Introducing Tiktaalik, Your Inner Fish - Part 1

[gmh1206]

Creation (dot) com / tiktaalik-finished...

for those of you who are brave...

[SeanOBriain]

@gmh1206 I'd rather educate myself from a real scientist, thanks.

[gmh1206]

@SeanOBriain I'm glad we agree then.  "Real" scientists using all of their evolutionary presuppositions have dated the fossil tracks described in the article as being 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. Furthermore, these tracks were laid down by a large lizard like creature.

[SeanOBriain]

@gmh1206 Actually they don't. They stated that they resemble Ichthyostega, which is not a reptile - it is an early amphibian. Nor does it conflict with Tiktaalik as being a transitional species. It potentially puts back the transition of fish to tetrapods a few million years - no more no less.

Unlike your crazy Bible stories - Science refines it's theories as more evidence becomes available. Creationists stick to the same old nonsense which has been rebutted time and time again.

[gmh1206]

@SeanOBriain Well I see no reference in the nature article to the tracks being laid down by Ichthyostega. This is pure speculation, whether the tracks were of a reptile or amphibian. Nevertheless, the contention still stands. A large, 3 meter in length, well developed tetrapod produced these tracks 18 million years earlier than Tiktaalik, therefore this cannot be the ancestor of the tetrapods.

[gmh1206]

@gmh1206 You should carefully read the article published on sciencedaily and take note of the Evolutionary circular reasoning...

Their discoveries have suggested that the first tetrapods evolved relatively rapidly from lobe-finned fishes, through a short-lived intermediate stage..

This means not that not only tetrapods but also elpistostegids originated much earlier than we thought, because the position of elpistostegids as evolutionary precursors of tetrapods is not in doubt

[ClamCrunchy]

Jesus.... n stuff.

[CostantinoLenzi]

bull shit

[SkelanimalKitteh]

@CostantinoLenzi Your just pissed science has disproved creationism. Grow up and realize your god is as real as Santa.

[h2omanz]

why did tiki go start to the media and not the lab. Why can't scientists, creationist and evolutionists see the fossil or even the mold. There is a reason.....most likely a fraud, gives you no reason to doubt it, since this the same way all other hoaxes are hidden.

[puncheex]

There has been recently discovered, in Zachełmie, Poland, tetrapod tracks which pretty tightly date to 18 million years before Tiktaalik was dated. The creationist who brought these to my attention seemed to think that finding them somehow destroyed all of ToE because he'd found the proverbial bunny in the Cambrian. What it actually did was widen the ages through which tetrapods are known to exist from 377 back to 495 mya, providing the tracks continue to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[gujjuamerican1]

alrit can someone explain me how is tetra pod not an example for transition?

[puncheex]

@gujjuamerican1: One surely can not. The tetrapod is the link between lobe-finned fish and all non-insect land animals, as well as all flying and many swimming ones. They are the link - they show the manner, the place and the time that fish developed the necessary biological equipment to make that transition.

BTW, a creationist was kind enough to point out that these tetrapods apparently existed about 14 million years before they were formerly thought to. See above.

[Mortison77577]

It's kind of hard to explain how the fins would change to limbs and see what the steps would be.

[Craydon]

Look up Frogfish, it's not that hard to see.

[Mortison77577]

You're saying the first step is a sort of platform for pushing off against rocks?

[Craydon]

Sure, that or just holding your place in a stream bed. If you're using a structure for survival evolution is going to favor individuals that can do it better, and over generations you'll get fish that can walk better and better.

[Mortison77577]

I got into a thing on another video where I said it might be problematic in that while a new limb form might evolve, the brain would still have the old motor programs, so it's not obvious that a change in the limb morphology would provide an advantage. One way to handle the problem might be some role for learning in the development of motor control and very small changes for each step in the evolution of limb morphology.

[Craydon]

Motor control is pretty simple, just opposing muscles. If you think about the fish "arm" we aren't really that far from it.

Anyway, a limb you can't use properly is no use to your survival so use and form would have to develop at the same time. It's not jumping to a new form, it's baby steps over massive amounts of time.

[Mortison77577]

It think it would depend a lot on the details. To me, a good way to explain it seems to be small changes in limb structure followed by complimentary changes in the brain. Now, there may be some issue with the chances of getting the right brain change to match the limb change if the probability of getting the correct change is low, I don't know. It could be that there is some connection between swimming motion and walking motion, I have no idea how fish swim. Mudskippers seem different.

