PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Earlier Tetrapod Evolution
       trackways in Poland date to 395 MYA

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was reading PZ Myers's blog this morning and saw this:

Pharyngula - Tetrapods are older than we thought!

An finding published in Nature tells of tetrapod tracks dating to approximately 395 mya - about 20 million years before Tiktaalik.  But it appears these tetrapods evolved in marine environment rather than freshwater (as Tiktaalik did).

From Science News:
Footprints could push back tetrapod origins

So did tetrapod evolution occur more than once, in both freshwater and marine environments?

It would be nice if some fossils of the creatures themselves could be found.  I'm sure this will be hotly debated in the scientific community.  

(Edited by orion 1/7/2010 at 1:16 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:04 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm confused...

Could it be convergent evolution?

Creationists have convinced themselves that, to us, any stories will do. That we just explain things away.

Well, no. I'm confused.

The easiest explanation i could come up with would be that someone fucked up the dating. But that's highly unlikely.

Something is wrong... What is it?

Is it possible that the fingers in the Tiktaalik were actually vestigial, and then started developing again? That the tiktaalik had better fingered ancestors?

Is it possible that the Tiktaalik wasn't the ancestor of the acanthostega et alia, but a relative?

Is it possible that those are not footprints, even though they look very much like tetrapod footprints?

Stay tuned!
I will!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:03 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dating - I would think they would have run multiple test to at least two different labs.

Tiktaalik - was found in rocks relating to a freshwater environment.  These tracks in Poland were from a marine environment.

Why couldn't fish to tetrapod evolution happen more than once, in two, or more, different places, in different environments, at slightly different times?  I don't have any problem with that scenario.  

If the data holds up, it would just go to show that the time was ripe during the Devonian for the transition from sea to land to take place.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:37 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Convergent evolution is a highly plausible explanation given the many benefits of moving from sea to land. Selective pressure that gave rise to live bearing species over egg laying was so great that it happened at least a dozen times independently so why should we not entertain the idea that tetrapodial evolution happened more than once? Lack of predators and abundance of prey would be huge factors that would increase reproductive success.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:06 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Dating - I would think they would have run multiple test to at least two different labs.
Indeed. Lots of people should have screwed the tests, and many more should have been unaware of it.

Not likely.

Tiktaalik - was found in rocks relating to a freshwater environment.  These tracks in Poland were from a marine environment.

Why couldn't fish to tetrapod evolution happen more than once, in two, or more, different places, in different environments, at slightly different times?  I don't have any problem with that scenario.
Yes, it's the most reasonable explanation (i can think of).

In principle, walking on 4 legs is a very neat solution, and not THAT hard to be found.

I guess i'm amazed at the "articulated" fingers... That's the similarity that strikes me most.
But, on a second thought, i guess that wasn't THAT hard either...

I've seen many bottom-dwelling walking fish, but none of them had proper "fingers" (again, none of them live in shallow waters).

If the data holds up, it would just go to show that the time was ripe during the Devonian for the transition from sea to land to take place.
Yes, yes. I'm half amazed at tetrapoidism, and not-at-all amazed at the transition from water to land.
It all comes down to the fingers...

I would have guessed that fingers weren't very necessary. Horses don't need them, and they move fine. But perhaps i was wrong. Perhaps, when the mass of a tetrapoidal walking animal is close to the ground fingers are a necessity AND not that difficult to evolve.

If convergent evolution is the answer, i was wrong in these two notions about fingers:
-Necessity.
-Evolvability.

And i love standing corrected.

firechild
Convergent evolution is a highly plausible explanation given the many benefits of moving from sea to land.
Indeed. That's so clear that we've seen it many times, and it's still happening today (when the benefits aren't THAT impressive).

Selective pressure that gave rise to live bearing species over egg laying was so great that it happened at least a dozen times independently so why should we not entertain the idea that tetrapodial evolution happened more than once?
To me, letting something go isn't as impressive as developing something (i know, of course, oviparity isn't achieved just by losing stuff, but still). Besides, oviparity looks like a destination reachable by MANY roads.

Lack of predators and abundance of prey would be huge factors that would increase reproductive success.
Indeed. You need a little bit more than that to explain four legs, but i'm still with you. The explanation for that is out there too.

It's the fingers, man...

Let me illustrate my amazement. How easily explainable (to my humble knowledge) are these things, in a scale from 1 to 10?

* Going from water to land: 9
* Developing four legs: 5
* Developing fingers: 1

If convergent evolution is the answer, i'll have to do a lot of thinking/reading to improve that 1.


Thanks, orion! This news blew my mind. And i love having it blown (no pun intended).

This tends not to happen to creationists. It's as if they understood a lot more than us, or as if there was nothing to be blown.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:27 AM on January 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You were saying, Lester?

I think you were implying that i was running away from this cutting edge subject that you (being so original) brought up, or something like that?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:06 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:03 PM on January 7, 2010 :

Is it possible that the Tiktaalik wasn't the ancestor of the acanthostega et alia, but a relative?



