The Great Transitions in Evolution with Neil Shubin

Neil Shubin, Associate Dean of the Biological Sciences Division at the University of Chicago describes how his diverse fossil findings allow him to devise hypotheses on how anatomical transformations occurred by way of genetic and morphogenetic processes. [5/2009] [Show ID: 16420]
UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures
(www.uctv.tv/gradcouncil)
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)

[@JonnysGameChannel]

That was very interesting. Neil has a way of speaking that makes it easy to stay focused through out the lecture.

[@glenhill9884]

Thank you for uploading this, and thank you Dr. Shubin for the presentation. Excellent.

[@varmitr]

brilliant! thank you UCTV and neil shubin for your enthusiasm and dedication

[@roseparker3537]

have been watching evolution videos and documentaries for months and this is one of the best thought might be boring but not at all will watch again

[@methinxaweezil]

"Facts are terribly inconvienent when trying to 'prove' an irrational position." Haha, well said.

[@Titus-as-the-Roman]

I really like these kinds of talks and lectures, I'm not an academic but have been interested in the paleo world my entire self aware life (am 60). A shame they're not in higher definition so the charts used can be seen, still happy about about the posting though.

[@artofmusic303]

Fantastic presentation, bringing together a variety of disciplines in a fascinating and enlightening way.

[@9inchsradius]

I love how religious people love to share their opinions on these matters, as if opinions have any bearing on the scientific method and cold hard documented empirical evidence.

[@sajidullah]

I accepted evolution without proof at the age of 11 or 12 because it just made sense to me..Now i am 61 and a staunch believer of it.

[@user-ui6nq9gk9s]

All the peoples are obliger accept of evolution in school! That`s the real problem, you know.

[@sajidullah]

안영 What is it that you dislike about evolution ?

[@jinn_1891]

Sajid Rafique yeah same, I was inquisitive at 8, rejected creation after I picked up my 1st two evolution books (life before man and man emerges) at 11, and now at the age of 34, my understanding of evolution has deepened to levels beyond what I could have imagined, all evidence appears to point towards it.

[@sajidullah]

face palm I am 62 and I rebelled in the 1960's , an era when people were much less aware of evolution ..Now, even those who don't accept evolution have at least heard the word evolution..you were born in a less dark time and in a much more liberal atmosphere...I went through hell and am still in hell .

[@jinn_1891]

Sajid Rafique still in hell? how so? I know it is a problem for many, I have issues at the moment and am worried some members of my family will influence my son into belief in creation as I am away most days at work. I have taught him to keep being inquisitive and not accept circular arguments/explanations. I am anticipating a face off at some time in the future. my wife has become more religious and wants to send my son to Islamic school, I have mixed feelings about this.

[@moonbeampunkweazel3294]

come for the lecture, stay for the epic argument in the comments

[@vicplichota]

I wish i could have seen the slides better... DAMN YOU, 240p!!!

[@koltirasrip5775]

I love how this guy is introduced with so many accolades, including a stint on the Colbert Report lol

[@dr.leylipurrafeebiologylec9133]

I've read professor Shubin's book: your inner fish, that is one of best books that I have read . Thanks professor for writing this great book 🙏🙏🙏

[@numericalcode]

Entertaining and informative talk

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

“Why are you so fearful of this question?” I’ve said it over and over, fool. Here’s me from three weeks ago: “You seem to be imagining that when paleontologists find something like Tiktaalik, they identify it as the direct ancestor of tetrapods or whatever the group in question is. That’s not how it works.”

[@paulbourdon1236]

Interesting that at the Red Hill site in PA while the tetrapods are very rare, the apex lobe-fin Tristichopterid predator, Hyneria is very common and yet even with exceptional preservation of some specimens little of the fin is known. Not only is the timing of the Hox gene expression important for the shape and form of the bones but it must also have to do with ossification of the limb elements (perhaps also controlled by the Hox genes).

[@tomkirvin4571]

Masterful!

