Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 16 of 42 (301745)
04-06-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by DBlevins
04-06-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Duane Gish's fishy remark
Yea, but look, I mean look at the head. I was meaning to tell our EVCer from Ocala Fla(BELFRY) that I once chanced onto a gator head perfectly picked apart while chasing tortises down there in South USA and ya know there are legless snakes, legless lizards, legless amphibians (caecilians)&so what is wrong with legless gators. I hope the evidence for ichythology is VERY strong and less icky because it L00ks to me like just a scarce reptile rather than a scar or scare for Gish.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2006 07:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DBlevins, posted 04-06-2006 3:24 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 04-07-2006 1:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 42 (301748)
04-06-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by roxrkool
04-06-2006 6:42 PM


The flood model
Actually, Rox, the flood predicts that there will be no such transitions. They are only "sorted" into that order by some sort of accident. I guess our new find with it's wee little legs out ran the more fish like forms by a bit and a bit less than the ones with better legs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by roxrkool, posted 04-06-2006 6:42 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by roxrkool, posted 04-07-2006 11:46 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2006 12:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 42 (301750)
04-06-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
04-06-2006 6:06 PM


More information.
From Nature News, Published online: 5 April 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060403-7 -- The fish that crawled out of the water (click)
Creatures with features of both fish and land-living animals have been found before. Fish that may have been beginning to 'walk' in shallow water have been found from about 385 million years ago, and fish with limbs that bear digits have been seen from more than 365 million years ago.
Specimens that fall into the gap, such as Tiktaalik, help researchers to work out the details of this transition. The newly found animal has a structure on its head that looks like a small gill slit that is on its way to becoming an ear, for example, and a long snout that would have been suited to catching prey on land.
This is a specimen in the middle of a transition, and it fits both the time and the place for such a specimen:
(ibid)
Daeschler and Shubin set off to find this missing link in the evolutionary chain back in 1999. The pair targeted Ellesmere Island after noticing that it was listed in an undergraduate textbook as exposed Devonian rock that had not previously been explored for vertebrate fossils.
The desolate area was reachable only by plane, and the weather was so bad that field work could only be done for about two months each summer. The team first walked around the rocky outcrops looking for fossils of plant life that indicated stream or delta sediments, in order to target areas that had once hosted shallow waters. "That is where the action is on the fish-to-tetrapod transition," says Daeschler.
Not just the rough spot but the specific habitat that fit the predicted model.
faith writes:
... consistent with geology and the Flood.
Why is this consistent with the Flood?
What possible flood scenario predicts (a) such a transition between whole kinds of species (not just reptile to mammal, but water to land), and (b) requires that they would be found in rocks dating to the Devonian period?
(We'll side-step for now the issue of (c) how does any flood accomplish any "ordering of fossils found in most parts of the geological column" without making errors?)
The real problem is that "the flood" does not in any way require either (a) or (b) to have happened, thus it would be more "consistent" with "the flood" if it had NOT happened.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 6:06 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 04-07-2006 12:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 5034 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 19 of 42 (301891)
04-07-2006 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by DBlevins
04-06-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Duane Gish's fishy remark
Err... Seems Gish is behind the times.
Why doesn't he try Amphioxus on for size; or even a hagfish...not to mention a number of fossils.
Talkorigins: Invertebrate-Vertebrate transition

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DBlevins, posted 04-06-2006 3:24 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 20 of 42 (301970)
04-07-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
04-06-2006 7:20 PM


Re: The flood model
Oh a model!!!! Finally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-06-2006 7:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 42 (301992)
04-07-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
04-06-2006 7:20 PM


Re: The flood model
quote:
I guess our new find with it's wee little legs out ran the more fish like forms by a bit....
But still couldn't outrun grass. Poor little fishy.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-06-2006 7:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 22 of 42 (302014)
04-07-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
04-06-2006 7:26 PM


