When I say 'faulty' I mean wrong-
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
The new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning the 365 million year end of bracket now gets moved to that 390+ million year mark. IOW his brackets were wrong because the data he used to form them was wrong.
Strange that evotards cannot grasp that simple fact.
Yes, that's how it works. The are reconstructing historical events. The earliest land vertebrates were found in strata about 365 millions years old. There may have been older ones, but that's the oldest yet found. Hence, they would look in strata older than that to find out the order of events between fish and land vertebrates.
ReplyDeleteNotice he said they "focused on rocks about 375 million years old." And when they did, they found organisms with intermediate characteristics. These organisms may or may not be the oldest of their kind. That can only be determined by looking for more evidence. Yet, Tiktaalik is an amazing discovery that helps us understand the vertebrate transition from sea to land.
So did he find a transitional or not?
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
ReplyDeleteYes, that's how it works.
It works on faulty data?
Zachriel:
The are reconstructing historical events.
They tried to, using faulty data.
Zachriel:
The earliest land vertebrates were found in strata about 365 millions years old.
Until more evidence came to light that shows tetrapods existed well before then.
Do try to keep up.
Zachriel:
There may have been older ones, but that's the oldest yet found.
Not anymore. Ya see there was this find in Poland that pushes the arrival of tetrapods back before 390 million years ago.
Zachriel:
And when they did, they found organisms with intermediate characteristics.
Not really and actually that is a relection on our classification scheme more than anything.
Zachriel:
Yet, Tiktaalik is an amazing discovery that helps us understand the vertebrate transition from sea to land.
No, it doesn't help at all because there isn't any genetic data that can be linked to the transitions required.
OM:
ReplyDeleteSo did he find a transitional or not?
By definition transitionals have to be found between the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species- and THAT is according to Shubin.
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.
ReplyDeleteBut seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.
Your problem seems to be that you think a transitional is an organism on the direct line between one organism to another. Rather, there is usually a branching process, and the most we can hope for is to something close to the divergence.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence indicates that fish, fishopods and tetrapods coexisted for some time after their divergence.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteYour problem seems to be that you think a transitional is an organism on the direct line between one organism to another.
Nope and that doesn't matter anyway.
By definition transitionals have to be found between the arrival of the parent species and the arrival of the daughter species- and THAT is according to Shubin.
Zacho:
The evidence indicates that fish, fishopods and tetrapods coexisted for some time after their divergence.
Still irrelevant to the OP.
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.
Joe G: 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.
ReplyDeleteThat shows you don't understand what is meant by a transitional. It doesn't mean a direct ancestry.
For instance, a lobed fish exhibits intermediate features between fish an fishopods, yet the only fishopods are fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago, and lobed fish can be found in the ocean today.
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.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
That shows you don't understand what is meant by a transitional.
Nice bald assertion. Ya see what I said is supported by what Shubin wrote- as well as logic.
Zacho:
It doesn't mean a direct ancestry.
What I said doesn't mean direct ancestry. And what I said is directly related to what Shubin wrote.
This isn't as difficult as you make it seem.
ReplyDeleteShubin: "Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land."
They are looking for close relatives, not necessarily those that are in a direct line of descent. They are interested in those that are as close as possible to the point of divergence. However, it is unlikely that Tiktaalik is at that exact point, and it turns out that Tiktaalik is on a side branch, a cousin. Nevertheless, it is the closest fossil yet found to the point of divergence, and shows many intermediate characteristics, including the wrist and neck.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteThis isn't as difficult as you make it seem.
You and your evotard buddies are the people making this difficult.
Shubin: "Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land."
Zacho:
They are looking for close relatives, not necessarily those that are in a direct line of descent.
Shubin said they were looking for the FIRST fish to walk on land. Tiktaalik wasn't it.
Zacho:
Nevertheless, it is the closest fossil yet found to the point of divergence, ...
The point of divergence occurred tens of millions of years BEFORE tiktaalik was found.
and shows many intermediate characteristics, including the wrist and neck.
AGAIN THAT says more about OUR classification scheme than anything.
But anyway Zacho thanks for proving that you cannot stay on-topic. That seems to be a mental issue with evotards...
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Shubin said they were looking for the FIRST fish to walk on land. Tiktaalik wasn't it.
