Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[leroy]

Cite your sources, please?

In any case, you are wrong.

The earliest true tetrapods were the extinct groups of amphibians, that appeared around 330 to 350 million years ago (Early Carboniferous).

The earliest amniotes around 317 million years ago (Late Carboniferous). The two clades of Amniota are -

• Sauropsida, ancestor to all reptiles (extinct & extant)
• Synapsida, ancestor to the extinct & extant mammals, as well as the extinct mammal-like families.

I don’t where you get that the tetrapods predated the Tiktaalik…you’re incorrect with your claim.

Tiktaalik were “tetrapod-like” fishes. The later tetrapod-like fishes, the Acanthostega, and later Ichthyostega, were more tetrapod-like than the Tiktaalik.

Yes I can site my sources

Yes I can site my sources that show that some tetrapod fossils predate the fossilized remains of tiktaalik ..... Showing that land vertebrates predate the fossil tiktaalik

Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago),

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

....

Well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks of early Middle Devonian (from 393.3 ± 1.2 million years ago to 382.7 ± 1.6 million years ago )rocks have been found in Zachelmie Quarry (Poland).https://iugs-geoheritage.org/geoheritage_sites/devonian-tetrapod-trackways-holy-cross-mountains/



Note that I am not claiming that this is a problem for evolution.... I am just responding to your request of sources for a claim that I made



So back to the original question that I asked why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods seem to have Evolved before that ? @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker

 

[shunyadragon]

No sir.

Once again back to your self imposed ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal mythology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I can site my sources

Yes I can site my sources that show that some tetrapod fossils predate the fossilized remains of tiktaalik ..... Showing that land vertebrates predate the fossil tiktaalik

Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago),

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

....

Well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks of early Middle Devonian (from 393.3 ± 1.2 million years ago to 382.7 ± 1.6 million years ago )rocks have been found in Zachelmie Quarry (Poland).https://iugs-geoheritage.org/geoheritage_sites/devonian-tetrapod-trackways-holy-cross-mountains/



Note that I am not claiming that this is a problem for evolution.... I am just responding to your request of sources for a claim that I made



So back to the original question that I asked why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods seem to have Evolved before that ? @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker

Yes, evolved before that as @gnostic cited. Yes Tiktaalik is as you correctly cited.

 

[cladking]

Scientist do accept the facts that dolphins are conscious and self aware

When I was little people didn't even think babies were conscious.

We still can't measure or define consciousness so what changed?

 

[cladking]

First problem, yes a bottleneck is a reduction in number of individuals in a species and due to this smaller number the genetic diversity is reduced, but it is not a collection of odd ball genes, rather the same genes as the rest of the species with fewer variations.

How do you know this?

How do you know that if every hibernating bat hanging upside down suddenly dropped dead that every surviving bat isn't an oddball? How do you know it's impossible for every normal member of a species to be killed in a strange occurrence?

Why do you suppose it's impossible for the survivors to have things in common such as genes and consciousness?

 

[Pogo]

Yes I can site my sources

Yes I can site my sources that show that some tetrapod fossils predate the fossilized remains of tiktaalik ..... Showing that land vertebrates predate the fossil tiktaalik

Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago),

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

....

Well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks of early Middle Devonian (from 393.3 ± 1.2 million years ago to 382.7 ± 1.6 million years ago )rocks have been found in Zachelmie Quarry (Poland).https://iugs-geoheritage.org/geoheritage_sites/devonian-tetrapod-trackways-holy-cross-mountains/



Note that I am not claiming that this is a problem for evolution.... I am just responding to your request of sources for a claim that I made



So back to the original question that I asked why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods seem to have Evolved before that ? @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker

several things, first Tiktaalik was discovered in 2004 and thus predates the discovery in 2010 of older examples. Second Tiktaalik is a fossil skeleton, your googling led you to the discovery of trackways, not an actual fish.
Third, Tiktaalik and other examples here are actually lobe finned fishes or tetrapodomorpha , the ancestors to true tetrapods.

Now you were going to give us examples of organisms evolving out of one group and into another.
We are still waiting.

It is also a good idea not to assume spell checkers are correct and check your posts unless of course you really don't know the words you are using.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A bottleneck in biology is the numerical reduction of a population to near extinction levels that can be and often is accompanied by a reduction in genetic diversity. It is not a speciation event and was not proposed and used to indicate a speciation event through science. The species is the same before, during and after the bottleneck event. No evidence contradicts this.

