Tiktaalik, a genus of early land-walking fish, was discovered in the Late Devonian fluvial Fram Formation on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada in 2004. The fossilized skeletons revealed that Tiktaalik could support its body weight on its fins, making it capable of venturing onto land for short periods. The discovery, funded by the National Geographic Society, allowed researchers to study the functional morphology and biomechanics of early tetrapods.
Tiktaalik relied on its elbow to walk, bending its limb at a 90-degree angle into a push-up position. It was specialized for life in shallow water, propping itself up on the bottom and snapping up prey. The adaptations it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the most significant data showing that the pectoral fin was highly advanced in these fishes.
Tiktaalik’s anatomy and way of life straddle the divide between fish and land-living animals. Its fins are important not just for what they say about how our fish ancestors lived but also for how any sort of new structure evolves. The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds or scramble around on mudflats.
Tiktaalik fossils show a combination of fishlike and tetrapod-like characteristics, making them exciting for understanding tetrapod evolution. However, the front fin’s limited range of motion would have prevented Tiktaalik from swinging its fins forward to walk the way an amphibian does. Researchers believe these parts show that ancient lobe-finned fish prepared the evolutionary way for terrestrial vertebrates to push off on their strong hind legs.
Furthermore, the fossils allowed scientists to reconstruct the walking style of Tiktaalik, a fish version of four-wheel-drive. They discovered that the fish had wrists, similar to a human body, which allowed it to maneuver its way to the base of the tree.
📹 Tiktaalik’s First Steps – David Attenborough’s Rise of the Animals: Triumph of the Vertebrates – BBC
#bbc All our TV channels and S4C are available to watch live through BBC iPlayer, although some programmes may not be …
What did further examination of Tiktaalik’s fins reveal about the creature and its lifestyle?
The study of Tiktaalik’s fins revealed a unique combination of features that suggest it was well-adapted for both aquatic and terrestrial environments. These include large, flat, muscular fins with robust fin rays and elbow joints, which enabled it to swim and crawl in shallow water.
What evidence suggests that four legged animals came from fish?
The theory that land vertebrates descended from fish is supported by a number of lines of evidence. These include transitional fossils, anatomical similarities between embryos and adult animals, and genetic evidence of shared ancestry.
What is the Tiktaalik evidence?
Tiktaalik, a well-preserved transitional fossil, has been studied by researchers for its functional morphology and biomechanics. By examining its skeletal structure, muscle attachments, and joint surfaces, scientists can infer how Tiktaalik moved and interacted with its environment. The discovery has sparked renewed interest in transitional fossils, encouraging paleontologists to explore new locations and geological time periods. Tiktaalik roseae, bridging the gap between fish and early tetrapods, has significantly enhanced our understanding of evolutionary processes shaping Earth’s diversity.
What are some interesting facts about Tiktaalik?
Tiktaalik, a “fishapod” or tetrapod, is not always considered a true tetrapod due to its shared characteristics with a fish. It had a large fin on the posterior half of its body, four legs, and a flattened head resembling a reptile’s head. It had gills, scales, fins, robust rib bones, and a neck like a tetrapod’s. The front fins were also half-fin, half-leg. Fossil evidence shows functional wrists, elbows, and shoulders, but still had fish fin rays. Tiktaalik had both lungs and gills, with imbricated ribs supporting lungs. Its unique features made it adaptable as it transitioned from tetrapods onto land.
What can fossils like Tiktaalik tell us about time?
New research has revealed the internal head skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old fossil animal that marks an intermediate step in the evolutionary transition from fish to land-walking animals. The study, published in Nature, reveals that the transition involved complex changes to appendages and the internal head skeleton. The study’s findings serve as rosetta stones for understanding the emergence of quadripeds on land, with specimens from Tiktaalik roseae serving as valuable tools for understanding this transition.
What is significant about the fins of ancient coelacanth relatives?
The coelacanth, discovered in 1938, was a living fossil believed to have disappeared over 65 million years ago. Its ventral fins, which were symmetrical unlike the hands and feet of land animals, were found to have evolved from the same structures as land animal limbs. Recent fossil discoveries have shown that hands and feet evolved from an extinct ancestral fish with asymmetric fins, but the coelacanth’s fins remain a mystery. Despite many coelacanth fossils, none have preserved the crucial details of the fin skeletons, likely due to cartilage being a scarce material.
What are the fins of Tiktaalik?
Tiktaalik, a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian Period, is known for its unique fins that have helped to explain the origin of weight-bearing limbs and digits. The fins have a robust internal skeleton, similar to tetrapods, and a web of simple bony fin rays (lepidotrichia), similar to fish. Estimated to have a total length of 1. 25–2. 75 meters, Tiktaalik is a non-tetrapod member of Osteichthyes, complete with scales and gills.