Absolutely.  It is IMPOSSISBLE to tell ancestor-descendant relationships from fossils.  One can only discern patterns (patterns that, as it turns out, are largely congruent with evolution-based expectations and hypotheses - all just a coincidence, I am sure).

The only way to identify phylogeny (i.e., evolutionary relationships) is by DNA sequence data.

So, we cannot tell if Tik was directly related to any other taxon, but we can use the DNA sequences of extant taxa to identify their relationships, and fossils help fill in the 'blanks'.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:10 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2010 :
You were saying, Lester?

I think you were implying that i was running away from this cutting edge subject that you (being so original) brought up, or something like that?




You will have noticed that Lester rarely, if ever, ventures into threads set up to discuss a specific issue like this.

You will likely also have noticed that to the YEC.IDist, any and all new discoveries are "proof" that there is something wrong with evolution, regardless of what it actually is.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:12 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Is it possible that the Tiktaalik wasn't the ancestor of the acanthostega et alia, but a relative?
Absolutely.
Yeah... My question was very poorly phrased... Must have been very sleepy or something (i'd like to think).

I don't even remember exactly what i meant by it... Of course it's not only possible, but it's quite likely.

You will have noticed that Lester rarely, if ever, ventures into threads set up to discuss a specific issue like this.

You will likely also have noticed that to the YEC.IDist, any and all new discoveries are "proof" that there is something wrong with evolution, regardless of what it actually is.
They have some nerve, implying that Science-minded people are afraid of discoveries and new questions...

It's about their static unchanged mindset and their projection.


(Edited by wisp 6/20/2010 at 7:43 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:41 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Why couldn't fish to tetrapod evolution happen more than once, in two, or more, different places, in different environments, at slightly different times?  I don't have any problem with that scenario.  


I’m just sad that these things never happen anymore so we have to imagine that they did once upon a time.

Orion
If the data holds up, it would just go to show that the time was ripe during the Devonian for the transition from sea to land to take place.


Oh, right.

Wisp
Something is wrong... What is it?

Is it possible that the fingers in the Tiktaalik were actually vestigial, and then started developing again? That the tiktaalik had better fingered ancestors?

Is it possible that the Tiktaalik wasn't the ancestor of the acanthostega et alia, but a relative?

Is it possible that those are not footprints, even though they look very much like tetrapod footprints?

Stay tuned!
I will!


Don’t worry, they’ll come up with an unsatisfactory excuse based on things that can’t be tested and you will accept their excuses.

You are pretending to care about the truth here – but I know you really don’t.

Firechild
Convergent evolution is a highly plausible explanation given the many benefits of moving from sea to land. Selective pressure that gave rise to live bearing species over egg laying was so great that it happened at least a dozen times independently so why should we not entertain the idea that tetrapodial evolution happened more than once? Lack of predators and abundance of prey would be huge factors that would increase reproductive success.


Nice story ….if you believe in evolution.

Derwood
You will have noticed that Lester rarely, if ever, ventures into threads set up to discuss a specific issue like this.


Lester finds evolutionary story telling painful beyond measure.

Wisp
Is it possible that the Tiktaalik wasn't the ancestor of the acanthostega et alia, but a relative?
Derwood
Absolutely.
Wisp
I don't even remember exactly what i meant by it... Of course it's not only possible, but it's quite likely.


Do you notice how the more reasonable the imagined answer sounds to Wisp, the more likely it becomes that it must be a true story?

They have some nerve, implying that Science-minded people are afraid of discoveries and new questions...

It's about their static unchanged mindset and their projection.


Yeah right…I never said you guys were afraid of discoveries and new questions –making up new (long ago and far away) plausible stories is what you live for.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:21 AM on June 21, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Orion
Why couldn't fish to tetrapod evolution happen more than once, in two, or more, different places, in different environments, at slightly different times?  I don't have any problem with that scenario.  
I’m just sad that these things never happen anymore so we have to imagine that they did once upon a time.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:40 PM on June 21, 2010 | IP
SuperLoz

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Mr Mudskipper, I think Lester said you're imaginary.

Nice video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=s10Gmj4ph3A

With obligatory David Attenborough narration :D

(Edited by SuperLoz 6/21/2010 at 4:22 PM).
 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 4:21 PM on June 21, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:21 AM on June 21, 2010 :

You are pretending to care about the truth here – but I know you really don’t.


Your projection is palpable, Mr.Tiktaalik hands...

Derwood
You will have noticed that Lester rarely, if ever, ventures into threads set up to discuss a specific issue like this.


Lester finds evolutionary story telling painful beyond measure.


Lester finds it much more to his Christian sensibilities to lie about/embellish his background in order to 'witness' to lurkers who are even more ignorant than he is on the very subjects he brings up, only to rely exclusively on paraphrased or plagiarized YEC sources that are, frankly, quite completely ignorant and dishonest in their presentations, as has been DEMONSTRATED on this forum many times already.

Oh - and follow up all that with thread abandoment and projection and attempts to change the subject.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:36 PM on June 21, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I’m just sad that these things never happen anymore so we have to imagine that they did once upon a time.
I showed you, and you didn't get happy.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:59 PM on June 28, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.