Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

[Brian Jordan]

I asked about the Polish tracks because Christine mentioned that they were not universally accepted and I wanted more information on the matter, information which may or may not have been published and thus may or may not have been available online.

That's not correct - you mentioned the Polish tracks in your very first post on April 10th, before Christine joined the discussion. You might argue that Paul Braterman had already mentioned them in an email to you which Psi copied to the forum. However, that in turn was in response to an email sent by you to me when you applied to join the forum and I asked you - as I do when there are anomalies in people's application details - to demonstrate that you were not a spam robot. You mentioned the Polish tracks first, in that email to me on April 9th.

I'll include below the post I was hoping to leave on the board. Hopefully you'll find it sufficiently cordial and genuine.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to argue for a creationist interpretation of the data, regardless of my beliefs. But I have some concerns over what seems to be a generally un-discussed problem with evolutionary theory as it pertains to phylogenetics and the fossil record. Paleontologists construct phylogenetic trees depicting sister taxa branching off from nodes that denote an unidentified common ancestor. I understand that the fossil record is such that it is essentially impossible to claim with certainty that taxon A is the direct ancestor of taxon B, but I don’t understand the justification for using a sister taxon as a stand-in for that unidentified node. For example, Tiktaalik is presented as a transitional form between fish and tetrapods but the Polish tracks prove that it is not ancestral to tetrapods.

Unless, of course, you have been discussing this with Christine elsewhere under another pseudonym?

[Roger Stanyard]

False. If your conclusion were based on my words then you would be aware of my explanation of the post title which was intended to provoke a response rather than state a thesis. In fact that title is exactly the same format as one by a_haworthroberts:

A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

And yet I suspect that you did not decide based on that and despite the actual content of the post that it was a thetical statement and that he was advocating a 6000 year old earth. So how do you justify doing that here? As Cathy has pointed out and as I have acknowledged, many of you have a lot of history on this forum dealing with persistent anti-science so I can understand that you are reacting strongly, but you really need to do your best to save your venom for people actually disputing science rather than simply asking for some specifics. You called my motivation risibly transparent. This amuses me because of how wildly off the mark you are. I asked about the Polish tracks because Christine mentioned that they were not universally accepted and I wanted more information on the matter, information which may or may not have been published and thus may or may not have been available online.

Cathy, while I certainly appreciate your cordiality, you still mistake my intent here. You ask that I provide a replacement scientific theory that explains Tiktaalik and friends in a non-evolutionary light, but nowhere have I espoused this intent. Tiktaalik was merely an example used to ask the question I posed. Again, I can only urge that people here respond to the words I type and not the words they imagine are floating around in my head.

And Christine, if you could confirm that I've correctly summarized your explanation that would be much appreciated.

This is utter evasive bullshit. Nothing you have said contradicts my conclusion that you are creationist who has come into this forum under false pretenses.

Now answer the questions.

[Brian Jordan]

False. If your conclusion were based on my words then you would be aware of my explanation of the post title which was intended to provoke a response rather than state a thesis. In fact that title is exactly the same format as one by a_haworthroberts:

A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Really? I'd have thought something like "Paleontology, a mirror of morphological evolution?" would be an equivalent title.

Besides which, it's not at all polite to come to a forum with an insulting first thread title like that. Especially without having joined in any previous discussions.

[cathy]

Cathy, while I certainly appreciate your cordiality, you still mistake my intent here. You ask that I provide a replacement scientific theory that explains Tiktaalik and friends in a non-evolutionary light, but nowhere have I espoused this intent. Tiktaalik was merely an example used to ask the question I posed. Again, I can only urge that people here respond to the words I type and not the words they imagine are floating around in my head.

I'm trying very hard to SkepticalOne but the words you type are merely asking Christine questions than asking if you've understood her answers which are basically that tiktaalik et al are very good supporting evidence for evolutionary theory in that tiktaalik fits into a nested hierachy where evolutionary theory suggests it should and any other explanation for that is impossible.

I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make, can you be more specific about where your questions are leading.

[Christine Janis]

Also, you mentioned earlier that the Polish tetrapod tracks are not universally regarded as such. Have these doubts been published, or are they more informally expressed objections? If the latter, what sort of objections have you encountered?

Thanks again Ashley for alerting me to this!

This is just chit chat at meetings. But an important thing to realise about the Polish footprints is that they were in marine sediments. Thus whatever was making them wasn't walking on land.

If we look at the Middle Devonian fossil record there is an entire adaptive radiation of fishes with finger-like projections --- e.g. Sauripterus, which based on skull morphology and/or other features of the limb, is more towards the base of the tetrapodomorph fish. There's something going on with the shallow marine environment at that time which benefits a fish to get more limb-like fins, so even if a fish evolved something a little more like a tetrapod foot it could be completely convergent with the situation in tetrapods --- we wouldn't know until we found the actual bones.