Its triangular, flattened head and unusual, cleaver-shaped fins make it a crucial transition fossil, linking evolution from swimming fish to four-legged vertebrates. This and similar animals might be the common ancestors of all vertebrate terrestrial fauna, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The first Tiktaalik fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, and were recognized as a transitional form.
What is the main purpose of fins?
Fins are used in various applications to increase heat transfer from surfaces, with fin material typically having high thermal conductivity. A model configuration is shown in Figure 18. 3, where the fluid has velocity and temperature. The heat transfer coefficient for the fin is assumed to be known and has value. The approach taken is quasi-one-dimensional, with the temperature in the fin being a function of only.
The characteristic dimension in the transverse direction is MATH $A / P = r / 2$, and the regime of interest is the one for which the Biot number is much less than unity. The physical content of this approximation can be seen from the heat transfer per unit area out of the fin to the fluid and within the fin in the transverse direction.
How is Tiktaalik compared to humans?
Despite its 375-million-year-old age, the Tiktaalik fossil reveals the presence of all the requisite bony structures for human development, including shoulders, elbows, legs, a neck, and wrists. This finding indicates that the basic developmental blueprint for humans and Tiktaalik are similar, making the latter an important evidence source for understanding our evolutionary history.
What are the characteristics of fins?
Ray-finned fishes belong to the Actinopterygii class of bony fishes, with their fins containing either spiny rays or soft rays. Spines are stiff and sharp, while rays are soft, flexible, segmented, and can be branched. Spines have various uses, such as defense in catfish and triggerfish. Lepidotrichia, which are usually bone but also have dentine and enamel, are segmented and appear as stacked disks. They may have been derived from dermal scales. The genetic basis for fin ray formation is believed to be genes coded for protein production.
The evolution of the tetrapod limb from lobe-finned fishes is related to the loss of these proteins. Spines can be locked outwards in catfish and triggerfish, while rays can be segmented and appear as a series of disks.
What is Tiktaalik and why is it important?
Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old fossil fish discovered in the Canadian Arctic in 2004, is a key discovery in the history of life on Earth. Its feeding system is an intermediate between suction feeding and biting, providing insight into the first fish to venture out onto land. The study also revealed fin ray patterns at the fin-to-limb transition, and feeding kinematics and morphology of the alligator gar. These findings contribute to our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth.
📹 Finding Tiktaalik: Neil Shubin on the Evolutionary Step from Sea to Land
Professor Neil Shubin talks about the discovery of Tiktaalik and one of the greatest evolutionary events in Earth’s history: when the …
I really love how they show accurate plants on the river bed, but then it pans out to spruce trees in the distance… those evolved at least 200 million years after this. Even trees by themselves hadn’t evolved yet until the beginning of the Carfoniberous which was 20 million years after Tiktaalik evolved
This is honestly breathtaking I understand that people are joking in the comments and maybe also not joking about how hard it is to be human. Yes it is. But every living organism has had hard days. We evolve to make it easier. So in this life you can evolve to at least make it mostly easier. It is called acceptance. Work with what you have and appreciate what you’ve got. It’s okay to be hurt or feel angry. But notice how holding on to that will stunt your growth as a person. Humans should always allow themselves the freedom to find little bits of peace in this life. If you can do that, and focus less on the negative, you will continue to move forward and evolve.
@katrina yarbo because of evolution. Keep in mind, tiktaalik may be only the first example of this middle phase. Just like we discover the tyrannosaurus rex, we also found many other similar species, with varying features due to different methods of survival among other things. Gradually, over hundreds of millions of years, you’re bound to have such diversity. Earth changes, all life on it can only change with it, or die.
Read “The fish within you” by Neal Shubin, one of the people who discovered tiktaalik. His article is mentioned just inches to the right of this comment. I haven’t read it yet, but I have his book right here beside my bed. Get it and read it. It is an extremely important and fascinating work. One of the things about this fish was that it had a working wrist joint for walking. Shubin clears up the entire question of evolution, in case that still bothers anyone. I love this stuff!
What if tiktaalik behavedlike a cross between the lungfish and mudskippers we’re familiar with today? Maybe they lived in areas where there were cyclical droughts and floods (usually mild but sometimes severe), and they adapted to survive and thrive in both habitat extremes . Perhaps, like mudskippers, they could go from isolated pool to isolated pool by crawling across sandbars between them, but should they have ever experienced extended dry spells, they could have employed the estivation technique lungfish use by burying themselves in sediment and entering a suspended animation dormancy state to wait-out the drought ’til the next rains came.