[puncheex]

@Mortison77577: Yes, that is true. It would obviously require changes to skeleton, musculature, nerves, integument, perhaps internal organs in order to build the limbs. Almost all changes that are visible by examining bone structure (what is normally available from fossils) will always require multiple mutations, randomly generated and adaptively selected over many generations. Very rare are changes that involve only a single mutation in a single gene.

[bismarkf]

It obvious that evolution is impossible. End of discussion. Everyone stop wasting your time and do something productive. Learn about the creator of the universe, he left evidence for his existence and all the bible stories. Trust me all the evidence is clearly there, research it, travel, visit the sites. Don't waste your time arguing over sometime that is obviously not true. enough said. End of discussion.

[monstermash9]

Bismarkf,

Congratulations. You are by far one of the most ignorant posters I have ever had the misfortune of reading here on youtube. However, I did laugh at the hilarity of your post. So I'm torn here. Part of me wants to laugh at you, but the other part feels sorry for you. No amount of evidence will ever change the preconceived notion you adhere to. Someone failed you.

[puncheex]

@bismarkf: I'm glad you ended that discussion; I don't think I could have stood still for much more. Trust you? I don't trust a lot of elected officials; I'm supposed to trust someone who won't even discuss it? Pfaaahhh.

[AA32m7io1]

1 of 3

So much for Tiktaalik as your inner fish...

"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)

"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...

[puncheex]

@AA32m7io1: Yup, that's journalists, all right, upending everything in their quest of a Pulitzer. Of course science can handle this; and, yes, there is rethinking to be done, in lower case. You will note that it is scientists who discovered the tracks, examined them, dated them, noted the discrepancies and are now willing to dig in order to fit them into their mileau. In the end, tetrapods will likely be expanded in their times back to include the tracks, and even farther. Ain't it neat?

[AA32m7io1]

@puncheex

"Yup, that's journalists, all right, upending everything in their quest of a Pulitzer."

Yup, just like Ida... THE missing link, right?

[puncheex]

@AA32m7io1: Yup, exactly like it. Of course, in that instance they were aided by a scientist with an ego and a TV channel searching for profits. But you are right, it was a missing link. Of course, all fossils are missing links, or more of a previous missing link. I prefer the wording "fossil of a transitional species", which of course all newly discovered species are. Everyone fills in a little more of that vast mosaic of life.

[AA32m7io1]

@puncheex

"Of course, all fossils are missing links, or more of a previous missing link."

All?

BTW, where are all the fossils/missing links between eukaryotes and the complex organisms of the Cambrian Explosion? After all, we now know, despite what Darwin predicted, that soft tissue organisms do fossilize (e.g., the jellyfish found in the Krukowski Quarry in Wisconsin). So where are the "innumerable transitional forms" showing the evolution of complex organisms from eukaryotes?

[puncheex]

@AA32m7io1: All the ones who didn't become extinct themselves. There aren't any "missing" between the eukaryotes and the Cambrian fossils. There was a branch of multi-cellular life called Ediacaran biota which might have become the ancestors of all life, but it was wiped out in an extinction event, and then there is the soft life forms which became the Cambrian life, which scientists are busy pursuing and identifying as we speak.

[VirginElite]

ZOMG! Jesus is going to back hand your black preachin' ways OH LAWDI LAWDI.

[CottonDeShaver]

doesn't these fossils prove part of most religions wrong? I mean I'm not saying that religion is wrong but it proves what people have written in things, like the bible and the Torah, false, right? Think about it if things were alive before humans then doesn't it put a hole in the stories? Please correct me if I happen to be wrong in some way.

[TooferMan]

Cotton, Science is not about proving religions wrong, it is about the search for truth, and there must be supporting details, verified data, re-performing experiments, recreatable results. In that sense, science proves that many religious dictates are just plain wrong. Religions cannot respond properly, or show how they are true, because their core is imaginary. Science can proves it's truths, and religions cannot.

[puncheex]

@CottonDeShaver: Science doesn't say, one way or the other. That is for the respective theologians to determine, unless, of course, a preacher can use it as a political handle to move votes or rake in some more dough.

