Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Evidence can't be logical or illogical. It's the reasoning connecting it to any conclusions derived from it that is logical (valid) or not.

Reparse my sentence until it makes sense in accordance with what I've said a million times.

Evidence cannot be misrepresented, either.

Reread the sentence.

Do you understand what a category error is? It's like when you call laughter red or liquid. Some words just can't be used to describe some nouns.

That's just precious. I don't know how it's relevant though.

That post doesn't support all your claims about consciousness, which is that it is found in all life including non-animal and unicellular life. He wrote, "I believe consciousness is universal with animals with a central nervous system at least." He never broaches the subject of all life being conscious as you do, although he leaves the possibility open.

Reread both threads.

I'm sorry if you're having a bad day. i may have had worse. God knows I can get far afield.

 

[Dimi95]

We all are.

The difference is that I don't share any of your assumptions but I still have to make models composed of words that people parse. Every word comes with baggage and I don't mean the baggage, I mean the word.

So even before hearing them out , you reject them?

 

[cladking]

What time period, or time test, are you referring to, when you say "sudden"?

It's the dictionary definition just like every word I use.

"Sudden" is ALWAYS relative. Things that occur to life such as death, taxes, and birth are nearly instantaneous. You wouldn't say little Leandra was born suddenly last July and August. The news might seem sudden if you weren't aware of a pregnancy. By the exact same token you might say the the Horn of Africa is expected to suddenly break off and speed toward India because it is expected to suddenly accelerate and move at a couple feet per year. Generally speaking what's a long time for an elephant is sudden to a fruit fly. A tse tse fly can be born and die of old age while an elephant is being born.

When describing speciation AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH LIFE sudden can mean anything from instantaneous to a few generations. It does not mean millions of years. It does not mean glacial change.

Every word in every dictionary takes its meaning from context. It's your fault if yoyu intentionally parse it wrong.

 

[cladking]

Say you were playing poker. Each top notch player is self trained to hide their tells. Tells are unconscious body language inductions, such as a touch or twitch, that may happen, involuntarily, but which betrays their intent. They practice in the mirror to control these, so someone on the outside; observers, cannot see. They also cannot read your mind. They are left in the dark even if good observers.

I don't even know my tells so I just create so many false clues even I am befuddled. Play the odds, drop with bad hands, and remember only to bluff when you have bad hands and can't lose.

Personally, I was interested in consciousness, and came to the conclusion that I needed to become both the scientist and the experiment, so I could induce my unconscious mind, and then observe things from the inside. From the outside, I may appear like I am just pondering, but actually my brain was very active as I am observing. You can learn much his way, and begin to unravel how the brain's operating system is set up.

I agree but We preferentially see our thoughts so it's very difficult. I worked on the problem of the nature of thought for more than 50 years before I stumbled on it through the back door of understanding consciousness. I doubt it will be possible to understand consciousness for at least the next 75 years without understanding the nature of Ancient Language because the problem is intractable with a direct approach. Certainly we can gain numerous insights and meditation of various types are likely the most effective.

Science leaves out the software, since it is internal data and is called subjective. However, if you could go inside the computer and download the software and try to crack the code, you have all types of data that will never show up on the surface. It mostly works seamless behind the scenes, and we only see the tip of the iceberg on the surface.

The word for that software is metaphysics but those around here believe in magic. Yeah, the analogy isn't perfect.

One of my first analogies for explaining the value of internal data, is having a tooth ache. If you never had a toothache, before, it may not be easy to fully grasp the pain, one with a toothache, feels on the inside. The outside drama; third person, looks bad, but that is not enough to infer full empathy. My approach was sort of like having my good tooth, drilled, and live in the moment of the pain. This data adds another dimension for a more 3-D view, that goes beyond simple sensory cause and effect of the third person. The natural brain output pain to consciousness to make it aware.

A person who is severely depressed, is not always easy to empathize with, since the surface we see does not reflect the inner agony to the point of 100% empathy. But that too is part of the consciousness experience, that science tries to avoid, to stay objective.

The practical problem with the internal approach, relative to the tooth ache pain, is being immerse, will make it harder to concentrate, such that the internal science observer, can become borderline semi-rational, and not as objective as sitting comfortably in the third person unaffected by the consciousness of full empathy. It does take training and hardening. At first you can sense yourself on a pendulum between the two centers of consciousness. Eventually the ego learns to stays objective, while the inner self slowly give up the operating system; archetypes. It may even rewire the ego, to have more access; go deeper and deeper; learn the coding language. It appears to be a natural evolving process led by consciousness in two directions; future direction of consciousness.

