Fossil evidence of transition from water to land

dogjones · 5th April 2006, 11:48 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

Quote:

snip

The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.

snip

"We are capturing a very significant transition at a key moment of time. What is significant about the animal is that it is a fossil that blurs the distinction between two forms of life - between an animal that lives in water and an animal that lives on land."

snip

Professor Jennifer Clack, from the University of Cambridge, said that the find could prove to be as much of an "evolutionary icon" as Archaeopteryx - an animal believed to mark the transition from reptiles to birds.

Yet more evidence for nutters to ignore! Hurrah!

hammegk · 5th April 2006, 12:14 PM

Interesting no doubt.

I prefer http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/from/RS.2/

Headline
Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land

fine print

Quote:

It’s an important new contribution to (understanding) a very, very important transition in the history of life,” said Robert Carroll of McGill University in Montreal.

I'd agree it's an important contribution from the fossil record, actual significance subject to debate. Feel free to have faith in the headline.

SteveGrenard · 5th April 2006, 02:15 PM

There is homology as well between living forms of fish and crocodilians, the garfish and the gharial and the false gharial:

Gar:

http://myfwc.com/Fishing/Fishes/gar.html

Gharial ….a crocodilian:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/!ggan1.htm

and the False Gharial which can be seen here (scroll down)

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csl.html

With the exception of the gharial & false gharial and the slender-snouted crocodiles, most living crocodilians do have flattened snouts/heads. What is fascinating is that this find indicates that the slender snouted and flat snouted forms may've evolved independently rather than starting out as slender snouted and then evolving a flattened snout afterwards.

Bronze Dog · 5th April 2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Feel free to have faith in the headline.

Who need faith when the evidence suggests that conclusion?

Now, if you'd like to point out a reason it doesn't, please speak up.

Dr Adequate · 5th April 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

There is homology as well between living forms of fish and crocodilians, the garfish and the gharial and the false gharial.

Oh yes? Five bucks says they have no shared derived characteristics not shared by all bony vertebrates.

Jon. · 5th April 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by dogjones

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

Yet more evidence for nutters to ignore! Hurrah!

No, no, no, don't you see? Now instead of one gap in the fossil record, there are two!

hammegk · 5th April 2006, 03:01 PM

Or maybe it's a croc taking a cetacean-like regession to live in the water?

Bronze Dog · 5th April 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Or maybe it's a croc taking a cetacean-like regession to live in the water?

Got any evidence of crocs existing before the fish?

I less than three logic · 5th April 2006, 03:07 PM

Doesn't really matter either way I guess. I’m pretty sure that adaptive changes to move from a terrestrial animal to an aquatic one still counts as evolution. But you would have to have evidence that the crocodile was there first for the idea to make any sense.

hammegk · 5th April 2006, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

Got any evidence of crocs existing before the fish?

Next you'll want to discuss the intricacies of geologic age dating -- the age dates the fossil or the fossil dates the age, depending on what one needs.

Re cetacean evolution ... does someone think it's cast in stone???

Bronze Dog · 5th April 2006, 03:29 PM

I'd only discuss all that if you performed a major abuse of it... so, yeah, I have a feeling I probably would move onto that... Oh, wait, you already did.

Taffer · 5th April 2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Next you'll want to discuss the intricacies of geologic age dating -- the age dates the fossil or the fossil dates the age, depending on what one needs.

Er, no hamme. There are many methods to dating. The only time when a fossil dates a geological strata is when the precise age of the fossil is known, which would have been found by the fossil being found in a different strata of known age. What is the problem here?

ETA: Ooh, beaten to it! That was the link I was trying to find, BronzeDog.

hammegk · 5th April 2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Taffer

ETA: Ooh, beaten to it! That was the link I was trying to find, BronzeDog.

And dated 1976! Wow!

Quote:

There are many methods to dating. The only time when a fossil dates a geological strata is when the precise age of the fossil is known, which would have been found by the fossil being found in a different strata of known age. What is the problem here?

Nothing, once we have established one of those 'precise ages' for both the fossil and the strata.

Last I looked palynology offered the best bottom-to-top sequencing method. The various radioactive stuff used to arrive at actual, point ages, has many weaknesses (or did, some time back when I had reason to stay current in such things).

Please note my tongue firmly in my cheek above, but does someone have a good, recent, precis on age dating methodology & accuracy?

Dr Adequate · 5th April 2006, 05:59 PM

Try this

Dr Adequate · 5th April 2006, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Or maybe it's a croc taking a cetacean-like regession to live in the water?

It's not a crocodile, it just vaguely resembles one in shape.

hammegk · 5th April 2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Try this

LOL.

