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

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Of Tiktaalik and Clueless EvoTards

-
EvoTards are such a clueless lot. So I will repeat-

Shubin said- SHUBIN SAID- he was looking where he did because he had data that put the transition from fish to tetrapods between 385- 365 million years ago.:

Chapter 1 of "Your Inner Fish" tells us why:
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

However new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning his data was out-dated and is wrong.

And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species. And yes parent, transitional and child species can overlap- all transitionals can overlap. However any given transitional absolutely HAS to exist (or had to have existed) between the alleged parent and alleged child.

That seems to be something evotards cannot grasp and it is the only point I have been making.

Morons...

50 Comments:

  • At 8:59 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    "A source of confusion is the concept that a transitional form between two different taxonomic group must be directly ancestral to one or both groups. This was exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy was the attempt to identify taxa that were ancestral to other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the record is actually a direct ancestor of any other. In fact because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder like progression, and because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

     
  • At 9:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again, what I am saying doesn't mean that it has to be a direct ancestor.

    We have been down this road already and you were wrong then too.

    Also OM is on record agreeing with what said.

    OM said:

    I find a fossil of a fish at time X.

    I find a fossil of a mammal a time Y.

    I look between those two times and find a fossil of a transitional form between those two forms.

    I have found a transitional.


    And guess what? THAT is exactly what Shubin said he was attempting to do.

    Strange that you keep ignoring that part.

     
  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species.

    That's the false statement. A transitional can be found later in the fossil record, such as the Coelacanth. You've been provided cladograms to show the relationships, so it's odd you are still having troubles with the concept.

    Consider a direct ancestral relationship, A to B to C. B may have spawned a number of different branches, B1 and B2. It is quite possible that the earliest known fossil of the B family, such as B2, will be found after the earliest known fossil of the C family. Not every organism fossilizes, and finding fossils can include a large measure of luck.

    Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record for millions of years. Yet, few scientists doubt that modern coelacanths are descended from the ancient form.

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species.

    Zacho:
    That's the false statement.

    No, it isn't.

    Zacho:
    A transitional can be found later in the fossil record, such as the Coelacanth.

    I said that in the OP you ignorant fuck.

    What is your problem?

    Zachriel you have to be the biggest ignorant fuck around. When you have a clue come back and we will see if you have something meaningful to say.

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote:


    No, it isn't.

    I said that in the OP you ignorant fuck.

    What is your problem?

    Zachriel you have to be the biggest ignorant fuck around. When you have a clue come back and we will see if you have something meaningful to say.


    Wow, Joe, those are such well-thought and persuasive arguments! You win!!11!!

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    The argument was made in the OP you ignorant fuck.

    Why do evotards continue to think their ignorance means something?

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg was in such a panic while commenting he lost touch with his "shift" key while trying to make his point.

    LoL!

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    It's never late to learn, Joe.

    Eleventy!11!!

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then perhaps you should start now.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Oh, I have never stopped learning, Joe. My line of work requires me to learn new things all the time.

    You can try that, too. I see that you have already mastered the concept of LOLs. You are now ready to learn that mixing ones and exclamation marks is intentional and implies sarcasm.

    Keep up the good work.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    OK, Joe. Find a definition of transitional fossil from a valid scientific source, that says a transitional must be in time as well as character. I'll wait.

    It's your argument, you support it.

     
  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    OK, Joe. Find a definition of transitional fossil from a valid scientific source, that says a transitional must be in time as well as character.

    It HAS to be. THAT is the DEFINITION of a TRANSITION.

    It is also the reason that Shubin was looking where he did.

    Are you really that stupid?

     
  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    Obviously you have never learned anything about biology.

     
  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Transitional fossils:

    Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are called transitional fossils — they have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it.

    Prior to and after, meaning the transitional was in between those two- IN TIME

     
  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wikipedia, the evotard "bible" says:

    Transitional fossils (sometimes popularly called missing links) are the fossilized remains of lifeforms that exhibit characteristics typical of two distinct taxonomic groups, and which can be considered to represent the evolutionary transition between those groups.

    CONSIDERED TO REPRESENT THE EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO

    That means it had to exist -IN TIME- between the two groups.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    That means it had to exist -IN TIME- between the two groups.

    umm... no.