The only similarity that a bottleneck has with artificial breeding is that of selection on a reduced number of individuals. The bottleneck results in a reduced population for breeding as does artificial selection. Beyond that, they are not the same things.

As I have noted before, the variation that existed prior to bottleneck event is no longer accessible to the species as it progresses and develops. It is a random change in the gene frequency of the population. Artificial selection is a contrived change in that gene frequency of a subset of a population. The population from which the breeding pair or pairs was taken from still exists and can be accessed. Not so in a bottleneck.

Co-opting this well-defined, widely used and normally understood term from biology to mean speciation or indicative of a speciation event is completely inconsistent with the evidence and understanding of the event. The attempt to twist its meaning is evidence of what has been determined to be a set of semantic gymnastics to forward a pseudoscientific, personal view based largely on wishful thinking, ignorance and confusion of philosophy, biology and science.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the spontaneous development of alternative behaviors occurs at a bottleneck and this "new" behavior could somehow engage speciation. The species is the same species retaining the behaviors already extant in the pre-bottleneck population and carried through post-bottleneck.

No defense or explanation of this fantastical and baseless belief has been attempted. No rational model, better explaining speciation through this or any alternative mechanism, has been proposed. Not even a trivial attempt has been made. It is empty claims and semantic gymnastics on heavy rotation and nothing more.

There is no evidence that consciousness is involved in speciation and none has been offered for examination. No model of this has been proposed with evidence offered to support it, nor explanation provided to support yet another contrived flight of fantasy, misunderstanding and wishful thinking.

No denier has shown any interest in these facts. They have their personal views and seem only to wish to cheery pick, contrive, twist or reject any evidence that cannot be made to fit that set of their preconceived notions. In their apparent omniscient views, anything that does not agree with their beliefs is by default false without the bother of having to demonstrate that. That is not science. That is not metaphysics. That is a belief system with only the imagination, dogma and ideology at its core.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I was little people didn't even think babies were conscious.

We still can't measure or define consciousness so what changed?

Consciousness is well understood and defined in science, The only thing that is changing is over time more research and discovers are increasing knowledge of consciousness.

 

[leroy]

several things, first Tiktaalik was discovered in 2004 and thus predates the discovery in 2010 of older examples. Second Tiktaalik is a fossil skeleton, your googling led you to the discovery of trackways, not an actual fish.
Third, Tiktaalik and other examples here are actually lobe finned fishes or tetrapodomorpha , the ancestors to true tetrapods.

Yes thanks for the information.... But I already knew that ..... Care to answer my actual question?


Why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods evolved before that date?

Now you were going to give us examples of organisms evolving out of one group and into another.
We are still waiting.

Worms

 

[ppp]

Why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods evolved before that date?

What would the existence of prior tetrapods have to do with the discovery of tiktaalik in the late devonian being considered a correct prediction? You are implying relevance, without any justification to your implication.

 

[Pogo]

Yes thanks for the information.... But I already knew that ..... Care to answer my actual question?

The stupid one that demonstrates again that you don't understand evolution or science?

Why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods evolved before that date?

Because that is the way science works, you gather data and then you form a hypothesis and then you test that hypothesis/prediction.
In this case the data and theory indicated a change from a fish form that lived only in water to a land form that eventually became us. Hypothesis, there should be fossils of such forms in geologic time and habitat specific ( places these intermediates would likely have lived and might also become fossilized. ) Neil Shubin and others made the prediction that if evolutionary theory was correct we should find lobe finned fish in strata from this age and identifiesd appropriate strata and went there and looked.
They found Tiktaalik which demonstrated that there were lobe finned fishes with the appropriate bone structure for a transitional between fishes and tetrapods. It was the first time one had been found and confirmed their hypothesis and filled in a "missing link" in evolutionary history.

Note, again, Tiktaalik is not a true tetrapod only a tetrapod like fish according to definition. Definitions become fuzzy at the margins as usual, but it you understand the theory, this is to be expected and not a fault of the theory, but of language.

Worms

What about them, some have gone from aquatic to terrestrial and back and their phylogeny is difficult since they fossilize rarely but they are not an example of going from one kind to another unless you can provide something much more specific. I don't even know what you are claiming about worms here.


