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 01, 2011

"Your Inner Fish"- Chapter 1

-
In previous posts about Tiktaalik I have called it a failed prediction. 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

Just as I have been saying- go figure.

But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.

83 Comments:

  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    It's not a failed prediction if what you're looking for is in fact there, you dullard. It is now incumbent on you to show how positive results (that are indeed very rare and highly specified) results in a "failure".

    AGAIN:

    HAve you read this:

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

    Do you understand what is written?

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    It's not a failed prediction if what you're looking for is in fact there, you dullard.

    It is a failed prediction for the reasons provided- the reasons you keep ignoring because you are willfully ignorant.

    RichTard:
    It is now incumbent on you to show how positive results (that are indeed very rare and highly specified) results in a "failure".

    It is still incumbent on you to actually address the issue raised.

    RichTard:
    HAve you read this:

    Yes.

    RichTard:
    Do you understand what is written?

    It does not address the issue at hand. Strange, that...

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

    Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.
    \

    Thanks Rich- another prediction fulfilled.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Its not a failure if you find what you're you're looking for. If you predict your keys are down the back of the sofa and they actually are, is that a failed prediction? YES OR NO.

    "It does not address the issue at hand. Strange, that..."


    "A fossil is representative of a range of individuals that existed over a window of time; a window that might be quite wide."


    DUR DUR DUR.

    IDIOT CHILD.

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Its not a failure if you find what you're you're looking for.

    Except he didn't find what he was looking for- not according to him anyway.

    According to him he was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata.

    He said it, take it up with him.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

    Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Designer you are dense.

    "the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago"

    What 'transition'? BE SPECIFIC

    How long did the transition take?

    If 'the transition' was "before 390 million" WTF is Tiktaalik doing in older rocks?

    The world breathlessly awaits more inanity and lack of epiphany from you.

    You'rr possibly the most cluesless person on evolution I've ever met.

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago"

    RichTard:
    What 'transition'?

    The one Shubin talked about, in the OP, you moron.

    RichTard:
    If 'the transition' was "before 390 million" WTF is Tiktaalik doing in older rocks?

    Is it in older rocks? Shubin found it in YOUNGER sediments. Hence the problem- finding an alleged transitional well after the transition took place is meaningless.

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

    Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.

     
  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The one Shubin talked about"

    DESCRIBE IT. UNDERSTAND IT.

    "How long did the transition take?"

    SEE YOU' DODGED THAT ONE.

    "Is it in older rocks? Shubin found it in YOUNGER sediments. Hence the problem- finding an alleged transitional well after the transition took place is meaningless."

    My mistake - YOUNGER - . Oh, so it's an "alleged transitional" now, is it?

    "well after the transition took place" - Ah, your idiocy is showing. WHAT TRANSITION? WHEN DID IT FINISH?

    Clueless on evolution.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    My goodness, you're stupid:

    "the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago"

    This transition, was it on a Wednessday?

    Clueless on evolution.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My argument doesn't have anything to do with evolution you freaking moron.

    My argument deals SOLELY with what Shubin said in his book- and that is what you keep ignoring as if your ignorance means something.

    AGAIN SHUBIN SAID:

    "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

    But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

    Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.

    OBVIOUSLY RICHTARD IS JUST TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

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

    RichTard:
    WHAT TRANSITION?

    Neil Shubin:
    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.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are a drooling retard.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "My argument doesn't have anything to do with evolution you freaking moron."

    Really? When one species changed to another isn't "evolution"? Tell us more.

    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


    and that's just what he found, in those rocks. So, do you have a point?

    Also, all those questions you dodged - have a go at them. You'll be closer to understanding evolution, and why you're very very wrong.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "My argument doesn't have anything to do with evolution you freaking moron."

    RichTard:
    Really?

    Really. Obviously you are too stupid to understand my argument.

    RichTard:
    When one species changed to another isn't "evolution"?

    My argument isn't about that- as I said obviously you are too stupid to understand my argument.

    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

    Richtard:
    and that's just what he found, in those rocks. So, do you have a point?

    Thank you for ance again proving that you are an imbecile- Shubin's "Given this" was ALL WRONG.
    But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

    Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.