    I'll ask two questions.

    1) Considering wheels, is a tricycle intermediate between a bicycle and a wagon?

    2) Why have you not posted my comments?

     
  • At 4:16 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Can you read more than one paragraph at a time? I hope you can.

    Go back to the Wikipedia article and read the portion under the heading Transitional vs ancestral. It directly contradicts what you just said.

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:'
    Go back to the Wikipedia article and read the portion under the heading Transitional vs ancestral. It directly contradicts what you just said.

    No, you only think it does.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That means it had to exist -IN TIME- between the two groups.

    Kevin:
    umm... no.

    Yes, it does. Obviously you are ignorant of what a transition is.

    And I have posted your comments.

     
  • At 6:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    http://www.physorg.com/news182005810.html

    "These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals," says Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, one of the two leaders of the study.

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Glad you brought up Ahlberg. Let's see what the paper actually says.

    Ahlberg et al., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 2010: "The fossil record of the earliest tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins) consists of body fossils and trackways. The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins."

    Please note that Ahlberg et al. specifically designate Tiktaalik as a transitional in the very paper that presented tetrapod trackways from 18 million years earlier.

    Your misunderstanding seems to be entirely semantic based on your confusion about what paleontologists means by transitional. In any case, leaving aside Tiktaalik, did you have an actual point to make?

     
  • At 8:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One for you Zachriel:

    Why did Shubin make it a point to specify the timeline if the timeline wasn't important? Why did he bracket the time when he thought there wasn't any tetrapods and he knew there was?

    And why does the word transitional contain the word transition if that ain't what is really occurring?

    If everything is a transitional that what the fuck good is the word? Everything is a transitional by your "logic".

     
  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Joe finally figured it out. Yes, EVERYTHING is transitional. You are transitional between your children and your parents. You are transitional between your fathers nieces and your mothers nieces (even though you were born well before them or well after them).

    He got it, but I don't think he got it.

     
  • At 8:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If EVERYTHING is a transitional then the word is USELESS, moron.

     
  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    No Joe, it's not. Wow, everything is black or white with you huh?

    It depends on what it's transitional with. A fossil by itself, is pretty useless for determining relationships.

    You need MORE THAN ONE fossil, preferably three related fossils.

    For example, Tiktallik is a great transitional between bony fish and tetrapods. It's not so useful a transitional between cetaceans and artiodactyls.

     
  • At 9:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If everything is a transitional the word is useless, period.

    If the transition in question is impossible the word is menaingless, period.

    If the transition in question cannot be verified then it is just opinion, period.

     
  • At 4:09 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    If everything is a transitional the word is useless, period.

    Congratulations.

    If the transition in question is impossible the word is menaingless, period.

    You've proven no such thing.

    If the transition in question cannot be verified then it is just opinion, period.

    What do you mean "verified"? You have a fossil, what further verification do you need? A family photo album.

    You lost this one, more badly then usual.

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Why did Shubin make it a point to specify the timeline if the timeline wasn't important?

    Because the closer you are to the time of divergence, the more likely you are to find an organism which is closely related to the common ancestor. But it could be found in any strata after that time, depending on the actual history of divergence.

    Keep in mind, your own citation indicates that Tiktaalik is a transitional, so you are clearly misunderstanding how the term is used by paleontologists.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I know what the citation sez. I also know they cannot verify their claim.

    They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

    And if it came after the transition then it had nothing to do with it. Meaning the designation of "transitional" is dishonest at best and a downright fraud at worst.

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the transition in question is impossible the word is menaingless, period.

    OM:
    You've proven no such thing.

    I was just making an obvious statement.

    However you still don't have any evidence taht the transition is possible making the designation of "transitional" total bullshit.

    If the transition in question cannot be verified then it is just opinion, period.

    OM:
    What do you mean "verified"?

    You need some way to show it was divergence rather than convergence that led to tiktaalik.

    Then you need that elusive genetic data linking to the transitions.

    Without that you don't have anything.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

    Their expert opinion is that it is a transitional. It's your own cited expert!

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Joe, you have discovered the concepts of convergence and divergence. I'm sorry, that won't help you.

    What's more likely Joe? That a limb of 1 bone, 2 bones, many bones evolved exactly the same way, at exactly the right time (plus or minus a couple million years), in exactly the right place, in exactly the type of animal TWICE (or more than that)?

