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

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Tiktaalik- Why was Shubin Looking Where he Found it?

-
Before going North and finding Tiktaalik Shubin had searched in other places for a transitional between fish and tetrapods.

So here are two questions for my detractors to answer:

1- Why didn't Shubin find a transitional between fish and tetrapods at those other locations? According to you they could be anywhere except for in strata that predate fish.

2- What was it that convinced Shubin to look where he did (to find Tiktaalik)? I say it was the data I quoted from the book-> the data that has been proven to be wrong. If you say the same then you hve some splainin' to do.

16 Comments:

  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wheel out the strawmen!

    "According to you they could be anywhere except for in strata that predate fish"

    yes, and rabbits in the precambrian, too. Do you understand the mathematical concepts of 'distributions' and 'confidence'?

    "data that has been proven to be wrong." No the data was correct. The DATA is that two sets of fossils were found at two different times. Do you dispute that? Do you know what "data" means?

     
  • At 7:38 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: 1- Why didn't Shubin find a transitional between fish and tetrapods at those other locations? 2- What was it that convinced Shubin to look where he did (to find Tiktaalik)?

    The strata may have been too young, and organisms such as Tiktaalik (Elpistostegalia) may have already gone extinct. So he wanted to look in somewhat older strata.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Wheel out the strawmen!

    What sterawmen- be specific as you are a proven liar.

    "According to you they could be anywhere except for in strata that predate fish"

    Richtard:
    yes, and rabbits in the precambrian, too. Do you understand the mathematical concepts of 'distributions' and 'confidence'?

    Non-sequitur.


    I say it was the data I quoted from the book-> the data that has been proven to be wrong. If you say the same then you hve some splainin' to do.

    RichTard:
    No the data was correct.

    No, it wasn't yo moron. Ya see the data Shubin had sez tetrapods didn't show up until about 365 million years ago and the data we have today says tetrapods showed up before 390 million yars ago. THAT means Shubin's data was WRONG.

    But it seems that you are too ignorant to understand any of that.

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zacho:
    The strata may have been too young, and organisms such as Tiktaalik (Elpistostegalia) may have already gone extinct.

    The strata he found Tiktaalik should have been too young also. And you don't know the age of the strata he looked in prior to finding it.

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    No, JoeG. Species have a lifespan. The lifespan of the posited species is unknown. Even with fossils, you still only have a snapshot. He was thinking the transition was later, but that's irrelevant to the species being a transitional. Can you define a transitional species?

    http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/

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

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the 'Age of Fishes,' as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time."- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; "Evolution: Education and Outreach", 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zacho:
    Species have a lifespan.

    Individuals do. But no one knows that about any species.

    Zacho:
    Can you define a transitional species?



    "In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land."- Jennifer Clack

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zacho's "criteria" for a transitional is "It looks like a transitional form to me".

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: "In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land."- Jennifer Clack

    You just confused *transition", which an event in time, and "transitional" which refers to organisms with intermediate characteristics.

    By the way, Jennifer Clack considers Tiktaalik to be a transitional, even though "it's impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates".

     
  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zacho:
    You just confused *transition", which an event in time, and "transitional" which refers to organisms with intermediate characteristics.

    Yet "intermediate characteristics" is a reflection on OUR classification scheme more than anything else.

    Also you have just admitted it boils down to nothing more than "it looks like a transitional to me".

    Zacho:
    By the way, Jennifer Clack considers Tiktaalik to be a transitional, even though "it's impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates".

    Fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod

     
  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Yet "intermediate characteristics" is a reflection on OUR classification scheme more than anything else.

    Oddly enough, Jennifer Clack had predicted many of the intermediate characteristics. That seems to be the difference between scientists and IDers.

     
  • At 9:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yet "intermediate characteristics" is a reflection on OUR classification scheme more than anything else.

    Zachriel:
    Oddly enough, Jennifer Clack had predicted many of the intermediate characteristics.

    Oddly enough Jennifer Clack is the supplier of the faulty data that had tetrapods appearing after fishapods. And even more odd she cannot produce the gentic data that links to the transformations.

    Zacho:
    That seems to be the difference between scientists and IDers.

    Yes, IDists do not use faulty data. That seems to be a characteristic of accidental evolutionists.

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Oddly enough Jennifer Clack is the supplier of the faulty data that had tetrapods appearing after fishapods.

    What a fortunate paleontologist! Just imagine guessing the characteristics of a heretofore unknown species. Lucky guesser!!

    http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/explorations/bio_clack.html

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oddly enough Jennifer Clack is the supplier of the faulty data that had tetrapods appearing after fishapods. And even more odd she cannot produce the gentic data that links to the transformations.

    She (Clack) has all the predictive of an astrologer.

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    She (Clack) has all the predictive of an astrologer.

    Untrue. The timeline speaks otherwise.

    It's ID that is on a par with astrology, according to Behe at Dover.

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    She (Clack) has all the predictive of an astrologer.

    OM:
    Untrue. The timeline speaks otherwise.

    The timeline she got wrong?

    OM:
    It's ID that is on a par with astrology, according to Behe at Dover.

    You have no idea what Behe said.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home