    OBVIOUSLY RICHTARD IS JUST TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THAT.


    RichTard:
    You'll be closer to understanding evolution, and why you're very very wrong.

    I understand evolution better than you ever will and my argument doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

    My argument is that Shubin made a claim based on faulty data.

    But again you are too stupid to understand any of that.

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Obviously you are too stupid to understand my argument."

    Not really. Obviously your argument is too stupid to understand.

    "I understand evolution better than you ever will"

    Oh please, creationist baraminologist.

    "My argument is that Shubin made a claim based on faulty data"

    Then you're wrong:

    "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. "

    This is emperically observed, not "faulty".

    IDIOT.

    Still dodging those questions, Joe. Staying willfully ignorant.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Obviously you are too stupid to understand my argument."

    RichTard:
    Not really.

    Then why do you refuse to address it? ither you are to stupid to understnd it or you are just a prick.

    RichTard:
    Obviously your argument is too stupid to understand.

    I spelled it out for you- Shubin made a claim that was based on faulty data.

    "I understand evolution better than you ever will"

    RichTard:
    Oh please, creationist baraminologist.

    Was that supposed to be a refutation?

    "My argument is that Shubin made a claim based on faulty data"

    RichTard:
    Then you're wrong:

    No, you are fucking retarded.

    "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. "

    This is emperically observed, not "faulty".


    Wrong again moron. Ya see there was this find in Poland which pushes the date of tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago. And that means, my simple-minded opponent, that this- "But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish."
    is flat out WRONG as we have evidence fr TETRAPODS in rocks that are over 390 million years old.

    You are an imbecile. And your questions are irrelevant to my argument- as usual you want me to argue your strawman.

    You are a pathtic loser Rich.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    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.- Shubin

    WRONG- Earliest Four-Limbed Animals Left Mud Tracks
    The finding of 395-million-year-old footprints in Poland turns back the clock on the evolution of four-legged creatures.


    And that means-

    "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

    WRONG- Given the data you should focus on rocks more than 395 million years old- well you don't really know how old of rock you should focus on.

    Oh well, back to the drawing board.

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger OM said…

    So what *did* Shubin find then from digging in the "wrong" place?

    A transitional? Something else? What?

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So what *did* Shubin find then from digging in the "wrong" place?

    Tiktaalik- an interesting find but not what he was looking for.

    But that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why do you have such difficulty staying on-topic?

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Tiktaalik- an interesting find but not what he was looking for.

    What was "interesting" about it?

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why do you have such difficulty staying on-topic?"

    It's completely relevant, you just don't want to address the fact that he found what he was looking for which by definition makes it the *right* place.

    You have no clue about evolution, and are clearly a bit slow, so we're going to have to do this the slow way.

    Question 1. After speciation, is the parent species obligated to immediately die out? Must speciation effect all the individuals?

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    It's completely relevant, you just don't want to address the fact that he found what he was looking for which by definition makes it the *right* place.

    Rich, that you keep ignoring the facts is very telling.

    Shubin said he was looking in that place and strata for reasons that turned out to be bogus.

    RichTard:
    You have no clue about evolution,

    You keep saying that yet you cannot offer up any evidence to support it.


    RichTard:
    Question 1. After speciation, is the parent species obligated to immediately die out?

    No and irrelevant to the point I am making.

    RichTard:
    Must speciation effect all the individuals?

    No and irrelevant to the point I am making.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ah you, the infamous creationist dodge. When people have to lead you done the path of understanding of why you are wrong and have no clue about evolution, you claim things are irrelevant. They are, but you don't yet understand why.

    Based on your "No" answers - Do you then accept that 'parent species' can still be around even when speciated 'child species' have come to be?

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Ah you, the infamous creationist dodge.

    Ah you, the infamous evotard false accusation.

    RichTard:
    When people have to lead you done the path of understanding of why you are wrong and have no clue about evolution, you claim things are irrelevant.

    In order to show me that I am wrong you first have to address my argument. And you have failed to do so.

    So now you are trying to get me to go down the path of irrelevance due to your ignorance.

    You are a moron.