[musicequalstruth]

Anyone who still believes that Darwin had it all right must watch Dr. John Hagelin's announcement for

the Discovery of the Unified Field

It's modern science at it's finest, and very controversial so I hope to get a few comments. Please just have an open mind before responding. Remember that understanding our fundamental unification is critical to creating a healthy world. If we look at each other as just reflections of ourselves, then we might stop hating our differences. Instead praise them

[artyfarty2]

"Anyone who still believes that Darwin had it all right"

Darwin had it all right? err.... not really. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of scientific papers on evolution to date furthering the scientific understanding of biological evolution and correcting Darwin's mistakes. That's how science works, it moves forward.

Have you even read 'On the Origin of Species'?

[gamesbok]

Darwin's mistakes?

[puncheex]

@musicequalstruth: When I want scientific theory from the "Raja of Invincible America", I'll give him a call. Until then, don't mention to him I'm even alive.

[gamesbok]

Jesus was a Pharasee.

[jasonoatmeal]

ahhh fish to amphibians not reptiles??? is this man full of shit??? or is evolution bull shit? or am i just dumb

[TooferMan]

Jason, go study phylogenetics.

You're not dumb, just uneducated.

So that's your answer, go educate yourself.

Get back to us when you get it okay?

[gamesbok]

If you don't understand evolution it behoves you to remain silent.

[musicequalstruth]

I'm learning about it, I just don't understand what the fuss is all about. Of course life evolves, I think that is understood by everyone who looks at the evidence, but there's other evidence that points to other truths as well. If we create a random number generator, there is still intelligence behind the randomness, right? If life just happens given enough time, then it was meant to happen, right? Why is it so hard to see the design in the machine? The spirit is real, so include it in theory.

[gamesbok]

It's the 'spirit is real' that's getting in your way. If it was real it would be the subject of scientific reaearch. It isn't.

[musicequalstruth]

The spirit is being researched, you just haven't seen the data I guess. The spirit is energy first, it doesn't have a physical form, other than you, so if you want to see it, you have to look at the electromagnetic spectrum. It's connected to the rest of the universe via the chakras and kundalini, if you understand yogi terminology. If you were in touch with your spirit you'd never deny it, it is your essence, you are not just matter, matter doesn't exist, everything is light, that's science

[TooferMan]

MUSIC...once again..please show how 'spirit' is part of anything. I don't believe it exits. I must be missing a huge part of the universe if spirit is everywhere.

1+1 =2 where's the spirit? 2hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atoms make water, where's the spirit? I sent this message via internet, not via spiritnet. If all youre saying is that everything is a form of energy, then so what. Call it energy, not spirit. Please define spirit again, without describing something that lights up my house.

[artyfarty2]

"everything is light, that's science"

It is? LOL

Since light is exists in the electromagnetic field only, where does the strong and weak nuclear force fit and gravity for that matter?

I mean if you have made some profound discovery that suplants quantum electro dynamic theory then I figure the scientific community will be very interested. LOL. Poor old Professor Feynman, couldn't hold a candle to you. LOL

[musicequalstruth]

Particles are light. Forces are waves. Light is both wave and particle. I don't think we should describe everything scientifically in terms of light, b/c we can't differentiate anything that way, but it's all light of some magnitude or another. If you watch the Discovery of the Unified Field, you'll see the electro weak force, the strong force, and the force of gravity are unified at the planck constant. This is being dubbed the consciousness field.Consciousness is the foundation, not the result

[artyfarty2]

"Particles are light. Forces are waves. Light is both wave and particle..."

Really, you know I really didn't know that. LOL

Obviously you are a diamond on the rough, I'm lloking forward to reading your amazing insights when they are published in scientific journals.

PMSL

[TooferMan]

Mus... define your "SPIRIT" and show how it is "real" and I promise it will be included in all further scientific papers. Also, go prove that evolution can't happen without god or a divine influence, and go collect your Nobel Prize.

...

...

We're just gonna wait okay?

...

...

Yeah, I thought so.

[musicequalstruth]

Who cares about Nobel Prizes, especially these days, it's a political act, nothing more. But back on topic, does evolution say that life only springs from life? Well there are experiments that prove otherwise. Does evolution say that creatures evolve gradually, over many years, experiments have proven that it can happen in a single generation, using only light to reprogram DNA. All of life is a biochemical machine of varying degrees of consciousness. Every machine has a designer.