The discovery of Tiktaalik is a classic case of scientific inquiry at work. The paleontologists who worked to locate the missing link between fish and the earliest land animals predicted that the rocks that would contain the transitional forms should be between 380mya – 360mya, and in fossilized river beads or swamps. The paleontologists found Tiktaalik at exactly that kind of rocks of that age.
The creatures that survived remain in the fossil column from where they start to all the way up. e.g. the horseshoe crab. It starts from near the bottom and goes right to the top. And, alas, it is surviving now. The fossil column fits with what we observe! Trilobites, however, stop in the record soon after it starts (and there are no trilobites alive now). Also fits with what we observe. HOW CAN THE FLOOD MAKE IT LIKE THAT? Please answer or you will be blocked.
4) When the strata is on-an-angle, some of the layers poke out from the ground (jagged). The exposed angled strata erodes and the ground is once again flat (but the layers are still angled, underneath). Then more (level) layers form there and build up, trapping more fossils as it does. So fossils from the angled layers (that were once lower before the layers become angle by tectonics) are near the more advanced fossils (appearing out-of-sequence). But a study of the strata shows otherwise.
If cells stopped changing- we would all die from the common cold with a few months after birth. AND we would all have cancer before the first birthday. And we would be completely identical- or extremely close. We would have the same color hair- same immunity- height- metabolism- and the good news is that our body would accept organ transplants with no trouble at all. Infact- if cells did not mutate- we would not survive. Should I continue?
2) This also proves that the creatures were not all created within a few days. Some creationists use “flotation” in the flood to explain it but (as I said) surviving creature fossils are found above from where they start (but never below). How can “flotation” do that? Also some creationists say “speed of escape” from the bottom and the fast ones got buried last. But humans are much later in the fossil column than birds and dragonflies (that are faster than us) and they start way below humans.
2) In books there are photos that clearly show layers of strata that are on-an-angle and the layers are clearly poking out of the surface (on an angle). The strata were originally level but earth movement (tectonic or earthquake) made it angled. In some cases the protruding strata erodes and new layers form (sometimes with more fossils). This makes some fossils appear out-of-sequence. Creation sites point that out but don’t give a reason (like described above) cos of their belief.
The toughest ones survived. Hey ask Richard Dawkins (he’s a scientist). Get his book “The Greatest Show on Earth” and read something educational. It has lots of answers that I wouldn’t even know about. How did the insect survive your flood? Have fun answering that one. And you don’t need to be a scientist to answer that cos it’s NOT science. lol
1) The fossil column nails evolution, unless creationists can explain why the fossil column starts with the most primitive (just microbes) on the bottom layers and (as we go up the strata) the fossils progressively become more complex until we have the most advanced (us) on the top layers. The fossils that start on the bottom can also be found on the top (and in between) if they have survived for a long time. But we NEVER find advanced fossils on the bottom. There are no apes on the bottom.
I’m only showing you the fossil column as strong evidence for evolution. It clearly starts simple, progresses to complex, as we go up the strata. The flood can’t do that. You have a choice. Either believe in evolution or claim that the fossil column is a hoax. You can’t re-explain it to fit creationism. The theory of evolution came from the fossil column (basically). It fits with both macro and micro evolution but not with creationism and we can observe it now (if you go on a tour).
1) When they find a fossil of a certain creature it will not appear under the first layers that it starts. And if it survive and is still living today (and is common) you probably will see fossils of it all the way up the strata, from where it started (but never below the start). But some creatures that survive now are extremely rare (from millions yrs ago) and we don’t find any recent fossils (but they would be there) we just haven’t found them (and found the living fossil first).
Not related to Me, classy guy like me has nothing to do with fishes. The tracks left by organisms are among the most difficult of fossils to interpret. But just such evidence has put debate about the origins of four-limbed vertebrates (Tiktaalik and likes) on a changed footing. African lungfish living today have similarly large pelves…
There are millions of questions that I couldn’t answer about evolution but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. There are a million questions that can’t be answered about evolution and there are millions that can be. I don’t need to answer all your unanswerable questions cos I already proven evolution with the fossil column. Is the fossil column really like that or did scientists “make it up”. If I ask you question after question about the flood, would that disprove the flood to you?
First of all, you’re sounding far more aggressive than me and I really want to end this conversation soon. Secondly there are many other parts of the Bible that prove itself to be true. Detailed prophecies made hundreds of years in advanced have ALL been fulfilled exactly as written. But you won’t care about that because you’re determined that the Bible is stupid.