    So now it is time for YOU to step up and actually address what I am saying- what Shubin said.

    RichTard th irrelevant:
    Do you then accept that 'parent species' can still be around even when speciated 'child species' have come to be?

    Yes and STILL IRRELEVANT.

    Some for you- does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the children have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

    Children first, then parents- Is that yur position?

    BWAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAA

    Shubin said he was looking in that place and strata for reasons that turned out to be bogus.

    Now shut up and address the REAL argument you coward.

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    They are, but you don't yet understand why.

    They are irrelevant and it is hilarious that you don't understand why.

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ah Joe, looking to control the conversation, like a typical creationist coward.

    So we seem to agree that it's wholly reasonable to overlap in existence of child and parent species - and I think you'll find evolutionary theory is also fine with this viewpoint.

    Do you still agree with the sentiments in the paragraph above?

     
  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Just to highlight Joe's divorce from reality:

    Joe:

    "that this- "But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish."
    is flat out WRONG ..."

    No Joe, it's entirely correct. We do find fossilized fish that are 385 million years old.

    I'll let you into a little secret... FISH ARE STILL WITH US TODAY!

    But even if you didn't know that, AGAIN:

    "But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. "

    This is emperically observed, not "faulty".

    THE FISH ARE THERE.

    IDIOT.

    Why are you trying to deny reality?

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah Richtard refuses to address the argument- like a typical evotard coward.

    "that this- "But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish."
    is flat out WRONG ..."


    Richtard:
    No Joe, it's entirely correct. We do find fossilized fish that are 385 million years old.

    The CONTEXT is that there isn't any evidence for tetrapods in rocks older than 385 million years old. That turned out to be wrong.

    Rich your dishonesty is not helping you.

     
  • At 2:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The theory of evolution is OK with parent species sticking around after all child species have been established. It is also OK with the parent species being out-competed and going extinct due to its offspring species. As a matter of fact it is OK with the child species converging back on the parent species.

    However none of that has anything to do with what I am saying.

    Shubin made a claim based on faulty data. That is just a fact of science.

     
  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "However none of that has anything to do with what I am saying."but it has everything to do with Schubin's correct prediction. Which is why I guess he's a professional biologist and you're a professional Internet fool.

     
  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time.

    And that is why you are still an ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "According to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time."

    Sorry Joe, he was looking in the right place, as evidenced by FINDING WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR.

    You are reality seem at odds.

     
  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The theory of evolution is OK with parent species sticking around after all child species have been established.

    The problem is that you've no evidence that the genetic changes required for a child species to become distinct from it's parent species are even possible. So to say that the theory of evolution is OK with that is not really saying anything at all - the "theory of evolution" has no evidence whatsoever supporting it and so can be OK with anything at all.

    As a matter of fact it is OK with the child species converging back on the parent species.

    It's yet to be shown that the genetic changes that would allow that to happen are even possible - it's not even known what genes are responsible to turn one species into another and no evidence that such a transformation is even possible.

    Shubin made a claim based on faulty data. That is just a fact of science.

    Exactly so. And the claim was doubly faulty as he was looking for an impossibility in the first place. The transformation from one species to another has not been shown to even be possible in theory so to think you can "catch it in the act" is absurd. All he found was a fossil of an animal that lived a long time ago and whose parents looked alot like it and whose children looked alot like it too.

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G (quoting): "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

    It says "about." It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod.'

     
  • At 5:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "According to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time."

    RichTard:
    Sorry Joe, he was looking in the right place, as evidenced by FINDING WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR.

    He couldn't have found what he was looking for because according to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time.

    You seem to be at odds with reality- as usual.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "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

    Zachriel:
    It says "about."

    Again according to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time.

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod.'

    According to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time.

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "He couldn't have found what he was looking for "

    Really? REALLY? So what did he find?
    What was he looking for.

    IDIOT.

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    What part of "about" don't you understand?

    What part of "It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod'" don't you understand?

     
  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    What part of "about" don't you understand?

    Yes in CONTEXT that would mean between 385-365- so 375 +/- 10.

    And that means according to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time.

    I see you still have mental issues.

    Zachriel:
    What part of "It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod'" don't you understand?

