Timothy McDougald
Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,21:27) | Here’s what really cracks me up....the actual bone fragments that you science dudes get so worked up about. See Tikaaklik as well as the jawbone from the article Bill linked to in regard to the recovered fossils that “may” prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus .
Tikky...
Austa...
It’s no wonder we unscientific folks think you’re all completely nuts. We’re talking jaw and fish bone fragments, for Christ’s sake. But, we’re supposed to believe they represent the proof that we evolved from fish and apes.
From what I understand, Shubin made several trips to a few places where he thought he should find these transitionals, but had no luck. If I remember correctly from the book (I read it at Barnes & Nobles in two different visits), he said that they almost gave up hope and that they were afraid they wouldn’t get funding for further trips like this. (If I’m wrong about this I’m sure someone will correct me...like I said, I don’t have the book and I can’t quite remember how the story went.)
But, just in the nick of time, they stumble along this Tikaaklik find, which looks like a freaking fish to me. So, they find some little bone on this sucker that they think served as a intermediate wrist bone. What the heck does that really mean? There are other walking fish...I have no idea what makes this one bone fragment so unique that it just *has* to be an intermediate between fish and terapods. I guess because this one was found in exactly the “right place”.
And, then there’s Bill’s jawbone. Some science dude digs in the “right place” and finds some bone fragments that he deems transitionals.
W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r.
Makes you wonder what scientists would find if they went gung ho digging in the wrong places. Honest to God, when I did a little research earlier this year and found out how few ape to human transitional bone fragments we actually have, I was stunned that scientists actually believe this crap.
But, yes, I’m well aware that you have to be a genius mad scientist to understand how precious and meaningful these minute bone fragments really are.
I guess I do have to remind myself, though, that you are the same folks who seem to think everything we observe in nature arose from a lucky little blob. Faith is a wonderful thing, eh?
Oh, and have fun with this oldie but goody as well [Fish-o-pod ‘Missing Link’ Discovered: Media Goes Nuts 04/06/2006 ].
Luvs, hugs and kisses, folks!
PS to blipey the troll: Honey, it seems to me that for a guy who has such a long list of questions he’s waiting for me to answer, he would at least set a good example and answer the one question that I asked you months ago on the UD thread. Heck it’s been so long I don’t even remember what it was or where it is. I’m sure you recall that conversation though. |
Dang, don't know how I missed that, but a few thoughts spring to mind.
FTK needs to do a little more research on the subject. To date there are over 13,000 fossils that relate to human evolution and no, they can't all be shoved in a coffin. When I was at UTK we had a smallish cast lab but the casts we had would have filled a coffin several times over. They range from fragments to complete bones to partial or complete skeletons. The four volume series by Jeffrey Schwartz is a good place to start. The idea that nothing can be learned from bone fragments presupposes that bones are protoplasmic lumps of calcium. I find it amusing that creationists can deride Darwin for thinking the cell was a lump of protoplasm (incidentally, that is an untrue claim) yet turn around and make that mistake with bone. In point of fact, those knobs and grooves indicate something about the morphology and function of the bone and even fragments can provide interesting information. It is interesting, in this light, that FTK derides a fairly complete skull and a complete mandible as "fragments" when they are anything but fragments. Going further, she characterizes Tiktaalik as a looking like a fish, but does not specify what morphology gives her that impression. FTK also doesn't seem to understand the nature of fieldwork. The choice of where to dig is predicated on evolutionary theory and on previous finds. If you want to find something relevant to, say, human evolution, you have to look at what it says about where and when humans evolved. If prior evidence indicates that some interesting things happened in the Pliocene you have to go look in Pliocene strata to find the fossils that will shed light on it. I guess going where the data points is an alien concept for FTK.
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and
Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensisand Australopithecus afarensis? Really, I eagerly await your discussion of australopithecine anatomy.
--------------
Church burning ebola boy
FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.
PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.
|
