If I found a fossilized lung fish from 500kya, would that be out of place and supposedly prove that evolution is wrong?
Thanks,
Chris
i dont think that its always the case, as we seen with the tetrapod tracks.
no, since we have very old lungfish fossils (about 400 my).
You contradict your own claims. It’s not “always” that counts. It’s the first appearance. Remember?
3 Likes
You are assuming Tiktaalik is the first tetrapod.
1 Like
He’s also assuming those tracks are definitely tetrapod tracks, which is still disputed.
i do talking about the first appearance. that is the first appearance of limbs. in this case they predate the “missing links” between fins and limbs.
It is not clear what you are talking about here.
What are the “missing links” to which you are referring?
What are you referring to as the first paleontological evidence of “limbs”?
How are they “out of place”?
What do you mean by “missing links”?
I’d argue the counterarguments are weak, and even if the Polish tracks aren’t really from tetrapods, there are additional slightly younger (but still much older than Tiktaalik) tetrapod tracks from Valentia island, Ireland.
3 Likes
I believe they were recently redated be a little younger as well. Like from 395 to 385. Something like that. I can’t find the paper
Update: found it. 390my
2 Likes
I would too, but scd has yet to admit that there even are counterarguments, let alone investigate or express an opinion on them.
[/quote]
i refer to the tiktaalik fins for instance. they suppose to be a type of missing links between fish fins and tetrapods limbs.
indeed. just for the sake of the argument i refer them as real tetrapod tracks. they can also be something else. although the evidence for that isnt so good.
In what sense is it “missing”?
Yes, it would.
It’s also wrong to call it “out of place.” But that’s been explained to you, by professionals in the field. I have no hope that I’ll be able to get thru to you.