Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, May 27, 2011

OgreMKV, aka Kevin R McCarthy, STILL Choking on Tiktaalik

-
Well McCarthy is finally reading "Your Inner Fish" and he still thinks it is a successful prediction fulfilled.

You are a moron Kevin as tetrapods were discovered in strata some 20-25 million years older than the strata that tiktaalik was found in. That means terapods already existed when tiktaalik was around which means it isn't an transitional.

You do not go looking for a transitional form AFTER the transition already occurred.

What I said befoe:

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 yeqars 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 tha no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed. But that is all it does.

24 Comments:

  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    You are a moron Kevin as tetrapods were discovered in strata some 20-25 million years older

    When does radioactive decay start Joe? Are you confident that your 20-25 million year figure is accurate?

    If you deny that such dating methods are reliable then how come you can use them in your own arguments. They are either reliable or they are not, you don't get to pick and choose depending on what point you are making at the time.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No wonder you don't like evolution, you have no understanding of it!

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/casey_luskin_embarrasses_himse.php

     
  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    No wonder you don't like evolution, you have no understanding of it!

    I like evolution and I understand it better than you do.

    Ya see Rich Shubin made a specific claim which has been relegated to a side-show. He was looking in the wrong place, the wrong strata- it was all wrong- and no amout of evotard whining will ever change that.

    You didn't read the book, did you?

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    When does radioactive decay start Joe?

    The same as I told you last year. The same as Oleg has agreed.

    OM:
    Are you confident that your 20-25 million year figure is accurate?

    It isn't mine.

    Ya see using evotard time-scales- the same as Shubin used- he was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata.

    Read the book- he lays it all out- he bracketed the time and place in which he thought he should find the transitional- just as he should.

    Yet along comes this other data which, had he known about it before finding Tiktaalik, he wouldn't have even been looking there.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are an imbecilic wanker.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Ya see Rich Shubin made a specific claim which has been relegated to a side-show. He was looking in the wrong place, the wrong strata- it was all wrong- and no amout of evotard whining will ever change that."

    Red Herring - let me give a little hint.

    Evolution isn't:

    "One day all the fish decided they wanted to evolve into tetrapods so they became intermediates"

    Your understanding of evolution is woeful, which is consistent with baraminologists, creationists.

    I've read Schubin's book, and talked with him on the phone. Thanks.

    Reread that pharyngula article and try and work out why you're such an idiot in light of it.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Ya see Rich Shubin made a specific claim which has been relegated to a side-show. He was looking in the wrong place, the wrong strata- it was all wrong- and no amout of evotard whining will ever change that."

    Rich:
    Red Herring - let me give a little hint.

    READ THE BOOK YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

    Shubin made a SPECIFIC CLAIM- that he should find the transitional between 385-365 million years ago.

    Had he known about the tracks in Poland he would not have been looking there.

    Rich:
    Evolution isn't:

    "One day all the fish decided they wanted to evolve into tetrapods so they became intermediates"


    I never said, thought nor implied it was. You are an asshole.

    Rich:
    I've read Schubin's book, and talked with him on the phone. Thanks.

    I doubt that very much.

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Well you can call him too, then. I called him regarding a similarly idiotic claim by Vox Day. He's easy to connect with. You're the one who makes up personas and 'I emailed so and so' stories, Joe, not I.

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is there to talk about? He made the claim in black and white in his book.

    He said he was looking in strata between 385-365 million years old FOR A REASON.

    Yet there really wasn't any reason for him to be looking there. It is that simple.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Again, your lack of understanding of evolution is painfully obvious. - And yet he found what he was looking for - how did that happen?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard the liar:
    Again, your lack of understanding of evolution is painfully obvious.

    Your false accusation is meaningless. However your willful ignorance is very telling.

    Rich:
    <>And yet he found what he was looking for - how did that happen?


    No, he didn't. He was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata.

    It is in his book why he was looking where he did.

    Had the new find came first he wouldn't have went there.

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "<>And yet he found what he was looking for - how did that happen?

    No, he didn't. He was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata."

    So he didn't find tiktaalik? what did he find then?

     
  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, he didn't. He was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata."

    Rich:
    So he didn't find tiktaalik?

    Yes in the wrong place and wrong strata for what he was looking for.

    That is if you place any value on what he said.

    I will get a copy of the book on Monday and post his words.

     
  • At 1:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes in the wrong place and wrong strata for what he was looking for."

    So why was it there if it shouldn't have been?


    I'm hoping the penny drops, but it's funny if you don't.

     
  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    So why was it there if it shouldn't have been?

    Non sequitur.

    Why do you think your ignorance means something?

    Monday is a holiday so I will have the book on Tuesday.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Non sequitur."

    No that's a very relevant experimental questions that highlights the faults in your premise. "Non sequitur" - Something else Joe doesn't understand.


    Oh! YOU haven't read the book, then?

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    No that's a very relevant experimental questions that highlights the faults in your premise.

    Not at all. My claim does not exclude tiktaalik from being found where it was found.

    You are still a moron.

     
  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Do people often find incredibly rare and highly specified things by looking in the wrong place? what would be a good explanation of this?

     
  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Do people often find incredibly rare and highly specified things by looking in the wrong place?

    Define "highly specified"? Because as I said, from HIS writing he wouldn't have been looking there had the find in Poland occurred before he went.

    That you choose to ignore that is very telling.

     
  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    what would be a good explanation of this?

    He found an organism that was suited for its environment.

    Yeah, that makes me all shivery and shit.

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If you find something it the wrong place, how exactly are you looking in teh wrong place? Emperically, the thing is there, so the location MUST be the right place?

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    If you find something it the wrong place, how exactly are you looking in teh wrong place?

    I have explined it to you several times now. Obviously you ae too stupid to understand anything beyond what other evotards say.

    Even Shubin explained it in chapter 1 of "Your Inner Fish"- obviously you lied when you said that you have read it. Or perhaps you just have a selective memory.

     
  • At 12:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I have explined it to you several times now. "

    No you haven't.

    Think.

    The right place is where it is.
    The wrong place ios where it isn't.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I have explined it to you several times now. "

    Rich:
    No you haven't.

    Yes, I have you moron. And I will explain it AGAIN-

    Shubin et al said they were looking where they did becase the datathey hd said no tetrapods before 385 million years ago and tetrapods existed 365 million years ago.

    So they were looking in that place and strata because they thought that is where the data was leading them.

    However along comes the find in Poland- and hd Shubin et al had that data before they went looking th would not have went where they did becuse where they went was the wrong place for what they were looking for which is the actual transitional between fish and tetrapods.

    Had you read the book that is all explained in the first chapter.

    Obviously you are too stupid to understand anything beyond what other evotards say.

     
  • At 7:11 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    becuse where they went was the wrong place for what they were looking for which is the actual transitional between fish and tetrapods.

    So what did they find then? A fish? Fish+? Did they find anything of interest to the subject of the transition between sea and land?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home