Worm phylogeny has changed in several ways, including:

• 
  
  Earthworms
  Earthworms have transitioned between aquatic and terrestrial habitats multiple times in their phylogeny. The majority of Clitellata species, which includes earthworms, are aquatic, so their genomes may have ancestral genes that allow them to switch between habitats.
  
  
  
  and so on.

 

[leroy]

The stupid one that demonstrates again that you don't understand evolution or science?

Because that is the way science works, you gather data and then you form a hypothesis and then you test that hypothesis/prediction.
In this case the data and theory indicated a change from a fish form that lived only in water to a land form that eventually became us. Hypothesis, there should be fossils of such forms in geologic time and habitat specific ( places these intermediates would likely have lived and might also become fossilized. ) Neil Shubin and others made the prediction that if evolutionary theory was correct we should find lobe finned fish in strata from this age and identifiesd appropriate strata and went there and looked.
They found Tiktaalik which demonstrated that there were lobe finned fishes with the appropriate bone structure for a transitional between fishes and tetrapods. It was the first time one had been found and confirmed their hypothesis and filled in a "missing link" in evolutionary history.

Note, again, Tiktaalik is not a true tetrapod only a tetrapod like fish according to definition. Definitions become fuzzy at the margins as usual, but it you understand the theory, this is to be expected and not a fault of the theory, but of language.

What about them, some have gone from aquatic to terrestrial and back and their phylogeny is difficult since they fossilize rarely but they are not an example of going from one kind to another unless you can provide something much more specific. I don't even know what you are claiming about worms here.


Worm phylogeny has changed in several ways, including:

• View attachment 99703
  Earthworms
  Earthworms have transitioned between aquatic and terrestrial habitats multiple times in their phylogeny. The majority of Clitellata species, which includes earthworms, are aquatic, so their genomes may have ancestral genes that allow them to switch between habitats.
  
  
  
  and so on.

from this age

Why this "age"? (Late denovian) If full tetrapods appeared long before that.... Shouldn't the transition have occured before tetrapods appeared ?


Shouldn't the prediction be that the transitional fossils have to be found before tetrapods evolved ?

 

[cladking]

Co-opting this well-defined, widely used and normally understood term from biology to mean speciation or indicative of a speciation event is completely inconsistent with the evidence and understanding of the event. The attempt to twist its meaning is evidence of what has been determined to be a set of semantic gymnastics to forward a pseudoscientific, personal view based largely on wishful thinking, ignorance and confusion of philosophy, biology and science.

No!! The definition of bottleneck is exactly as I stated. It is irrelevant that you don't agree with me the speciation occurs at this time. I have supported my beliefs with logic and evidence as others just lecture and play word games.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the spontaneous development of alternative behaviors occurs at a bottleneck and this "new" behavior could somehow engage speciation.

I do not aver that new behaviors arise at bottlenecks. I aver that there is no such thing as "species" and biologists overlook every individual. If they paid any attention to individuals and consciousness they'd see that there is always unusual behavior in every "species". I maintain that the forces that cause bottlenecks often leave only individuals with unusual behavior.

Individuals with unusual behavior have unusual behavior because behavior in all species except homo omnisciencis is the result of experience and the logic of the wiring of their brain or the means by which they exist; ie-consciousness. This logic is the result of their genetic programming therefore unusual behavior is closely associated with unusual genes. There unusual genes that survive a bottleneck results in a speciation event.

This is simple observation. I believe it is well supported by evidence and experiment. I believe it is irrelevant that some individuals may be more likely to thrive because every individual could and change in the environment is a random walk. Any trait favored today probably wouldn't be after a few more generations. Species and individuals adapt and this might appear to us to be "Evolution" but nothing persists. Everything changes both in numerous cycles and chaotically. Pendulums are always moving and nothing can be predicted.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness is well understood and defined in science, The only thing that is changing is over time more research and discovers are increasing knowledge of consciousness.

So I guess you can tell me not only why you think this but I don't! I guess you can tell me how much more conscious a dog in than a fruit fly on millions of metrics and specific traits. How much smarter is a fruit fly than an acorn? Exactly. Don't round it off to something that has no meaning. You can estimate, that's OK, like a fruit fly is approximately 12 times more conscious than the butterfly in China that is causing a hurricane right this moment.

Surely if you know what consciousness is you can define it!!! Or are you sticking with "consciousness is a state of wakefulness."?

