Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The lungfish genome, tetrapods, and junk DNA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I could be snarky and quote you as quoting something as being "suggested" and wonder why you're not talking about something definitive. I'll just instead point out you're a complete hypocrite and are perfectly fine with the phrasing when it supports your point of view, and use it as a weapon when it doesn't.



    In any case, let's start the discussion by having a quick look at reality. The age of the strata where Tiktaalik was found was predicted to be roughly the age at which key intermediate steps in the origin of tetrapods took place. Thus, we'd expect to find creatures with intermediate features there. We did. That was not a case where a prediction of evolution "falls apart", as the blog post suggests. (Off by a couple million years at those ages is a tiny percent error, and they got the location right by inferring ecosystems.)

    Evolutionary theory does not view any specific fossil as representative of an intermediate; any individual with intermediate traits is assumed to be part of a population from which descendants branched off. The precise timing of that branch can't always be determined, and the branching could take place prior to the existence of the particular sample. All of that was true before Tiktaalik, and it remains true after. So, assuming the trackways at issue really are tetrapods, then we can't be certain whether tetrapods split off from a Tiktaalik ancestor, or tiktaalik was just a relative that shared a lot of features with the true tetrapod ancestor.

    Anybody that represented this sample as the actual intermediate made a mistake. I do not dispute this whatsoever. And it definitely looked like some of the quotes do misrepresent it. That says nothing about the underlying science; it just shows people using incautious language when communicating with the public. Something that's an unfortunate but ongoing issue.

    The blog post fallaciously presents this as a failing, presents incautious language as an indication that there were serious scientific mistakes made, and accuses people who are trying to explain the details of evolutionary theory, as i did just here, as making excuses for the failing. Anybody reading the post without knowing all this would be convinced that there were major problems with evolutionary theory.

    And you, Lee, said "Tiktaalik is unclear", which misrepresents it too.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #17
      A couple points...

      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      In any case, let's start the discussion by having a quick look at reality. The age of the strata where Tiktaalik was found was predicted to be roughly the age at which key intermediate steps in the origin of tetrapods took place. Thus, we'd expect to find creatures with intermediate features there. We did. That was not a case where a prediction of evolution "falls apart", as the blog post suggests. (Off by a couple million years at those ages is a tiny percent error, and they got the location right by inferring ecosystems.)
      Tiktaalik represented an amazing example of the predictive power of evolution. Looking at the available evidence, Daeschler, Shubin and Jenkins saw that there wasn't any evidence of tetrapods existing prior to 390 mya and there was a good deal of evidence for tetrapods existing around 365-360 mya. From previous research, they concluded that such a creature would have almost certainly been found in freshwater. Combining those two factors they had surmised that any link between amphibians would be found in fluvial deposits dating from the boundary between the Middle and Late Devonian roughly 375 myo.[1]

      So they started searching for any known geological formations that fit those criteria and that hadn't been already researched. They found a deposit matching that on Ellesmere Island, an island nearly the size of Great Britain and the northern most part of Canada. While now well within the Arctic Circle, thanks to continental drift, during the Devonian it would have been near the equator.

      After four years of digging it finally paid off and the team uncovered three skeletons of a creature bearing several intermediate features between fish and amphibians[2] -- a "fishapod" if you will.

      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Evolutionary theory does not view any specific fossil as representative of an intermediate; any individual with intermediate traits is assumed to be part of a population from which descendants branched off. The precise timing of that branch can't always be determined, and the branching could take place prior to the existence of the particular sample. All of that was true before Tiktaalik, and it remains true after.
      This is why I told Lee in post #6

      Please look up what constitutes a transitional fossil from a reputable source and get back to us


      I'll note that as expected he never did. He just kept retreating back to the disreputable Evolution News

      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      So, assuming the trackways at issue really are tetrapods
      A good point because that identification is still somewhat controversial given that the tracks don't exhibit any evidence of digits it is possible they could have been formed by "walking fish[3]" (Behavioral evidence for the evolution of walking and bounding before terrestriality in sarcopterygian fishes), although erosion could be responsible for that. There is also the distinct possibility that the trackways are actually fish nests/feeding traces (Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints).






      1. Just before the start of the Late Devonian extinction event where roughly half of all genera and a fifth of all families became extinct and distinct from, although sometimes associated with the Hangenberg event, another mass extinction event (possibly brought about by the effects of a relatively near supernova that adversely affected the ozone layer) that brought about the end of the Devonian

      2. Including separation of shoulder and skull, functional "intra-fin" joints, strong and muscled fins, humerus, radius and ulna bones, and a half-fish/half-tetrapod ear region that has revealed how the stapes (one of the tiny bones in the middle ear) evolved.

      3 Currently there are something like 11 species of fish with ambulatory or "land-walking" capabilities, ranging from walking catfish (Clarias batrachus) to recently described hillstream loaches or river loaches -- and even some types of mudskippers that can climb trees (which sort of pokes a hole in Einstein's famous quip "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.")
      Last edited by rogue06; 01-22-2021, 08:57 AM.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        In any case, let's start the discussion by having a quick look at reality. The age of the strata where Tiktaalik was found was predicted to be roughly the age at which key intermediate steps in the origin of tetrapods took place. Thus, we'd expect to find creatures with intermediate features there. We did. That was not a case where a prediction of evolution "falls apart", as the blog post suggests. (Off by a couple million years at those ages is a tiny percent error, and they got the location right by inferring ecosystems.)
        Source: Nature

        Now, however, Niedwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). (source)

        © Copyright Original Source


        Source: Wikipedia

        Tiktaalik is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago)... (source)

        © Copyright Original Source


        So the difference appears to be about 22 million years.