    That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have claimed.

     
  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "He couldn't have found what he was looking for because according to what Shubin said, and based on the new scientific data, he was looking in the wrong place and time."

    RichTard:
    Really?

    Yes- what he did was what any scientist would do- BRACKET THE YEARS TO LOOK- and the new data moved those brackets.

    RichTard:
    So what did he find?

    Tiktaalik.

    RichTard:
    What was he looking for.

    He said he was looking "to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals"- and that means he should have been looking in a different place and different strata.

    Ya see moron there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states any given parent species will remain around for tens of millions of years AFTER the transition. All reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

     
  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "he should have been looking in a different place and different strata."

    Why? he found what he was looking for there.

    "That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have claimed."

    It has EVERYTHING to do with what you've claimed, you're just not bright enough to see it.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He said he was looking "to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals"- and that means he should have been looking in a different place and different strata.

    RichTard:
    Why?

    Because the event he was looking for occurred in a different strata (ie time) and a different place. Duh.

    Zachriel:
    What part of "It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod'" don't you understand?

    That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have claimed.

    Richtard:
    It has EVERYTHING to do with what you've claimed,

    No, it doesn't you retarded piece of shit. And just your say-so doesn't make it so.

    Strange how you NEVER provide any reasoning for anything you post- cowards do that.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    SHUBIN said he was looking "to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals"- and that means he should have been looking in a different place and different strata.

    Ya see moron there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states any given parent species will remain around for tens of millions of years AFTER the transition. All reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Yes in CONTEXT that would mean between 385-365- so 375 +/- 10.

    Ah, ±2½% or so. We were thinking more like ±5%. Why did you decide on that number?

    There was some uncertainty as to the exact time of the transition, so that would easily explain the discrepancy.

    Joe G :there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states any given parent species will remain around for tens of millions of years AFTER the transition.

    Nor is there anything that says your father has to survive past your conception, but there is nothing to preclude it either. Why it's even possible for your parents to out-survive you and still leave descendants.

    It works a bit differently with species, of course, because they don't actually spawn, but diverge.

    Zachriel: What part of "It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod'" don't you understand?

    Joe G: That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have claimed.

    Sure it does. Transitionals can even be found in extant nature.

    Joe G: Ya see moron there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states any given parent species will remain around for tens of millions of years AFTER the transition.

    Sure it does. Transitionals can even be found in extant nature, as Darwin pointed out in Origin of Species. You might want to catch up on your scientific literature. You're about 150 years behind, ±5%.

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Why did you decide on that number?

    Shubin. Did you read the book?

    Zachriel: What part of "It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod'" don't you understand?

    That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have claimed.

    Zachriel:
    Transitionals can even be found in extant nature.

    And THAT doesn't have anything to do with anything I am claiming.

    Ya see moron there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states any given parent species will remain around for tens of millions of years AFTER the transition.

    Zachriel:
    Sure it does.

    Citation please.

    All reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

     
  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    MORE questions the cowardly evotards are avoiding:

    Does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the children have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

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

    Zachriel:
    Transitionals can even be found in extant nature.

    Show me where I claimed otherwise or admit that you are a liar and are falsely accussing me of somethng I obviously did not do.

    Nice to see that you are still an obtuse, lying, evotard coward.

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Let me give you a little correction to highlight why you're very wrong:

    "Because the event he was looking for occurred in a different strata (ie time) and a different place."

    Should read

    "Because the event he was looking for ALSO occurred in a different strata (ie time) and a different place. "

    and by occured, we (you should) mean existed. We can't know the first occurrence, only the earliest example.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "No, it doesn't you retarded piece of shit. And just your say-so doesn't make it so.

    Strange how you NEVER provide any reasoning for anything you post- cowards do that."

    Now Joe, I've gone to great lengths to explain to you why you're wrong, and even the results demonstrate that you're wrong. If Schubin was wrong, how come he found Tiktaalik? You keep dodging that one.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Now Joe, I've gone to great lengths to explain to you why you're wrong,

    No- you have ignored everything I have said because you are an ignorant coward.

    RichTard:
    If Schubin was wrong, how come he found Tiktaalik?

