The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Dirty Penguin]

Maybe you can point where the Wikipedia article says they were able to bear weight

Is it your contention that the Tiktaalik couldn't bear weight on it's limbs in order to move on land?

 

[outhouse]

I am basing CaptianBritain's gender on the little symbol after "Gender:" listed on the right side of the avatar ribbon under the "Join Date:" and above his number of posts.

ya i ment someone else good catch

 

[CaptainBritain]

You have a habit of not even trying to prove the facts of the site wrong and hoping to brush it off because of its source as if the facts are automatically wrong. Maybe you can point where the Wikipedia article says they were able to bear weight but you'll probably brush it off since its Wikipedia.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if you don't even want to bother trying to debunk their claims, that's fine, but the reader can decide whether there's weight to their claims it couldn't bear weight. Is there a rule that says you can't use a site that believes in Creationism to state facts and assertions? I can only take that as you conceding to what it says.

couldnt help myself, read every site in the list of sources for the wiki article you posted, the answer you seek is there.
Could tell you which one but would rather you stumbled across it.

 

[idav]

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“ We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow animals to exploit land. ”

—Ted Daeschler, [16]​

 

[outhouse]

trying to find loopholes or gaps in fossils and science does not discount it AT ALL


what is your replacement hypothesis

sky daddy said poof there it is??????????????????????????

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you even realize the conclusions here? They are "specific". They have "Specific" activations, and at the same "Specific" locations because that is how they are programmed to "activate". Why did the BORIS get restricted?

Oh wow...they used the word "specific". They also provide a scenario for the evolution of these epigenetic regulators. So it seems you're totally ignoring the entire point of the paper and are focusing only on the use of the word "specific". That's pretty funny.

You have a habit of not even trying to prove the facts of the site wrong and hoping to brush it off because of its source as if the facts are automatically wrong.

If you honestly think linking to a creationist blog is a valid rebuttal to published, peer-reviewed science, that speaks for itself.

Maybe you can point where the Wikipedia article says they were able to bear weight but you'll probably brush it off since its Wikipedia.

Gee, if it's not on Wiki, it must not be so, eh? How 'bout we do one better?

The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb : Nature

"The fin of Tiktaalik was capable of a range of postures, including a limb-like substrate-supported stance in which the shoulder and elbow were flexed and the distal skeleton extended."​

But hey, the journal Nature hardly compares to a creationist blog, right?

 

[CaptainBritain]

trying to find loopholes or gaps in fossils and science does not discount it AT ALL


what is your replacement hypothesis

sky daddy said poof there it is??????????????????????????

Blowing kisses to a hand full of dust or clay is how its done, fact,

 

[outhouse]

Blowing kisses to a hand full of dust or clay is how its done, fact,

understood

I feel its taken directly from sumerians story of adamu

 

[Shermana]

Oh wow...they used the word "specific". They also provide a scenario for the evolution of these epigenetic regulators. So it seems you're totally ignoring the entire point of the paper and are focusing only on the use of the word "specific". That's pretty funny.


If you honestly think linking to a creationist blog is a valid rebuttal to published, peer-reviewed science, that speaks for itself.


Gee, if it's not on Wiki, it must not be so, eh? How 'bout we do one better?

The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb : Nature

"The fin of Tiktaalik was capable of a range of postures, including a limb-like substrate-supported stance in which the shoulder and elbow were flexed and the distal skeleton extended."​

But hey, the journal Nature hardly compares to a creationist blog, right?

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

But the front fin's limited range of motion would have prevented Tiktaalik from swinging its fins forward to walk the way an amphibian does.

Genome duplication and the limits of evolution | Uncommon Descent

Genome duplication encourages rapid adaptation of plants

But a University of Rochester biologist has found that at least some plant adaptations can occur almost instantaneously, not by a change in DNA sequence, but simply by duplication of existing genetic material.

 

[McBell]

What truth and facts am I ignoring and explain what you mean by "ratification".

You ignore anything that you think disagrees with your belief.
You do so to the extent of citing things that actually say the exact opposite of what you want them to say.
Granted, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, my other thought is that your are so ignorant of evolution you honestly do not understand anything you read on the topic.

You do not research.
You merely look for things that you think agree with your beliefs.

If you don't think you have to even bother addressing their claims, it's obviously conceding,

Really?
Does this work both ways or only when convenient for your ratifications?
I mean, you ignore much of your own sources...

So you honestly think that if I was to cite a Scooby Doo movie as my proof that ghosts exist, that people should take the time to pick apart the source?