Now answer my question please. How did the fossil column get like that (if evolution isn’t true)? You hold dearly to your beloved creation myth, so you will be FORCED to deny that the fossil column is like they say it is. If it is like the scientists say, it nails evolution (how does it not). You can’t answer that. The only thing you can do is simply deny it and cry CONSPIRACY. Like creationists always do when they are cornered.
So you are trying to say that all creatures died at once (flood bullshit). So how come the fossil column indicates that the vast majority of creatures died at vastly different times, by the layering? The fossil column does not indicate that all creatures were “created” all at once or that they died all at once. There’s microbes on the bottom, progressing as we go up, to the most advanced. If they all died at once it would be all mixed up, but it’s not.
How did the insects survive the flood? How did the earth survive the water level going above mount Everest? There are impact craters over 200 km diam on earth (observed now). How did anything survive (and the ark certainly would not have) if the impacts happened in the flood? How did the animals get to Australia (after the flood). These are all unanswerable by you or anyone else. Isn’t this the same problem for you. But that doesn’t mean the flood didn’t happen does it.
The fossil column proves that organisms can evolve. It goes from the most simple, progressing to more complex, to the most advanced. Exactly what is demanded for evolution to be true. Can you prove to me that it’s not biologically possible for things to evolve? The pectoral fins of fish have become the front legs on all vertebrates front and the fish pelvic fins are the rear legs. Walking fish exist now. Frogs can go from water to land in one generation (and change “kind”). Proof it CAN happen.
Sorry for late reply. Obviously creatures were not created in six 24 hour days (there are other parts of the Bible that describe periods of time, usually several centuries, as days). But so far the only evidence you’ve brought out in favour of Evolution is the fossil column, which only reveals what you describe as “simple” life forms from the bottom of the strata to the top with humans only near the top. However can you prove to me how it is biologically possible for living things to evolve?
The fossil column shows that all the creatures were not created at once. It shows a gradual progression from the most basic and simple to the most advanced. Exactly what is demanded for evolution to be true. And if a creature “suddenly” appears in the fossil record that means it’s a creature that has been fossilized. That’s all. Vertebrates start with the sponge lava. A single piece of hard substance inside the lava, stiffening it. And vertebrates came from that.
How did the frog that freezes it’self over winter evolve (“proof” evolution is not true). How did flying seeds evolve (“proof” evolution isn’t true). How did frogs evolve their morphing to a different “kind” (tadpole to frog) (“proof” evolution isn’t true). How did a turtle evolve it’s fishing lure in it’s mouth (“proof” evolution isn’t true), I could go on “disproving” evolution for ever couldn’t I. Only one problem, the fossil column. lol
So I can give an answer that doesn’t disprove evolution, and doesn’t highlight the obvious purposeful design in life around us? Do you think I’m stupid? You may as well tell me to only give an answer that doesn’t make you appear wrong. At the end of the day you’re probably gonna disagree with how a God/creator could have designed the intelligent life around us, while I disagree with the idea that something as incredible as life could come from, ultimately, nothing.
Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which indicates that these were destroyed simultaneously.
I don’t know for definite how insects survived. Like you don’t know how the Pebble Toad, or anything else, evolved. And why do you think the craters were formed during the flood you don’t believe happened? I don’t know about the Australia one happened. I know the continents were all joined at one point but I think that was a while before the flood.
Yes but that could also prove what the Bible said thousand of years ago about different creatures/animals being created at different stages in Earth’s history. The fossil record does not disprove a creator. Also new creatures (for example, vertebrates) appeared too suddenly in the fossil record for there to have been such slow tiny changes over so many years. Darwin himself said: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution”
I’m not denying the fossil record. The fossil record complies with what the bible says in Genesis 1 about stages of creation, and before you have a go at the fact that it talks about creative days, these “days” are just periods of time, not literal 24 hour periods (like someone would say “back in my day”).
Also I remember seeing a Pebble Toad on a BBC documentary. Its defence mechanism is to tense up it’s muscles and tumble down a steep cliff to avoid getting eaten. If evolution were true, how long would it have taken for that toad to learn to develop that ability, and how many generations of toads would’ve fallen to their deaths before one of them was lucky enough to get significantly tougher and learn to instinctively fall off a cliff edge to escape from a tarantula? Have fun answering that.
2) The fossil “suddenly” appeared from “nowhere” (cos somebody was lucky enough to find it). The fossil is “sudden” cos that’s the only one found. There is only one found of tikaalic (an important missing link). But we only need one (“sudden” fossil). But if we find more than one of the same creature, would it really make any difference? Describe how you think the fossil column should look if the creature’s fossils didn’t seem to appear (and disappear) “suddenly”.