    In order for Tiktaalik to be what Shubin was looking fo he needed to find it in older strata. It is that simple.

    All reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

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

    RichTard:
    Let me give you a little correction to highlight why you're very wrong:

    "Because the event he was looking for occurred in a different strata (ie time) and a different place."

    Should read

    "Because the event he was looking for ALSO occurred in a different strata (ie time) and a different place. "


    So the transition from fish to land-animals happened more than once?

    Citation please.

    Ya see all reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    MORE questions the cowardly evotards are avoiding:

    Does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the children have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Shubin.

    The book says "roughly 375 million to 380 million years old."

    Zachriel: What part of "It's unlikely they would have found the very first 'fishopod'" don't you understand?

    Joe G: That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have claimed.

    Sure it does. Just because they found a fishopod at 375 million years doesn't mean they didn't exist earlier. Indeed, we would be very surprised if they didn't.

    Zachriel: Transitionals can even be found in extant nature.

    Joe G: And THAT doesn't have anything to do with anything I am claiming.

    Sure it does. An organism can have transitional characteristics and be found later in time. In this case, just a bit later, but could even be found hundreds of millions of years later. There is no necessary time to extinction of a parent type.

    Joe G: Citation please.

    What? That a transitional doesn't have to go extinct? Any 'living fossil' will do.

    Joe G: Does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    Obviously. Though a transitional is not necessarily ancestral. The phylogenetic tree is a branching process, with some branches extending longer than others, and some branches themselves branching. In this case, there is a branching from fish to adaptations associated with terrestrial life. Tiktaalik is one of these organisms, one of the many branches taken during the process, not necessarily first or even on the direct line to land vertebrates.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    To expand a bit, a parent species has to exist before the child species, but that doesn't mean it can't exist concurrently or even after the demise of the child species. And the fossils themselves only give us a snapshot of the spans of time involved.

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

    Zachriel:
    The book says "roughly 375 million to 380 million years old."

    Exactly- I said 365-385, so what i said fits AND is from the book.

    Zachriel:
    Just because they found a fishopod at 375 million years doesn't mean they didn't exist earlier.

    There isn't any evidence it existed earlier and thre is evidnce for the existence of tetrapods millions of years earlier.

    Zachriel:
    An organism can have transitional characteristics and be found later in time.

    That appeals to our classification. By definition- acording to the bok- you look for transitionals in the timeperiod bracketed by the arival of the parent and daughter species.

    Zacho:
    There is no necessary time to extinction of a parent type.

    I never claimed otherwise and it is irrelevant to what I am saying.

    Citation please.

    Zacho:
    What?
    Yes a citation for the claim the transition from fish to tetrapod happened more than once.

    Keep up or fuck off.

    Does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    Zacho:
    Obviously.

    That evidence is still missing.

    You didn't read the book, did you? Do you really think your ignorance means something?

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya see all reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    To expand a bit, a parent species has to exist before the child species, but that doesn't mean it can't exist concurrently or even after the demise of the child species.

    I know- and that doesn't have anything to do with aything I am saying.

    To date- for fish to tetrapod- there isn't any evidence for the parent species living before the daughter species- ie no fishapods before tatrapods.

    And that is what Shubin et al were looking for- an organism that existed before tetrapods- what he found came after tertrapods.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I know- and that doesn't have anything to do with aything I am saying."

    Oh it does! You're just stoooooooopid.

     
  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    To expand a bit, a parent species has to exist before the child species, but that doesn't mean it can't exist concurrently or even after the demise of the child species.


    "I know- and that doesn't have anything to do with anything I am saying."

    RichTard:
    Oh it does!

    To expand a bit-

    This part (does!) is relevant to what I am saying:

    "...a parent species has to exist before the child species..."

    This part is irrelevant:

    "... but that doesn't mean it can't exist concurrently or even after the demise of the child species."

    because what I am saying doesn't have anything to do with that and does not exclude it.

    You are just too stupid to understnd that. But then again you think it is OK for children to be born before their parents- tard.

     
  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To date- for fish to tetrapod- there isn't any evidence for the parent species living before the daughter species- ie no fishapods before tetrapods.

