# How Does Biological Evolution Deal With This?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [November 25, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579 "2019-11-25T16:23:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/222 "2019-12-10T15:36:04Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> the transitional link between fins and digits (or limb if you want) is the tiktaalik fins. and yet they appearing after the first digits (the tetrapod tracks fossil). so they dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy.

I will repeat: There are animals today who have fins, not limbs.

Are they “out of place”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 3:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/223 "2019-12-10T15:42:59Z")

</div>

There are also animals today that possess features that could be transitional between fins and digits - walking catfish, for example; mudskippers, tripod fish and climbing perch.

They aren’t “out of place” in the fossil record either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/224 "2019-12-10T16:25:14Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Yes, but it would have to be a definitely and considerably out-of-place fossil, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian - no ambiguity over what it was, no doubt about its age, no possibility that the lineage is just a bit older than we think and we simply haven’t found remains of the earlier organisms.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> I’m perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion on the subject of out-of-place fossils - if I can find some-one honest and capable to engage with.

ok. no problem. first we need to see where is the limit between real out of place fossil that will falsify evolution and a fossil that we can explain it even under evolution. so what is your criteria? where you put the finger on the limit that common descent cant explain and thus it will be false? the oldest rabbit fossil is about 56 my old. so where you put the bar that we cant push it back anymore?

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Are they “out of place”?

no, since fins appeared before limbs (see john comment about that), so its not realy out of place. unless their ancestor suppose to had limbs. in this case i will consider it to be out of place, as in the dolphin case (and now you will probably ask if dolphin is out of place).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/225 "2019-12-10T16:37:39Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> the transitional link between fins and digits (or limb if you want) is the tiktaalik fins.

Tiktaalik is a transitional form, not a link. No one is saying that Tiktaalik is in the direct lineage leading to modern tetrapods.

> [@scd](#):
>
> and yet they appearing after the first digits (the tetrapod tracks fossil). so they dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy.

Darwin already addressed this:

> [@](#):
>
> In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.  
> –Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”

Tiktaalik preserved those transitional features from an ancestor that existed before it did. Tiktaalik is most likely a “collateral descendant” as described by Darwin. You are making the mistake of assuming Tiktaalik is in the direct lineage and that it is the earliest example of those specific features.

> [@scd](#):
>
> no. its just was a calculation. not a prediction.

Your calculation is wrong, too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/226 "2019-12-10T16:43:30Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> no, since fins appeared before limbs (see john comment about that), so its not realy out of place.

But if one of these finned fish alive today dies, undergoes fossilization, and is found by paleontologists a hundred million years from now, this fossil would be dated to 375 million years _after_ Tiktaalik, even though Tiktaalik represents a transitional phase that _follows_ the development of fins. So why would a modern day fish not be “out of place” by your definition?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/227 "2019-12-10T17:31:16Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > Yes, but it would have to be a definitely and considerably out-of-place fossil, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian - no ambiguity over what it was, no doubt about its age, no possibility that the lineage is just a bit older than we think and we simply haven’t found remains of the earlier organisms.
> 
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > I’m perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion on the subject of out-of-place fossils - if I can find some-one honest and capable to engage with.
> 
> ok. no problem.

There is a problem.

Yet again you’ve deleted pertinent parts of my post and replied as if they weren’t there.

> [@](#):
>
> first we need to see where is the limit between real out of place fossil that will falsify evolution and a fossil that we can explain it even under evolution. so what is your criteria?

Deleting some of the criteria I provided and then asking for my criteria is not honest.  
Claiming that you will discuss the authenticity of your example fossils but then changing the subject is not honest.  
Asking others to agree with your statement but refusing to say whether or not you agree with theirs is not honest.

I’m perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion on the subject of out-of-place fossils with anyone who is capable and honest.

You aren’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/228 "2019-12-10T18:25:49Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> No one is saying that Tiktaalik is in the direct lineage leading to modern tetrapods.

sure. but its something that suppose to be close to the real direct ancestor. and thus represent it.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> You are making the mistake of assuming Tiktaalik is in the direct lineage and that it is the earliest example of those specific features.

no. tiktaalik is the first (actually there are several species before but they are still appearing after the tracks fossil) that represent a transitional stage between fins and limbs. so what i said is true.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> even though Tiktaalik represents a transitional phase that _follows_ the development of fins. So why would a modern day fish not be “out of place” by your definition?

