Your examples of transitional forms have all been debunked.
Crocoduck is an example of mockery. It also worked excellently as a PR stunt because he got all of you atheists to advertise for him for free. You got punk'd.
You both couldn't be more wrong. Tiktaalik is STILL a sarcopterygian, which if you didn't know, is a genus of fish. All that has been recently discovered are footprints of a "fish-o-pod" older than Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is still a fish, and it still possesses morphological characteristics of both fish and tetrapods, it just simply wasn't the FIRST 'fish-o-pod', but rather, late surviving relics of the real transitional form. Christ, don't you guys read?
Tiktaalik was such a great evidence of transitional species. BUT we found out that there were already 4legged animals much older then it. So Tiktaalik is not transitional unless we find fossils of it older than the 4legged (eh...). What the footprints came to prove is this, Tiktaalik is useless as transitional fossil, more less as we found out with coelacanth. ;)
@Fantasticlist It's still a transitional species, it's still great evidence of a transitional species, it's just not the first transitional species between fish and tetrapod. And colecanth kind of helped the idea of "fish-o-pod" evolution, what point were you just trying to make? They're an extremely early and not highly evolved sarcopterygian, because there wasn't any need for them to evolve further...you're literally making moot point after moot point and thinking that you make sense.
@OpinionatedAussie Oh man if you have a problem in understanding is your problem. I will make it easier:
Tiktaalik will only be a transitional fossil when you have evidence of it being older than 4legged. Because have characteristics between fish and tetrapod is not enough.
Coelacanth had characteristics of transitional specie between fish and tetrapod. Its fins would explain the transition. But since it is alive, its DNA had to remain the same for millions of years.
@Fantasticlist "Because have characteristics between fish and tetrapod is not enough."
1. English isn't your strong suit, is it?
2. Yes. It is. It is not definitively, morphologically a fish, but it is not definitively, morphologically a tetrapod either. Evolution is not, one day a fish gives birth to a half fish/half tetrapod, which then gives birth to a full tetrapod and there's only 1 transitional species. There are DOZENS of transitions from fish to tetrapod. Jesus, read a book man...
@OpinionatedAussie Well actually english is not my first language and that was a gap. If you want we can try other language, what about portuguese? spanish? Id love to see that.
And what I was saying is that having characteristics of fish and tetrapod is not enough to be a transitional form. It could be, but it could simply be a specie with both kind of characteristics, more or less as ambystomatidae or periophthalmus, that we have today.
Coelacanth's continued survival does not mean it's DNA stayed the same for millions of years, it certainly remained similar, and seeing as there are over 80 physically diverse coelacanth specimens in existence, I'd say it certainly did diversify. All it means is that the coelacanth didn't need to continue to develop tetrapod features because natural selection didn't necessitate that it live on land to survive. Hence the whole gradual evolution thing *sigh*
@OpinionatedAussie lol ok, yes thats evolution thank you. Anyway, the idea of many species dont tell they couldnt already exist million of years ago. You talk exactly as if you knew what coelacanth needed and thats incredible. Ive nothing more to say man, thats all so vague, even more in human evolution. You all mix up taxonomy with evolution, thats the problem. ;)
@OpinionatedAussie "That's because they evolved to survive millions of years ago, the ones who couldn't exist millions of years ago DIED OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" Its a shame that coelacanth exist at millions of years and they dont even had to change the specie. On the other hand, there were species evolving even to create new kingdoms, fantastic. One turns tetrapod, the other stay fish till today. Thats troll. I believe in evolution, but not in those vague terms.
@Fantasticlist There HAVE been changes, there are about 3 species of fossil coelacanth yet over 20 species of living coelacanth....well, when I say species, I mean different variants of the same species. Secondly, how do you not understand that not all bloody fish find it necessary to evolve into tetrapods to survive? Does the fact that goldfish haven't sprouted legs disprove evolution, or does it show that the necessity to walk on land never arose? Now, apply that SAME logic to the coelacanth.
@OpinionatedAussie Coelacanth was appointed while in fossil as an example of transitional fossil, because its fins seemed to be evolving to legs! But we still have coelacanth today and those fins are still fins. Of course you say it evolved anyway, but in the same logic, since we have no proof it did, we can say that it remained a fish till today. We have proof it evolved into different variants but not to tetrapod, so by that logic the fossils we believe are transitional today may also not be.