You are just using words to say nothing and ignore my argument and present your beliefs in the science that has every answer.

Of course you aren't going to respond to any point.

 

[gnostic]

Yes thanks for the information.... But I already knew that ..... Care to answer my actual question?


Why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods evolved before that date?

The problems with the discovery of the Zachelmie Quarry, is that there are only “trace fossil evidence”, thus the tracks, but there are complete lack of fossil evidence of the animals that could have made those tracks.

So they still don’t know if the tracks were made by true tetrapods (eg early primitive amphibians), or by tetrapod-like fishes (Tetrapodomorpha sacropterygians).

I am not discounting the tracks, but until they find actual fossils nearby, biologists and paleontologists are still playing the guessing game as to what animals could have made those tracks. Without the evidence of the body/bodies, those track could still have been made by tetrapod-like fishes.

That‘s the problem with Zachelmie tracks, they don’t know if these tracks come from true tetrapod. Without the actual fossils of tetrapods to go with those tracks, the tracks are anomalies that haven’t been answered yet.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

I am sure they have an answer but it won't explain much or be true. It mostly observatory not explanatory. Why worry about something like this though that you may not know for sure

 

[leroy]

The problems with the discovery of the Zachelmie Quarry, is that there are only “trace fossil evidence”, thus the tracks, but there are complete lack of fossil evidence of the animals that could have made those tracks.

So they still don’t know if the tracks were made by true tetrapods (eg early primitive amphibians), or by tetrapod-like fishes (Tetrapodomorpha sacropterygians).

I am not discounting the tracks, but until they find actual fossils nearby, biologists and paleontologists are still playing the guessing game as to what animals could have made those tracks. Without the evidence of the body/bodies, those track could still have been made by tetrapod-like fishes.

That‘s the problem with Zachelmie tracks, they don’t know if these tracks come from true tetrapod. Without the actual fossils of tetrapods to go with those tracks, the tracks are anomalies that haven’t been answered yet.

Sure all fossils are challengeable..... But My point is that tikaalik or any other intermediate between fish and tetrapod (let's call it fishapot) is expected to be found in any layer from the early denovian to modern times ..... Finding tiktaalik in the mid denovian is not a valid prediction, given that find it at any other layer would have also been consistent with evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

So I guess you can tell me not only why you think this but I don't! I guess you can tell me how much more conscious a dog in than a fruit fly on millions of metrics and specific traits. How much smarter is a fruit fly than an acorn? Exactly. Don't round it off to something that has no meaning. You can estimate, that's OK, like a fruit fly is approximately 12 times more conscious than the butterfly in China that is causing a hurricane right this moment.

Surely if you know what consciousness is you can define it!!! Or are you sticking with "consciousness is a state of wakefulness."?

You are just using words to say nothing and ignore my argument and present your beliefs in the science that has every answer.

Of course you aren't going to respond to any point.

Consciousness is well understood and defined in science, The only thing that is changing is over time more research and discovers are increasing knowledge of consciousness.

No, "consciousness is NOT simply a state of wakefulness." This debate is round and round with no result. I accept the current definitions and the results of the scientific research and knowledge concerning the natural nature of consciousness in higher animals with a central nervous system. You do not. End of discussion

 

[Valjean]

Yes I can site my sources

Yes I can site my sources that show that some tetrapod fossils predate the fossilized remains of tiktaalik ..... Showing that land vertebrates predate the fossil tiktaalik

Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago),

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

....

Well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks of early Middle Devonian (from 393.3 ± 1.2 million years ago to 382.7 ± 1.6 million years ago )rocks have been found in Zachelmie Quarry (Poland).https://iugs-geoheritage.org/geoheritage_sites/devonian-tetrapod-trackways-holy-cross-mountains/



Note that I am not claiming that this is a problem for evolution.... I am just responding to your request of sources for a claim that I made



So back to the original question that I asked why is the discovery of tiktaalik in the late denovian considered a correct prediction if tetrapods seem to have Evolved before that ? @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker

It's not the tetrapody that makes Tiktaalik interesting. As you point out, there were plenty of lobe-finned fishes around at the time. There are other anatomical features that fit the evolutionary progression.

 

[Valjean]

When I was little people didn't even think babies were conscious.

We still can't measure or define consciousness so what changed?

What's in question, I think, isn't consciousness, but awareness.