[@JoseChavez-gd3ws]

Interesting. Thanks

[@thomasd2444]

16:49 - Red Hill road cut in Pennsylvania

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Again: Tiktaalik, based on its morphology, is used as evidence of a transition between fish and tetrapods. It’s therefore being used as evidence that tetrapods and the Tiktaalik lineage shared a common ancestor. Stop demanding evidence of this common ancestor be presented before you’ll consider evidence for this common ancestor. In other words, Tiktaalik’s morphology is the evidence for this common ancestor. Now deal with it instead of burying your head in the sand.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Fool. The part where the interviewer says Tiktaalik is an ancestor is clearly cut together with the interview, not stated in his presence. It's therefore unlikely he was aware of the comment unless he subsequently listened to the broadcast. As someone with experience of how science is subtly and sometimes not so subtly misrepresented by the media despite one's best attempts at clarity, I can say that such distortion is not uncommon and does not indicate dishonesty on the part of the scientist.

[@canadiannuclearman]

sooo cool

[@sent4dc]

5:49 Mary, let me introduce john. John, let me introduce Jack.... can we start already?

[@bdf2718]

A great lecture, but there were two omissions that surprised me. One omission was the fact that (with a few exceptions) fish have two-chambered hearts but frogs have three-chambered hearts. I know there are too many differences to mention them all, but that one is kinda important because of the other omission. The other omission was tadpoles. I know that ontology does *not* recapitulate phylogeny, but evolutionary development can give us a lot of clues. Tadpoles have all the characteristics of fish, including a two-chambered heart. After growing for a while they start metamorphosis and the first visible sign is the appearance of limb "buds" at which point they're called froglets. No, they don't show us the exact transitional stages from fish to frogs. What they do show us is a continual progression from one form to the other which is capable of living, eating and surviving every step of the way. Creationists can take their "but you have to provide even more transitional fossils to fill the gaps" and stick it where the sun don't shine. Yeah, in species where the tadpoles are vegetarian there's a few hours where they stop eating while they develop the stomachs necessary for a carnivorous diet. But in some species the tadpoles are omnivorous so this isn't a problem. Yeah, in some species the eggs hatch directly into froglets, the tadpole stage never leaves the egg. You did most of your development in the womb, but marsupials only do a small fraction of their development inside their mother. Ain't life wunnerful. Yeah, they have to become frogs to reproduce. But in some species of salamander a restricted diet can mean the larval form never metamophoses yet becomes sexually mature. It's no big step to assume that ancestral forms could become sexually mature even though they stopped well short of being land animals.

[@koppite9600]

What added information to a genome so that these new parts could come about?

[@Neanderthalcouzin]

@RabidApe Introducers practically bring relish to debates and lectures. After seeing so many damn prolonged intros I decided if I ever do an intro in such a scenario, it will be no longer than 30 seconds.

[@humbleevidenceaccepter7712]

If this were presented by creationists, it would've gone a lot faster. ('Here's Bubba. Nearly passed high school Biology and has trolled over 3 dozen science videos on KZbin.")

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

I’ll be happy to address your “Shubin and Daeschler mislead the public” obsession just as soon as you explain how it is germane to the question of whether Tiktaalik represents a transitional form. As I’ve said (I know reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, so try reading this part slowly), the family example serves only to illustrate that being related and being ancestral are not necessarily the same thing. Thus Tiktaalik can be related but not ancestral to tetrapods.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it 55:27

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

The claim I posted is accurate. Shubin and Daeschler’s published and spoken opinion is that Tiktaalik represents a transitional stage between tetrapods and fish. The claim I posted is just that, as well as the implications. I tried to make it as clear as possible because I know you have a lot of trouble understanding what you read (as evinced by your many quotes that don’t support your position), but clearly this is beyond you.

[@noisemagician]

I am now gonna present to you the presenter that is going to present the presenter.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Tiktaalik and tetrapods share a common ancestor and so are related. Your quote does not say that two organisms being related is equivalent to one organism being ancestral to another. As always, the quote you trot out is not saying what you want it to. It does not dispute the possibility of something being related but not an ancestor to something else.

[@jameswaltemath3771]

That feeling you get when you're getting your science on and then you see the comment section.

[@GGlad100]

Origin of life and its evolution are the result of action of laws of hierarchical thermodynamics. Thermodynamics investigates systems which can be characterized by state functions. The separation of biological systems into individual hierarchies of structures allows us to study the processes in them independently of the processes that take place in other hierarchical structures.

