Jump to content


Photo

Is Tiktaalik Still Considered A Transition To Land Dweller?


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#141 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:04 AM

burial.jpg

 

Still trying to get the concept down before I can further examine it.
I'm not the sharpest one here so bear with me.

 

I found this image from the AIG museum, and was wandering if this would accurately reflect the hypothesis.

 

Tiktaalik would have been on the floating forest, and would have been destroyed by the encroaching flood waves, and it's remains would have settled on the bottom, and later fossilized to the point were it was discovered today?...is that correct?

 

Am I on the right track?

 

From what I can see in the picture, yes, you are on the right track. Tiktaalik would have been on the edges of the floating forest where the "false bottom" would be relatively thin and would not support the full weight of an animal. I wasn't aware that AIG had incorporated Wise's floating forest into their Flood model.

 

By the way, I haven't forgotten your request to summarize Woodmorappe's "Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils." I do intend to give you one when I have the chance.



#142 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 04 February 2014 - 07:45 AM

From what I can see in the picture, yes, you are on the right track. Tiktaalik would have been on the edges of the floating forest where the "false bottom" would be relatively thin and would not support the full weight of an animal. I wasn't aware that AIG had incorporated Wise's floating forest into their Flood model.

 

By the way, I haven't forgotten your request to summarize Woodmorappe's "Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils." I do intend to give you one when I have the chance.

 

Would the bottom of the shallow sea be the pre-flood earth then?

Would we expect to see no fossils below this?

I would also like to know where the more "advanced" angiosperms would fit into this model.

Just so you know up front, I have serious doubts about this, but I feel that I need to fully grasp the concept before I can honestly assess it.



#143 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 05 February 2014 - 07:50 PM

Would the bottom of the shallow sea be the pre-flood earth then?

Would we expect to see no fossils below this?

I would also like to know where the more "advanced" angiosperms would fit into this model.

Just so you know up front, I have serious doubts about this, but I feel that I need to fully grasp the concept before I can honestly assess it.

 

I think angiosperms are assumed to have been distributed at higher or more inland environments pre-flood.  I think it's in the Cretaceous layers where many (most?) angiosperm forms suddenly appear. 

 

What serious doubts do you have about this model?    It's something I've been thinking about lately so would be interested in your thoughts.



#144 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:24 PM

I think angiosperms are assumed to have been distributed at higher or more inland environments pre-flood.  I think it's in the Cretaceous layers where many (most?) angiosperm forms suddenly appear. 

 

What serious doubts do you have about this model?    It's something I've been thinking about lately so would be interested in your thoughts.

The very first thing that comes to mind is the parallel to the bog model.

These are formed in unique conditions where the leached acidic tannins from the vegetation creates a preservative out of the trapped water inside the kettlehole lake.

 

So the only way the bog has any support is due to the trapped vegetation that doesn't decay due to the high acidic nature of the trapped water.

 

Not sure how such a similar substrate would last out in the open sea where the water would not be trapped.

 

That's just the first thing that comes to mind, but I'd really have to digest this idea more.

 

Sounds like it is quite similar to the model of least advanced animals drowning first, model.



#145 nnjamerson

nnjamerson

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:56 PM

Floating forest? What on earth is this about ? Cmon, we've had plenty of tsunamis in modern times, and i've not seen one floating forest? Show me a precedent, and i'll consider it, until then it's a crackpot hypothesis.

 

"angiosperms are assumed to have been distributed at higher or more inland environments pre-flood".

So, assuming the earth is several billion years older than the flood based on a wealth of empirical data is wrong, and lots of other assumptions that geologists etc need to make (constant rate of radioactive decay in a given set of conditions etc) but making an assumption like this is fine? Again, why would that be true, what supports that? Personally i see modern (extant) angiosperms living in all manner of diverse current habitats, all manner of terrestrial from mountaintops to costal sandunes, river edges high up to tidal esturaries, and even plenty in the sea, like seagrasses. What i don't see is any evidence for them in any rocks/ beds/geological regions deemed to be older than the early Cretaceous period ...

 

least advanced animals drowning first, cmon ... seriously ... just look at the dispersion of fossils throughout any stata of the world in any paleontology text book you like people, no rabbits (or such modern like vertebrates) in the Cambrian, no Tiktaalik (or more-modern like forms) in the Silurian or Ordivician or before ...



#146 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:26 AM

Floating forest? What on earth is this about ? Cmon, we've had plenty of tsunamis in modern times, and i've not seen one floating forest? Show me a precedent, and i'll consider it, until then it's a crackpot hypothesis.