ReplyDeleteHe said, "Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land."
BACK to the OP:
ReplyDeleteShubin thought, based on the available data, that the transtion from fish to tetrapods occurred between 385-365 million years ago. THAT is why he went looking in the strata he did.
HOWEVER NEW scientific data puts the transition to over 390 million years ago. That means, ACCORDING TO SHUBIN, he was looking in the wrong place.
Strange that evotards cannot grasp that simple fact.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteHe said, "Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land."
And THAT is a MAJOR problem, especially without DNA.
But anyway according to the logic he used and given the new scientific data that pushes the arrival of tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago, he was looking in the wrong strata and wrong place.
Joe,
ReplyDeletehe was looking in the wrong strata and wrong place.
I went looking for some ancestors of mine and found some other ancestors of mine instead.
The wrong strata and the wrong place for what Joe? What is it that you think he was looking for? Be precise!
Joe G: Shubin said they were looking for the FIRST fish to walk on land. Tiktaalik wasn't it.
ReplyDeleteBaby steps. You said Shubin was looking for "the FIRST fish to walk on land". That wasn't true. He was looking for a close relative.
Yes baby steps- perhaps NOW would be a good time for YOU to actually respond to the point I made in the OP.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway according to the logic he used and given the new scientific data that pushes the arrival of tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago, he was looking in the wrong strata and wrong place.
ReplyDeleteOM:
I went looking for some ancestors of mine and found some other ancestors of mine instead.
But Shubin has no idea what he found- that is in relation to any other organism.
OM:
The wrong strata and the wrong place for what Joe?
For what SHUBIN SAID.
Are you that fucking stupid?
OM:
What is it that you think he was looking for?
Just what SHUBIN SAID HE WAS LOOKING FOR.
HE 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.
YET HIS "Given this..." WAS ALL WRONG.
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.
ReplyDeleteBut seeing that you are scientifically illiterate you wouldn't understand that.
And BTW what I said was EXACTLY what Shubin et al were attempting to do with their faulty data.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYET HIS "Given this..." WAS ALL WRONG.
So Shubin found nothing relating to evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals then?
Is that what you are claiming?
In between those dates are the strata to look for transitions.
The transitions you claim are not even possible?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYa 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.
So what did he find? A transitional species or not? Something else? What?
YET HIS "Given this..." WAS ALL WRONG.
ReplyDeleteOM:
So Shubin found nothing relating to evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals then?
Non-sequitur.
Do you agree or disagree that his "Given this..." is all wrong?
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.
ReplyDeleteOM:
So what did he find?
Tiktaalik.
OM:
A transitional species or not?
Not by definition.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteNot by definition.
And what definition would that be?
First things first OM-
ReplyDeleteDo you agree or disagree that his "Given this..." is all wrong?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteDo you agree or disagree that his "Given this..." is all wrong?
No, because he *did* find what he was looking for, did he not?
[Tiktaalik roseae shows] a marked reorganization of the cranial endoskeleton ... [with] morphology intermediate between the condition observed in more primitive fish and that observed in tetrapods.
Downs, J.P., Daescher, E.B., Jenkins, F.A., and Shubin, N.H., 2008. "The cranial endoskeleton of Tiktaalik roseae." Nature, vol. 455, no. 16, 16 Oct 2008, pp. 925-929.
Let's look at the important part of the quote just before the statement you are focussed on:
My colleague Jenny Clack 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.
So at A they found 1.
So at C they found 3.
So they looked at B and found 2.
What's the problem?
Zachriel: Baby steps. You said Shubin was looking for "the FIRST fish to walk on land". That wasn't true. He was looking for a close relative.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Yes baby steps- perhaps NOW would be a good time for YOU to actually respond to the point I made in the OP.
You haven't corrected your misstatement yet. (And it does relate to your original post.)
Do you agree or disagree that his "Given this..." is all wrong?
ReplyDeleteOM:
No, because he *did* find what he was looking for, did he not?
Thank you for proving that you are a moron as the data was faulty because tetrapods were found well before his time period.
OM:
Let's look at the important part of the quote just before the statement you are focussed on:
That is the part that proves my point- you moron.
My colleague Jenny Clack at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old.
And others have uncovered evidence of tetrapods in strata older than 390 million years old.
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.
