Fossil Called Missing Link

To which the blind devotee will respond

The "details" in my post above that so directly challenge atheist-darwinism by EXPOSING its practices here - are ignored.

We are supposed to take the slavish devotion of UTEOTW that would say "nothing really new here - just another example of a transition form - one of many.. no big deal unless you were obsessing on tetrapod links" AS IF that is the way that all the science journals were treating this supposed "non-event".

In other words - "turning a blind eye to every detail" is the MODEL that blind devotees use to CONTINUE to slavishly ingest atheist-darwinist "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" - instead of looking at the evidence.

How sad for UTEOTW.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Finally we have this blunder from UTEOTW that is perfect to illustrate the arguments being raised against atheist-darwinism and its slavish devotion to "story telling" and "antiknowledge"

In the post - "already given" the answer is SHOWN in perfect detail --

Here we see that the SAME characteristics being touted today for the "walking fish" on its way to becoming a tetrapod WERE ALREADY DISCREDITED in the case of Panderichthys if one was "paying attention to details unfavorable to atheist darwinism".

Where is the "substantive" understanding of this detail in UTEOTW's question?? He simply "ignores the detail" hoping for "better more favorable facts to be provided by atheist-darwinists".

How telling.

How instructive for the objective reader.

How sad for UTEOTW.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"In addition, the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

 

Do you even read posts before you respond.

First off, you are taking a statement from a journalist out of context to suggest that scientists are regarding this as the FIRST good transitional. You could not be more wrong, as shown.

Second, you did not even read the response to the first time you post that quote from AIG. You just repost the same thing without even attempting to address what was wrong with their treatment.

You said "WERE ALREADY DISCREDITED in the case of Panderichthys."

Can you show one single place where Panderichthys has been "discredited" and for what reasons.

No? Not surprising.

Since you repost you AIG junk without even responding to the criticism of it, it would be a waste of time to retype the same things over. So here is my post again. Read it this time. If you want to try the AIG junk again, at least try and respond to the criticism of it.

Your posts are a prime example of the lack of factual basis or credibility or honesty in YE arguments.

Try again when you come up with an actual argument. All you ever seem to do is ignore the salient points and to try and distract others from them with things that both lack a basis in fact and which are not germane.

 

In other news, I'm still waiting for AIG to respond to the email I sent them regarding their misleading coverage of Dr. Schweitzer's work (articles here and here). Probably part of the reason for their lack of response is because they don't typically get emails with half a dozen citations.

 

That was already done. Try reading the posts instead of just ranting. Pay attention "to detail" for a change.

Hint: If you could muster some substance in your posts we could actually dialoge on this point.

Thanks: your bogus notion that limbs are not attached to the axial skeleton in tetrapods is one of the reasons that you are "still funny" for those of us who actually read UTEOTW!

In Christ,

Bob

 

That was already done. Try reading the posts instead of just ranting. Pay attention "to detail" for a change.

Hint: If you could muster some substance in your posts we could actually dialoge on this point.

[snip for later]

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Do you just make this stuff up?

I read the post. Where does it say that Panderichthys is discredited? The only thing that even addresses this is your AIG quote. Which was as follows.

"Also, there are other creatures (e.g., the Panderichthys) that are thought to be fish and yet appear to be similar in lobe and fin structure to Tiktaalik. In addition, the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

I see nothing in there about Panderichthys being "discredited." Maybe you could point that out. This paragraph has also been responded to. It was as follows.

"Well, let's see here. Panderichthys is only one node below Tiktaalik on the path leading to tetrapods and these guys find it surprising that there should be similarities between them. Do they understand the concept of a transitional? This is what one would expect. If they really are different points along the same path then they should shre such features.

Do these guys know any anatomy?

It is the normal condition for tetrapods to have the shoulder attached to the muscles of the body. Tetrapods with a direct bony connection to the spine and/or ribs is the exception. Just how is this supposed to be a problem?

Furthermore, the other tetrapod transitionals, both those more amphibian like and those more fish like, share this anatomy."

Finally...

You find the truth funny

"In tetrapods, unlike fishes, the pectoral girdle does not have a solid bony connection to the axial skeleton but rather is supported by a series of muscles derived from the outer layer of hypaxial trunk muscles. This is no doubt another adaptation to life in an air environment, where the cushioning effect of water has been lost. These muscular slings are not readily demonstrated in the living amphibians, which are either skeletally degenerate as in urodeles or highly specialized toward leaping, as in the anurans (frogs and toads). In more typical tetrapods, there are two major derivatives of the external oblique attaching the scapula (shoulder blade) to the body: first, the serratus, made up of numerous fingerlike slips running from the scapula to the neighbouring ribs; second, levator scapulae, which are fused with serratus along its caudal (tail-end) border. Levator scapulae consist of fibres running more anteriorly to ribs or transverse processes of the neck. Mammals, and some reptiles, have a third such muscle, attaching the pectoral girdle to the region of the spine, called rhomboideus. The mammals also have utilized part of the hypaxial musculature to form a muscular septum between the region of the lungs and heart (the thoracic cavity) and the region of the digestive and reproductive viscera (the abdominal cavity)."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-58922

 

[Post deleted due to personal attack]

[ April 16, 2006, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Another day, another ad hominem attack by BobRyan!