        Evolutionary theory does not view any specific fossil as representative of an intermediate; any individual with intermediate traits is assumed to be part of a population from which descendants branched off. The precise timing of that branch can't always be determined, and the branching could take place prior to the existence of the particular sample. All of that was true before Tiktaalik, and it remains true after. So, assuming the trackways at issue really are tetrapods, then we can't be certain whether tetrapods split off from a Tiktaalik ancestor, or tiktaalik was just a relative that shared a lot of features with the true tetrapod ancestor.
        Note "distinct digit imprints" in the quote above, yes, they appear to be tetrapods.

        The blog post fallaciously presents this as a failing, presents incautious language as an indication that there were serious scientific mistakes made, and accuses people who are trying to explain the details of evolutionary theory, as i did just here, as making excuses for the failing. Anybody reading the post without knowing all this would be convinced that there were major problems with evolutionary theory.
        No, the statement is simply that Tiktaalik is not a direct transitional form. That is why I quoted it, that is what they meant, Nature was incorrect in this assertion. That is not to say that there are major problems with evolutionary theory.

        And you, Lee, said "Tiktaalik is unclear", which misrepresents it too.
        But I was responding to your statement that "The fossil record here, including famed intermediates like Tiktaalik, is pretty clear." Which in context, would be a reply of "Tiktaalik is unclear as an intermediate."

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post



          No, the statement is simply that Tiktaalik is not a direct transitional form. That is why I quoted it, that is what they meant, Nature was incorrect in this assertion. That is not to say that there are major problems with evolutionary theory.
          I reiterate, please look up what constitutes a transitional fossil from a reputable source and get back to us

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            I reiterate, please look up what constitutes a transitional fossil from a reputable source and get back to us
            Source: fossilmuseum.net

            Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source


            Sounds to me like they are talking about actual intermediates, direct transitional forms. As here:

            Source: Understanding Evolution

            Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Source: fossilmuseum.net

              Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition.

              Source

              © Copyright Original Source


              Sounds to me like they are talking about actual intermediates, direct transitional forms. As here:

              Source: Understanding Evolution

              Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

              Source

              © Copyright Original Source



              Blessings,
              Lee
              Good, now you can repeat one sentence definitions, but do you have any clue what it means -- what constitutes a transitional fossil (my original question)?

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Good, now you can repeat one sentence definitions, but do you have any clue what it means -- what constitutes a transitional fossil (my original question)?
                It sounds like these sources are talking about a direct transitional form, as I said.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  It sounds like these sources are talking about a direct transitional form, as I said.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  I repeat, what do they say constitutes a transitional form?

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    I repeat, what do they say constitutes a transitional form?
                    An actual intermediate.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      An actual intermediate.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      You really don't have a clue about what I'm asking do you?

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        So where is the lie in what I posted from Evolution News?
                        One possibility is that Nature didn't actually say Tiktaalik was a "direct transitional form". Luskin doesn't cite any reference for this, only a reference to Nature saying it and other fossils are not direct transitional forms. Nor have I found any such quote - the only results are Luskin's article and the negative form.

                        Can you can find the Nature article Luskin is referring to? Is it in context? If you can't, or it's out-of-context, Luskin's 'quote' is the lie.
                        Last edited by Roy; 01-23-2021, 07:01 AM.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man: Ö this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post

                          One possibility is that Nature didn't actually say Tiktaalik was a "direct transitional form". Luskin doesn't cite any reference for this, only a reference to Nature saying it and other fossils are not direct transitional forms. Nor have I found any such quote - the only results are Luskin's article and the negative form.

                          Can you can find the Nature article Luskin is referring to? Is it in context? If you can't, or it's out-of-context, Luskin's 'quote' is the lie.
                          And gently touches upon the question I keep asking Lee about what constitutes a transitional. It doesn't have to be a direct ancestor. It could even be an evolutionary dead end.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            And gently touches upon the question I keep asking Lee about what constitutes a transitional. It doesn't have to be a direct ancestor. It could even be an evolutionary dead end.
                            Contemporary science of evolution considers the concept of specific transitional species outdated. It is now considered that evolution takes place in multiple populations of varieties, sub-species, and closely related species over time. In other words there is no such thing definable 'direct transitional ancestor or so called 'missing links.'

                            Even defining species is becoming ambiguous, and only relevant to one time or region in the diversity of related varieties, sub-species and related species.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-23-2021, 11:44 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              One possibility is that Nature didn't actually say Tiktaalik was a "direct transitional form".
                              Maybe here? "Tiktaalik is clearly a transitional form..." Meaning an actual intermediate. But I can only search articles and abstracts, so Luskin might have meant a quote from the body of a journal.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Maybe here? "Tiktaalik is clearly a transitional form..." Meaning an actual intermediate. But I can only search articles and abstracts, so Luskin might have meant a quote from the body of a journal.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                Yes, "Tiktaalik is clearly a transitional form, but this does not necessarily translate to an actual intermediate, which is a maybe.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 02-24-2021, 08:33 PM
                                4 responses
                                39 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-24-2021, 11:11 AM
                                2 responses
                                42 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-23-2021, 09:32 PM
                                13 responses
                                58 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 02-20-2021, 04:51 PM
                                57 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 02-18-2021, 09:07 AM
                                48 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X