[TooferMan]

MUSIC: Evolution is not a machine, its a scientific theory explaining a process-which continues without the need of a designer. Yes, in Biology, Evolution only deals with life coming from life... descent with modification. You can talk about chemical or cosmic evolution, but thats not life. Evolution happens every single generation, that is..descendants are genetically modified, it's impossible for it not to happen. Please state your proofs of a designer needed or intervening in the process.

[musicequalstruth]

Look, an experiment was done where sterilized silica sand was heated to a white hot luminescence, and then sealed in a water filled container. Another container was prepared with out heating the sand. In the heated sand container, which had been sterilized for bacteria, little critters emerged from inside the sealed container. Spontaneous DNA created life. Another experiment, shot a laser at a salamander egg, then redirected the laser at a frog egg, reprogramming the DNA. A salamander was born.

[musicequalstruth]

The point being, that two of aspects of Darwinian style evolution, 1) the principle that life only springs from other life, and 2) that evolutionary leaps happen slowly, one mutation after another, over millennia; both of these principles have been proven to be inaccurate. I'm not saying that evolution isn't occurring, it is, but not in the exact way that Darwin proposed. There is a spirit element involved, look at quantum mechanics, and it has something to do with evolutionary progress.

[idiot267]

ok I have a project on this due tomorrow .. can anyone help me!!!??!?!

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

It is true that Darwin did not know anything about DNA, nor anything about heredity. But either way, evidences in different disciplines of science keep coming in favor of evolution.

but as time goes by, the discovery of DNA did not go against the theory of evolution.

How life began, thats Abiogenesis. DonExodus2, CDK003 have good videos explaining it.

[musicequalstruth]

There was an experiment done and then duplicated, where silica sand was placed into and sealed inside two different jars of water. Then the sand was heated to a white hot luminescence inside one of the jars. Miraculously, spontaneous DNA was discovered inside the jar that was heated, while the other jar remained empty besides the sand and water. Life appeared from nowhere. It's all still very mysterious, and to say that life simply evolves is misleading.We could be devolving. We still don't know

[musicequalstruth]

When a 1/2 hour conference only contains 3 minutes of real scientific data, you should know somethings fishy. Pun intended. Look folks, just b/c evolution does occur, doesn't mean it's the answer to how life was created, and that's the REAL question. Darwin had no understanding of DNA to think random mutations could be the driving force behind his theory. It's statistically impossible for example for these long chains of DNA sequences to randomly create complex systems such as eyes.

[gamesbok]

Please see Scheinder, Journal od Neuclaic Research, Oxford University, July 2000., 'How Evolution increases genetic informationm'

[TheFallibleFiend]

Just finished the book the day before yesterday. Brilliant book accessible to anyone with at least a middle school education. Very nice presentation of relevant facts. Unlike many popular books it's not 1) a systematic refutation of creationist pseudo-arguments or 2) and explanation of how evolution works. There's some of those things, but the thrust is like Dawkins' latest book, TGSoE, namely to coherently present some of the vast evidence in favor of it.

[bersaba]

lolipok,

What possible proof could you have for creation? I could MAYBE understand proof against evolution (I'm yet to see any, but it could be there), but PROOF OF CREATION? That would imply proving God (or a higher being etc).

Please, feel free to send me a message on this matter.

[lolipok]

godddammmnit im doing a research on creation and evolution. my research is really going in the way of creationism but this finding has really ruined all my work.

[bombarderoazul]

Human embryos at the very early stages of development have gills, a vestigial trait of our early fish ancestors.

[hexkid]

That is not quite true. There are enormous similarities in all vertebrate embryros but Haeckel's drawings implying gill slits in human embryros are wrong.

All vertebrate embryos show structures called branchial arches in fish these develop into the gills but in humans they develop into the larynx and the bones of the inner-ear. Their presence does show our common ancestry and leave proof of evolution such as the path of the left recurrent pharyngeal nerve.

[BigSissieJeep]

Human embryos do not have gills, sir, they have pharyngeal slit. All chordates have them at one stage of life or another. In fish, these slits develop into gills.

[bombarderoazul]

Thank you for that, at the time I posted my comment I did not know much on the subject.