I believe I understand your point. There are many types and levels of understanding and ours are apparently somewhat different. Personally I think the most important thing is to seek any perspective on such questions. Science and most believers just ignore it except to poke electrodes in brains and from this they want to extrapolate omniscience. It will take a very long time to understand anything using such techniques. Some of us want to try to skip ahead to answers.

Thanks for the post.

 

[cladking]

So even before hearing them out , you reject them?

I've already delineated every one of these assumptions and blew them out of the water numerous times in numerous threads.

I have no desire to revisit this at the nonce.

 

[Pogo]

It's the dictionary definition just like every word I use.

"Sudden" is ALWAYS relative. Things that occur to life such as death, taxes, and birth are nearly instantaneous. You wouldn't say little Leandra was born suddenly last July and August. The news might seem sudden if you weren't aware of a pregnancy. By the exact same token you might say the the Horn of Africa is expected to suddenly break off and speed toward India because it is expected to suddenly accelerate and move at a couple feet per year. Generally speaking what's a long time for an elephant is sudden to a fruit fly. A tse tse fly can be born and die of old age while an elephant is being born.

When describing speciation AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH LIFE sudden can mean anything from instantaneous to a few generations. It does not mean millions of years. It does not mean glacial change.

Every word in every dictionary takes its meaning from context. It's your fault if yoyu intentionally parse it wrong.

Or in other words, you have made your use of the word sudden meaningless, as with your use of experiment, theory, conciousness and of course mile.

Mile mile mile mile.

Good job.

Mile

 

[blü 2]

It's the dictionary definition just like every word I use.

"Sudden" is ALWAYS relative. Things that occur to life such as death, taxes, and birth are nearly instantaneous. You wouldn't say little Leandra was born suddenly last July and August. The news might seem sudden if you weren't aware of a pregnancy. By the exact same token you might say the the Horn of Africa is expected to suddenly break off and speed toward India because it is expected to suddenly accelerate and move at a couple feet per year. Generally speaking what's a long time for an elephant is sudden to a fruit fly. A tse tse fly can be born and die of old age while an elephant is being born.

When describing speciation AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH LIFE sudden can mean anything from instantaneous to a few generations. It does not mean millions of years. It does not mean glacial change.

Every word in every dictionary takes its meaning from context. It's your fault if yoyu intentionally parse it wrong.

Thank you for your clarification of "sudden".

Now where are those five distinct, necessary and sufficient and non-overlapping definitions of "atom" among the unbounded choices you assert are out there? Or were you just talking nonsense when you asserted that?

And what definition of "consciousness" are you using? The notion appears to be central to whatever it is you're arguing, so if you don't know what you actually mean by the term, please just say so and the caravan can move on.

 

[cladking]

And what definition of "consciousness" are you using? The notion appears to be central to whatever it is you're arguing, so if you don't know what you actually mean by the term, please just say so and the caravan can move on.

I have some question about your sincerity here but will respond anyway. "Consciousness" is bestowed by nature on every living individual for the purpose of survival and procreation. It is free will and pattern recognition which provides the formatting for learning, gaining experience (the only true knowledge), communication. It is logic incarnate where reality is logic manifest and math is logic quantified. It is digital and qualia are representative. It recognizes no abstraction, no thought, supports no belief, and includes memory and often an amygdala-like structure (or equivalency) to provide a vector sum total of social standing. It has many other attributes and characteristics I've listed multiple times.

It is not equivalent to life but there is a one to one correspondence between consciousness and every living thing hence it is not inaccurate to say that life is consciousness. Without it life can't exist and with life necessarily exists. Of course we are likely to have machine intelligence, machine consciousness in the future and this definition will have to change at that time.

I can see this because I can see what human life is without abstract language. Ancient people experienced consciousness but not thought. Ancient reality was different than our reality. We would not recognize it in any way shape or form.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You meant that it's exactly that way, right?

This is the reason I for one have long ago given up fetching answers for creationists and other faith-based thinkers, and you seem to be coming over to it as well.

There will be times when you may want to share your considered opinions to serve those who can learn from sound arguments, but hopefully you understand that you can't help these other people learn because you don't have their cooperation. Learning isn't imposed on others the way indoctrination is. For the latter, the person just needs to hear and understand the word, and if he has no defense, his mind will be shaped by that.