Quote:

It's not a crocodile, it just vaguely resembles one in shape.

Damn phenotypes.

Taffer · 6th April 2006, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Damn phenotypes.

Do you even know what a "phenotype" is?

hammegk · 6th April 2006, 06:14 AM

Yes.

Taffer · 6th April 2006, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Yes.

Then why, when replying to "It's not a crocodile, it just vaguely resembles one in shape." did you say "Damn phenotypes."?

hammegk · 6th April 2006, 06:48 AM

LOL.

It was (an apparently feeble) attempt to make a joke. Sorry.

Enough of this derail by me. Please examine the fossil and discuss it in a scientifically appropriate manner as pleases you. I'm outtahere.

Taffer · 6th April 2006, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

LOL.

It was (an apparently feeble) attempt to make a joke. Sorry.

Enough of this derail by me. Please examine the fossil and discuss it in a scientifically appropriate manner as pleases you. I'm outtahere.

Fear not hamme, I figured it for a joke. However, jokes like this, taken in the wrong context, can fuel misunderstanding about genetics and evolution, which I try to avoid.

Bronze Dog · 6th April 2006, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Taffer

However, jokes like this, taken in the wrong context, can fuel misunderstanding about genetics and evolution, which I try to avoid.

Something I've seen lots of Creationist apparently trying to promote.

Morrigan · 6th April 2006, 10:21 AM

Cool article, very interesting.

I'm not sure where hammegk is trying to go with all of this, but it's vaguely irritating.

Bronze Dog · 6th April 2006, 10:23 AM

Some people just need to learn to embrace their inner fish.

hammegk · 6th April 2006, 12:41 PM

Er, sure. But why is the guy in the picture hugging a croc?

Hmmm. Only 'vaguely' irritating?

chance · 6th April 2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

LOL.

It was (an apparently feeble) attempt to make a joke. Sorry.

Enough of this derail by me. Please examine the fossil and discuss it in a scientifically appropriate manner as pleases you. I'm outtahere.

huh? ..............

Oh!

steve s · 7th April 2006, 05:30 PM

On the NBC Nightly News tonight (Friday the 7th), Brian Williams barely mentioned the discovery of Tiktaalik, devoting all of about 5 to 7 seconds to it. And what's worse, it got lumped into a story along with that guy who says Jesus was walking on ice instead of water, as though the two stories are of similar importance and validity.

And people complain about liberal bias in the media.

Steve S.

Timothy · 8th April 2006, 12:20 PM

Comment on NPR's news quiz show "Wait Wait -- Don't Tell Me":

(paraphrased) "The big question...why did fish leave the oceans? Probably because all those fish schools were forced to teach Creationism."

- Timothy

Eos of the Eons · 9th April 2006, 09:31 AM

Excellent resource for Hammy:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Well, for anyone, really.

Page 5 addresses transitions.

SteveGrenard · 9th April 2006, 09:39 AM

John Rennie in Sci AM July 2002 writes:

Quote:

Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Quote:

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

Microevolution and macroevolution have been amply demonstrated.

Some references....of many that are out there:

http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/0700_feature.html

hammegk · 9th April 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

Excellent resource for Hammy:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Well, for anyone, really.

Page 5 addresses transitions.

LOL. Do you think there is something new-to-me in there?

I'd let you know, but the link for me ends with a blank page.

SteveGrenard · 9th April 2006, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

LOL. Do you think there is something new-to-me in there?

I'd let you know, but the link for me ends with a blank page.

I had no problem bringing up the article. Try:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?article...49809EC588EEDF

Eos of the Eons · 9th April 2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

...the link for me ends with a blank page.

No Doubt.

hammegk · 9th April 2006, 10:48 AM

Steve's link works; yours doesn't.

Same old stuff in any case.

What would happen to a secular humanist if one decided his(er,her) worldview -- a critical part of which is defend-to-the-death neo-Darwinism -- was wrong, and that person's ego/logic was not the most powerful force in the universe?

Eos of the Eons · 9th April 2006, 10:57 AM

My link works fine. Or I wouldn't have found it in the first place, it's the one I use, bookmarked, etc.

Hmm, more name calling too. Typical. Who has the ego??

I don't even know what darwinism is. I know what evolution is though. Why not stick to the topic and look up your arguments at the link? Maybe once one finds answers to their question, they might learn something and think about it instead of parroting the same old same old.