[Timbul53525253]

Ordered the book from Amazon! Should arrive today or tomorrow. I've watched a couple of Neil Shubin talks on Youtube now and he seems like a really good communicator of the joy of paleontology.

[Kingcobrasaurus]

fish and reptiles?! SO incorrect! It's fish and AMPHIBIANS, silly!

[bismarkf]

how does that disprove my previous comment? your point is..........?

[bismarkf]

Actually newer evidence has shown that tiktaaliks never walked on land, these bones that you speak of where not attached to the axial skeleton and could not bear weight. Also these bones were found to be too delicate for land walking. Also, the animal is not amphibian or reptile it belongs to group of fish called lobe fin fish, and it is normal for these groups of fish to have these kinds of bones. This has been DEBUNKED for some time now!

[Mickeyasdjj]

Who claimed it *walked* on land? Probably some creationism website. The lobe-fins were actually used as short-period support. The most important part about Tiktaalik's lobe-fin, however, is that its skeletal structure closely resembles the wrist later found on tetrapods. Tiktaalik had also lost its gill covers and was the first fish to have a neck, and had rib bones that could support its body weight out of water. AND, the team predicted correctly where to find it: in a 375 Ma old rock stratum.

[AtomicMike85]

I suppose you think that lungfish are fish with lungs that have been *debunked* for quite some time now too?

[bismarkf]

"I suppose YOU THINK" this is not my thinking, i'm just stating what the scientific community has said. They decided to categorize the tiktaalik as part of the LOBE FIN FISH family since fish in this group still exist today and are known to scientist as just another variation. No mystery or transition here. Sorry not my claims. I think people just need to investigate 1st before getting too excited about findings. I didn't state that to point fingers or argue with anyone.

[AtomicMike85]

Tiktaalik is in a genus of the now extinct Sarcopterygii. Just because it existed within a known species does not mean its not a transition.

Its a fish, with shoulders, a flat head, its eyes on the top of its head rather then the side, a neck, and a bone structure within its fins that is only found on land dwelling creatures today. Every living thing on earth has the same bone structure in its limbs (1 bone, 2 bone, lotsablobs, fingers) and this all came from creatures like tiktaalik.

[AtomicMike85]

If you fail to see how tiktaalik and creatures like it are a transition between fish and land creatures, then you either have no detailed knowledge of anatomy of the creatures in question, in which case you may be excused, or you simply refuse to accept the evidence.

[bismarkf]

You missed the point i mentioned above. TO put it more simply, for a transition fossil to qualify to be transition it needs to meet certain requirements, and the Tiktaalik fails to meet them. So basically the scientific community is no longer considering the Tiktaalik a transition. Further analysis and 3d imaginging suggets that it just a variation of a fish, which member of its family (lobe fin fish) are still existant today, no evolution there. Again, im just stating a fact, not here to argue

[AtomicMike85]

No evolution there? Are you mad? Before you say anything else, give me some sources for your claims please. And I ask you this: Look at fossils 500,000 years older then tiktaalik. Do you see necks, shoulders, eyes on top of its head etc? Do you understand what a transitional form is?

[bismarkf]

im not mad, you seem to be angered by my comments. Mi intention is not to anger u or anyone just giving an update that's all. Also if evolution was true you should expect to see slow very gradual changes from one species to another, not spontanous huge changes.

[AtomicMike85]

And the truth is revealed. You are not talking about science, your talking about disproving evolution. I suppose you get all your information from places like icr? or answersingenesis? Evolution is true, and we do see gradual changes. No one is claiming that one fish suddenly gave birth to a tiktaalik with fully functioning joints etc, that would be madness. If you actually studied the subject a little bit you would know about the species before tiktaalik, and the traits that they showed (cont)

[AtomicMike85]

(cont) for example we have found older fossils which have a very basic vertebrate system, a spine made out of tissue rather then bone (this tissue is our spinal discs today) then we find slightly stronger ones, then basic bone structure starts to form etc etc. Its easy to grasp if you just do the research. And no, I'm not angry, I just happen to have a passion for natural history and it winds me up when I see people trying to 'debunk' something as beautiful as evolutionary history.

[bismarkf]

what are the names of these soft tissue vertabate creatures? When I mentioned slow gradual transitions I was trying to say that if evolution were true then we should be able to find all the very slightly progressing transitions from single celled to fish from fish to land animals and to the more complex human. We should see all the gradual transformations from example fish to humans (thousands or millions of gradual steps in between). But what we actually find are huge gaps between species.