It seems to me that creationists wouldn't take these footprints as any sort of "astounding evidence" if they promoted what they thought of as their idea of evolution.

Speaking of footprints, I'll also note that the so-called Triassic bird footprints that creationists have been raving about have now been reinterpreted as being in Eocene strata.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11931.html

[SkepticalOne]

That's not correct - you mentioned the Polish tracks in your very first post on April 10th

Good point. I guess I meant I had most recently mentioned them because of what Christine said. Previously it was just to set up the Tiktaalik example and delineate between relatedness and acestrality. My mistake.

Nothing you have said contradicts my conclusion that you are creationist who has come into this forum under false pretenses.

I am not sure why I am bothering with you, Robert, since nothing I say seems to matter, including explicitly stating that I have no metaphysical angle here, merely curiosity. You are basing your assumption on the title of the post rather than its contents. I have made the point that if you are going to take a post title that is a question as thetical and ignore the actual content of the post then you should be abusing haworthroberts right now too. How do you respond to that? You have failed utterly to quote any part of my actual post that supports your delusion. I guarantee you will fail to do so in the future. This means that all you have on which to found your accusations is your preconceived ideas which are independent of the evidence. I hear you guys don't like that sort of thing.

Besides which, it's not at all polite to come to a forum with an insulting first thread title like that

Sorry Brian, I knew it was a provocative title but I did not realize it was a rude one.

I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make, can you be more specific about where your questions are leading.

You are making the same mistake that Robert is making less cordially. My questions are leading to understanding some specifics of how certain conclusions are reached in paleontology. That is the goal. I ask Christine for confirmation because I am trying to ensure that I have correctly understood her post.

f we look at the Middle Devonian fossil record there is an entire adaptive radiation of fishes with finger-like projections --- e.g. Sauripterus, which based on skull morphology and/or other features of the limb, is more towards the base of the tetrapodomorph fish. There's something going on with the shallow marine environment at that time which benefits a fish to get more limb-like fins, so even if a fish evolved something a little more like a tetrapod foot it could be completely convergent with the situation in tetrapods --- we wouldn't know until we found the actual bones.

So the Polish tracks are considered by some researches to have been produced by fish rather than something more on its way to tetrapod status. Is this because of the temporal setting or print morphology? Or both? In case you are worried (though the paranoia doesn't seem to have infected you), this is just a question, not part of a secret creationist trap as Robert fears.

[Peter Henderson]

That's not correct - you mentioned the Polish tracks in your very first post on April 10th

Good point. I guess I meant I had most recently mentioned them because of what Christine said. Previously it was just to set up the Tiktaalik example and delineate between relatedness and acestrality. My mistake.

Nothing you have said contradicts my conclusion that you are creationist who has come into this forum under false pretenses.

I am not sure why I am bothering with you, Robert, since nothing I say seems to matter, including explicitly stating that I have no metaphysical angle here, merely curiosity. You are basing your assumption on the title of the post rather than its contents. I have made the point that if you are going to take a post title that is a question as thetical and ignore the actual content of the post then you should be abusing haworthroberts right now too. How do you respond to that? You have failed utterly to quote any part of my actual post that supports your delusion. I guarantee you will fail to do so in the future. This means that all you have on which to found your accusations is your preconceived ideas which are independent of the evidence. I hear you guys don't like that sort of thing.

Besides which, it's not at all polite to come to a forum with an insulting first thread title like that

Sorry Brian, I knew it was a provocative title but I did not realize it was a rude one.

I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make, can you be more specific about where your questions are leading.

You are making the same mistake that Robert is making less cordially. My questions are leading to understanding some specifics of how certain conclusions are reached in paleontology. That is the goal. I ask Christine for confirmation because I am trying to ensure that I have correctly understood her post.

f we look at the Middle Devonian fossil record there is an entire adaptive radiation of fishes with finger-like projections --- e.g. Sauripterus, which based on skull morphology and/or other features of the limb, is more towards the base of the tetrapodomorph fish. There's something going on with the shallow marine environment at that time which benefits a fish to get more limb-like fins, so even if a fish evolved something a little more like a tetrapod foot it could be completely convergent with the situation in tetrapods --- we wouldn't know until we found the actual bones.

So the Polish tracks are considered by some researches to have been produced by fish rather than something more on its way to tetrapod status. Is this because of the temporal setting or print morphology? Or both? In case you are worried (though the paranoia doesn't seem to have infected you), this is just a question, not part of a secret creationist trap as Robert fears.

How old do you think the Earth is SkepticalOne ? I've asked you this several times but you've refused to answer. Why ?

