Tiktaalik and the Creationist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 06:46 PM
Tiktaalik and the Creationist
This is a response on AIG "Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish."


"Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish."

The reason scientist don't say those fish are proof of evolution is because they weren't around before tetrapods. Also taxonomy says that tetrapod decend from lobe-fined fish,not ray-fined fish,which is what those walking fish are. Also walking isn't the the only trait of tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has a neck,ribs that are located on the sides of the vertabre instead of on the top and bottom of it , and ear notches which only appear on tetrapods. Is there a living fish with those tetrapod traits? Don't think so.1

"Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapods—even though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water."

Except that you will name them later, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

"These fish have fleshy pectoral fins containing bony elements (considered similar to tetrapod legs). These similarities have prompted evolutionists to confidently declare that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods."

Or you can look at the fossils you name that you use in a attempt to dismiss the evidence and think your audience is stupid to realize this.

"According to evolutionists, the crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered."

Ya because you know gravity never thought something and then it was shown wrong. Gravity has never been wrong ever. Accept those few times it was. Because you know science tends to change its mind when it is wrong,right? You know we are aloud to change unlike you because we know science isn't perfect but you claim that the bible is and you have to change one thing because its wrong then the bible is false,right?


"This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"

Facepalm Strawman! They are lobe-fined fishes but not the ancestors of tetrapods but they shared a common ancestor. They shared a common ancestor thats it.2

"At the very least, evolutionists expected to observe some hint of walking behavior in the coelacanth, but nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Coelacanths have been observed swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea."

Maybe because they split off with tetrapods. Celocanths are actinistia, while tetrapods are rhipidistia.

"Since living lobe-fin fish have not met expectations, evolutionists have turned to other fossilized lobe-fins for the ancestors of tetrapods. Until recently, the most popular crossopterygian candidates for ancestors of tetrapods were Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. Both of these fish, like the Coelacanth, have fleshy pectoral fins with bones. But according to Daeschler, Shubin, and Jenkins (Nature 440(7085): 757–763, April 2006)—the discoverers of Tiktaalik—these fish possess relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods and that until now, “our understanding of major transformations at the fish–tetrapod transition has remained limited.”

Ya the existed as a transition between lobe-fined fishes and animals like tiktaalik. Why do you creationist use transitional fossils that transition into other transitional fossils and think it can disprove evolution? Facepalm Is there a fallacy for this?

"In the April 2006 issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae in sedimentary layers in arctic Canada. They confidently declared that Tiktaalik “represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.”
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gills—all consistent with an entirely aquatic life style."

Ya it is a fish, so are tetrapods because you can't leave your evolutionary ancestry. Don't believe me, look at a taxonomic tree and try it. Also what about its neck,riv position, and ear notches.

"In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle."

Isn't brachiasarus's forelimbs more robust then its hind limbs? And is it not a tetrapod? Yes to both.3

"It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless."

Good job mentioning those tow fossils, should have known. Both inched on land to move, and both had the gills of fish, in fact acanthostega has a operculum.

"Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word."

[Image: Tetrapod_transition.preview.jpg]

Except this, good job Answers in Genesis, you have proven you can't play science right.

"Finally, what about the popular claim that Tiktaalik is the “missing link” between fish and tetrapods?
In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”
Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools. Even more sadly, these unfounded notions have been used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture."

Yes it is, and you have to lie just to ignore the tetrapod traits tiktaalik has(it has more tetrapod traits the fish traits anyway.) Looks like creationist can't find their inner fish.

[Image: YourInnerFish.jpg]

Thanks for reading, Scrutiny aloud.Thumbsup

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...lking-fish

1. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html
2. http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
3. http://www.livescience.com/25024-brachiosaurus.html

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(25-02-2014 06:46 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The reason scientist don't say those fish are proof of evolution is because they weren't around before tetrapods.
Neither was tiktaalik to our knowledge. Tetrapod fossils have been found which predate tiktaalik by ten million years or so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(01-03-2014 02:13 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 06:46 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The reason scientist don't say those fish are proof of evolution is because they weren't around before tetrapods.
Neither was tiktaalik to our knowledge. Tetrapod fossils have been found which predate tiktaalik by ten million years or so.

Paper please.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
Creationists are idiots who listen to their minister rather than read their Bible. Dodgy

I can applaud your efforts, PF, but my faith is lacking. If they cannot parse their own text, surely a scientific discourse is outside the realm of possibility.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-03-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(01-03-2014 02:24 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 02:13 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Neither was tiktaalik to our knowledge. Tetrapod fossils have been found which predate tiktaalik by ten million years or so.

Paper please.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...08623.html
Quote:Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes alpha male's post
01-03-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
Quote:used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture."

Anything that does that gets an A in my book. Even if it is child's play.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(01-03-2014 03:18 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 02:24 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Paper please.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...08623.html
Quote:Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.

You are right they were found before tiktaalik as the paper says. I would also like to add that the fins were more primitive then tiktaalik. In other words it is still more primitive. Besides the fact that it is still controversial, you must remember tiktaalik still is a transitional fossils by definition.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(01-03-2014 03:28 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture."

Anything that does that gets an A in my book. Even if it is child's play.

Then im guessing the bible is an A in your book huBig Grin

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(01-03-2014 03:43 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  You are right they were found before tiktaalik as the paper says. I would also like to add that the fins were more primitive then tiktaalik. In other words it is still more primitive.
I'm sure you would like to add that, but you need to support it. What fins are you talking about, anyway?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Tiktaalik and the Creationist
(01-03-2014 04:01 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 03:43 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  You are right they were found before tiktaalik as the paper says. I would also like to add that the fins were more primitive then tiktaalik. In other words it is still more primitive.
I'm sure you would like to add that, but you need to support it. What fins are you talking about, anyway?

If you mean add it to my op then no, this deals with tiktaalik only. When i mentioned the other fish they were all ray fined modern fish. And fins like fish fins. The animal was said to have fins more primitive then tiktaalik.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: