KINDS and ADAPTATION

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

KINDS and ADAPTATION

Post #1

Post by Donray »

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #391

Post by Still small »

Sorry, my mistake - ‘861.3 million species’ (wouldn’t want to over-extrapolate).

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #392

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 387 by Still small]

A few things:

Firstly, you possibly didn’t understand my criticism of the study you cited. It’s a mathematical model, not an experimental observation. I asked whether it had been compared with actual observed large population studies. Since the authors acknowledge the large number of biological factors affecting population changes over time, it would be useful to compare the real world with their model. You are very fond of calling for ‘direct’ evidence when it suits, I notice. Why not in this instance?

Secondly, I quote you as saying:
The reasoning behind my reference to the ‘poor fossil record’ was in relation to the oft spouted claim of “an estimated 99% of all species which have ever existed have become extinct�. My query was concerning the method of estimating this “99%� which I assign to extrapolation rather than actual evidence.
<bolding mine>

Why can you assign this? This is nothing more than you dismissing evidence without basis.

Hang on, not quite... you then go on to whip up some quite preposterous mathematical argument to ‘support’ your position that there can’t be 99% of species being extinct. For the benefit of general readers, the obvious flaw is your assumption that every species that has gone extinct would have fossilied. This is of course ridiculous. The chance of any animal or plant becoming fossilised is extremely small.

In contrast, consider just the one major extinction event: the Permian extinction. Approximately 95% of species that lived in the Permian became extinct (the various causes of the extinction are subject of much debate, but not the effects). Add four other major events and the cumulative effect can be seen to be catastrophic when viewed as a proportion of all species which ever lived.

Thirdly, I love how you had to add ‘according to evolutionary thinking’ when you are citing fossil evidence to disprove the importance of Tiktaalik. Either your evidence is sound, in which case you don’t need to imply the dates could be wrong, or it isn’t- in which case you shouldn’t even bring it up. Why not agree with me about the true age of those fossils and save yourself a lot of mental gymnastics?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #393

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 311 by Still small]

I’ve been bothered by the fact that back on page 32 of this rather wide-ranging debate, there was this posted question which hadn’t been properly addressed:
Can you provide scientific evidence or papers that describes an observed demonstration of an organism changing beyond the Family taxonomy level to different Family level?
Let’s take a closer look at what that actually means. A family is simply a rather arbitrary designation of a group of related organisms, between an order (higher level) and a genus (lower level). What constitutes a family is in practice determined by taxonomists. There are therefore no hard rules for describing or recognizing a family, but one simple example of a family is the ‘walnut’ family of trees. What you are asking for is essentially some ‘documented evolutionary change’ equivalent to ‘a walnut changing into a hazelnut’, for example.

We know that evolutionary change at that scale only occurs over millions of years. So anyone presenting what they claim to be direct evidence of such a change would be dismissed as mistaken. However, there have been many good examples of indirect observations made that support ‘changes at the family level’. This has come about through the discovery of what are called ‘molecular clocks’ as well as interdisciplinary research between evolution and genetics - including something called phylogenomics.
That science mainly studies:
• Prediction of gene function
• Establishment and clarification of evolutionary relationships
• Gene family evolution
• Prediction and retracing lateral gene transfer.

It’s that ‘gene family evolution’ aspect that concentrates on establishing the common ancestor of two different species by comparing complete gene sets, and using them to describe detailed genetic ‘family trees’. All descendants of a particular organism on such a tree comprise what’s known as a ‘clade’, which could be at any level (order, family, genus, etc).

Possibly the single most common misconception about evolution is that modern humans evolved from apes, when in fact both modern species simply evolved from a single common ancestor. So your ‘jumping families’ challenge is not answerable by finding any modern organism that once was a different modern organism. The only way to answer it is to point to a position on a phylogenetic tree which shows a common ancestor of two distinct families. I’d encourage the general reader to explore more about ‘the tree of life’ for themselves, as there are far better educators out there than I can put into a single post here.

That discoveries in genetics have complemented evolutionary theory so neatly is both a stunning vindication of Darwin’s original theory, and also leads to a beautiful and powerful demonstration of the interconnectedness of all life on our planet.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #394

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote:A few things:

Firstly, you possibly didn’t understand my criticism of the study you cited. It’s a mathematical model, not an experimental observation. I asked whether it had been compared with actual observed large population studies. Since the authors acknowledge the large number of biological factors affecting population changes over time, it would be useful to compare the real world with their model. You are very fond of calling for ‘direct’ evidence when it suits, I notice. Why not in this instance?
Firstly, I acknowledge that this paper, in and of itself, is theoretical but it is an analysis, comparison and confirmation of the results of numerous research papers as referenced. It is not an extrapolation based upon an a priori but rather a summary of such results and how they confirm the accuracy and consistency of the mathematical model.
Why can you assign this? This is nothing more than you dismissing evidence without basis.
Au contraire, I am dismissing a ‘basis’ that has no ‘evidence’. If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct. What evidence do you have to show that 861.3 million species ever existed? It is certainly not in the fossil record? What evidence is there of these supposed 861.3 million different species? What is the evidence for this figure? Or is it just extrapolation according to the a priori of ToE?
Thirdly, I love how you had to add ‘according to evolutionary thinking’ when you are citing fossil evidence to disprove the importance of Tiktaalik. Either your evidence is sound, in which case you don’t need to imply the dates could be wrong, or it isn’t- in which case you shouldn’t even bring it up. Why not agree with me about the true age of those fossils and save yourself a lot of mental gymnastics?
No, the purpose of my referencing the paper that I did was to show that evolutionary or naturalistic scientists no longer accept Tiktaalik as the transitional they once did.
My addition of “according to evolutionary thinking�, being the a priori of the paper, was to clarify that I don’t accept ‘evolutionary thinking’ and its require timescale of millions and billions of years. I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches. Unfortunately, in the past, after earlier citing evolutionary based papers, some members have later accused me of contradicting myself by thinking in ‘millions of years’ here and only ‘thousands of years’ there. I’m just citing actual evidence from the author’s standpoint, not that I agree with the a priori behind it. Hope that clears it up.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #395

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 391 by Still small]

Before I address your responses, I would like to point out that your persistent use of the phrase a priori isn’t helping to advance the debate. I went backwards through the thread to page 30 to try and tally the number of occasions you’ve included it in your posts. The first mention of it that I’ve seen was in post 314. From then on, we have had:

Post 325: 5 instances
Post 331: 1 instance
Post 334: 3 instances
Post 352: 3 instances
Post 354: 1 instance
Post 355: 4 instances
Post 383: 1 instance
Post 385: 2 instances
Post 387: 1 instance
Post 391: 4 instances

I’m not the only one to have noticed this. You were called on it roughly halfway through that posting period:
DrNoGods wrote: You've used a priori many times before with the implication that science can be interpreted in different ways, and it is just a matter of that interpretation that is important.
Let’s clear up what we mean when we use the phrase ‘a priori’.

The a priori fallacy occurs when someone decides ahead of time what the conclusion to an argument is, then either only considers evidence that supports that conclusion, or, twists what evidence there is to support their predetermined conclusion.

You appear to be using it differently, as an attack on scientific enquiry by equating basic propositions (axioms) with assumptions (hypotheses). For example, the axiom that gravity exerts a force of 9.8Nm-2 can be incorporated into hypotheses of how planets and galaxies move in relation to each other. Think of science as having to keep answering a child who asks, “Ah, but how do we know that?� Once you get to the most ‘solid’, known facts about the physical world, you can be more confident of using them as your ‘building blocks’ for testable hypotheses. And of course, the more successful the hypothesis in predicting experimental results, the more axiomatic the underlying assumptions become. Thus, our ability to predetermine where a particular planet will be several years in the future, by applying axioms of orbital mechanics.

Therefore, an important question you need to answer (if continuing to use the phrase ‘a priori’ is to have any value to the discussion) is: “What are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?�

This is important, because otherwise, you’re simply saying (in effect), “ah, but your assumptions are wrong!� without clearly demonstrating either which assumptions you are referring to, or what exactly is wrong with them.

_______________________________________________________________

OK, back to your response above.
Firstly, I acknowledge that this paper, in and of itself, is theoretical but it is an analysis, comparison and confirmation of the results of numerous research papers as referenced.
I know that. I looked at the references, which is why I asked the question. In fairness to you, it was rhetorical, but I was really just hoping that you’d consider other evidence that doesn’t necessarily support your conclusion.
If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct.
We could perhaps go back and forth over who’s extrapolating more, but for the purpose of debate, we could agree on that figure if you like. After all, scientists know that plants and animals only fossilize under special conditions: usually in sedimentary rock, and almost never if the species lacks hard features like bone, shell, or teeth. They also know that a lot of fossils are lost to tectonic activity, and many more still are just impossible for us to access (depth, extreme environments). Therefore, the relatively miniscule number of fossilised species discovered would be expected to constitute only a small fraction of the total number of species that ever existed. Remember that this includes microbes, algae, zooplankton, fungii, etc. Not just the ‘animals’. Claiming that we should see 861.3m species of fossil is simply absurd.

And if anyone’s asking, “how could 861.3m species disappear?�, then have a read about ‘extinction events’ here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
My addition of “according to evolutionary thinking�, being the a priori of the paper, was to clarify that I don’t accept ‘evolutionary thinking’ and its require timescale of millions and billions of years. I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches.
<bolding mine>

OK, so please explain the logical steps you have used to reach this belief, and also demonstrate that this is not reached using a priori assumptions.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #396

Post by Donray »

StillSmall cannot explin his belief in creation by an invisible wizard in the sky.

I have asked him several time to provide a timeline of what happen when and he cannot even do that. I have asked for a list of the animals (at least a few) that were on the ark and that "adapted" into todays with some fossil record and distribution path. Again the best that he comes up with is "I don't know, the wizard did it all".

All the StillSmall (and other creationists) do is try to discredit science through the use of bad articles written by other creationists.

Small cannot think for himself and answer question and just uses other creationist science fiction to make himself fell good about his beliefs. Like other Christians they have nothing to live for if there god is not real. After all, the only good thing for them is dying and getting to heaven.

Thus far creationists are unable to provide a test book that could be used to teach there belief at a college level.

StillSmall cannot answer even simple question about his belief without saying that he does not understand why or how his wizard does things, but he knows that his wizard can do anything so

Can you image being brainwashed by your parents and religious leaders into having belive your life is useless unless you belive in a god.

Online
User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Post #397

Post by Clownboat »

Can you image being brainwashed by your parents and religious leaders into having belive your life is useless unless you belive in a god.
Yes. As a matter of fact I can. Being set free from this belief was very hard. I assume others live their lives in fear of a hell, or at least in a hope for a heaven.

If I was a god, and wanted to bless those that are good. I would favor those that are good for goodness sake over those that are scared or bribed into being good.

A 'good' atheist would have more integrity than a person acting good to please a god concept so they can avoid some punishment or achieve some end goal like a heaven. I have to wonder if believers ever consider this while feeling that atheists or those that don't worship their perferred god concept deserve to go to hell.

Maybe thats why the latest Pope says even atheists can go to heaven?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #398

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote: We know that evolutionary change at that scale only occurs over millions of years. So anyone presenting what they claim to be direct evidence of such a change would be dismissed as mistaken.
Actually, evolution on ToE scales doesn’t take ‘millions of years’, it takes millions of generations. An example which I have posted on numerous occasions is that of Lenski's on-going experiment with E. coli. It basically asks the question: "How evolutionary change can occur in E. coli under a restricted diet in lab conditions?" The 30-year exercise remains extremely repeatable. It uses very direct measurements, even to the level of analysing time-stamped, freeze-dried bacterial genomes from generations long past (link). Now Lenski's research clearly shows 'microevolution' or adaption occurred in these bacteria but it took 33,000 generations and about 10 trillion individual E. coli in order to merely duplicate one gene and damage another (link). And they are still E. coli. This would be an example of "something like A begets a different style of A - maybe a cursive A or a Roman script or perhaps Comic Sans or Century Gothic" but it certainly is nowhere near 'macro evolution'. This is an example of high-confidence science, being testable, observable and repeatable.
Richard Lenski’s ongoing study of E. coli has documented many minor genetic changes over 67,000 generations. One particular change—the development of an ability to metabolize citrate—was hailed by some as a marvel of evolutionary accomplishment. Upon determination of the genetic changes, however, all of the genetic components were already present; the new ability had resulted from changes in the expression of two existing genes (link 1 & link 2). This is a clear example of adaptation but not macro-evolution, as such.
In a study that was 10 million times as large as the Lenski study, malarial parasites developed resistance to chloroquine. The genetic changes in this case included an accumulation of four to eight point mutations in one gene. The malaria that evolved resistance were also found to be at a disadvantage when chloroquine was not present. (link). Again, adaptation not macro-evolution.
However, there have been many good examples of indirect observations made that support ‘changes at the family level’. This has come about through the discovery of what are called ‘molecular clocks’ as well as interdisciplinary research between evolution and genetics - including something called phylogenomics.
The methodology of so-called molecular clocks is, to some extent, circular reasoning because of the requirement of a presupposition of ToE and deep time. And as with many evolutionary dating methods, there are also a number of conflicting dating between various aspects.
“Since its first use in the early 1960s, molecular genetic clock methodologies assume evolution and deep-time calibrations taken from paleontology. In addition, the following problems plague its use: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates, 2) different taxa exhibit different rates for homologous sequences, and 3) divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite being calibrated by it. Because the molecular clock idea is directly tied to the neutral model theory of evolution, recent discoveries in full codon utility and pervasive genome-wide biochemical functionality negate its foundational premise.� - (link)
It’s that ‘gene family evolution’ aspect that concentrates on establishing the common ancestor of two different species by comparing complete gene sets, and using them to describe detailed genetic ‘family trees’. All descendants of a particular organism on such a tree comprise what’s known as a ‘clade’, which could be at any level (order, family, genus, etc).
Forgive me if I’m wrong but I assume your use of the term ‘gene family evolution’ you are referring to -
- �Gene families comprise several to many genes of similar nucleotide or amino acid sequences; they share similar cellular functions and commonly arise as a result of gene or genome duplication events.� (link) -
which leads to the idea of common genes with common functionality in different species are inherited from a common ancestor thereby reinforcing the standard image of the ‘tree of life’. The idea of common genes being an indication of common ancestry can, under a creationist view, be explained by the idea of ‘common design by a Common Designer’. Where different organisms have or share similar functions, a Designer can use the same gene set to perform the same functions, e.g. a motor vehicle can have wheels just as a stroller has wheels, as does a scooter and skateboard. They may appear different with different purposes but the same basic wheel design concepts can be used in all. Or, as the saying goes, “you don’t need to re-invent the wheel�.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #399

Post by Diagoras »

Still small wrote:Actually, evolution on ToE scales doesn’t take ‘millions of years’, it takes millions of generations.

<snip>

Richard Lenski’s ongoing study of E. coli has documented many minor genetic changes over 67,000 generations.
So we can perhaps infer that in 6,700,000 generations, we’d expect to see approximately 100x the number of genetic changes. One part of the study’s recent conclusion that you avoided mentioning was that there was evidence of some separated populations being ‘on their way to speciation’ - in other words, becoming a new species, not E.coli.
The methodology of so-called molecular clocks is, to some extent, circular reasoning because of the requirement of a presupposition of ToE and deep time.
The source for that argument is a creationist website. I’ll leave it up to the general reader to decide whether a truly unbiased, evidence-based approach is being used or not.
The idea of common genes being an indication of common ancestry can, under a creationist view, be explained by the idea of ‘common design by a Common Designer’.
The ‘Common Designer’ argument fails the test of Occam’s Razor, as genetic evolution can be more fully explained by observable, testable independent experiment, whereas ‘God did it’ has to introduce the extra step of a deity’s involvement.