[Roger Stanyard]

So the Polish tracks are considered by some researches to have been produced by fish rather than something more on its way to tetrapod status. Is this because of the temporal setting or print morphology? Or both? In case you are worried (though the paranoia doesn't seem to have infected you), this is just a question, not part of a secret creationist trap as Robert fears.

Here is CMI's position where it ties together Tiktaalik and the Polish tracks. Just like you are doing : http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-foo ... -tiktaalik

[Roger Stanyard]

So the Polish tracks are considered by some researches to have been produced by fish rather than something more on its way to tetrapod status. Is this because of the temporal setting or print morphology? Or both? In case you are worried (though the paranoia doesn't seem to have infected you), this is just a question, not part of a secret creationist trap as Robert fears.

Trap? Scam is the word I would use for what you are doing here.

[Roger Stanyard]

I am not sure why I am bothering with you, Robert, since nothing I say seems to matter, including explicitly stating that I have no metaphysical angle here.....,

Big deal. The creationists having been claiming for decades that their "creation science" has nothing t do with religion, no siree Bob. And it can all be justified by science alone. The courts, rightly, have never believed them.

[SkepticalOne]

How old do you think the Earth is SkepticalOne ? I've asked you this several times but you've refused to answer. Why ?

I've refused to answer because I don't think I should have to answer a question about the age of the earth when I am here trying to get some aspects of paleontology clarified. If I had at any point questioned the age of the earth or evolutionary theory then such a question would be justified and merit a response. As it is I am stubbornly refusing to indulge this mass hallucination.

Here is CMI's position where it ties together Tiktaalik and the Polish tracks. Just like you are doing

Really? Just like I am doing? Perhaps you would like to quote the post where I outline my position on the tracks and highlight the similarities. Perhaps you would like to quote the post where you have even a shred of evidence that your paranoia is justified. Or perhaps you would not because the task is impossible. Seriously Roger, enough bold proclamations of my secret plans and intentions. I think we're all a fan of evidence-based claims here. Try your hardest to find some quotes that justify your position. I guarantee you will fail. You know this too, otherwise you would have have produced such quotes by now.

[Roger Stanyard]

How old do you think the Earth is SkepticalOne ? I've asked you this several times but you've refused to answer. Why ?

I've refused to answer because I don't think I should have to answer a question about the age of the earth when I am here trying to get some aspects of paleontology clarified. If I had at any point questioned the age of the earth or evolutionary theory then such a question would be justified and merit a response. As it is I am stubbornly refusing to indulge this mass hallucination.

.

Then why the heck should anyone here reply to your questions?

[Roger Stanyard]

[
Really? Just like I am doing? Perhaps you would like to quote the post where I outline my position on the tracks and highlight the similarities. Perhaps you would like to quote the post where you have even a shred of evidence that your paranoia is justified. Or perhaps you would not because the task is impossible. Seriously Roger, enough bold proclamations of my secret plans and intentions. I think we're all a fan of evidence-based claims here. Try your hardest to find some quotes that justify your position. I guarantee you will fail. You know this too, otherwise you would have have produced such quotes by now.

Stop bloody waffling. Either you are a creationist or you are not. Now answer the bloody question put to you by Peter.

[Peter Henderson]

I've refused to answer because I don't think I should have to answer a question about the age of the earth

Why ?

The age of the Earth is relevant to this discussion thread.

If you think it's a mere 6,000 years old then your questions are meaningless.

What's your problem on this ?

[Brian Jordan]

I've refused to answer because I don't think I should have to answer a question about the age of the earth when I am here trying to get some aspects of paleontology clarified. If I had at any point questioned the age of the earth or evolutionary theory then such a question would be justified and merit a response. As it is I am stubbornly refusing to indulge this mass hallucination.

This reply itself raises questions. Any discussion of paleontology would go in different directions depending whether the person posing the question believes the planet is billions or thousands of years old. Any perceived gap or anomaly in the fossil record will have different implications depending on whether it was found in a young, tightly packed bone-yard or among rare fragments broken and scattered by millions of years of geology. There's also the question of just what mass hallucination you are speaking of. Are you saying that accepting an old earth, or evolution, is a mass hallucination? Or that one or two people here are suffering from a mass hallucination when they, quite reasonably, see in your posts and attitude aspects characteristic of creationists trolling science forums?
Either way, you would do well to realise that people here are not obliged to answer your rather arrogantly posed questions, Also, just for the record, if they will not - or even cannot - answer them you will have earned no Brownie points - should you turn out in the end to be a creationist - because this does not pretend to be a forum for paleontological discussion.
So, to return to your questions: what are you hoping to learn about paleontology here that you cannot learn from an Internet search of passive information sites, or more specifically directed forums? What is so important about the answers you are not quite getting, that you don't just shrug and write us off as unable to enlighten you?