 

Thanks for the personal attack. And if you are going to mention my profession, at least get it right.

But you will notice that I did not give my opinion, I quoted from a source on the anatomy of tetrapods. If you read through there, you will see that the normal situation is for the shoulder blade to be attached not by bone directly to the spine or rib cage as your source asserts, but instead by muscles and other fibers.

So where is Panderichthys "discredited?"

So, is a computer guy better able to sort through the truth about biology than chemical engineer? I bet at the very least I have more basic science upon which to build than you do. If you want to pursue the qualifications of two people with few to none.

 

OK Bob.

In your last post, you pointed out to us that DR. Menton, who wrote the AIG bit you are quoting from, was once Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. (I think you left out the part about this being in the past. No biggie.) A very prestigious school.

But, as has been shown, he made a major error in his statement about the anatomy of the tetrapod shoulder. Now I am not trying to set up a false dilemma. Perhaps you see a third way. But I only see two choices. Can you tell me which you think is true?

In the first case, Dr. Menton made a major error in anatomy. It happens. But, when making such a profound error in an area of gross anatomy by an anatomy professor, it may cause one to cast doubt upon the rest of what he had to say.

The second possibility that I see is that this was a deliberate error. That is that he set out to deceive in the cause of making a point. In this case, we should not just question the rest of what he said, we should totatlly disregard it.

Which do you see as most likely?

 

This is one of the first things a student learns in the comparative anatomy of vertebrates. It is astounding that he would have a doctorate in anatomy and not know this.

 

Re: original post.
This kind of news article just goes to show how easy it is to dupe the general public who have no knowledge of scientific theories and how they work. They read these articles and say things like, "There you are science has proved evolution to be true".
I get similar arguments from some Muslims on the Islamic forum which I frequent. I began a thread entitled "Let's rethink evolution?". And some try and prove that new species are coming into being every day. Then they try to prove that one species can mutate into another species. Although there are no examples to prove this and neither can they demonstrate it from fossel records. And the scientists among them go into elaborate arguments to try and prove that bacteria are evolving into different species every day. Any comments?

 

Comments?

Yeah!

You say that this is an example of "dup[ing]the general public who have no knowledge of scientific theories and how they work." Can you tell us just how they were duped?

Observations of other tetrapod transitionals show that the change occurred over a very narrow time period. The researchers checked a geology text to see where there might be other rocks of that specific age at the surface. They then went to a specific spot where they had predicted that there should be other tetrapod transitionals.

After searching, low and behold they DID find a new transitional tetrapod. It has a mix of fish and amphibian characters and several traits were found in the process of changing.

Just how did they dupe any one? SPECIFICALLY!

"Then they try to prove that one species can mutate into another species. Although there are no examples to prove this and neither can they demonstrate it from fossel records."

What are you talking about? There are well over a dozen examples of such transitional species just in the fish to tetrapod lineage!

Hundreds of transitioal species can be produced from the fossil record if you wish.

Could you better explain what you mean or do you just deny everything that disagrees with your opinion?

 

One more question for grahame, BobRyan (since he brought up the coelacanths) and any one else lurking.

If this is really not a transitional fossil and if tetrapods really did not evolve from lobe finned fish, just why is it that the extand lobe finned fish (coelacanths and lungfish) are genetically closer to tetrapods than to other fish?



"Second, our markers demonstrate that the extant tetrapods are monophyletic and lungfishes are the closest living relatives of tetrapods as proposed in phylogenetic model 1a (Fig. 1)."

Byrappa Venkatesh, Mark V. Erdmann, and Sydney Brenner, "Molecular synapomorphies resolve evolutionary relationships of extant jawed vertebrates," PNAS, September 25, 2001, vol. 98, no. 20, 11382-11387.

Full text available.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/20/11382

 

Bring it.

 

Wow! What a hostile forum. Is this how you talk to all your fellow Christians? I've seen more grace in amongst the Muslims I speak with. So what you are saying then is that all these examples show that one species transformed into another species?
So in demonstrating this you hope to prove? what? That man was once an ape? Or that God did not create us as human beings?

 

You come on here and essentially insult us and then complain that we're hostile?

Actually I don't consider either response particularly hostile. But I'm pretty tough.

 

I have not insulted you. But I did get a shock when one of my simple calls for help was roughly handled.

 

Request for help? Let me parse your post from my point of view.

Translation: You TE's are either ignorant or attempting to willfully deceive other people.

Translation: Let me lump you TE's in with a bunch of pagans.

Translation: Now I will offhandedly dismiss all contrary points of view.

You see?

If you really want to discuss these things rationally I provided a link above to the Top Secret Science forum.