Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 42 (301748)
04-06-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by roxrkool
04-06-2006 6:42 PM


The flood model
Actually, Rox, the flood predicts that there will be no such transitions. They are only "sorted" into that order by some sort of accident. I guess our new find with it's wee little legs out ran the more fish like forms by a bit and a bit less than the ones with better legs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by roxrkool, posted 04-06-2006 6:42 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by roxrkool, posted 04-07-2006 11:46 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2006 12:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 42 (418693)
08-29-2007 8:58 PM


Why isn't Tiktaalik a transitional?
In this message:
Message 44
NJ says:
Yes, I was aware of the argument when it was discovered. Naturally, I remain unconvinced. And this is due in part that it is incomplete. We know nothing of the hindquarters, yet we're told that its essentially a missing link.
in regards to Tiktaalik.
I'd like to know what NJ's reasoning is for the above comment.
I'd like NJ to explain why the missing hind part is important in particular.
Just for reference:
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024