Either God drew up the ‘plans’ and just ‘set off’ the natural processes that we now call genetics, OR he’s personally involved in every single genetic change that’s ever happened and ever will. In the former case, we can just as easily describe the process without God. If you are arguing the latter position, then God is responsible for every genetic disorder that exists (examples in the link below) as well as for some very poor designs, e.g. the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe (Link: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laryngeal_nerve)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Another point to ponder for the general reader: we’re forty pages into this debate, and really no further forward. It’s perhaps rather telling that the discussion is repeatedly side-tracked from the original discussion, and demands for evidence to back up claims are often studiously ignored.

Still small, on what (scientific) basis do you believe tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species, and when did they live on Earth?

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #400

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote:Therefore, an important question you need to answer (if continuing to use the phrase ‘a priori’ is to have any value to the discussion) is: “What are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?�
Firstly, my apologies for the delay in responding but I have been ‘off the grid’ for a while. (And it may be some time before I get back on again after this session, so please, I ask for your patience.)
Secondly, let me clarify that my use of ‘a priori’ is in accordance to the definition as supplied by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, being -
“a pri·o·ri  (ä′ prē-ôr′ē, �′ prī-ôr′ī)
adj.
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2.a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
2.b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
� (Emphasis added)
Therefore, it is not so much scientific axioms which I am disputing but rather assumptions, or premises “[d]erived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience�, or “not supported by factual study� such as evolution via mutations, duplication and natural selection going beyond the Family level of taxonomy. This belief by evolutionary scientist is based solely upon extrapolation and assumption. This has never been proven via the scientific method.
Don’t get me wrong, we ALL have a priori according to the bias of our chosen worldview. My continual mentioning of the a priori is just to remind others that our views are not necessarily based on the proven fact which some believe them to be. If they were proven facts then we’d have nothing to discuss on this forum. Unfortunately, some are convinced that their particular a priori is ‘proven fact’ and have never been challenged to question it. Science is not an error-free enterprise, so arguments need to be carefully evaluated.

_______________________________________________________________
OK, back to your response above. . . . .

We could perhaps go back and forth over who’s extrapolating more, but for the purpose of debate, we could agree on that figure if you like. After all, scientists know that plants and animals only fossilize under special conditions: usually in sedimentary rock, and almost never if the species lacks hard features like bone, shell, or teeth. They also know that a lot of fossils are lost to tectonic activity, and many more still are just impossible for us to access (depth, extreme environments). Therefore, the relatively miniscule number of fossilised species discovered would be expected to constitute only a small fraction of the total number of species that ever existed. Remember that this includes microbes, algae, zooplankton, fungii, etc. Not just the ‘animals’. Claiming that we should see 861.3m species of fossil is simply absurd. (Emphasis added)
That figure (861.3 million) is not absurd, it is deduced by your quoted assumption that 99% of all species which have ever existed having gone extinct. Therefore, the remaining known 8.7 million species must represent 1%. It’s simple mathematics. Regardless of the actual number, how do you know that the supposed ‘99%’ ever existed? You have already stated the rarity of the fossilisation process and many may also have been lost. How do you know that they ever existed in the first place? Granted, there have been mass extinction episodes but on what do ‘you’ base this ‘99%’ figure?
. . . . I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches.
<bolding mine>

OK, so please explain the logical steps you have used to reach this belief, and also demonstrate that this is not reached using a priori assumptions.
Firstly, let me say again, we all have a priori on which we base our worldview. I believe that the original tetrapod ancestor was created at the same time as the original Tiktaalik ancestor. Each original ancestor or kind then, was created each with a complete set of genetic information to allow for adaptation to various environmental niches (speciation). Each new population of adaptation (species), either through epigenetics or loss of existing genetic information and, to a minor degree, mutations continued to adapt via natural selection. This adaptation appears to be limited to within the taxonomic level of Family as shown via experimentation and the fossil record which often sees the abrupt appearance of life forms without evolutionary precursors, then stasis.
That would be the reasoning for my belief that tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species. This along with the finding of tetrapod tracks some 18 million years before the the oldest fossils of Tiktaalik (link) according to the evolutionists’ interpretation of the geological column. As we still have tetrapods today, they must have been present also when Tiktaalik was present, thus being concurrent.

Have a good day!
Still small

Post Reply