[@MrKmanthie]

​@Bright Future "god" didn't create a damn thing because there IS no god; never was one. Every culture has its own set of myths that explain to them the way the world works & since most of these are or were prehistoric cultures with no advanced knowledge or technology, of course they're going to believe the simplest things they can construct: that some "god" just "poof", created everything like pulling a rabbit out a hat. Religion has no place; not in the 21st century, not in the 19th century, or 17th...NEVER. All religion has done is to retard human progress & impede knowledge as well as cause wars & venality among the hierarchy of the particular priesthood or church, etc. Without the scourge of religion, we'd be at least 1500 years more advanced than we are today, maybe even further!

[@BibleResearchTools]

Know Name , you wrote, "All religion has done is to retard human progress & impede knowledge as well as cause wars & venality among the hierarchy of the particular priesthood or church, etc. Without the scourge of religion, we'd be at least 1500 years more advanced than we are today, maybe even further!" Baloney. A supermajority of the greatest scientists of all times were devout Christians, such as Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, David Brewster, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), and Gregor Mendel, to name a few. The Scientific Revolution was "fought" almost exclusively by Christians. Einstein hung the portraits of his three heroes of science -- the devout Christian's: Newton, Faraday and Maxwell -- on his study wall. I will agree that the pagan's Aristotle and Darwin have held back the advancement of science: Aristotle because his flawed science was adopted as dogma by the Church orthodoxy; and Darwin because his historical philosophy is supported by virtually no scientific evidence, yet scientists have spent considerable time and (taxpayer) money trying to prove Charlie right -- while refusing to allow it to be falsified -- rather than moving on to new fields of endeavor. Imagine how far science would have advanced without the baggage of the myths of Vestigial Organs and Junk DNA? The bottom line is, evolution is useless in applied science and engineering: it is useful only to academia, book publishers, social scientists, and politicians. Dan

[@mostlynew]

Begin introduction of Neil Shubin 3:05

[@mossbergmaniac1947]

You're quite the character.

[@gamesbok]

@saynotodarwin • You mean the Eosimias sinensis, the Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Proconsul africanus, Afropithecus turkanensis, Turkanapithecus kalakolensis, Sivapithecus indicus, hecus bambolii, Lufengpithecus lufengensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, lopithecus africanus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis?

[@colourmegone]

Wonderful, I can envision the transition actually occurring. This fish must have been a bottom feeder which spent most of its time moving along the mud. Eventually it would develop 'feet', that is its forelimbs would adapt to pulling along rather than propelling it through the water, rather like the Walking Catfish. Since this is an extant creature it might serve to give an actual, living example of evolution in action.

[@gamesbok]

@saynotodarwin Apart from Eosimias sinensis, the Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Proconsul africanus, Afropithecus turkanensis, Turkanapithecus kalakolensis, Sivapithecus indicus, hecus bambolii, Lufengpithecus lufengensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, lopithecus africanus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis?

[@76rjackson]

Starts at 6:17

[@eddieking2976]

Neil starts talking @5:50.

[@elricq]

Y

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Evidence: Tiktaalik possesses morphology that is a mixture of fish and tetrapod traits. Yes, the relationship is assumed, but it’s assumed on the basis of that mosaic morphology. Before you object to that remember that grouping organisms on the basis of morphology isn’t an inherently evolutionary method and was in use long before the theory was proposed.

[@jomen112]

Before saying "evolution does not exists" why not find out what it is about first? Evolution is the idea that design is possible to achieve by "bottom up" means, i.e. finding a solution to a problem from below by iteration with a dumb mechanical search process. That such process exist has been shown in empirical observations, stated as mathematical facts. It has been tested in simulations and as a result it is now used in R&D to improve design beyond human capabilities.

[@eddieking2976]

Starts at 5:47

[@stevenvh17]

Instead of ranting you better watch the video; it's answered there.

[@MichaelBruck]

Change their environment and they will change. Check the Wikipedia entry for 'Mexican tetra' for a good example how that works.

[@whiteliketar]

So which fish was your great great great great great ...greatgrandfather - was it an acient trout or a bumbling Sea Bass.

[@postoergopostum]

starts at 7:00

[@shawnkhalifa8080]

You want to talk about transitions, how about Simon Whistler with these ads.

[@JiveDadson]

6:17

[@Velox415]

This guy's voice kinda reminds me of Ian Malcolm.

[@salinagrrrl69]

The evolution of the eye has been seriously investigated and studied. The fossil record details it now that there is enuff of it to show the story thru a billion years. It started with only light sensitive cells for sensery response giving that organism the advantage in its enviroment and went from there.