Species appear in the fossil column very suddenly and show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. Specimens placed in the series are usually separated by millions of years. A zoologist called Henry Gee said “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”
In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Can you explain that? Can you actually pinpoint a specific point where all variety of forms of life created themselves spontaneously out of nothing and managed to learn to develop themselves to suit their environment way beyond the process of adaptation?
No, what I mean is that entire species appear suddenly in the fossil record. Unless they evolved extremely quickly at the last minute, or that several of a unique type of species did NOT appear in the same time period, I cannot honestly say that the fossil record complies with what you’re saying about Evolution.
The weight of the water that was on the Earth could have caused many changes in the geology of the planet. Some mountains would rise while others would fall. Who knows how many insects could have survived on the Ark or on a planet covered in water for several months. God might have had other means of preserving creatures that perhaps couldn’t have fitted on the Ark, but these are not specified in the Bible. It just tells us what God asked Noah to do to save some larger animals.
The origin of life hasn’t been answered and can’t be repeated even today! 2nd law of thermodynamics, meaning everything is going towards disorderliness, e.g. if you tidy one room each day eventually you’ll get the whole house cleaned up. If you messing one room each day, no matter how many billion years pass you won’t find a low entropy complex structure. In other words, complex and low-entropy structures require design.
I took physical oceanography and my professor mentioned Tiktaalik and I thought it was super cool but distracted by ocean waves and offshore breezes I left it in the back of my mind. As I was doing my summer homework assignment for AP Bio, which was to read My Inner Fish, I soon realized that you were in fact taking about the same amphibian that my professor was so excited about. I absolutely adore your book and I feel very special that I learned about Tiktaalik and it’s meaning before I read My Inner Fish as I was able to understand how magnificent of a discovery you and your crew were about to make.
I love Shubin’s enthusiasm here, it’s such a joy to see. Not to stroke humankind’s ego, but in a metaphysical sort of way, I just think it’s so awesome that we as humans have evolved to a point where we can learn about, understand, and appreciate our own evolutionary history, and make such amazing discoveries like that of Tiktaalik. I’m sure Tiktaalik and its contemporaries trudged ashore and were just happy to have more food items to choose from, but here we are – hundreds of millions of years after that humble little creature made that leap – looking back at the animal to marvel at the bits of ourselves that we can find within it. That is just so incredible to me.
Well, let’s evaluate the current scenario of tetrapod evolution to see if it is coherent & plausible. The Berkeley site says this: “When we get past coelacanths and lungfishes on the evogram, we find a series of fossil forms that lived between about 390 and 360 million years ago during the Devonian Period. During this interval, this lineage of fleshy-finned organisms moved from the water to the land.” evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04 So is this plausible before we get into technicalities? Well, this entire scenario is now blown out of the water. Here is an excerpt from the Nature paper that documents the discovery of tetrapod tracks millions of years BEFORE the entire fish to tetrapod scenario described above by Berkeley Evolution 101. And I am happy to report that these tracks were made in the Holy Cross Mountains. 😉 “Muddy Tetrapod Origins” *”Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into Neil’s picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachelmie, Poland, that are UNAMBIGUOUSLY DATED TO THE LOWERMOST EIFELIAN (397 MILLION YEARS AGO). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.l5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. THE TRACKS PREDATE THE OLDEST TETRAPOD SKELETAL REMAINS BY 18 MYR AND, MORE SURPRISINGLY, THE EARLIEST ELPISTOSTEGALIAN FISHES BY ABOUT 10 YRS. (Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, “Muddy Tetrapod Origins,” Nature463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).
Wonderful work!!! I remember when the first living Coelacanth was discovered, this is a comparable feeling- wonder! I have trouble understanding how an entire animal is extrapolated from a few bones, that’s disconcerting. Brings to mind the Woody Allen movie where they are going to clone a new U. S. President from the old one’s nose.
anyone hear know of a documentary released on animal planet or discovery….wherein the main premise of the documentary was to show the evolution between two species that were predator and prey…it started off in the ocean where the two species were both aquatic(one I know is a fish, it had a dark blue tint and yellow speckling on it) as the species evolved they’d show the different ways on how the species adapted to counter or evade the other….one of the species eventually evolved into tiktaalik(cause the 2 species ended up evolving onto land and I remember the shape of tiktaalik) at one point it showed that tiktaalik was caught on a drought or something cause it was waiting for the water to rise back up, but it got eaten by some dinosaur as the water was rising….thats the gist of what I remember of the documentary…would really like to watch it again
It was not until new technology for the dating of fossils was developed, in the late 1940s, that Piltdown Man came to be seriously questioned once again. In 1949, Dr Kenneth Oakley, a member of the staff at the Natural History Museum, tested the Piltdown fossils and found that the skull and jaw were not that ancient. The above from bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/piltdown_man_01.shtml Time published an article for the public in 1953.