And we also find TETRAPODS. And that means the data he used was faulty- ie wrong.
And it also means that you are a fucking lying retard.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteAnd others have uncovered evidence of tetrapods in strata older than 390 million years old.
If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Non-sequitur and man did not evolve from monkeys.
Yes baby steps- perhaps NOW would be a good time for YOU to actually respond to the point I made in the OP.
ReplyDeleteZach:
You haven't corrected your misstatement yet. (And it does relate to your original post.)
When you start correcting all of your misstatemnets you can start calling me on mine. Until then stay on-topic and stop taking sentences out-of-context.
Do you agree or disagree that his "Given this..." is all wrong?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteNon-sequitur and man did not evolve from monkeys.
If you can understand what's wrong with that question then you are capable of understanding why you are wrong with your claims on this thread.
As Zachriel just said:
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.
Just because a family member was found at time X does not preclude a cousin from being found at time Y.
You understand this, you just cannot admit it.
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf you can understand what's wrong with that question then you are capable of understanding why you are wrong with your claims on this thread.
Not even close. My claims are supported by the scientific data. And you ignore the data.
Shubin said he was looking in a particular place and a specific strata FOR A REASON- the REASON BEING THAT IS WHERE THE DATA SAID THE TRANSITION OCCURRED, YET THE NEW DATA SAYS THE TRANSITION OCCURRED MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS EARLIER.
Morons.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteBEING THAT IS WHERE THE DATA SAID THE TRANSITION OCCURRED
Ah, I see the problem. You think there was just 1 transition?
Zachriel already answered that
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.
And here, as it appears, we are talking about the transition in a cousin, not the main lineage.
Again,
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.
The fact remains that they found A and C and went looking for B, transitional between A and C, and found it. They just found a different branch of the family to the one that was found later on. It invalidates nothing.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteShubin said he was looking in a particular place and a specific strata FOR A REASON- the REASON BEING THAT IS WHERE THE DATA SAID THE TRANSITION OCCURRED
And he found evidence for the transition he was looking for - a fish with wrists!
So the transition in another branch of the family happened millions of years earlier. What do you want him to do, unpublish the book? Did he claim that the transition he found was the only, earliest example of it that existed? If so, he was wrong but he was not wrong about everything else.
And that really grinds your gears!
You said that there is no evidence that man evolved from anything but man, so why did you buy a book that purports to explain how man evolved?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteFOR A REASON- the REASON BEING THAT IS WHERE THE DATA SAID THE TRANSITION OCCURRED, YET THE NEW DATA SAYS THE TRANSITION OCCURRED MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS EARLIER.
Is it not possible that "the" transition happened multiple times?
Or that some members of a family were driven north and some were driven south and south was land and north was more water but then land much much further away?
Like the eye evolved multiple times independently at different times and places?
Joe G: When you start correcting all of your misstatemnets ...
ReplyDeleteYour misstatement was pertinent to the topic. What are our readers to suppose from your refusal to correct your misstatement?
"REASON BEING THAT IS WHERE THE DATA SAID THE TRANSITION OCCURRED, YET THE NEW DATA SAYS THE TRANSITION OCCURRED MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS EARLIER."
ReplyDeleteWhat a Maroon! The data suggested we might find an intermediate at that time...AND WE DID.
Joe - EVOLOUTIONARY BIOLOGY FAIL.
"The transition...it was on a Wednesday!"
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThe data suggested we might find an intermediate at that time.
What data? Are you tlking about the data that was p[roven to be wrong? That data?
OM:
ReplyDeleteAh, I see the problem. You think there was just 1 transition?
No- but how many times did fish evolve into tetrapods?
Zachriel, OM and Rich-
ReplyDeleteWhy was Shubin, et al., looking where he did?
Why didn't he find a transitional at any of the other sites he searched?
HINT- It has to do with the data I quoted- the data that has ben proven to b faulty.
"HINT- It has to do with the data I quoted- the data that has ben proven to b faulty.
ReplyDelete"
HINT - Someone doesn't understand what 'data' means.
"HINT- It has to do with the data I quoted- the data that has ben proven to b faulty.
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
HINT - Someone doesn't understand what 'data' means.
That someone would be you and apparently all the other evotards.
Strange how RichTard the coward refuses to deal with the OP...
"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
ReplyDelete