But that is not learning in the academic sense, which requires a prepared and apt student who is paying attention and open-mindedly trying to understand. If you don't have that - if all you encounter is resolute faith and a confirmation bias - you already know that you have no hope of getting through.

I will address another poster in a moment in this post at some length to whom, like you, I can teach nothing. I hope that you can see that I'm actually writing to people like you. My words are chosen to be understood by critical thinkers who can learn from language - people who like to ruminate about the ideas of others, people who will read them, consider them open-mindedly, acknowledge them, and either agree or explain where and why they disagree with something.

Unfortunately, as you know, there are many posters with whom that seldom or never happens. Writing only for them would be pointless.

I broached the topic of nonresponsive answers with him recently: "Your reply was nonresponsive, meaning it didn't affirm or attempt to falsify my comment, and in this case, went off on an unrelated tangent."

A few posts later came this more fleshed out discussion of how discussions do and don't make forward progress, which contained this passage:

"I liken it to a game of ping-pong. Responsive answers that either affirm or attempt to falsify, or that attempt to seek clarification, are returns. A long as this process - called dialectic - continues, progress is being made toward resolving differences of opinion. We can call this a volley, and it may be long or short. But as soon a one player fails to return a shot, the discussion (volley) is over. The issue ends with the last, plausible, unrebutted argument and its conclusion, whether that is because one discussant relents and agrees with the other, or because one discussant doesn't know what is expected or for any other reason is unable to cooperate."
Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

Would it surprise you that he never acknowledged seeing any of that much less agree or attempt to refute it. i.e., the volley ended there?

As I just discussed with Dan above, teaching and learning is a cooperative effort. You can't play ping-pong with a player who won't return your shots (answer responsively).

You probably won't get a useful answer to that. You might get "definitions" like "consciousness is life" or his definition of metaphysics as "the basis of science," but nothing you can use to understand what he means when he uses the word. Ask for his definition of sudden or science and you'll be as in the dark about what he means when he uses those words as you were before you asked.

Multiple posters have told you what the problem is. You've seen my words to Dimi above. Here's another such comment from this thread:

"I would point out that the claim is that it is always the fault of the reader for not correctly parsing the words offered or not being able to see the many times evidence, defense or explanation have been provided (none is provided in my experience). Somehow, it is that they are invisible to us that are not anointed and possessed of the sort of omniscience that saying "NO!!!" implies to me"

This is an example of what I mean by somebody being unable to learn from words. People shower you with the answer, but it has no impact on your thinking. Instead, you think that others are transforming your words into metaphors. They're not transforming the words they say aren't clearly defined or the claims insufficiently evidenced into metaphors. They're telling you that the words are unintelligible as written.

I don't know whether you have it in your power to do better, but if you do, it will begin with taking the words others tell you seriously rather than inventing other explanations.

I don't expect any meaningful response from you whatsoever regarding this matter, which behavior is not limited to you, but is inexplicable to me. I'm imagining myself in your position reading words like these. If I'm tolling, which I don't believe you're doing, I engage the collocutor but bring out my troll toolbox, which contains Gish gallops, sea-lioning, deflection, equivocation, weasel words, and the like just to waste the other guys time and tick him off. That's what trolling is.

But if I'm sincere but confused, I still engage him, albeit differently. I want to know why he thinks those things about me and am concerned that he does think them and that he might be correct enough to ask questions to try to sort that out.

But you and the half dozen others I've gone down this road with before don't engage either way. They don't engage at all. The just ignore such comments and leave others to guess why they seem so uninterested in something that ought to interest them.

Dozens.

How many times has that been refuted, which refutations you have consistently ignored?

This is from yesterday:

You: "Have I ever mentioned that without experiment there is no science. Not only did Thales have no experiment he hadn't even thought of it. No science."

Me: "Yet Thales did science. He observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science."

That's an example of science based only in observation with no active experiments. I expect you to ignore that again. Why should it be different this time?

[cont]

Yes, I meant what I posted.

I think your posts are very logical and well-supported, but I don't see that you will get anymore meaningful response than anyone has for going on seven years now. It is my conclusion that the prevailing evidence indicates we are faced with vast level of continually uninformed opinion, meaningless to a science discussion, delivered as if by the only informed source on the forum.