[@brpierce]

"your beloved macro-evolution remains only the domain of dark atheistic thinking" May I ask what you would accept as an example of "macro-evolution?" I ask this only because, thus far, every Creationist I've spoken with has given one of three answers to the question, and I'm curious as to whether you might be the exception.

[@methinxaweezil]

"he didn't know there were microscopic organisms" If by microscopic organisms you mean organisms you can see with a microscope... yes he did. The microscope was invented in 1595. Did he know every detail of the cell? No. Do we know every detail of the cell today? No. Does your opinion matter in the face of the overwhelming evidence? No.

[@canadiannuclearman]

I have a lot of native friends i'd like to thank you for asking the elders to name it Tiktaalik

[@oneki]

a bit painful. can someone explain the etiquette of intorducing someone one who introduce soneone who introduces someone who finally introduces the real speaker. it is painful,but get repeated over and over again.

[@flounderize]

@saynotodarwin I am still waiting for the post where you admit you have been pulling everyone´s leg for months and made all of us believe you are three centuries behind in your approach to the physiology of life... C´mon, admit you are joking (using that name, to start with)

[@stevenvh17]

[The "@" is no use here. If you want to reply to another post, click the "reply" link under it, don't post as a comment to the video. Now I have no idea what post you're replying to]

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Suffice to say that if Tiktaalik were purported to be a direct ancestor it would have been located at a node, not on a branch. Again this is not up for debate. This is how cladograms work and, again, no amount of bullshitting from you will change that. “So now u are claiming...” Is there something wrong with you? I maintain as always that Tiktaalik represents a transitional stage. It is related but not ancestral to tetrapods. I’ll lay this out once more because I want this to be clear:

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

A couple interviews where they’ve failed to explicitly state that Tiktaalik is related but not ancestral to tetrapods are insufficient grounds to question their integrity when weighed against the fact that they have made this clear in several interviews and lectures (including the ones you’ve posted) in addition to their published findings. That was weak. Try again, Ben.

[@benthemiester]

By the way, Neil Shubin also presents Tiktaalik as our most important ancestor on NPR in an interview that Shubin signed off on. I know. It doesn't count. Right?? The Human Edge: Finding Our Inner Fish by JOE PALCA July 05, 2010 4:00 AM

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Trying to sell that here too, eh? We've established that transitional is not the same as ancestral.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

You’ll excuse me if I don’t take you at your word that all these lines of evidence can’t be used as you have in the past displayed an apparently unabashed ignorance of the subjects you mention. I think you’re getting confuse so I’ll try to lay this out clearly. Claim: Tiktaalik represents a transitional stage of tetrapod evolution and this implies the existence of a common ancestor that links Tiktaalik and tetrapods

[@benthemiester]

"I'm waiting to hear how my logic is circular" "Stop demanding evidence of this common ancestor be presented before you’ll consider evidence for this common ancestor"

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Holy shit Ben. It's been weeks and you haven't gotten this yet? I didn't say Tiktaalik is unrelated to tetrapods, I said it's not likely to be a direct ancestor, just as your uncle is related to you without being directly ancestral. And you're still trying this "They misrepresent the facts to the layman!" nonsense, as if that had any bearing whatsoever on Tiktaalik representing a transitional stage. Why are you so afraid of arguing against it's transitional nature as you originally tried to do?

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Do you understand what circular logic is? Explain how presenting evidence (morphology) for a claim (common ancestry) is circular reasoning. I await your tortured logic. I’m not telling you to simply trust me when I say there’s a common ancestor, I’m telling you that Tiktaalik’s morphology is the evidence for the common ancestor. But of course you know you can’t refute the evidence so you try to hand-wave it away.

[@benthemiester]

This tale you tell reminds me of "the Emperor who wore no clothes"

[@ThekiBoran]

@markj6700 The problem in supporting evolution is there should be hundreds of thousands of intermediate fossils between, for example, pakicetus and the whale. How many are there? 4 or 5. It's conjectures piled on top ofextrapolations. And forget about origins, there is zero chance of a chemical or mechanical beginning.

[@MrKmanthie]

markj6700 creationists are the worst kind of subhuman trash. Ought to be buried with the nuclear waste in the desert, except deeper.

[@benthemiester]

Let me tell you something else that was put forth as being related because it supposedly shared a common ancestor. Yeast

[@gamesbok]

@magick205 Herding wasn't their only livelyhood. They also maxed out their credit with the Egyptians and deliberately defaulted. Read Exodus, and Numbers if you want the pillage and looting.

[@teklugosaye]

Time to evaluate it and disprove with evidence not with..............

[@mossbergmaniac1947]

Youre killing me.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

What's wrong Ben? You're not running away yet again, are you? Did you realize you have to actually support the assertions you make? Did that scare you? I'm waiting to hear how my logic is circular. And of course for you to answer my question instead of responding with pitifully transparent attempts to evade the issue.

[@beebobox]

@jdquarg he's clearly a troll, he tags himself as a science professor, at an ivy league collage and his interests is evolution science. he's either trying to annoy overzealous atheist commentors or to lure in the religious crowd, sorta lame either way :)

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

You’re trying to maintain that, despite the fact that his opinion on the matter is published in a scientific journal and elucidated in numerous other places, some of which you’ve posted yourself, Shubin is dishonest to the point of his research being questionable because he failed to explicitly correct every error made by the media. This is just more of your by now regrettably familiar brand of bullshit thrown up to cover you inability to deal with the real question.

[@benthemiester]

"The NPR interview does not include a claim from Shubin that Tiktaalik is an ancestor" OK lets see below......... "It took him years of searching in the Canadian Arctic, but in 2004, Neil Shubin found the fossilized remains of what he thinks is one of our most important ancestors" Nowhere in recorded interview did Shubin retracted or correct this statement above. He could have easily done so either during interview or afterwards.

[@krrrruptidsoless]

@Gnamakala Why do humans all look different then. They haven't quit evolving. Deniers and believers are in the same boat. Neither one knows.

[@gamesbok]

Error. There is no purpose, but there is utility.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Anyway, if you aren’t trying to prove it was claimed to be an ancestor (or direct ancestor or ancestral if Mr. Semantics would prefer), why do you keep trying to find quotes you think say so? Why do you embarrass yourself by misreading the cladogram? I guess that picture is only worth a thousand words if actually know how to read a cladogram.

[@brpierce]

*Yawn* I'd just like to say that I've had an enlightening discussion with a highly informed opponent who challenged my assumptions and made excellent, well-supported arguments. Unfortunately, this wasn't it.

[@brpierce]

That's answer #1: "Refuse to answer and attack the questioner." It's the one I expected you to give; thank you for being predictable. Predictable, too, that you assume I'm an atheist. I'm not; in fact, I confess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Now, if you want to be predictable again, you'll claim that I can't possibly be a REAL Christian, because REAL Christians agree with you about everything. So: care to be predictable again?

[@benthemiester]

A moot point and a non sequitur, as I would be related to the human that was at the base of my lineage, & I repeat both Shubin & Deaschler claimed it was ancestral. One on Colbert show & the other on NPR. I do understand picture your trying to portray, but this is not the case. I'm still waiting for u to provide this common ancestor u speak of. Does it actually exist or is it imagined? I made several comments about my challenges to it being considered homologues & the comments are still their.

[@benthemiester]

I further made this point concerning ancestry when I cited this..... "it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans. You argued that it said transition, and not the transition, but keep in mind I did not use the words "direct transition' because that was not my argument, in-stead it was your straw man.

[@zencat999]

shubins lecture actually starts at about 5:45 or so. too bad about all the intro....wast of time.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

“Logic follows that if it is related, then it had to be ancestral” Fool. The family example illustrates that being related is not the same thing as being ancestral. Another example: You are, by virtue of being human, related to Sir John A. Macdonald, but you’d hardly claim him as your ancestor would you? Your blurb does indeed say that organisms sharing a common ancestor are related and that an organism is related to its ancestor. This is blindingly obvious.

[@stevenvh17]

Look up "evolution of the eye", and have a look at for instance "goo.gl / yCxL0" (remove the spaces, I couldn't post it otherwise). If you succeed in putting aside your prejudices for 5 minutes you'll see that it makes sense, especially when you have millions of generations to make millions of small steps. A lot goes to waste, and the best functioning organ survives.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

In other words, Titkaalik’s mosaic morphology serves as evidence of that common ancestor. Do you see now why your objection is absurd? By refusing to hear evidence for Tiktaalik’s transitional status until the common ancestor is proven to exist you’re saying that you want evidence of this common ancestor while simultaneously refusing to listen evidence for it. And your comments on homology only proved, once again, that you don’t understand the science you’re trying to discredit.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

As I said, identifying the common ancestor with certainty is not feasible, hence the use of taxa whose morphology places them close to the phylogenetic area of interest. So are you ready to stop being so gutless and actually answer my question? Exaplain away the problem of Tiktaalik’s fishapod morphology. Don't forget you still need to tear apart Diarthrognathus.