Due to the odds being grossly against an animal being fossilized and being recovered, plus the expected rarity of the organisms that start a new species, it is not unexpected that the fossil record is incomplete. The Cambrian Explosion is overstated, we have some fossils from the end of the period but poorer record of fossil from earlier but we do have some and they do show precursors from some millions of years before the classic fossils from the explosion. The cambrian was 50 million years.
Because lungs are a primitive feature of bony fishes, seen today not only in lungfishes (the closest living fishes to tetrapods) but also in primitive ray-finned fishes such as Polypterus (reedfish) and Amia (bowfin). More derived fishes (teleosts) have turned the lung into the swimbladder. Tetrapods evolved pre-equipped with lungs. Gills can be determined by the presence of the bony gill arches that support them (also seen in the earliest tetrapods like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega).
Of that tiny number, and even smaller fraction will escape the ravages of decay and scavenging. A fraction of that fraction will actually be in a position to be fossilized and a very tiny fraction of that fraction will survive the millions of years of tectonic activity, changes in groundwater chemistry, etc.
“if only adults in Louisiana would get what kids got really quickly” – nice, 10/10, it reminds me of Michael Behe during Kitzmiller vs Dover case during which he has been confronted with 60 scientific publications documenting the evolution and he REJECTED EVERYTHING, saying it is not enough. It took one hour to go through the list. The jury was shocked. On the other hand, he supplied zero peer-reviewed publications to support ID. Ridicules beyond belief!
I watch this and other evolution related articles occasionally for the humor. We all need a good laugh once in a while after all, this is a mixed-up world today. These discoveries are indeed fascinating, but the ridiculous assumptions and false conclusions evolutionists arrive at keep me in stitches. I hope no one really takes this seriously…but some will because it takes all kinds.
Unimpressed. He simply found the head of a fossil. Somebody else drew the “legs”, “fins” and “tail”. Evolutionist Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, who was not involved in the study, said it’s impossible to tell if Tiltaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates (AP 2006), and the NYT states Tiktaalik is still a fish (Wilford 2006).
Remember you butted in on a conversation I had with another individual. It was you who contacted me & issued a string of insults, while using words that only children and adolescents use. So poor Robbie, I say to you, don’t go away angry, (or as we say in the US) “don’t go away mad. Just go away” You made the mistake in believing that just because there was a majority opinion on your side, that this meant science was on your side. You were wrong. PS I’m sorry if your back side is a little soar.
You yourself made the claim the theory has gone far beyond a theoretical framework, and that it is the only theory that is accepted. And now when I show you this same Darwinian theory has crumbled beyond repair, (after giving citations from even top mainstream scientist) You claim it means nothing. And secondly, Its not up to me or anyone else to disprove something that has yet to be proven. None of these papers can also disprove whether or not you’re a butterfly dreaming you’re a human.
Well you’re obviously not interest in science since you ignored every science paper I cited. It seems you’re not interested in anything that conflicts with your faith in Darwinism. But you do seemed to be interested in a majority opinion, which is odd because a majority opinion has nothing to do with science. When you can back up your claims, then Ill be interested. Until then all you have is hot air.
Maybe rubbish for you, but they were joined by many other members of the science community who were not ID theorist & the work was published in well a known journal. And yes, Dawkins does believe this, and has said so. In fact many scientist believe in it. You yourself spoke of Panspermia which was proposed by Crick and Orgel. The notion that ET’s may have seeded life on earth. Secondly the SETI project searches for ET intelligence. Again your a very amusing character. Adolescent but thats OK.
A persons personal beliefs have nothing to do with science publications. Another straw man. And I appreciate the fact that you clarified that you were making shit up about Mendel. And yes, ID theorist do get published in peer review journals like World Scientific and I can cite many more journals, but it would not matter. By the way, some scientist like Richard Dawkins believe in little green men from outer space, but if they have something which has scientific merit it will also get published.
That was a total of 28 papers. Not to mention that you cited a paper that used an epigenetic inference model, and your own paper stated, very little is understood concerning epigenetics as it applies to evolution. You read the title, but did not understand the paper or the fact that epigenetics and soft inheritance are some of the many challenges to the neo Darwinian paradigm.