[AtomicMike85]

Well we do find them, for example we have almost got a complete fossil record for horses, importantly the legs, there are roughly 13 (off the top of my head) stages of change where we can see the leg bones and the hoof adapting and getting more and more horse like, and there will be stages in between that we just have not found yet, and we might never. Fossils are extremely hard to make, and to be honest we are very lucky to have the ones that we do. (cont)

[AtomicMike85]

(cont)The soft tissued vertebrates I mentioned are Amphiouxus. Its technically an invertebrate, because it has no backbone however it has a trait that is only found in creatures with backbones: A nerve cord that runs down the middle of its back. In addition to this a rod, known as a notchochord, filled with a jelly like substance runs down its back and this rod provides support for the body. As embryos, humans have this notchochord however ours breaks up, and eventually becomes our spinal discs.

[bismarkf]

So have all the steps from a singel celled to a modern horse been found? It would require millions of transitions from single celled to horse, so logically there should be millions of fossils showin this transition, so the probability of finding all the millions in between should be a lot higher than finding the 1st and last fossils bcoz there are a lot more transitions than say 2 fossils. I don't know if i would say it requires luck to find them, it just doesn't add up mathematically/logically

[AtomicMike85]

What? No! It doesn't work like that!!! Not everything that dies becomes a fossil, it is incredibly hard for things to become fossilized, I do not have enough space to fully explain how hard it is. Thats why we don't have millions of transitional fossils all the way from cells to us. The total number of species ever to have lived has been estimated to be up to four billion. Since we have discovered around 250,000 different species of fossils, we can predict that we have fossil evidence(continued)

[AtomicMike85]

for about 0.5% of all species ever to have lived on earth. It is also estimated that 99% of all species ever to have lived on earth are now extinct. And most of them left behind no fossils of any kind.

It takes a lot more then looking at fossils to understand the conditions of the world and the sorts of creatures that lived there, which is why we use paleontology, geology, meteorology, genetic and cellular biology, many different skill sets to paint an accurate picture.

[IlyaPetrovich]

we have rather more than the first and last. Well enough to draw the family tree.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Evolution doesn't predict that we would be able to find fossil representations of every species that ever existed. The evidence that does exist is overwhelming to anyone who has bothered to carefully examine it. As it is, people have a religious objection to it - which they often claim is not a religious objection. That religious angle makes reason irrelevant and futile to them.

[8DX]

Um.. we DO see lots of gradual steps. One would like to have a lot more fossils, but if you think about it, 99.9% of all species are extinct and bodies which don't fossilize easily decompose in nature - even bones don't last forever. So the fossil record is a random selection of creatures who happen to have been fossilized and we were lucky enough to find them. It's like a painting which has been pointed over - each fossil we find is like removing a single speck of paint to see the big picture.

[gamesbok]

A fish with a neck, I see.........

[wcwashington]

JESUS IS THE ANSWER!!! just playing...haha just picked up your inner fish the other day

[steveb0503]

Pay attention Creationists, this is your death knell. We have the fossils we win! Although as someone once said: "If a transitional form were to be found that precisely intersects a celebrated gap in the fossil record exactty, the creationists would claim that there are now two gaps". Plus never count out those who would proclaim such nonsense as Kirk Cameron's "crocoduck" or lack thereof as proof of the sillines of evolutionary theory.

[vradiohd]

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

l

[mrbunnylamakins]

So you want a debate but you rather not allow people to use any opposing view points?? FACT is they find on average a thousand new species in fossils a year are found. But not one concrete evidence to show species evolving. In Turn leaving us with even more fossils to find "missing Links" It is like me finding a house and more and concluding that similarities they were all built by same builders. Google chimpanzee Fossils. Show where other species have counterpart today as of Chimp/Human??

[farvision]

mrbunnylamakins look up 'ring species'.

[andymcgaha]

You should read "Your Inner Fish," it's a really excellent book and it may help you to answer your questions about concrete evidence showing evolution.

[JFZcafe]

MrBunny, if you followed the discussions on this page then you would understand why I had to post a disclaimer about fundamentalist religious babble. It's quite tedious to sift through mere quotations from ancient and irrelevant texts when the subject is a serious scientific debate. You may have your "opposing viewpoints", just please make them your own, and not merely cut and paste from the bible.

