Nonlin's Case Against Common Descent

Actually, the fossil record lends no support for evolution for several reasons: it is sketchy at best inviting proponents to make whatever desired of it via artistic license, is static hence one must presume evolution to see evolutionary links (the animation movie), and fossils are not positively linked to one another hence likely part of other animation movies altogether.

Common misconception. You missed the reasoning for why we see it as evidence for evolution.

2 Likes

Well, can you enlighten me?

1 Like

Have you read the story yet? It is a story of hypothesis testing. They prospectively predicted what an unknown transition fossil would look like, and then they found it.

1 Like

In the layer of rock deposited at the time the transition was occurring. Shuban determined the time period of the transition and then looked for exposed rock of that age and found it in Canada. Low and behold, there was Tiktallik

2 Likes

I think most people would point to the 395mya tetrapod tracks as why his prediction was a fluke and his discovery luck

Though some doubt they are tetrapod tracks

Perhaps, but he did work on it for 20 years. His persistence did pay off.

If you want to see a fluke and luck in discovering something grand, read about Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation in 1964 at Bell Labs in Holmdel NJ. They weren’t looking for it, didn’t know what it was, and there it was - noise at 3 degrees Kelvin everywhere in the sky all the time from the moment they turned on their antenna.

Familar with Wilson and Penzias. Drunk History even did an episode on them:

1 Like

I am not one of those people. Even if T. roseae is not in the direct line of descent for modern tetrapods there still would have been a radiation of early tetrapod lineages around that time, some of which would have preserved the morphology found in the direct line of descent. In fact, that is exactly how T. roseae is depicted in the primary literature:

image
Shubin et al. (2006)

2 Likes

The tracks just indicate there was long(ish) ghost lineages that were previously unknown. I saw a paper that said the tracks were actually only about 390Ma old rather than 395, so the difference isn’t quite as significant as originally thought.

I know there are also some ideas brewing about preservational biases of footprints and body fossils, marine and lacrustine environments, that could clear some of it up, but I’ll wait until it’s published before discussing that any more.

None of this changes the fact that Shubin predicted and found Tiktaalik based purely on knowledge about the tetrapod stem group and the time periods and environments represented by particular rock deposits.

2 Likes

https://evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat/
The fossil tetrapod footprints indicate Tiktaalik came over 10 million years after the existence of the first known true tetrapod. Tiktaalik , of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish, and these footprints make it very difficult to presently argue that Tiktaalik is a transitional link between fish and tetrapods.

  1. Exactly what I was saying! A different movie!
  2. More importantly, if this is the first “evidence”, then what were the previous 150 yrs of belief based on?
  3. And what about Coelacanth? You know, the failed prediction star?

It’s a fish with legs. If that isn’t transitional then you are just in denial.

3 Likes

Also worth mentioning Tiktaalik was never presented as a direct ancestor. The earlier tetrapod tracks do nothing to Tiktaalik’s intermediate status.

2 Likes

Before replying, make an effort to understand the issue. You might want to real all comments.

Huh? You too need to read all comments to understand the issue raised.

Uhh, what? I understand what’s being discussed. I’m who first brought up the tracks…

Thanks for that paper. I was unaware of it.

No. My objections started with this comment:
" Actually, the fossil record lends no support for evolution for several reasons: it is sketchy at best inviting proponents to make whatever desired of it via artistic license, is static hence one must presume evolution to see evolutionary links (the animation movie), and fossils are not positively linked to one another hence likely part of other animation movies altogether."

I understand the issue just fine. Transitional and ancestral are two different things, in case you were wondering.

1 Like