It wasn’t a quote. It was a citation from the (journal World scientific) and it included many non ID theorist as well. The first 4 papers I cited were all from atheist. You have contradicted yourself several times with claims you could not back up. Including your ignorance about epigenetics and the article you cited but did not understand, and your claims that Mendel was unaware of Darwin’s work. Or the fact that you thought the evolutionary paradigm only went back 150 years. Have you no shame?
Your citation uses epigenetics as a model. Darwinism rejects “epigenetics” and instead adheres to what called “the central dogma of biology” (which is also now challenged) Secondly, if you had bothered reading the article, it goes on to say, “DNA methylation is an important epigenetic modification that is involved in many biological processes, but from an evolutionary point of view this modification is still poorly understood” The relationship to man and ape is inferred and not empirical.
24 more critical science papers challenging the neo Darwinian theory just released a few weeks ago from a 2011 conference held at Cornell University by ID (and non ID scientist alike) who all participated and collaborated on this symposium. The finding are published in World Scientific journal. Biological Information New Perspectives Proceedings of the Symposium Cornell University, USA, 31 May – 3 June 2011 Sorry, but the cat is out of the bag (so to say.
None of these papers were published by ID theorist PUBMED Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution M.W. Ho We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework—the natural selection of random mutations—is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change.
PUBMED The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? Eugene V. Koonin Abstract “The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.”
PUBMED The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis Michael R Rose Todd H Oakley The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the “Modern Synthesis” which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that “Modernist” biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.
“tried and tested theory and has moved well beyond the “framework” PUBMED Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis Eva JablonkaI; Marion J. LambII “In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology”
Why are you commenting on a paper I did not cite? And you never asked me to cite anything. What you said was. “what gets published and why depends on lots of things. Without specific examples from you I cannot determine the rigour of the process” And I said answer the question & I will be happy to. Did you think I was speaking of biocomplexity (which by the way have independent judges including non ID theorist? Well guess what? I can cite many that have nothing to do with biocomplexity.
Darwin’s theory did not advance macro evolution. And it was Mendel who showed how there could be changes in allele frequencies which is not disputed. The modern synthesis is neo Darwinism. It is the same theory. So again I ask you for the 12th time, Do you believe the modern synthesis is a valid theoretical framework? You claimed that it advanced science? So again why wont you answer? What are you afraid of?
The modern synthesis is the accepted theory of evolution and it is what is taught today in classrooms across most of the industrial nations. And I’m sure it is taught in your country wherever that may be since u don’t seem proud enough to mention your own country. Evolution as defined by changes in allele frequency is not disputed. I am talking about the modern evolutionary synthesis. If you do not understand this, then you are not very bright. And no, the earlier theories were about evolution.
These are your words. “Neither Mendel nor Darwin were aware of each others works, so your point is as fucked up as you are” Your history is as bad as your understanding of science. You claim that Mendel knew nothing of Darwin’s work yet he wrote of his opposition to Darwin’s theory which is published in the Journal of Heredity. Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin OXFORD JOURNAL OF HEREDITY VOLUME 87
The question was not what the purpose of peer review is. The question was why do multiple papers get published in peer review science journals if ID has no scientific merit? You seem to be very dense if you can’t understand the question. And I’m still waiting for your citation which confirms your claim that your credentials are what determines publication. You have yet to offer anything but a foul mouth.
Mendelian genetics dates back to the 1860’s and when Mendel (who never agreed with Darwins theory) presented his work, he was ignored. And Mendelian genetics was not incorporated into the modern synthesis until the earlier 20th century long after Mendel’s death. But again this does not answer the question which you continue to ignore. And the fact that you cannot answer a specific question (that was asked numerous times)…
cont…. shows that you do not have much confidence in the modern synthesis. And you are wrong. Evolutionary theory dates back to the at least the ancient greeks, and long before Darwin there was Lamarckism evolution. And before that, it evolution was proposed by Erasmus Darwin in the 1700’s I’m not sure what kind of educational system your country has but it has left you pissing in the wind.
I’ll be glad to cite several papers if you have the stones to answer the questions. I have cited my sources for all of my claims concerning the peer review process. Now I challenge you to cite yours. Show me where your credentials determine whether something gets published or not. If even Einstein had some of his work rejected, then according to your claim, nothing would ever get published. Your red herrings and straw-man arguments are getting very old.
You have yet to answer. You claimed that your title entitles publication. Please cite your source for this claim. Here is mine….”Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal” Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W.. “Peer Review in the Classroom” BioScience
The specifics examples are irrelevant, as the subject was one of the rigours of the peer review process itself, and not your ego. And If you do not understand the peer review process then why are you pretending you do? However having said that, I can cite the specific data upon request. Its very simple, just ask. And you can call it a pseudoscience if you wish, but again, you cannot answer why pseudoscience gets peer review publishing, and multiple times and growing. I……
“Being published is not difficult if you” etc.. And a minute ago you claimed these guys had no credibility in academia. Secondly you do not get published in science journals because of your title. Your work has to go through an initial judging stage by experts in the field to determine if the work has scientific merit. Only when this is done does your work get published. And nice job of avoiding the question about the modern synthesis. Secondly ID theorist are a part of the science community.