CACTUSJACKmankin · 9th April 2006, 06:18 PM

The discovery of this fossil that is in the transition between fish and amphibians, is a big deal in the scientific community. To sum up this specimen is the earliest animal found that had fins that could be used to go on land for short periods of time. This animal was a fish but the advantage of these fins is that it would have been able to leave the water just long enough to escape predators. It also had the beginings of hand bones.
So, is this a missing link. This species shows a major component of a major step in the evolution of vertebrates. If that isn't a missing link, nothing is.

I know that people on both sides of the evolution "debate" are sick of hearing about archaeopteryx because the creationists dismiss it out of hand as a bird. Recently though, one of the best quality specimens to date was found and it had a hyperextended second toe a trait previously found in dromeosaurids. In english, the hyperextended second toe is the sickle claw of the velociraptor, thus this find places archaeopteryx even closer to dromeosaurids(velociraptors and relatives), than previously thought. So if it is a bird, it's a dinosaur too, thus birds evolved from dinosaurs. If that isn't a missing link, nothing is.

So if creationists aren't going to accept anything as a missing link, then what's the point of event using the term to shoot down creationism? It isn't like evolution would be in trouble if it weren't for these specimens. I say we retire the term missing link. It's irrelevant now, we are at a point in our knowlege of the fossil record that we aren't likely to find anything that will make the term useful. And in those specimens that it is useful for it won't convince the creationists so why bother?

Dr Adequate · 9th April 2006, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

What would happen to a secular humanist if one decided his(er,her) worldview -- a critical part of which is defend-to-the-death neo-Darwinism -- was wrong, and that person's ego/logic was not the most powerful force in the universe?

I guess we'll find that out the moment anyone points out a flaw in Darwinism.

What would you do if you were attacked by flying pigs?

kuroyume0161 · 9th April 2006, 11:23 PM

*Crack* I'm back, but only in very limited capacity. First, I'll have to apologize for whatever was typed on my keyboard that honored me with a warning - I'm honest, there was a little too much sake involved and operation of computer equipment when it should not have been used. I am sorry for any double-visioned offense (which I have not had the heart to check) to anyone. Thus part of my three month forced absence. The other part is the devout preparation of my current 3D plugin for beta-testing.

The point to which I want to respond is that of CACTUSJACKmankin (any relation to CactusDan?) and possibly irritate hammy. The problem with creationists is that their only real defense is "tis the devil's work" and no other. The fossil record complies so well with our theories (and vice versa) that any refutation is blind idiocy. Missing links are just diversions for the believers who don't understand the basics of anything, let alone evolutionary theory or paleontology.

What would really disprove evolutionary theory (take the term "Darwinism" and use it only when talking about either early evolutionary theory, just after "The Origin of Species" or when creationists misuse the term) is a randomness in the fossil record that could not be explained. The typical fallacious poppy-cock, which is a construct of creationists and not scientists, is the 'caveman living along side of dinosaurs'. If someone can show a major aberration in the fossil record - such as finding a human skull that is dated to 500,000,000,000 years ago, then we can all commence starting the self-flagellation and killing of all heretics. Hmmm, there have been ZERO occurrences of such aberrations. Yes, there have been fraudulent attempts at positing abberations - all fraudulent! This is the beauty of science - it is a self-correcting methodology.

Hammy, swim hard, you're sinking faster than a lead weight on the Titanic....

Robert
P.S.: Dr Adequate, I like your new avatar.

sphenisc · 10th April 2006, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin

Recently though, one of the best quality specimens to date was found and it had a hyperextended second toe a trait previously found in dromeosaurids.

Got a cite for that? Thanks

mummymonkey · 10th April 2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Got a cite for that? Thanks

Google is your friend.

5th April 2006, 11:48 AM	#1
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	Fossil evidence of transition from water to land http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm Quote: snip The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water. snip "We are capturing a very significant transition at a key moment of time. What is significant about the animal is that it is a fossil that blurs the distinction between two forms of life - between an animal that lives in water and an animal that lives on land." snip Professor Jennifer Clack, from the University of Cambridge, said that the find could prove to be as much of an "evolutionary icon" as Archaeopteryx - an animal believed to mark the transition from reptiles to birds. Yet more evidence for nutters to ignore! Hurrah!
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

5th April 2006, 12:14 PM	#2
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Interesting no doubt. I prefer http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/from/RS.2/ Headline Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land fine print Quote: It’s an important new contribution to (understanding) a very, very important transition in the history of life,” said Robert Carroll of McGill University in Montreal. I'd agree it's an important contribution from the fossil record, actual significance subject to debate. Feel free to have faith in the headline.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

5th April 2006, 02:15 PM	#3
SteveGrenard Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Wherever the airline sends my luggage Posts: 5,528	There is homology as well between living forms of fish and crocodilians, the garfish and the gharial and the false gharial: Gar: http://myfwc.com/Fishing/Fishes/gar.html Gharial ….a crocodilian: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/!ggan1.htm and the False Gharial which can be seen here (scroll down) http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csl.html With the exception of the gharial & false gharial and the slender-snouted crocodiles, most living crocodilians do have flattened snouts/heads. What is fascinating is that this find indicates that the slender snouted and flat snouted forms may've evolved independently rather than starting out as slender snouted and then evolving a flattened snout afterwards.
	Last edited by SteveGrenard; 5th April 2006 at 02:31 PM.

