01-16-2014 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
01-15-2014 12:17 PM


Re: New finds adds information
What excites me is that the pelvis is for the same fossil as the front portion, so there should be no complaints about mashing together fossils from different finds to make a skeleton based on assumption. But they probably will anyway (see Lucy's knee "controversy")

How do they know it's the same individual? The Sciencedaily article doesn't seem to make this clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2014 12:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2014 10:51 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2014 11:01 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 40 of 42 (716423)
01-16-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by caffeine
01-16-2014 4:58 AM


Re: New finds adds information
It's from the same slab of rock. They couldn't move it all on their first trip, so it was picked up later and the prepping has only just been completed.

Magnificent fossil. That pelvis is amazing!

Mutate and Survive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 01-16-2014 4:58 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 41 of 42 (716426)
01-16-2014 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by caffeine
01-16-2014 4:58 AM


Re: New finds adds information
How do they know it's the same individual? The Sciencedaily article doesn't seem to make this clear.

Because they continued the dig where they found the 'type' fossil at the end of the previous dig and stopped when they ran out of time.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 01-16-2014 4:58 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3616
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 42 of 42 (830318)
03-26-2018 8:58 PM


Go play with Tiktaalik
https://freethoughtblogs.com/...03/26/go-play-with-tiktaalik

quote:
3-D scans of Tiktaalik’s bones are now available at HHMI Biointeractive — flip ’em, spin ’em, rotate ’em all around and get a good look at the beast.

Moose


    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018