I don't see any rules on this forum that say you can't cite them for one reason or another,

And?
I mean, I know for a fact that ghosts exist because I have seen more than one episode of Scooby Doo...

if you can't dispute their claims, then you can't dispute their claims, simple.

and?
Oh, I see.
You want the default to be "I WIN!" whenever no one disputes your claim?
This is exactly what I mean by you much preferring ratification over truth and facts.

 

[CaptainBritain]

understood

I feel its taken directly from sumerians story of adamu

They should have stole it from a better source, though they are all wrong to greater and smaller degrees, the creation myths in the east just seem a bit more grown up.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

Um...yeah. From that site:

Based on the structure of its front fin and its shoulder, we know that it was capable of swimming and propping itself up in a push-up position. From this we can infer that Tiktaalik lived most of its life in the shallow water close to shore, using its strong front fins to push along the bottom and stabilize it in moving water.​

Your claim was that Tiktaalik couldn't bear any weight at all. The data shows that it could. You were wrong.

Genome duplication and the limits of evolution | Uncommon Descent

Again, who cares what some creationist blog says? That you think "UncommonDescent.com" is superior to peer-reviewed, published science speaks volumes.

But a University of Rochester biologist has found that at least some plant adaptations can occur almost instantaneously, not by a change in DNA sequence, but simply by duplication of existing genetic material.

So evolution can occur quickly. Great. Thanks for that.

 

[Shermana]

Um...yeah. From that site:

Based on the structure of its front fin and its shoulder, we know that it was capable of swimming and propping itself up in a push-up position. From this we can infer that Tiktaalik lived most of its life in the shallow water close to shore, using its strong front fins to push along the bottom and stabilize it in moving water.​

Your claim was that Tiktaalik couldn't bear any weight at all. The data shows that it could. You were wrong.


Again, who cares what some creationist blog says? That you think "UncommonDescent.com" is superior to peer-reviewed, published science speaks volumes.



So evolution can occur quickly. Great. Thanks for that.

I've said that evolution can occur quickly at least 6 times now, in its micro form.

How wrong am I exactly? It couldn't "Skim" the shallow water without the water. Pressing against the bottom for a quick glide is not anywhere close to walking. When I say "Weight bearing" I'm talking about on land, without buoyancy and such, capable of "bearing its weight". Let the reader decide if pushing against the bottom is the same kind of "Weight bearing" I'm referring to. If you can prove that a Stabilization-motion leads to structural changes to the fin itself to bear weight, show it.

If you want to believe that Micro changes in any way show proof of Macro transition, you're welcome to your beliefs, but if you can't back them with evidence, that's your issue.

 

[McBell]

I've said that evolution can occur quickly at least 6 times now, in its micro form.

How wrong am I exactly? It couldn't "Skim" the shallow water without the water. Pressing against the bottom for a quick glide is not anywhere close to walking.

If you want to believe that Micro changes in any way show proof of Macro transition, you're welcome to your beliefs, but if you can't back them with evidence, that's your issue.

I can't decide if this is back peddling or moving the goal posts...

 

[Shermana]

You ignore anything that you think disagrees with your belief.
You do so to the extent of citing things that actually say the exact opposite of what you want them to say.
Granted, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, my other thought is that your are so ignorant of evolution you honestly do not understand anything you read on the topic.

You do not research.
You merely look for things that you think agree with your beliefs.


Really?
Does this work both ways or only when convenient for your ratifications?
I mean, you ignore much of your own sources...

So you honestly think that if I was to cite a Scooby Doo movie as my proof that ghosts exist, that people should take the time to pick apart the source?



And?
I mean, I know for a fact that ghosts exist because I have seen more than one episode of Scooby Doo...


and?
Oh, I see.
You want the default to be "I WIN!" whenever no one disputes your claim?
This is exactly what I mean by you much preferring ratification over truth and facts.

Please show a single thing I've ignored and not addressed.

 

[Shermana]

I can't decide if this is back peddling or moving the goal posts...

Explain why it would be back peddling in the face of everything I've said up to now, and why its moving the goalposts.

"Weight bearing" means "Weight bearing". Pushing against the bottom for stabilization does not use the same bone structure and muscles to bear weight on land. If you think otherwise, let the reader decide.

Your response is further proof of my rebuttal to the OP. If you think there is proof to show how Micro changes can break the boundaries of the initial mold, even from the links I've posted, please show how with quotes. Specifics please.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've said that evolution can occur quickly at least 6 times now, in its micro form.