1. Care to cite me the peer-reviewed paper you're taking this information from?
2. ALL fossils are transitional fossils, as we are all evolving and adapting constantly. The only question is which fossils represent the major beginning of an evolutionary divergence. Coelacanth IS a transitional fossil, it's one of the oldest sarcopterygii, so naturally it would not evolve completely as IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL. The coelacanth started what others finished.
@OpinionatedAussie You have no evidence that coelacanth evolved for anything more than variants of its specie. You have no evidence in nothing because even when you can build an evolution line you have always big gaps, always. Even if a thing seems to evolve it can only be similar species with similar taxonomy. Thats all I have to say, you have no proof of that, just suppositions. Otherwise show me with 100% of evidence that things evolved as you are saying.
@Fantasticlist Yep, great work, close your ears and shout till the smart people go away. No matter how closely related two things are, both morphologically or genetically, they're probably different and just happen to look the same. Logic by Fantasticlist, a round of applause everybody. I'm done reducing my base IQ by talking to you, if you actually wanted to know anything about evolution, you'd read a book, scientific journal or peer reviewed paper. Maybe take a class on it. Goodbye.
@OpinionatedAussie You dont know what youre talking about Opinionated mister. Im student of human evolution and I already was at university in a biology course. I know what Im talking about. Youre the one who needs to give me PROVES of evolution and you dont. You just build bridges between species that are already gone as today many are always disappearing. But no big deal, I will wait for that day. Cheers.
True, nothing 'just happens, by accident'. Eyes exist in a large spectrum of complexity according to evolutionary progression. Many birds have eyes far superior to our own. Others are far simpler, onlyable to detect only the presence of light and its' directional source.
It is religious mythology that claims things coming into being spontaneously by wizardry.
This has been flagged as spam show
No such thing as a crocoduck?
What were those things chasing Alan Grant and the kids around the Jurassic Park visitors center?
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
I always wondered why people even bother on listening what Kirk has to say, its the same to listen a rock.
shadowknigth94 3 months ago
I believe in A God but Christianity has ZERO EVIDENCE where as evolution has tones.
imsayn77 4 months ago
Your examples of transitional forms have all been debunked.
Crocoduck is an example of mockery. It also worked excellently as a PR stunt because he got all of you atheists to advertise for him for free. You got punk'd.
dougmoerhoffman 4 months ago
Has been proven that Tiktaalik was a four leg lizard now.
Fantasticlist 5 months ago
@Fantasticlist and @NightmareRider50
You both couldn't be more wrong. Tiktaalik is STILL a sarcopterygian, which if you didn't know, is a genus of fish. All that has been recently discovered are footprints of a "fish-o-pod" older than Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is still a fish, and it still possesses morphological characteristics of both fish and tetrapods, it just simply wasn't the FIRST 'fish-o-pod', but rather, late surviving relics of the real transitional form. Christ, don't you guys read?
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie That wasnt the point. The point is:
Tiktaalik was such a great evidence of transitional species. BUT we found out that there were already 4legged animals much older then it. So Tiktaalik is not transitional unless we find fossils of it older than the 4legged (eh...). What the footprints came to prove is this, Tiktaalik is useless as transitional fossil, more less as we found out with coelacanth. ;)
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist It's still a transitional species, it's still great evidence of a transitional species, it's just not the first transitional species between fish and tetrapod. And colecanth kind of helped the idea of "fish-o-pod" evolution, what point were you just trying to make? They're an extremely early and not highly evolved sarcopterygian, because there wasn't any need for them to evolve further...you're literally making moot point after moot point and thinking that you make sense.
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie Oh man if you have a problem in understanding is your problem. I will make it easier:
Tiktaalik will only be a transitional fossil when you have evidence of it being older than 4legged. Because have characteristics between fish and tetrapod is not enough.
Coelacanth had characteristics of transitional specie between fish and tetrapod. Its fins would explain the transition. But since it is alive, its DNA had to remain the same for millions of years.
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
Comment removed
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist "Because have characteristics between fish and tetrapod is not enough."
1. English isn't your strong suit, is it?
2. Yes. It is. It is not definitively, morphologically a fish, but it is not definitively, morphologically a tetrapod either. Evolution is not, one day a fish gives birth to a half fish/half tetrapod, which then gives birth to a full tetrapod and there's only 1 transitional species. There are DOZENS of transitions from fish to tetrapod. Jesus, read a book man...
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie Well actually english is not my first language and that was a gap. If you want we can try other language, what about portuguese? spanish? Id love to see that.