    And that is what Shubin et al were looking for- an organism that existed before tetrapods- what he found came after tertrapods.


    Apparently the shared evotard neuron is in overload mode...

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just to clear up the obvious evotard confusion-

    MY CLAIM is about a parent species has to exist before the child species.


    MY CLAIM does not say anything about, hence it does not exclude, the parent existing concurrently or even after the demise of the child species.

    Ya see all reasonable and rational people look for evidence of transitions between the arrival dates- that is the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species. In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.

    But seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.

     
  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    MY CLAIM is about a parent species has to exist before the child species.
    That's the definition of a parent/child relationship.

    A parent has a child. An child has a parent. A child can also have a child! A parent can also have a parent! A child could have two parents! A child could have 3 parents! A child could have N parents! A parent could have N children! An entire network could exist where a continuum of points in the network had a different relationship to the points around them!

    Joe, how does ID explain the transition between sea and land?

    Does ID predict no transitional forms between these two zones or does it predict transitional forms have existed?

    Where does ID predict we should look for

    A) The fossils of such transitional forms, if ID says they exist.
    B) The lack of such fossils where evolution would predict them to be but ID would not (I.E. so if they were not found that is confirming evidence for ID and disconfirming evidence for non-telic evolution?
    C) Other?

    And Joe, if we work from inference to the know, from cause and effect relationships then what kind of designers are we familiar with that can produce incremental change over long periods of time? That can work and keep on working for millions of years and not take a break or devitate from the work of producing incremental change over long periods of time?

    What sort of designers would be capable of something like Tiktaalik all that time ago? And still be around millions of years later to produce all the other changes we see in the fossil record.

    As presumably you think Tiktaalik was designed? So the designer must be very long lived. Almost like a process rather then a embodied entity.

     
  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    MY CLAIM is about a parent species has to exist before the child species.

    OM:
    That's the definition of a parent/child relationship.

    Yet that is NOT what we see with tiktaalik.

    OM:
    Joe, how does ID explain the transition between sea and land?

    How do you know there was such a transition? What is the genetic data that says the transformations required are even possible?

     
  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Yet that is NOT what we see with tiktaalik.

    Oh? What is it we see then and how do you know that? And what's the alternative ID explanation for a "fish with wrists"?

    Palaeontologist Dr Ted Daeschler, who discovered Tiktaalik, said the study highlighted that the gradual transition from aquatic to terrestrial lifestyles required much more than the evolution of limbs.
    'Our work demonstrates that, across this transition, the head of these animals was becoming more solidly constructed and, at the same time, more mobile with respect to the body,' he told Nature.


    Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/358595-first-fish-had-wrists-and-elbows#ixzz1OLqxrxu4



    Note the phrase "across this transition" Joe? It was not a single point in space and time.

     
  • At 9:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yet that is NOT what we see with tiktaalik.

    OM:
    Oh? What is it we see then and how do you know that?

    We see tiktaalik AFTER tetrapods- that is according to evolutionary scientists.

    OM:
    Note the phrase "across this transition" Joe? It was not a single point in space and time.

    I never said nor implied that it was you wanker.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    We see tiktaalik AFTER tetrapods- that is according to evolutionary scientists.

    What about if some examples went north and some went south. The ones that went north encountered a different environment to the ones that went south.

    The ones that went south encountered an environment similar to that which they had left. So they remained static.

    The ones that went north evolved due to the different selection pressures brought on by the different environment.

    Is it not possible to find both in the same strata in that situation?

    Just a simple example of how such a situation could arise.

    But you think you've disproved evolution with this don't you? Or what is it you think you've proven here Joe?

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We see tiktaalik AFTER tetrapods- that is according to evolutionary scientists.

    OM:
    What about if some examples went north and some went south. The ones that went north encountered a different environment to the ones that went south.

    But what if some flew? And some jumped? And some did hand-springs with their newly evolved limbs?

    OM:
    But you think you've disproved evolution with this don't you?

    No you moron. My argument doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

    OM:
    Or what is it you think you've proven here Joe?

    Exactly what I said- apparently you are too stupid to figure it out.

