I'm not sure if you read the comment on my post by Dave The Happy Singer, then you know he thinks that my comment on transitional fossils is disagreeable. Then he offers the following link: Tiktaalik: a transitional fossil. I made a comment on his comment and checked out his blog. I realized that it's a simple matter to just look up Tiktaalik to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Here are the facts:
1. Pronounced /tɪkˈtaːl
2. Extinct
3. Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada
4. Believed to represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibians
5. Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While neither may be ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. (source: Wikipedia)
If an animal cannot be proven to be ancestor of a living animal today, then how can we call it a transitional fossil? Wikipedia defines a transitional fossil as follows:
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.
Unless you can say what animals it is linking, how can such an animal be a link? Not all scientists agree that these fossils are linking fish with four legged amphibians. If Tiktaalik is an evolutionary dead end, meaning that not animals evolved from it, where are the ancestors of amphibians. According to evolution, that animal would be the ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and humanity. However, no such fossil has ever been found. Here are some links showing some other view points.
The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance
Tiktaalik roseae— a fishy ‘missing link’
Iconic Status Of Tiktaalik A Hard Pill to Swallow
If an animal cannot be proven to be ancestor of a living animal today, then how can we call it a transitional fossil?
ReplyDeleteIt seems you've pasted the definition of transitional fossil into your post without reading it.
There only needs to be an evolutionary transition. It is irrelevant whether any subsequent evolutionary 'branches' result in extant species today. Over 99% of every species that ever lived is now extinct, with many more dying off every year.
Unless you can say what animals it is linking, how can such an animal be a link?
Again, you've pasted without reading. Your own copypasta states that Tiktaalik is "believed to represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibians"
If Tiktaalik is an evolutionary dead end, meaning that not animals evolved from it, where are the ancestors of amphibians. According to evolution, that animal would be the ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and humanity.
Now you've moved the goalposts. Your initial post implied there are 'no transitional fossils to explain where we come from'.
I supplied a very good example of one transitional fossil. Even cooler is the fact that they had hypothesised that a form like Tiktaalik would be found in the area it was. This is not psychic prediction, this is the power of evolutionary theory in action.
Now instead of claiming there are no transitional fossils, you seem want an unbroken family tree from humans back to fish. We have a pretty good picture, drawn from countless thousands of fossils, and the picture of our common descent is very, very well supported. But you could never find an entirely unbroken chain, because fossilisation is an incredibly rare event.
It is highly suspicious that the sources you paste in (without commentary) in support of your argument are the amusing creationist propaganda sites from The DiscoTute, Creation Ministries International and the Access Research Network.
Can you perhaps elaborate on the hypothesis you suppose better fits the facts than the modern evolutionary synthesis?
LOL! Creationists!
ReplyDeleteSorry, please accept the following correction; I was typing in haste.
ReplyDelete"Over 99% of every species that ever lived is now extinct"
Should have read: "Over 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct
Thanks for the link, Dave! Cheers.
ReplyDelete"If an animal cannot be proven to be ancestor of a living animal today, then how can we call it a transitional fossil?"
Okay, do you understand the concept of the evolutionary tree? If you don't, I'll explain it to you quickly:
If you pick any two populations of organism alive on Earth today, and trace their lineages back, you will eventually find a population in the past that was the ancestral population of both of them. Now evolution can work two ways: anagenesis, where one population evolves into another different one over time; and cladogenesis, where one population splits into more than one and they diverge genetically over time.
As such, the evolutionary "branches" of today (which we see as modern organisms) could be a single branch that goes back a lot until it hits forks (primarily anagenesis in its history), or a branch that only goes back a little way before it diverges (primarily cladogenesis in its history). Of course, most modern animals have primarily cladogenesis, because there are so many types of animals, from mammals to fish to reptile etc. This means that there were LOTS of common ancestor populations within the animal kingdom's evolution.
What this means is that, when you choose two modern-day animals (modern fish and modern amphibians), you're going to find a place where they both share a common ancestor, and there will be one of them. However, fossils don't form that easily, and so we'd be pretty lucky to find the exact common ancestor in a paleontological dig.
Does this mean we will never find a transitional fossil? No! Remember, since cladogenesis dominated, the common ancestor of fish and amphibians should have many close relatives that share many, many features with it.
This is what Tiktaalik is: a relative of the common ancestor that you seem to want to see.
As such, your comment, "If Tiktaalik is an evolutionary dead end, meaning that not animals evolved from it, where are the ancestors of amphibians?" is missing the point: the fossil we found could have been the last of its population and it doesn't matter, because it's not the actual common ancestor, it's just a relative.
Of course, this relative is pretty good, and through biogeographical mapping and analysis, paleontologists came to the conclusion that a fossil LIKE the common ancestor between fish and amphibians should be found in the area in which it was dug up, ie. this is where the divergence between the fish lineage and the amphibian lineage took place.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. If not, I'll try and rephrase it.
OK, now that I've stopped laughing, let me just address a couple of problems I see in your post.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you appear to be so far from an understanding of evolution that you're "not even wrong", as some would have it.
some aphorisms to bear in mind:
1. "Evolutionary progress", for the want of a better term, is not a ladder. It is a continuously branching taxonomic 'tree'.