the simaple answer will be because its ancestor had fins. so its fit well with the phylogenetic tree. on the other hand a dolphin has fins\flippers. but since according to its phylogenetic position its ancestor had limbs this trait is out of place.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Yet again you’ve deleted pertinent parts of my post and replied as if they weren’t there.

what i deleted that you think is relevant to what i asked? lets try again in more detalies so tell me where i missed a crucial point:

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Yes, but it would have to be a definitely and considerably out-of-place fossil, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian - no ambiguity over what it was, no doubt about its age, no possibility that the lineage is just a bit older than we think and we simply haven’t found remains of the earlier organisms. Oh, and _actual_ fossils, not just trace fossils that could be generated by something else - and of course we’re referring to fossils that are out-of-place as regards time, not ones where we’re merely unsure of their phylogeny.

if i understand what you said i agree so far. so i see no problem.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Do **you** agree that **none of your examples qualify as out-of-place fossils using _Dawkins’_ and other biologists’ criteria?**

i actually dissagree since we still need to define what out of place fossil is. this is why i was asked where is the limit that we can push a rabbit.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/229 "2019-12-10T18:43:44Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> but its something that suppose to be close to the real direct ancestor. and thus represent it.

We don’t know how close Tiktaalik is to that direct ancestor. You don’t know, either. Therefore, Tiktaalik can’t be used to precisely date the emergence of digits or limbs.

> [@scd](#):
>
> tiktaalik is the first (actually there are several species before but they are still appearing after the tracks fossil) that represent a transitional stage between fins and limbs.

How did you determine that Tiktaalik was the first species to have these features?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/230 "2019-12-10T18:58:30Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> where is the limit that we can push a rabbit.

It would definitely be problematic to find a Precambrian rabbit, so that would indeed be out of place. That we have not found any such instances is a verification of common descent. YEC predicts that we would have many such examples by now and is therefore, in any practical sense, falsified.

Going the other direction, it is no problem at all to have archaic features preserved in fossils or living creatures persisting to this day. Thus, lungfish and Tiktaalik, or jellyfish, are never out of place regardless of whether they are in a line of descent or otherwise. To maintain that such examples are out of place is to indulge in the “if fish evolved into land creatures, why are there still fish?” fallacy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/231 "2019-12-10T19:22:06Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> We don’t know how close Tiktaalik is to that direct ancestor.

we do know that it suppose to be very close. at least according to those who think that its a transitional fossil.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> How did you determine that Tiktaalik was the first species to have these features?

from wiki:

" Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, the “fins” of _Tiktaalik_ have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers."

that is one reason why they consider it to be a transitional fossil.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> It would definitely be problematic to find a Precambrian rabbit, so that would indeed be out of place.

ok but my main question is where is the limit between out of place and in place. if we cant offer such a bar we cant realy distinguish between in place and out of place and that is a problem.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> YEC predicts that we would have many such examples by now and is therefore, in any practical sense, falsified.

see above. i agree with you that YEC predict many out of place fossils. but before we can test it we should define it first.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/232 "2019-12-10T19:42:16Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> if we cant offer such a bar we cant realy distinguish between in place and out of place and that is a problem.

No need to be pedantic. The exactitude is not going to be the same as for a moon shot. That does not invalidate the concept, just go with what is reasonable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/233 "2019-12-10T20:12:01Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> we do know that it suppose to be very close.

Based on what?

> [@scd](#):
>
> from wiki:
> 
> " Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, the “fins” of _Tiktaalik_ have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers."
> 
> that is one reason why they consider it to be a transitional fossil.

That’s not what I asked. I asked how you determined that Tiktaalik was the FIRST species with those features. A platypus has transitional features as well, but no one thinks they are the first mammal species.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/234 "2019-12-10T21:02:08Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> no. tiktaalik is the first

That’s wrong. The claim was never that Tiktaalik was “the first.” That’s a big part of your problem, right there.

> [@scd](#):
>
> the simaple answer will be because its ancestor had fins. so its fit well with the phylogenetic tree. on the other hand a dolphin has fins\flippers. but since according to its phylogenetic position its ancestor had limbs this trait is out of place.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You need to acquaint yourself with the anatomical differences between the fins of a fish and the flippers of a dolphin.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rich\_Hampton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a88e4f/32.png) [@Rich\_Hampton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rich_Hampton)\
**Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 11:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/235 "2019-12-10T23:34:22Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> on the other hand a dolphin has fins\flippers. but since according to its phylogenetic position its ancestor had limbs this trait is out of place.

Huh?