5th April 2006, 02:46 PM	#4
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Originally Posted by hammegk Feel free to have faith in the headline. Who need faith when the evidence suggests that conclusion? Now, if you'd like to point out a reason it doesn't, please speak up.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

5th April 2006, 02:58 PM	#6
Jon. Increasing entropy since 1970 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: On the Clapham omnibus Posts: 3,509	Originally Posted by dogjones http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm Yet more evidence for nutters to ignore! Hurrah! No, no, no, don't you see? Now instead of one gap in the fossil record, there are two!
	__________________ In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. I don't appeal to the masses, and they don't appeal to me. - Graham Parker Calling modern day fundamentalists medieval is giving them about a thousand years of philosophical advancement they do not have. - Jorghnassen

5th April 2006, 02:53 PM	#5
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by SteveGrenard There is homology as well between living forms of fish and crocodilians, the garfish and the gharial and the false gharial. Oh yes? Five bucks says they have no shared derived characteristics not shared by all bony vertebrates.

5th April 2006, 03:01 PM	#7
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Or maybe it's a croc taking a cetacean-like regession to live in the water?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

5th April 2006, 03:03 PM	#8
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Originally Posted by hammegk Or maybe it's a croc taking a cetacean-like regession to live in the water? Got any evidence of crocs existing before the fish?
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

5th April 2006, 03:07 PM	#9
I less than three logic Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: St Cloud, MN, USA Posts: 1,464	Doesn't really matter either way I guess. I’m pretty sure that adaptive changes to move from a terrestrial animal to an aquatic one still counts as evolution. But you would have to have evidence that the crocodile was there first for the idea to make any sense.
	__________________ “There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.” - Carl Sagan “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball ninety million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” – Douglas Adams

5th April 2006, 03:18 PM	#10
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by BronzeDog Got any evidence of crocs existing before the fish? Next you'll want to discuss the intricacies of geologic age dating -- the age dates the fossil or the fossil dates the age, depending on what one needs. Re cetacean evolution ... does someone think it's cast in stone???
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

5th April 2006, 03:29 PM	#11
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	I'd only discuss all that if you performed a major abuse of it... so, yeah, I have a feeling I probably would move onto that... Oh, wait, you already did.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

5th April 2006, 03:31 PM	#12
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by hammegk Next you'll want to discuss the intricacies of geologic age dating -- the age dates the fossil or the fossil dates the age, depending on what one needs. Er, no hamme. There are many methods to dating. The only time when a fossil dates a geological strata is when the precise age of the fossil is known, which would have been found by the fossil being found in a different strata of known age. What is the problem here? ETA: Ooh, beaten to it! That was the link I was trying to find, BronzeDog.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple. Last edited by Taffer; 5th April 2006 at 03:34 PM.

5th April 2006, 05:31 PM	#13
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Taffer ETA: Ooh, beaten to it! That was the link I was trying to find, BronzeDog. And dated 1976! Wow! Quote: There are many methods to dating. The only time when a fossil dates a geological strata is when the precise age of the fossil is known, which would have been found by the fossil being found in a different strata of known age. What is the problem here? Nothing, once we have established one of those 'precise ages' for both the fossil and the strata. Last I looked palynology offered the best bottom-to-top sequencing method. The various radioactive stuff used to arrive at actual, point ages, has many weaknesses (or did, some time back when I had reason to stay current in such things). Please note my tongue firmly in my cheek above, but does someone have a good, recent, precis on age dating methodology & accuracy?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

5th April 2006, 05:59 PM	#14
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Try this

5th April 2006, 06:00 PM	#15
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by hammegk Or maybe it's a croc taking a cetacean-like regession to live in the water? It's not a crocodile, it just vaguely resembles one in shape.

