I’m still not seeing your problem. Further evidence refines unresolved or inaccurately resolved trees. That’s simply scientific advance.
Sorry, but that tree shows nothing about a progression in the fossil record. You’re making unwarranted assumptions that change a tree into a linear sequence.
1 Like
maybe this image will help (image from wiki):
do we see a progression in that phylogeny or not?
when i said.
I missed that. What did you say and where did you say it?
I don’t know. Without molecular phylogenetic evidence (DNA doesn’t last beyond, perhaps, 800,000 years) it’s hard to be dogmatic.
You didn’t say when YOU think humpbacks lost their hind limbs. You offered the mainstream science conclusion but didn’t say if you agreed with it or not.
Why is it so hard to get you to answer a simple question?
im talking now just about these fossils. do you think they show a progression or not?.
about 25-30 my ago.
My earlier reply failed to take note of your use of the word “progression”. Unequivocal no to your question.
Does that mean you think humpback whales were specially created with hind limbs at least 30 MYA but then evolved to not need them? Or did humpback whales evolve from an earlier ancestral species?
Can you translate that to the YEC timescale?
No, we see a period (basically constrained to the Devonian) wherein an evolutionary transition occurred. Not that this is “progress”, it’s change. When we go back to strata laid down before the Devonian, species become more dissimilar, and the same when we go to younger strata. The Carboniferous is teeming with salamander-like amphibian organisms, the Silurian contain none, they’re typologically typical fish. Only in the Devonian, chronologically between the two other periods, do we find these transitional fish-to-tetrapod organisms.
What this shows is that there might be some noise in the processes by which species show up in the fossil record when we zoom in every closely, but a bird’s eye view show that despite this noise, the fossil record supports evolution.
1 Like
That was a link to the original paper. I assume you meant you couldn’t access the full text, so here it is:
https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2876634
1 Like
Yes, that phylogeny does show a progression, in that animals closer to tetrapods are consistently showing up later in time.
With the exception of the footprints, which I believe is his point.
But not necessarily the direct line of descent from fish to tetrapods, I presume.
The footprints are not part of the phylogeny. He really doesn’t understand this sort of thing.
There is no way to tell.
Sure, the footprints aren’t technically on the phylogeny, but I think his meaning is clear.
Don’t be so sure. Remember who it is.
but we can see a clear progression: from a fish to a tetrapod.
and a transition isnt a kind of progression? (say from A to D).
but its not “some noise”. we are talking about the majority of fossils.
it didnt evolved. it just lost its hind flippers.
actually it isnt my main point (although we can include it). i refer to the fact that the molecular tree contradict the morphological one, and thus many fossils dont realy fit with their progresstion in the fossil record.
who said it is?
thanks.
not as far as im aware.
That’s macroevolution. Welcome to the real world.
How did you determine humpback whales were magically created over 30 MYA? 