I've lost interest in all the semantic games, pseudoscience, empty claims, being told that all the failures are those of others while watching the same thing over and over. What value is the claim that the Lenski experiment is flawed because cheap agar is available in bulk from China? What is the value of being told that all of Darwin's assumptions were wrong by someone that cannot name one of those assumptions or show that any of them are wrong? What is the value of learning that someone thinks sudden means anywhere from nanoseconds to 100 years? What value is there in hearing someone claim they are a scientist and possess nothing that would remotely lead a reasonable person to conclude that? What value is there in listening to someone that thinks taxonomy amounts to making up whatever name you want for species, real or imagined?

I'm done with that nonsense.

I don't think this is a person that can be reached and I find nothing claimed is of any use in gaining any insights about science. I can't imagine being that lost and thinking I'm the only one that has a map.

But, never-the-less, I have learned from your post and found it useful. A condition I have come to expect from your words. That may be the only value that comes out of these discussions. That there are a number of informed and knowledgeable individuals here that refute the empty claims and provide sound, logical thinking and information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or in other words, you have made your use of the word sudden meaningless, as with your use of experiment, theory, conciousness and of course mile.

Mile mile mile mile.

Good job.

Mile

I came to that conclusion a long time ago. Sudden, following the use to cover durations orders of magnitude apart, has no value as a description.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for your clarification of "sudden".

Wow! And it only took seven years. Of course, clarification and not justification I take it.

Now where are those five distinct, necessary and sufficient and non-overlapping definitions of "atom" among the unbounded choices you assert are out there? Or were you just talking nonsense when you asserted that?

Good luck. If clarification of one thing took seven years, how long will getting five definitions take?

And what definition of "consciousness" are you using? The notion appears to be central to whatever it is you're arguing, so if you don't know what you actually mean by the term, please just say so and the caravan can move on.

Consciousness is life. There you go. As meaningless as the definition for sudden.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very nice, you are of the opinion that we are doing it all wrong and that we need to start over.
Unfortunately you seem to be unable to get two cards to stand without knocking them over with the next breath.

The Crackpot Index​

John Baez​

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:​

1. A -5 point starting credit.
   
   
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
   
   
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
   
   
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
   
   
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
   
   
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
   
   
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
   
   
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
   
   
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
   
   
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
    
    
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
    
    
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
    
    
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
    
    
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
    
    
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
    
    
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
    
    
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
    
    
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    
    
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
    
    
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
    
    
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
    
    
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    
    
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
    
    
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
    
    
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
    
    
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
    
    
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
    
    
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
    
    
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
    
    
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
    
    
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
    
    
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
    
    
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
    
    
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
    
    
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
    
    
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
    
    
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

---

© 1998 John Baez
[email protected]

home​

I was little confused at first, because I initially misread that to be Joan Baez. Until, I went back up and reread the author name, I couldn't figure out how she had a dog in this fight. LOL! Then it turns out that her father had a PhD in Physics and John C. Baez is her cousin. It really has become a small world. I mean that to be interpreted as metaphor and not some ancient science thing.

I used to work for a guy that hung out with her when he was in college the 60's counter culture days.

 

[Pogo]

I have some question about your sincerity here but will respond anyway. "Consciousness" is bestowed by nature on every living individual for the purpose of survival and procreation. It is free will and pattern recognition which provides the formatting for learning, gaining experience (the only true knowledge), communication. It is logic incarnate where reality is logic manifest and math is logic quantified. It is digital and qualia are representative. It recognizes no abstraction, no thought, supports no belief, and includes memory and often an amygdala-like structure (or equivalency) to provide a vector sum total of social standing. It has many other attributes and characteristics I've listed multiple times.

It is not equivalent to life but there is a one to one correspondence between consciousness and every living thing hence it is not inaccurate to say that life is consciousness. Without it life can't exist and with life necessarily exists. Of course we are likely to have machine intelligence, machine consciousness in the future and this definition will have to change at that time.

I can see this because I can see what human life is without abstract language. Ancient people experienced consciousness but not thought. Ancient reality was different than our reality. We would not recognize it in any way shape or form.

Yep, definitely no abstract language here in its adjective, verb or noun forms.

 

[cladking]

Yep, definitely no abstract language here in its adjective, verb or noun forms.

I speak confused language chocked full of abstract, analog, and symbolic words just like every other homo omnisciencis.