[JFZcafe]

Actually your FACTs are incorrect. New species have evolved, and Jerry Coyne addresses this in chapter 7 of his new book "Why Evolution is True". Also Shubin's book gives strong support for the link between fish and tetrapods. However, one should not expect to find all the links in the chain. Yes we have relatively few fossils to study among our primate relatives; they originated in Africa and did not fossilize well. But there is abundant evidence for speciation among fossils of ocean dwellers

[JFZcafe]

Ocean sediment preserves the fossils of our boney-shelled relatives quite nicely, which is where you may find all the evidence you like, if only you are willing to consider it. So Mr Bunny, here's a fact for you..to borrow from JBS Haldane, considering all the fossils found each year, we've never found a rabbit fossil in the precambrian, or any other mammal for that matter. But thank you for not quoting the bible.

[xxxxkimoxxxx]

@mrbunnylamakins Google hominid transitional fossils then shut up...

[Smobzor]

Actually wouldn't Tiktaalik be a transition from fish to amphibians, not reptiles?

[JFZcafe]

Yeah, he uses the term tetrapod, which is what I should have used also.

[yellowlynx]

@Smobzor one thing is that, reptiles is a later development than amphibians. Reptiles spend a lot of their time on land and reproduce on land, and amphibians need to return to the waters to reproduce. Amphibians is closer to fish, and tiktaalik is considered that key transition. Of course Tiktaalik is NOT the only transitional forms found

[doctorsuitenz]

Brilliant stuff!

[AbbeyNormal]

Man, that was a great book. I'd really recommned it to anybody who's even a little interested in this stuff because it's a great read and it will really open up your perspective on life and where you come from.

[lostn65]

I read his book. It's very good. Concise, short, light and easy reading. And quite fascinating too.

[anagloria40]

The video is very interesting, but the book is better. I've read Your inner fish" and I love it. I was a highschool Science teacher,so I have some knowledge about Biology and Evolution. Evolution is a fact not a theory anymore. It is very interesting to see how some people who do not "believe" in Science make use of its products, mobil phones, tvs, computers,etc. Thanks for posting this video.

[JFZcafe]

Thanks for commenting. I just finished reading it, for the 2nd time, this afternoon. Yes I agree that Evo is a fact, even though i still refer to it as evolutionary theory here..i guess just for the benefit of the doubt for any fundamentalists who might be reading (their doubt, not mine), because calling it a fact to a theist doesn't mean anything to them anyway, so what's the point? And it provides an opportunity to explain what a theory is and does.

[JFZcafe]

Plus, continuing to refer to evo as a theory sends the message that we scientifically-minded people remain open to an alternative theory IF a better explanation with better evidence can be found. Does that make sense? Maybe it's not the conventional wisdom among scientists, but that's how i think about it.

[anagloria40]

You are right.I will read Your Inner Fish again,there is a lot of interesting information in it. At the moment I am reading At the water's edge, another beautiful book, recommended by Shubin. Have you read it? If not, do it, you will love it too. Thanks again for posting these videos.

[JFZcafe]

Thanks for the recommendation, I will look it up sometime. Right now I'm reading Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins, then after that it's The Making of the Fittest, the author has a comment on the back of Shubin's book. See you around

[StridentLobster]

I don't want to quibble, but evolution will always be referred to a theory, and it's all the better for it. We certainly have the facts of evolution - fossils, observed speciations, common genetic heritage, etc. - but we need the overarching theory to place these facts in context. The theory is what allows us to make predictions based on those facts. Evo. theory allowed Shubin to predict the strata of rock in which tiktaalik should be found, and which features it ought to display, and so it was.

[StridentLobster]

To use an analogy, it's a fact of gravity that when I drop a bowling ball, it falls. The theory of gravity allows us to make predictions about how that ball would behave if it were dropped in a vacuum, if it had a different surface area to mass ratio, or if I were to drop it on the surface of Europa, rather than on earth. In science, the theory is how we make use of the facts.

[JFZcafe]

So the truth comes out: your reasons for not wanting to hear arguments in favor of evolution are because of your theological viewpoints, and not because you have any evidence that they have no merit. If God is so big and so great and so powerful then surely he can't be afraid of the facts. If God is not afraid of the facts then why should you be?