    I will put it this way- if there was a crime committed between Monday and Wednesday do you look at security video from Thursday to try to find the culprit?

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I will put it this way- if there was a crime committed between Monday and Wednesday do you look at security video from Thursday to try to find the culprit?

    What if multiple people committed multiple crimes every day of the week for a week out of a month? So when you looked on Thursday (as that was what you thought the evidence initially pointed to) for a crime committed between Monday and Wednesday you found evidence of another crime instead?

    You've still found evidence of a crime, just not the specific one you were looking for.

    But as you now state Shubin's find was not a transitional what does any of it matter anyway?

    It's you against the entire scientific community?

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: We see tiktaalik AFTER tetrapods- that is according to evolutionary scientists.

    Yes. So? We don't expect to find the exact ancestor, but just a close relative. Tiktaalik is a cousin, a side-branch, of the ancestral line.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will put it this way- if there was a crime committed between Monday and Wednesday do you look at security video from Thursday to try to find the culprit?

    OM:
    What if multiple people committed multiple crimes every day of the week for a week out of a month?

    Stop changing the subject you coward.

    OM:
    It's you against the entire scientific community?

    Prove it.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Stop changing the subject you coward.

    I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to illustrate the point that your analogy is fatally flawed. There was not just 1 "crime" there were many.

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Prove it.

    The proof is that everybody thinks that Shubin found a brilliant example of a transitional fossil. A fish with wrists!

    Except you. And the other creationists who want to deny reality.

    I don't have to prove it. It's you that has to prove it's not a transitional. And you saying it's not does not do that.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We see tiktaalik AFTER tetrapods- that is according to evolutionary scientists.

    Zachriel:
    Yes. So?

    You didn't read the book did you?

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

    OM:
    The proof is that everybody thinks that Shubin found a brilliant example of a transitional fossil. A fish with wrists!

    It didn't have wrists and the only people who agree with you are mentally handicapped evotards.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    You didn't read the book did you?

    Is the main thrust of the book right or wrong Joe?

    Fish paleontologist Shubin illuminates the subject of evolution with humor and clarity in this compelling look at how the human body evolved into its present state. Parsing the millennia-old genetic history of the human form is a natural project for Shubin, who chairs the department of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago and was co-discoverer of Tiktaalik, a 375-million-year-old fossil fish whose flat skull and limbs, and finger, toe, ankle and wrist bones, provide a link between fish and the earliest land-dwelling creatures. Shubin moves smoothly through the anatomical spectrum, finding ancient precursors to human teeth in a 200-million-year-old fossil of the mouse-size part animal, part reptile tritheledont; he also notes cellular similarities between humans and sponges. Other fossils reveal the origins of our senses, from the eye to that wonderful Rube Goldberg contraption the ear. Shubin excels at explaining the science, making each discovery an adventure, whether it's a Pennsylvania roadcut or a stony outcrop beset by polar bears and howling Arctic winds. I can imagine few things more beautiful or intellectually profound than finding the basis for our humanity... nestled inside some of the most humble creatures that ever lived, he writes, and curious readers are likely to agree.

    So Joe how did you like the compelling look at how the human body evolved into its present state?

    Find much else to disagree with or do you accept the book in the main?

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Is the main thrust of the book right or wrong Joe?

    There isn't any evidence to support it.

    OM:
    So Joe how did you like the compelling look at how the human body evolved into its present state?

    There isn't any evidence that humans evolved from anything but human.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    There isn't any evidence that humans evolved from anything but human.

    And you wonder why you get called a creationist!

    So, Joe, where *did* humans originate from?

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    There isn't any evidence that humans evolved from anything but human.

    You and Behe differ on this then. He accepts humans and primates had a common ancestor.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evidence that humans evolved from anything but human.

    OM:
    And you wonder why you get called a creationist!

    Because I go by the scientific data I am a creationist?

    LoL!

    So, Joe, where *did* humans originate from?

    That is what science is for- to hlp us figure that out.

    OM:
    You and Behe differ on this then. He accepts humans and primates had a common ancestor.

    He doesn't hve any evidence that the transformations required are even possible.

     
  • 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

     

Post a Comment

<< Home