And what I was saying is that having characteristics of fish and tetrapod is not enough to be a transitional form. It could be, but it could simply be a specie with both kind of characteristics, more or less as ambystomatidae or periophthalmus, that we have today.
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist [Comment Part 2]
Coelacanth's continued survival does not mean it's DNA stayed the same for millions of years, it certainly remained similar, and seeing as there are over 80 physically diverse coelacanth specimens in existence, I'd say it certainly did diversify. All it means is that the coelacanth didn't need to continue to develop tetrapod features because natural selection didn't necessitate that it live on land to survive. Hence the whole gradual evolution thing *sigh*
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie lol ok, yes thats evolution thank you. Anyway, the idea of many species dont tell they couldnt already exist million of years ago. You talk exactly as if you knew what coelacanth needed and thats incredible. Ive nothing more to say man, thats all so vague, even more in human evolution. You all mix up taxonomy with evolution, thats the problem. ;)
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist Goddammit, you're just wilfully ignorant and deliberately annoying, aren't you?
"the idea of many species dont tell they couldnt already exist million of years ago"
- That's because they evolved to survive millions of years ago, the ones who couldn't exist millions of years ago DIED OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO!
"You talk exactly as if you knew what coelacanth needed and thats incredible. "
- I don't need to know what it did need, I just need to know what it DIDN'T need -.-
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie "That's because they evolved to survive millions of years ago, the ones who couldn't exist millions of years ago DIED OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" Its a shame that coelacanth exist at millions of years and they dont even had to change the specie. On the other hand, there were species evolving even to create new kingdoms, fantastic. One turns tetrapod, the other stay fish till today. Thats troll. I believe in evolution, but not in those vague terms.
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
Comment removed
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist There HAVE been changes, there are about 3 species of fossil coelacanth yet over 20 species of living coelacanth....well, when I say species, I mean different variants of the same species. Secondly, how do you not understand that not all bloody fish find it necessary to evolve into tetrapods to survive? Does the fact that goldfish haven't sprouted legs disprove evolution, or does it show that the necessity to walk on land never arose? Now, apply that SAME logic to the coelacanth.
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie Coelacanth was appointed while in fossil as an example of transitional fossil, because its fins seemed to be evolving to legs! But we still have coelacanth today and those fins are still fins. Of course you say it evolved anyway, but in the same logic, since we have no proof it did, we can say that it remained a fish till today. We have proof it evolved into different variants but not to tetrapod, so by that logic the fossils we believe are transitional today may also not be.
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist Two things
1. Care to cite me the peer-reviewed paper you're taking this information from?
2. ALL fossils are transitional fossils, as we are all evolving and adapting constantly. The only question is which fossils represent the major beginning of an evolutionary divergence. Coelacanth IS a transitional fossil, it's one of the oldest sarcopterygii, so naturally it would not evolve completely as IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL. The coelacanth started what others finished.
OpinionatedAussie 4 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie You have no evidence that coelacanth evolved for anything more than variants of its specie. You have no evidence in nothing because even when you can build an evolution line you have always big gaps, always. Even if a thing seems to evolve it can only be similar species with similar taxonomy. Thats all I have to say, you have no proof of that, just suppositions. Otherwise show me with 100% of evidence that things evolved as you are saying.
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
@Fantasticlist Yep, great work, close your ears and shout till the smart people go away. No matter how closely related two things are, both morphologically or genetically, they're probably different and just happen to look the same. Logic by Fantasticlist, a round of applause everybody. I'm done reducing my base IQ by talking to you, if you actually wanted to know anything about evolution, you'd read a book, scientific journal or peer reviewed paper. Maybe take a class on it. Goodbye.
OpinionatedAussie 3 months ago
@OpinionatedAussie You dont know what youre talking about Opinionated mister. Im student of human evolution and I already was at university in a biology course. I know what Im talking about. Youre the one who needs to give me PROVES of evolution and you dont. You just build bridges between species that are already gone as today many are always disappearing. But no big deal, I will wait for that day. Cheers.
Fantasticlist 3 months ago
True, nothing 'just happens, by accident'. Eyes exist in a large spectrum of complexity according to evolutionary progression. Many birds have eyes far superior to our own. Others are far simpler, onlyable to detect only the presence of light and its' directional source.
It is religious mythology that claims things coming into being spontaneously by wizardry.
bencubed 6 months ago