2. Many evolutionary lines are dead-ends, and dead-ends may well be far more common than "successful" branchings
3. As Dave has mentioned, fossilisation is a vanishingly rare event
4. Evolution is not a directed process. It is a reaction, by populations, to contemporary environmental pressures which necessarily change over time. There is no way such a process can lead to a simplistic "arrow of progress" as you seem to think it should. It is chaotic.
Having dropped these aphorisms in for your perusal, may I just mention that there is so much wrong with your argument that I can't possibly cover everything, and to try to do so would be to confuse matters even further.
We have transitional fossils. We have models which explain transitional taxonomic changes. We have ream upon ream of evidence for evolutionary change over time, including transitional forms. More importantly, we have excellent evidence from molecular biology utterly confirming evolutionary change over time. The argument is over.
The other side has sophistry, appeals to emotion, simplistic, wrong and "not even wrong" interpretations, adherence to dogma, ignorance, outdated science and shifting goalposts. Oh, and tax fraud.
And, admittedly, a few pithy soundbites.
Have a guess which one stands up to scrutiny?
thanks for the LOLs, I kinda needed them.
btw, your comment system needs work
ReplyDeleteDoes the LOL never end?
ReplyDeleteIn your "About me", I think the phrase you were searching for is "peace with god".
Also, "minister's license" has an apostrophe.
Both myself and Dave are ordained, by the way. You're doing it wrong.
Um, excuse me. It appears that you are all saying that Tiklaatik is evidence that today's fish and amphibians have the same ancestor but Tiklaatik is not that common ancestor. I so, where is it? What is it? Macro evolution supposes that it is possible to trace an unbroken descent from fish to us, but by everyone's own admission we don't have that evidence. All I said was that we have no transitional fossils which you agreed. We can pretend all we want that one day evidence will be found but so far...nah dah.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any "goal post" moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.
Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Genesis 1:1
Not all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views. Also I would like to know what arguments would you guys use against all of these sources that I pointed to against the fossil being used as a "transitional fossils".
Jason, ordained in what? We have fundamentally different world views. Mine is based on scientific evidence that we can prove, not that we might find real transitional evolutionary links between fundamentally different life forms. I'm trained in Physics and many scientific disciplines. My world view is also more importantly, shaped by what God has revealed in his Word. Also if the best you have is to critique my typos (thanks by the way), you've got to do better than that. I am not claiming to be perfect but the Bible is. If you want to rationally have discussions, then let's leave the demeaning comments aside.
ReplyDeleteI understand completely what you are saying about how evolution is like branches on a tree.
I never compared evolution to a ladder. All branches lead to other branches. If you only have unconnected branches with no way to connect them, how do you know that one branch gave rise to another? How do you really know.
Also just because I disagree with you does not mean I do not understand your position. None of your attempts to "set me straight" has done anything to answer the questions I have raised.
"Um, excuse me. It appears that you are all saying that Tiklaatik is evidence that today's fish and amphibians have the same ancestor but Tiklaatik is not that common ancestor. I so, where is it? What is it? Macro evolution supposes that it is possible to trace an unbroken descent from fish to us, but by everyone's own admission we don't have that evidence. All I said was that we have no transitional fossils which you agreed. We can pretend all we want that one day evidence will be found but so far...na"
ReplyDeleteThe reason why we don't have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.
"I don't see any "goal post" moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people."
Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.
"Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Genesis 1:1"
Well, I wouldn't read the Bible for that. It's incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I'm not sure what by definition: do you mean "explanation"? If so, I don't have one at the moment, no one does.
"Not all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views. Also I would like to know what arguments would you guys use against all of these sources that I pointed to against the fossil being used as a "transitional fossils"."
First of all, "Evolution News and Views" is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.
Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don't want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).
Marcus,
ReplyDeleteobviously if you think we haven't answered your questions, but we think we have, then there's some confusion over what your question actually is.
Restate please
btw "Not all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views"
Fail. Evolution News & Views is a product of the Discovery Institute, which is openly anti-evolution. While the disco 'tute often claims to be "not creationist", they are in fact creationists in cheap suits. Try harder.
Responding to Naon Tiotam
ReplyDeletehttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-to-naon-tiotami.html
Oh, you guys are fast. I don't have much to add but my own uproarious laughter at:
ReplyDeleteNot all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views
Hahahaha.
Who is this guy 'Jason?' Lmao!!
ReplyDeleteArticles 'copied and posted!?'
Where is your own brain in your responses to such question and why do you not use it?
I fail to believe, as Jason seems to hint at, that the human race is something that just popped out of midair.
All branches on a tree to my understanding lead to the trunk, which then leads to the roots.
Who cares if a branch falls off. There are plenty others that still lead to the trunk and having said that, there need not be a single branch on a tree in order to have roots.
Roots need food and all roots obtain various sources of food as available at the time in order to sustain the tree. These roots can be buried so far underground that even should a tree be chopped down, it will grow back many years later unless you can kill all the roots. Evidently, the roots of mankind have not nor ever will be killed off and will serve to grow back another day in quite possibly a different way in order to survive.
Did some magical person just snap their fingers millions of years ago to form the human race.....Nadda.....as recorded date by BC or AC which is quite evident in religion for those of small minds who wish to believe in something that is not there or argue against evidence to preserve the small minded belief in a savior come to save us. Such as it seems Jason believes through his lack of evidence and actual personal research.
Copy and paste away your life there Jason. It will lead you nowhere.