    Or did all those very specific features evolve once and then change over time?

    Which is more likely Joe?

    Nevermind, don't answer that, it'll just be another round of cursing and 'probability'.

    You are making bald assertions, saying anything to get yourself out of the hole you're in.

    Good luck. Or you could just admit that you know what we are talking about and we are right. Tiktaalik is transitional between fins and wrists. (Not fish and tetrapods Joe, fins and wrists.)

    BTW: Joe, are you aware that an organism that is transitional between fins and wrists LIVES RIGHT NOW?

    OMG, how does that happen. The transition happened millions of years ago. How can it be alive today?!?!?!?

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

    Their expert opinion is that Tiktaalik shows transitional features, not convergence. Why would you cite them if you don't think they know the difference between a transitional and a case of convergence? And why should we trust their findings about tetrapod trackways?

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

    Given that ID notes that evolution between such disparate forms is not possible (it's beyond micro-evolution) what does ID provide as an explanation instead for Tiktaalik's form?

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

    Then why would they call it a transitional? And why would you cite their findings on tetrapod trackways if they don't know what they are talking about?

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Given that ID notes that evolution between such disparate forms is not possible

    Nope- you are an ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They don't have ny idea if Tiktaalik was from divergence or convergence.

    Zacho:
    Then why would they call it a transitional?

    Personal bias.

    Zacho:
    And why would you cite their findings on tetrapod trackways if they don't know what they are talking about?

    What else can make tetrapod tracks?

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zacho:
    Their expert opinion is that Tiktaalik shows transitional features, not convergence.

    Except they don't have the required expertise- no one does.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    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

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G:What else can make tetrapod tracks?

    Maybe they aren't tetrapod trackways, or they have the date wrong. Why should we trust their findings, if they can't even tell the difference between convergence and divergence?

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't trust them. I use them because they are the high-priests of your position.

    But anyway Shubin went looking "to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals".

    Obviously Tiktaalik wasn't it.

    So flail away all you want.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: I don't trust them. I use them because they are the high-priests of your position.

    In other words, as your argument depends on their paper that describes tetrapod trackways, you don't have an argument.

    Just checking.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zacho:
    In other words, as your argument depends on their paper that describes tetrapod trackways,...

    No more than your argument depends on the paper that describes Tiktaalik.

    And if that paper is valid than so is the other- tetrapod trackway- paper.

    But anyway Shubin went looking "to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals".

    Obviously Tiktaalik wasn't it.

    So flail away all you want.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    But anyway Shubin went looking "to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals".

    Obviously Tiktaalik wasn't it.


    Yes indeed. What he failed to find was evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.

    What he actually found was evidence of a transition between fish and land-living animals.

    I can see your point now.

    So if it's not a transitional, how come it's got a wrist?

    Funny fish in that case. A fish with wrists indeed!

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What he actually found was evidence of a transition between fish and land-living animals.

    Not according to Shubin.

    I will go with what he said.

    OM:
    So if it's not a transitional, how come it's got a wrist?

    How did it get that wrist?

    That is the question you cannot answer.

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I will go with what he said.

    Which was what, exactly?

    How did it get that wrist?

    That is the question you cannot answer.


    I can. It got that particular wrist by virtue of it's immediate predecessor possessing a very similar wrist to the particular one which ultimately fossilized. It inherited it is the answer to your question.

    Intelligent Design cannot even begin to answer how it got that wrist. Or "it was designed" an answer now?

     
  • At 7:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will go with what he said.

    OM:
    Which was what, exactly?

    Exactly what I posted.

    OM:
    It got that particular wrist by virtue of it's immediate predecessor possessing a very similar wrist to the particular one which ultimately fossilized.

    Exactly what I said.

    OM:
    Intelligent Design cannot even begin to answer how it got that wrist.

    Yours wasn't an answer based on accumulations of genetic accidents, dipshit coward.

     
  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Yours wasn't an answer based on accumulations of genetic accidents, dipshit coward.

    What's your alternative?

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yours wasn't an answer based on accumulations of genetic accidents, dipshit coward.

    OM:
    What's your alternative?

    Built-in responses to environmental cues- for one.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home