If you cant answer a simple question when even asked twice, then thats OK. I knew you had no answer, Again as for calling people boy I haven’t used the word “fucktard” since I was 12 years old. More chuckles. And you are wrong. There are many in the “science” community that find ID very credible. And again credible enough to get published in science journals. And you couldn’t even answer the question as to whether or not you thought the modern synthesis was a valid theoretical framework….
cont…. I didn’t use the word “evolution” which can mean many different things much of what is accepted by ID theorist and even creationist. I used the term the modern evolutionary synthesis. If you do not understand what the “modern synthesis” is then again thats OK. I know your not very bright and very emotional. And seriously, are you a teenager or tween? Don’t bother me anymore unless you can give straight answers. I don’t have time for BS. Obfuscation will be ignored.
Again the question had nothing to do with existence, or the old (if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it etc…or Am I man dreaming I’m a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming I’m a man?) bullshit. And if you’re going to use this old tired fallacy, then you can’t just use “information”, because if this BS were indeed true, then all human thought is just as irrelevant and your back to square one.
“Boy? I’m probably old enough to be your father. I say this because its hard to conceive anyone over 30 saying such foolish things. I asked you several questions that you could not respond to. And one of them included. If ID theory has no scientific merit then why do ID theorist get their work published in multiple peer review journals? & since you cannot answer that question, maybe you can answer this question. Do you believe the modern evolutionary synthesis is a valid theoretical framework?
Nice way of avoiding the question. And if you think that the issue is about complexity requiring a designer then you have been sadly misinformed and ID theorist have clarified this fallacy many times, yet people still repeat this mantra. Besides how can anyone contribute meaningful information if all information is irrelevant? Does your existence require you understanding the information in a science journal? People have lived and died without reading one. Remember information is “irrelevant”
Again I ask, if there is absolutely no science to ID, then why do ID theorist get their work published in multiple science journals? Can you answer? And why is design theory being used to help us better understand the cell in systems biology? This is the the same design theory that was developed for complex and intelligently designed engineered systems. You admit you have never heard of it applied to biology so it is you who must not understand. Childish name calling is all you guys have.
In fact you don’t even know what quote mining means. This is a common mistake among people like you. Quote mining means to quote out of context. I have done no such thing. In fact you can’t even provide any quote you accuse me of. Or maybe you don’t even know what the word quote actually means. If you don’t care about religion, then why do you continually bring it up? i suggest you stop getting you information from TV and biased articles and do some real research.
Again you apply a standard you yourself cannot meet. And I quoted no one. I cited a journal that refutes your H20 claim. I thought to believed in science? Now prove to me what caused the singularity. & while you’re at it, prove that life can arise from lifeless matter. I already told you, the science of archaeology and forensics would not even exist if they had to prove who every intelligent agent was. You’re just repeating yourself with more strawmen. And you can’t even back up your claims.
But since you brought it up. Lets look at The “cult of reason” and atheism which lead to the slaughter of 40 thousand men women and children during the reign of terror in France. Or “state atheism” which led to the persecution and slaughter of tens of millions during the 20th century, and in just a few short years. Your hang up is about religion. But you know very little about science. So you are in fact mixing religion with science. Again, you brought it up not me.
Why dont you do that. But don’t accuse me of citing the Bible as evidence. Again those are your words not mine. I think you may have a mental block and or a very serious reading comprehension problem. Michael Denton and agnostic. David Berlinski non practicing jew. Bradley Monton atheist. What they all have in common is supporting intelligent design as a viable alternative theory. And this is why you continually ignore the fact that ID theorist get published in science journals.
Ok, exactly where did Aronra get his degree? Please at least back up this claim up, since you could not back up anything else. Aronra claimed that IDA was an ancestor of man, and when I told him it had finally been debunked, he tried to claim he didn’t say that. He then asked me to point out “just one” and I repeat “just one” atheist who supported intelligent design…
cont..And when I named several, his response was.. they don’t count because they support intelligent design, i.e., “the no true Scotsman fallacy” He also used a bogus chart that he claimed was from a poll taken in the US, and Equestion asked him, where he got this chart from? Aronra told him to look it up in Google, and when he called his bluff and did. It turned out to be from another country and Aronra finally had to retract it…..