[JFZcafe]

I Peter 3:15 and Is 1:18.

Another one may apply here: "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things.." (eccl 7:25)

and I Thess 5:21 "Test everything, hold on to the good."

[rmhp3993]

wait...i'm confused, what does 1 peter 3:15 have anything to do with this video?

[rmhp3993]

ok nevermind, i read the posts below, and now i see what you're trying to get at. I don't want to get into an argument at all with you, but please do not try to apply Scripture that is out of context, on this theory.

[JFZcafe]

I believe argument is good. I live to argue. Thats why YT is here. But telling me not to use scripture is like me telling you not to use scripture to prove your beliefs about god. If the bible made no claims about cosmology i would be happy to leave it alone. If our president did not claim during a speech in La. that the bible is a good guidebook for children and that we should throw public money to religious institutions to promote it, then i would have no reason to debunk its silly teachings.

[JFZcafe]

Haha! I knew it, you liar! You didn't even bother to watch or try to understand. So go stick your head in the sand and stay stupid, I don't care. And if you will not argue with people and test your ideas in the real world, then what the fuck are you doing here on YouTube? Haven't you read the scriptures: "Come let us reason" and "Always be prepared to give a reason for your faith." Why should anybody listen to your views if you wont hear theirs? I guess because your views are pretty fragile.

[JFZcafe]

Haha, evolution is scientifically impossible? ohh that's rich. I still don't believe that you watched the whole video or else you would be able to refer to something specific from the video. This entire 2-part video discusses in great detail specific proof of evolution. Read my previous comments on this page to understand why. Better yet, go to the library and check out Shubin's book and read it. Don't blame the messenger if you are too dull or too lazy to understand it.

[JFZcafe]

At least I watch the entire video when I make a comment. I doubt you have done the same, otherwise you would be able to discuss more than the 3 ignorant words you posted here. So say something intelligent, PLEASE! Why don't you tell me SPECIFICALLY what it is about Shubin's work that is in error. As I stated in another comment, Shubin combined evolutionary theory and geological theory to make a bullseye prediction about where to look for Tiktaalik. Please say something intelligent, I beg you.

[JFZcafe]

Shubin's presentation beautifully underscores the PREDICTIVE POWER of evolutionary theory and of geological theory, and gives us yet another reason to accept evolutionary theory as true. By combining the two disciplines together Shubin's team was able to find the proverbial "needle in a haystack". This amazing discovery is, so to speak, the scientific counterpart to ancient prophecies in which religious persons find so much comfort. It's all about the evidence, man!

[JFZcafe]

A good theory is able to make accurate predictions about future observations or discoveries. Evolutionary and geological theory applied in tandem here was able to successfully predict EXACTLY WHERE THIS TYPE OF FOSSIL MIGHT BE FOUND. Shubin's discovery is yet another wallup to the crumbling shell of the "ID" argument. Of course the ID people will claim there's no transitional fossil between Tiktaalik and the next closest relative, but the God-of-the-Gaps argument has no credibility.

[Desertphile]

I am 82% into the book and it is very interesting, fun to read, and educational. I had no idea some humans in very rare cases are born with atavistic gill parts--- a Google search shows Shubin is 100% correct on that topic.

[JFZcafe]

and google is the ultimate authority on such matters...haha just kidding. I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and book. Of course I give all the credit to Neil Shubin. I hope he's not pissed that I posted this without his permission...I'm sure he would be grateful since I know of a few people who have purchased the book after viewing the video here.

[ooglebydoogleby]

cant wait for part 2

[KasparHauser4]

Hey! Interesting subject good to hear from you again jeff

[JFZcafe]

Thanks! Sorry i haven't gotten around to that TAGGED video yet, Kaspar...but i will eventually.

[morsec0de]

I wanna read the book first, and lucky me, it's next on my bookshelf. Then I promise to watch this talk!

[JFZcafe]

HAHA.. that's cool. It was only because i saw you talking about this book that I even knew about this guy. I will put Part 2 up tomorrow evening.

[Desertphile]

"I wanna read the book first, and lucky me, it's next on my bookshelf."

It is indeed well worth the reading, even with a busy life schedule--- there is a great deal of information in the book one may use for further study and contemplation.