5th April 2006, 06:15 PM	#16
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Try this LOL. Quote: It's not a crocodile, it just vaguely resembles one in shape. Damn phenotypes.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

6th April 2006, 12:09 AM	#17
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by hammegk Damn phenotypes. Do you even know what a "phenotype" is?
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

6th April 2006, 06:14 AM	#18
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Yes.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

6th April 2006, 06:33 AM	#19
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by hammegk Yes. Then why, when replying to "It's not a crocodile, it just vaguely resembles one in shape." did you say "Damn phenotypes."?
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

6th April 2006, 06:48 AM	#20
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	LOL. It was (an apparently feeble) attempt to make a joke. Sorry. Enough of this derail by me. Please examine the fossil and discuss it in a scientifically appropriate manner as pleases you. I'm outtahere.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

6th April 2006, 06:52 AM	#21
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by hammegk LOL. It was (an apparently feeble) attempt to make a joke. Sorry. Enough of this derail by me. Please examine the fossil and discuss it in a scientifically appropriate manner as pleases you. I'm outtahere. Fear not hamme, I figured it for a joke. However, jokes like this, taken in the wrong context, can fuel misunderstanding about genetics and evolution, which I try to avoid.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

6th April 2006, 09:01 AM	#22
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Originally Posted by Taffer However, jokes like this, taken in the wrong context, can fuel misunderstanding about genetics and evolution, which I try to avoid. Something I've seen lots of Creationist apparently trying to promote.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

6th April 2006, 10:21 AM	#23
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,868	Cool article, very interesting. I'm not sure where hammegk is trying to go with all of this, but it's vaguely irritating.
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,868

6th April 2006, 10:23 AM	#24
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Some people just need to learn to embrace their inner fish.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

6th April 2006, 12:41 PM	#25
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Er, sure. But why is the guy in the picture hugging a croc? Hmmm. Only 'vaguely' irritating?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

6th April 2006, 01:57 PM	#26
chance Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 431	Originally Posted by hammegk LOL. It was (an apparently feeble) attempt to make a joke. Sorry. Enough of this derail by me. Please examine the fossil and discuss it in a scientifically appropriate manner as pleases you. I'm outtahere. huh? .............. Oh!
chance Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 431

7th April 2006, 05:30 PM	#27
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,657	On the NBC Nightly News tonight (Friday the 7th), Brian Williams barely mentioned the discovery of Tiktaalik, devoting all of about 5 to 7 seconds to it. And what's worse, it got lumped into a story along with that guy who says Jesus was walking on ice instead of water, as though the two stories are of similar importance and validity. And people complain about liberal bias in the media. Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,657

8th April 2006, 12:20 PM	#28
Timothy Muse Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 544	Comment on NPR's news quiz show "Wait Wait -- Don't Tell Me": (paraphrased) "The big question...why did fish leave the oceans? Probably because all those fish schools were forced to teach Creationism." - Timothy
Timothy Muse Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 544

9th April 2006, 09:31 AM	#29
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	Excellent resource for Hammy: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Well, for anyone, really. Page 5 addresses transitions.
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

9th April 2006, 09:39 AM	#30
SteveGrenard Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Wherever the airline sends my luggage Posts: 5,528	John Rennie in Sci AM July 2002 writes: Quote: Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. Quote: This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. Microevolution and macroevolution have been amply demonstrated. Some references....of many that are out there: http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/0700_feature.html
	Last edited by SteveGrenard; 9th April 2006 at 10:04 AM.

9th April 2006, 10:01 AM	#31
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons Excellent resource for Hammy: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Well, for anyone, really. Page 5 addresses transitions. LOL. Do you think there is something new-to-me in there? I'd let you know, but the link for me ends with a blank page.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

9th April 2006, 10:03 AM	#32
SteveGrenard Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Wherever the airline sends my luggage Posts: 5,528	Originally Posted by hammegk LOL. Do you think there is something new-to-me in there? I'd let you know, but the link for me ends with a blank page. I had no problem bringing up the article. Try: http://sciam.com/article.cfm?article...49809EC588EEDF

9th April 2006, 10:10 AM	#33
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	Originally Posted by hammegk ...the link for me ends with a blank page. No Doubt.
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

9th April 2006, 10:48 AM	#34
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Steve's link works; yours doesn't. Same old stuff in any case. What would happen to a secular humanist if one decided his(er,her) worldview -- a critical part of which is defend-to-the-death neo-Darwinism -- was wrong, and that person's ego/logic was not the most powerful force in the universe?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

9th April 2006, 10:57 AM	#35
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	My link works fine. Or I wouldn't have found it in the first place, it's the one I use, bookmarked, etc. Hmm, more name calling too. Typical. Who has the ego?? I don't even know what darwinism is. I know what evolution is though. Why not stick to the topic and look up your arguments at the link? Maybe once one finds answers to their question, they might learn something and think about it instead of parroting the same old same old.
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!