Yet you continually cite sources that say epigenetic inheritance and gene duplication are means by which large scale evolution can occur.

How wrong am I exactly? It couldn't "Skim" the shallow water without the water. Pressing against the bottom for a quick glide is not anywhere close to walking. When I say "Weight bearing" I'm talking about on land, without buoyancy and such.

You're wrong because you said Tiktaalik couldn't bear any weight at all. Now that you've been shown to be wrong (by your own sources), you're moving he goalposts to "could walk on land like modern amphibians". That you have to stoop to such dishonest tactics speaks volumes about you and your position.

If you want to believe that Micro changes in any way show proof of Macro transition, you're welcome to your beliefs, but if you can't back them with evidence, that's your issue.

Man, you're too funny. You've been providing evidence for "macro transitions" for me! :yes:

 

[Shermana]

Yet you continually cite sources that say epigenetic inheritance and gene duplication are means by which large scale evolution can occur.


You're wrong because you said Tiktaalik couldn't bear any weight at all. Now that you've been shown to be wrong (by your own sources), you're moving he goalposts to "could walk on land like modern amphibians". That you have to stoop to such dishonest tactics speaks volumes about you and your position.


Man, you're too funny. You've been providing evidence for "macro transitions" for me! :yes:

Please quote where those links showed that inter-phylum/order transitions can occur. They show that rapid changes can occur within the interior structure to a fast and large degree, but not enough to change the form itself. Some are just caused by duplications of the initial DNA. There is no known proof that the boundaries can be broken. Those links are only proof of Micro-speciation and shows how drastic the subspeciation can be, they don't show that fish can eventually bats, if you think they do, quote how. What they show is that many different kinds of the same "kind" can occur quickly.

Let the reader decide what "Weight-bearing" means.

 

[idav]

"Weight bearing" means "Weight bearing". Pushing against the bottom for stabilization does not use the same bone structure and muscles to bear weight on land. If you think otherwise, let the reader decide.

Your still looking for a fish with legs?

Your missing the points completely. You asked for a transitional example and you got it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please quote where those links showed that inter-phylum/order transitions can occur. They show that rapid changes can occur within the interior structure to a fast and large degree, but not enough to change the form itself. Some are just caused by duplications of the initial DNA. There is no known proof that the boundaries can be broken. Those links are only proof of Micro-speciation and shows how drastic the subspeciation can be, they don't show that fish can eventually bats, if you think they do, quote how. What they show is that many different kinds of the same "kind" can occur quickly.

Do you have short-term memory problems or something? Let's do this again with a recent link of yours:

PLoS Genetics: The Evolution of Epigenetic Regulators CTCF and BORIS/CTCFL in Amniotes

"CTCF is an essential, ubiquitously expressed DNA-binding protein responsible for insulator function, nuclear architecture, and transcriptional control within vertebrates. The gene CTCF was proposed to have duplicated in early mammals, giving rise to a paralogue called “brother of regulator of imprinted sites” (BORIS or CTCFL) with DNA binding capabilities similar to CTCF, but testis-specific expression in humans and mice. CTCF and BORIS have opposite regulatory effects on human cancer-testis genes, the anti-apoptotic BAG1 gene, the insulin-like growth factor 2/H19 imprint control region (IGF2/H19 ICR), and show mutually exclusive expression in humans and mice, suggesting that they are antagonistic epigenetic regulators. We discovered orthologues of BORIS in at least two reptilian species and found traces of its sequence in the chicken genome, implying that the duplication giving rise to BORIS occurred much earlier than previously thought. We analysed the expression of CTCF and BORIS in a range of amniotes by conventional and quantitative PCR. BORIS, as well as CTCF, was found widely expressed in monotremes (platypus) and reptiles (bearded dragon), suggesting redundancy or cooperation between these genes in a common amniote ancestor. However, we discovered that BORIS expression was gonad-specific in marsupials (tammar wallaby) and eutherians (cattle), implying that a functional change occurred in BORIS during the early evolution of therian mammals. Since therians show imprinting of IGF2 but other vertebrate taxa do not, we speculate that CTCF and BORIS evolved specialised functions along with the evolution of imprinting at this and other loci, coinciding with the restriction of BORIS expression to the germline and potential antagonism with CTCF."​

From your own posts, the evolutionary history of epigenetic regulators across all amniotes, from mammals, to avians, to reptiles. Is that still "microevolution"?

Let the reader decide what "Weight-bearing" means.

You are absolutely hilarious! In case you haven't noticed, the "readers" have decided and they all reached the same conclusion: You're wrong.