[@benthemiester]

The notion that tiktaalick was the transition from sea to land creatures has been refuted by current finds as published in Nature and other publications. Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark Science 6 January 2010, Bryne, J., Four-legged creature’s footprints force evolution rethink, Live Science

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Ancestor = direct ancestor Ancestral is the quality of being an ancestor. Stop trying to make these nonexistent distinctions. But that doesn’t matter. If, as you say, you aren’t trying to prove that Tiktaalik was claimed to be a direct ancestor, then why don’t you move on from this tangent you’ve been clinging to for dear life and address the problem that Tiktaalik’s mosaic morphology presents for your position? The answer is that you can't. If you could you would have by now.

[@deirdreryan9289]

you too!

[@benthemiester]

Secondly, you hand waived away Daeschlers comments concerning TIK being ancestral to modern tetrapods and you also ignore the NPR article with Shubin which makes the same claim.

[@krrrruptidsoless]

@Gnamakala Some day they will find they are wrong. How many grains of sand do we need to find. In the right place and right shape. To complete the knowledge so we can get out of the whys and why nots. Technology needs to advance. All these arguments are slowing technology.

[@MrTruthAddict]

@sandykramer1 Go watch Dr. Francis collins' video called "The Language of God." Betting on ID is a major fail

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

The answer of course is that you have no argument to support the position that TIktaalik doesn't represent a transitional stage. And as for your "Shubin lies to laymen" nonsense, have you ever heard that a picture's worth a thousand words? Go to 44:08. Look at the picture Shubin has up. Then shut about this because it clearly, unambiguously depicts Tiktaalik as a sister clade, not a direct ancestor. Now try following through with that boast about tearing Tiktaalik apart. Why can't you do it?

[@benthemiester]

Let me put it this way.....The human at the "base" of my lineage would be ancestral to me. Again if a side branch, then point would have been taken long ago, but we are speaking in terms of TIK being at the "base" of "our" own lineage as clearly stated.

[@benthemiester]

My uncle is the same species as my grandfather. In the end all you have are assumptions & educated guesses & a current body of work that forces these us to admit how little we actually know about the so called origin of tetrapod evolution. And based based on your own claim, we cannot provide example of a direct ancestor because its hard. Guess what? So is life. Remember "If this is a true tetrapod record, Tiktaalik was a "late-surviving relic" rather than the original transitional form"

[@SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands]

first 5 min...introductions..

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

You ask why I'm fearful to answer a question I've answered many times, yet you are clearly too afraid to even acknowledge the question I ask you about Tiktaalik's morphology. I think you should take seriously that suggestion to look up "hypocrite".

[@MichaelBruck]

You are misinformed about how science works. Scientific theories are models that describe the available evidence and make predictions from there. There is no such thing as proof in science, only mathematics deal in proofs.

[@benthemiester]

Ok lets use your analogy. McDonnell would also be human, and the only way I would know he was related is if there was a cohesive record. I cant just accept he's my relative because he kind of has features like the flat head my dad has or arms that make him a better swimmer than the legs of a better walker. There would have to be more than superficial evidence. No matter how you spin it, It was called the ancestor of limb creatures by Deaschler. Now tell me who was this unnamed common ancestor?

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Enough of your nonsense, Ben. You just don’t seem to understand the difference between being related and being ancestral. You are related to all other humans, but most humans are not ancestral to you. Your child would be related but not ancestral to you. Tiktaalik is related but not ancestral to tetrapods. These words mean different things. Get it? The definitions of those words aren’t up for debate.

[@larryparis925]

Di Gallo: I don't think you would be successful in biology, paleoanthropology, paleontology, genetics, and many other fields with your mindset. Not that you care right now, of course, but you might regret your anti-educational and anti-science orientation later in life. Try to learn.

[@thomasaskew1985]

@@TheMysticAxiom I suppose you believe in some bullshit about a talking snake. Ha.

[@krrrruptidsoless]

@saynotodarwin Animals are smarter than evolution. Since they recreated humans.

[@Tony07UK]

... we already know this