 

Um... have you seen a Big Bang?  An Oort cloud?  The origin of the Earth's moon?  Abiogenesis?  The evolution of a body plan or major anatomy?  The ability of culled genetic accidents to produce scales or hair or feathers?  Mass extinctions due to an asteroid?  An "ecological niche" giving rise to vertebrae or jaws or limbs?  Monkeys rafting across the Atlantic ocean?   I guess there are a lot of crackpot hypotheses out there, huh...

 

"angiosperms are assumed to have been distributed at higher or more inland environments pre-flood".

So, assuming the earth is several billion years older than the flood based on a wealth of empirical data is wrong, and lots of other assumptions that geologists etc need to make (constant rate of radioactive decay in a given set of conditions etc) but making an assumption like this is fine?

They are different models with different assumptions.  People who believe in an old earth are free to make their own assumptions. 

 

Postulating a different distribution of angiosperms in the past seems like a rather conservative hypothesis compared to say...  rocks turning into living creatures, for instance.

 

Again, why would that be true, what supports that?

Their order of appearance in the rock record in the context of the flood model.  Similar to how an evolutionist would find the lowest fossils of a bat or pterosaur body plan and conclude "Well I guess that's roughly when and where they evolved."  What supports this conclusion other than their appearance in the fossil record?

 

Personally i see modern (extant) angiosperms living in all manner of diverse current habitats, all manner of terrestrial from mountaintops to costal sandunes, river edges high up to tidal esturaries, and even plenty in the sea, like seagrasses.

Are you suggesting angiosperms were distributed all over the Earth at the moment of their inception?  That is quite a metaphysical departure from conventional thought.

 

I'm sure you realize that even evolutionists believe the initial "evolution" of a species means its distribution is small and concentrated by definition.  And past species distributions could have been radically different than modern ones.  And rapid migration doesn't necessarily have to leave fossil traces.

 

What i don't see is any evidence for them in any rocks/ beds/geological regions deemed to be older than the early Cretaceous period ...

Hence the reason for assuming prior distribution patterns...

 

 

least advanced animals drowning first, cmon ... seriously ... just look at the dispersion of fossils throughout any stata of the world in any paleontology text book you like people, no rabbits (or such modern like vertebrates) in the Cambrian, no Tiktaalik (or more-modern like forms) in the Silurian or Ordivician or before ...

Are you under the impression that underwater or benthic ecosystems are non-hostile to rabbits?   Because that is what we see characterized in the Cambrian/Ordovician/Silurian rock layers.   

 

By the way, tetrapod trackways, far more advanced than Tiktaalik, are found in the early Devonian, suggesting that tetrapods could easily have lived during the Silurian even by evolution standards.  So you see how easily Evolutionism can modify itself to absorb failed predictions.


  • Bonedigger likes this

#147 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:34 AM

"rocks turning into living creatures, for instance."

As ludicrious as abiogenesis may be, it always gets me when people make a gross oversimplification something. I don't appreciate these statements any more than I appreciate when people say "I have to telepathically ask a zombie for forgiveness to be immortal."

#148 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:19 PM

"rocks turning into living creatures, for instance."

As ludicrious as abiogenesis may be, it always gets me when people make a gross oversimplification something.

 

I usually only say that in response to an evolutionist/materialist hand-waving about the incredulity of something in the YEC model.  It helps put things in perspective and reminds them where they come from.  (metaphysically speaking)



#149 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:23 PM

 
I usually only say that in response to an evolutionist/materialist hand-waving about the incredulity of something in the YEC model.  It helps put things in perspective and reminds them where they come from.  (metaphysically speaking)


Agreed. I hear you now. I don't like either side doing handwaving. So both phrases ruffle my feathers.

#150 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:35 PM

"rocks turning into living creatures, for instance."

 

Where did the minerals within the supposed pre-biotic "soup" come from?.... Rocks perhaps?...



#151 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:40 PM

 
Where did the minerals within the supposed pre-biotic "soup" come from?.... Rocks perhaps?...


Of course not. It came from the Ymir's armpit.

I don't like oversimplifications. I'm okay spontaneous generation in and of itself. I'm not gonna mock it even if it wasn't.

#152 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 February 2014 - 04:46 PM

I don't like oversimplifications.

 

No worries :)



#153 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 February 2014 - 03:50 PM

Mod-edit. The off-topic posts on Neanderthals have been moved to the Neanderthal thread starting here:

 

http://evolutionfair...e=3#entry100803



#154 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 09 February 2014 - 03:54 PM

Mod-edit. The off-topic posts on Neanderthals have been moved to the Neanderthal thread starting here:
 
http://evolutionfair...e=3#entry100803


Sorry! My bad! :(

#155 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 February 2014 - 04:01 PM

Sorry! My bad! sad.png

 

No problem. It was developing a life of its own here so I figured it should continue in an appropriate thread. wink.png






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users