Penguins have fins too. Many millions of years ago their ancestors had wings - and you think this makes them out of place? I don’t understand you’re thinking.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 2:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/236 "2019-12-11T02:26:53Z")

</div>

And then @scd says modern fish aren’t “out of place” because their ancestors had fins. Uh, OK. He’s obviously just making stuff up as he goes along. He’s in too deep to simply admit he was wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/237 "2019-12-11T13:41:10Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > even though Tiktaalik represents a transitional phase that _follows_ the development of fins. So why would a modern day fish not be “out of place” by your definition?
> 
> the simaple answer will be because its ancestor had fins. so its fit well with the phylogenetic tree. on the other hand a dolphin has fins\flippers. but since according to its phylogenetic position its ancestor had limbs this trait is out of place.

I submit that anyone who thinks living dolphins are out-of-place in the fossil record should not be taken seriously.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/238 "2019-12-11T14:20:20Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Based on what?

base on its phylogenetic position:

 ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/8/8169b0103617a198e2987dac0842e943102ace12.png)  
(image from [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Evolution-of-limb-and-fin-morphology-and-Hoxd-regulation-Cladogram-shows-extant-and\_fig4\_51498277](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Evolution-of-limb-and-fin-morphology-and-Hoxd-regulation-Cladogram-shows-extant-and_fig4_51498277))

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> That’s not what I asked. I asked how you determined that Tiktaalik was the FIRST species with those features.

by the fossil record. of course that its possible that we may have other earlier species with the same features. but according to the fossils record we have no such evidence.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> That’s wrong. The claim was never that Tiktaalik was “the first.” That’s a big part of your problem, right there.

not according to wiki source: " Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, the “fins” of _Tiktaalik_ have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers."

do you have a counter source?

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> You need to acquaint yourself with the anatomical differences between the fins of a fish and the flippers of a dolphin.

i know that they are a bit different and we can discuss about it too but first remember that we still need to define what is out of place fossil.

> [@Rich\_Hampton](#):
>
> Penguins have fins too. Many millions of years ago their ancestors had wings - and you think this makes them out of place? I don’t understand you’re thinking.

notice that i never said that they are out of place (in my own words: “this **trait** is out of place”). at least according to my definition. if you have other definition i would like to hear.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> I submit that anyone who thinks living dolphins are out-of-place in the fossil record should not be taken seriously.

see above: i never said that the dolphin is out of place. so now lets continue our discussion. i asked you that question: where you put the finger on the limit that common descent cant explain and thus it will be false? the oldest rabbit fossil is about 56 my old. so where you put the bar that we cant push it back anymore? thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/239 "2019-12-11T14:30:29Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> not according to wiki source: " Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, the “fins” of _Tiktaalik_ have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers."
> 
> do you have a counter source?

That quote does not say that Tiktaalik was “the first”. I’m a bit baffled by your responses here. It’s like you have no idea what you are responding to.

> [@scd](#):
>
> i know that they are a bit different and we can discuss about it too but first remember that we still need to define what is out of place fossil.

“We” don’t. _You_ do, since you are the one making a big deal about the fact that you believe you have made a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery that disproves the theory of evolution using “out of place” fossils. If _you_ cannot even define an “out of place fossil,” then we have nothing further to discuss. You’re just blowing a lot of hot air.

> [@scd](#):
>
> see above: i never said that the dolphin is out of place.

Yes, you did:

> [@scd](#):
>
> the simaple answer will be because its ancestor had fins. so its fit well with the phylogenetic tree. on the other hand a dolphin has fins\flippers. but since according to its phylogenetic position its ancestor had limbs this trait is out of place.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/240 "2019-12-11T15:20:19Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> So why would a modern day fish not be “out of place” by your definition?

Because it isn’t the first known instance of the character state “fin”. By the definition we’re using here, a character is out of place iff the first known instance of its derived state precedes the first known instance of its primitive state. Later instances are not relevant. Your example would work if no other finned fish fossils were known.

Now of course there’s a problem with @scd’s claims. No single fossil can falsify evolution; one must consider the fossil record as a whole, and one anomaly doesn’t destroy the structure. Not even a Precambrian rabbit.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 3:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/241 "2019-12-11T15:38:56Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> base on its phylogenetic position

Phylogenetic position can’t give us a precise date of when the first digits appeared.

> [@scd](#):
>
> by the fossil record. of course that its possible that we may have other earlier species with the same features. but according to the fossils record we have no such evidence.

If it’s possible that there were earlier species then you can’t say that Tiktaalik is the first species with these features. Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579.md?page=11)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579.md?page=13)