Re: More information.
Tiktaalik was the front page headline story in the NY Times yesterday.
While I was reading the story, one of my employer-physicians happened by and asked, "I know that's of great interest to people like you and me, but why is it a front page story?"
It occurred to me that it was a front page story for general readership because of the strenuous efforts of creationists et al. to undermine the credibility of the ToE and to impose religious views in the classroom. Without their social and academic agenda, the story would have been saved for the Science section or buried on a back page: ironically, political attempts to attack the ToE have resulted in wider publicity for its triumphs.
Mixing science and faith is hazardous to science but even more so to faith: the all-or-nothing literalist/creationist viewpoint can only be rocked again and again by such discoveries.
Having great confidence in the ToE, and being aware that fossil finding is becoming increasingly predictive and fruitful, I've long been curious about what the creationist response will be to such slam-dunk fossil proofs.
From what I've seen so far, it will range from complete denial to assertions that God made both kinds and kind-chimeras, a Dr. Frankenstein kind of deity...
Anyway, here's to Tiktaalik--boyo, we hardly knew ye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2006 7:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 42 (302032)
04-07-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
04-06-2006 7:00 PM


Re: Duane Gish's fishy remark
{The material of the second quote box is interesting, but is VERY OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps Omni could find a nice intelligent design topic home for that information. - Adminnemooseus}
Heh. Don't worry, Brad, there are always newly-created gaps in which to take shelter--though I gather John Morris feels Tiktaalik is very fishy, indeed.
From today's WSJ "Science Journal":
Fossils from 10 Tiktaaliks were embedded in rock deposited by a meandering stream system, suggesting where that momentous step occurred.
But creationists, many of whose Web sites declare "there are no transitional forms," are not easily persuaded. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, Calif., says Tiktaalik "is just a variety of fish. There is still a huge gap [between fish and land-dwellers] that has to be filled."
There will always be new gaps.
{The material of the second quote box is interesting, but is VERY OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps Omni could find a nice intelligent design topic home for that information. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2006 01:43 PM
+/- bE: 'Sho nuff, Adminnemooseus--though the second portion seemed relevant to what is exposed by the light that Tikaalik sheds on evolutionary transitions, since it concerned a molecular transition and analogous denials. The WSJ reporter thought it relevant, and so did I.
But I will defer and delete.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-07-2006 03:00 PM
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-07-2006 03:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2006 7:00 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 04-08-2006 7:19 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 42 (302300)
04-08-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Omnivorous
04-07-2006 1:32 PM


Re: Duane Gish's fishy remark and the evo problem
Here's what the problem is. I will try to keep it on topic of an evolutionary transition and if the heady creature really fullfills the problem. Craik(THE NATURE OF EXPLANATION
Guide to the World's Philosophers - philosophers.co.uk
p 20) says
quote:
Darwin makes the same point in his Origin of Species emphasising that most men are unwilling to admit the possible unity of two different things unless they see the transitional stages
.
"Same point" refers to (p19-20)
quote:
We must consider whether the language of philosophy and psychology is not unsuitable for expressing their problems. It uses nouns freely to designate immutable substances, incapable of changing into one another or ceasing to exist; and these substances are in consequently sharply delimited from one another. An attempt is made to proove that the self and other substances to be simple lest complexity should suggest any continuity between categories. When we examine physical reality, as now understood, we find that very few of the 'things' which we denominate by nouns show these properties. Energy or matter or both together are conserved, and do not appear to come from nowhere or pass into nothingness; but all their combinations into higher units or 'things' are capable of changing into one another, and in a sense, of coming out of nothing; for they can arise from a mass of units so dissimilar as to seem incapable of producing them. A mass of iron ore is so unlike an engine that the uninitiated might disbelieve that an engine could ever be made from it. In the same way, consciousness seems so unlike matter that many deny that it can possibly arise from it; they say that unless one admits consciousness as a fundamental substance one is 'denying' it altogether.