I make models of what I believe just like all members of my species after 4 years of age. But some of these models are for the purpose of interpreting Ancient Language which is fixed, logical, digital, and representative. As such I can model how people thought before the tower of babel.

I never said, implied, or meant that I don't use abstractions. However if you were to count words I wager you'd find three things, one that I use fewer abstractions than most people, two I use fewer taxonomies, and three that my words don't closely follow Zipf's Law. They will lay out more like a straight and a curved line joining at a gentle bend rather than a single straight line. Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law and linguists never even noticed because they are too busy parsing the words to bother to count them or to look them up in A dictionary.

 

[cladking]

Yep, definitely no abstract language here in its adjective, verb or noun forms.

With extreme effort I could define consciousness in Ancient Language but you couldn't understand it without developing the models. We can't think like ancient people. Anthropology assumed ancient people were just like us but the tower of babel was a speciation event where homo sapiens went extinct.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is nothing metaphysical about "All observed change in species is sudden.". This is a fact.

There is nothing true about the above statement. This is a very dishonest bizarre view of evolution.

Enough of asserting your imaginative intentional ignorance of science Please reference a academic biology text on evolution that makes this claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

The nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on this site was just a few pages back,. "you aren't stupid".

I'd like to thank the academy and all the little people who made this possible.

Of course, stupidity is not your problem. That is why I consider your ignorance of science intentional.

Which academy?

 

[blü 2]

"Consciousness" is bestowed by nature on every living individual for the purpose of survival and procreation.

What exactly is an "individual" here? What test will tell me whether an amoeba, a shellfish, an ant, a sardine, a snail, a rat, is an "individual" or not?

It is free will

Human will is only free in the sense and to the extent that it can by and large be exercised independently of external constraints. In fact our decisions are simply the result of our evolved brain's decision-making processes, though I accept that subjectively they feel 'free' most of the time because of the limited awareness of the self-aware part of the brain to what the non-conscious brain is actually doing (which is just about everything).

It is logic incarnate where reality is logic manifest and math is logic quantified.

Are you saying that creatures who have no grasp of math and/or logic are not conscious?

It is digital

What is it that you're saying is digital?

It recognizes no abstraction, no thought, supports no belief, and includes memory

Consciousness has no power to recognize abstraction, you say? But 'consciousness' as a word is itself an abstraction.

and often an amygdala-like structure (or equivalency) to provide a vector sum total of social standing.

What's a "vector sum of social standing", exactly?

It is not equivalent to life but there is a one to one correspondence between consciousness and every living thing

What "correspondence" is that? Are you saying that each amoeba, each ant, each tree, is conscious? If not, what?

 

[leroy]

Cool. Then what you said was needlessly ambiguous as well as completely meaningless also.

Yes..... And your first clue should have been that since my very first comment on the topic I said that "this is not important nor controversial this is just semantics "

Your sick and insane pathology of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing lead you to read something that I never said.


I challenge you to quote any my comments and show the supposed ambiguity (or you can simply admint your mistake)

So why even bring that up?

The comment was not even directed to you.... I simply mentioned the fact that based on the * current* definition of dinosaur , birds are dinosaurs because someone changed the original definition of dinosaur...... Originally dinosaur was a generic word used to describe those ancient reptiles that we saw in Jurassic park (which didn't include birds)..... But then the definition was modified and now dinosaur is defined as a clade that includes trex and chicken but not petrodactils

If you find this meaningless or uninteresting why did you respond to my comment? ... Why take the time in making a strawman and refute such strawman?...... It is almost as if you are intentionally making stuff up so that I call you a lier and get banned from the form

 

[leroy]

no



no

I actually watched the video.
It is literally dedicated to explaining how and why they were looking for a fossil of that age, in that environment, with that anatomy

And your question is "why".
Who better to answer that question then the leading scientist of the search?

If you were really interested in the answer, you would be able to spare a couple of minutes to watch the video.
But it doesn't look like you're interested. You're only interested in making it look as if you are scoring debate points to inflate your ego.

If you have a long history of making things up..... Why would I trust you this time?

I am already familiar with tiktaalik it's finding and research since then.... Which is why I know that tetrapods likely evolve before the late denovian, which is finding tiktaalik in the late denovian is not an amazing prediction. Transitional forms expected to be found almost anywhere in the geologic column there is nothing special about finding tiktaalik in that specific layer.


And you know it and agree with me , you just pretend to disagree because you have a pathology