Now as I saw it (the two gator heads (one in Ocala and the other pic in this thread)) there are two problems here, one is of course the design issue that Criak calls subconsiously to iron and the engine withing the issue of "unit" of evolution let us say, that is how the result for Gish or Morris may always be scarcely a scar and simply a scare for it might be argued till oops day that "transition" "consciousness" and "heirarchy" are subjetively incompatible, but the other one is where I think biologists themselves are not conscious enough about the logic of the particular transition supposed FROM fish-throughamphibians-to parental care more cold-bloods. Even granting an evolutionist Criak's point that one can cognize arbitarily (and this is what a cver might suspect (but would be out of topic here I guess) without the 'transitional'"'STAGE'", this works WHERE there is rigidity or substance appearin like impenetribility ("what we might designate as immutable"). This given platform starts with SOME MATERIALITY but must consciously show the "higher unit" (whatever it is that the fossil is supposed to connote as an EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE) arsies "from nothing" as to what existed through translation and space and form-making prior.
What I was saying was ,that if the only new visual/substantive contribution that the gator-fish makes, is some kind of stunted arm bones,... then I propose that the "higher unit" is not consciously arrived at, but is instead assumed; based on simple adherence to the evolutionary notion of general change only:: The problem for fish to herp transition is, in HOW the bones themselves divide (moving from cartilage etc), so, just showing that there are divisions in the extra-vertebral bones WHILE the head appears (on it's side) like a gator but [/b]not[b] with as many divisions in THE SAME UNITS' appendiges, as the higher unit already posses("ed" for evos) AND given that these units also have kinds without said divisions at all(legless this and that)... it seems ONly to me that, anyone is using a general prescription to a lack of need for a transitional stage to be in place of the purported "contrarily" transition (when there was none to begin the debate with anyway in Criak's "sense") and THEN saying elliptically that, that by reason of having the cake and eating it too that this is what was the old problem of the fact of evolution and that it is NOW solved. I think that is rather soap I would need to wash my mouth out with than deft move in the c-e game no longer played through the glass but with all our marbles.
I can be convinced otherwise if the icythyological evidence were a lot stronger than the simple part head outline I sketeched. My own attempts at looking in detail at the fish reproduction to amphibian life cycle tends to foucs on soft parts and I have not been overwhelmed by literature on bones only, so though I may be wrong here, I would have to work on a lot more biology in to get to that position.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-08-2006 07:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 04-07-2006 1:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6355 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 25 of 42 (305928)
04-22-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
04-05-2006 7:22 PM


quote:
Heh, typical evolutionist. One deformed alligator, and everyone wets their pants.
The unfortunate thing about being an "evolutionist" is I have the burden of having to prove something like that before I can say it. Tiktaalik is not at all an alligator. For one thing it's way too early, this animal pre-dates all reptiles. Tiktaalik had primitive limbs that didn't even have true fingers, as you can see in this image (tiktaalik is in the middle).
It had a primitive ribcage so it could only move onto land for short periods of time (long enough to escape a predator). In this image you can see that the ribs are short and would not have protected the organs against the pull of gravity for too long.
Whereas in the later ichthyostega it can be seen that this animal's ribs would have done a much better job at supporting it's organs.
We don't just have one specimen either, we have several, so we know that these features aren't simple deformities.
So, next time you make a silly and blatantly inaccurate statement like that at least have the decency to back it up with evidence.
This message has been edited by CACTUSJACKmankin, 04-22-2006 01:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 04-05-2006 7:22 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 1:28 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 42 (305932)
04-22-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by CACTUSJACKmankin
04-22-2006 1:20 PM


He was joking. Chiroptera is no creationist.
The smiley didn't tip you off? Good post, though. We'll keep it bookmarked for when a real creationist tries the same argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 04-22-2006 1:20 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 04-22-2006 1:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 42 (305934)
04-22-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
04-22-2006 1:28 PM


Well, my profile does list me as living in Oklahoma, so CactusJack's assumptions are probably forgivable. Heh.
(PS, I would have thought my signature would be an even more blatant tip-off, though.)

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 04-22-2006 2:15 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6355 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 28 of 42 (305948)
04-22-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chiroptera
04-22-2006 1:37 PM


Sorry, but (A) I'm new and don't know anybody (B) your profile says Oklahoma and (C) it is well silly enough for a creationist to have said it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 04-22-2006 1:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 29 of 42 (418691)
08-29-2007 8:51 PM


Bump + other info
NosyNed has just proposed a new topic on Tiktaalik.
In the process of tracking this topic down, I discovered an old "Proposed New Topic" (PNT) that had never been acted upon:
Scientist takes on AiG's letter over Tiktaalik.
There Harlequin posted:
Discovery put creationist on the defensive is a great take down of AiG's Mark Looy over Tiktaalik. It is a must read and great example of what can be done with a good letter to the editor.
Going to close that PNT now.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: That other topic was "Links and Information", not a PNT. That topic reopened.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 42 (418693)
08-29-2007 8:58 PM


Why isn't Tiktaalik a transitional?
In this message:
Message 44
NJ says:
Yes, I was aware of the argument when it was discovered. Naturally, I remain unconvinced. And this is due in part that it is incomplete. We know nothing of the hindquarters, yet we're told that its essentially a missing link.
in regards to Tiktaalik.
I'd like to know what NJ's reasoning is for the above comment.
I'd like NJ to explain why the missing hind part is important in particular.
Just for reference:
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024