>But I am not a YEC like Gish and will concede that this is good
>evidence for an "unknown fish common ancestor" between the
>lobe-finned fishes and the tetrapods. This is common ground between
>us, even though there still may be major problems in time-frames if
>the earliest lobe-finned fish are contemporaneous with the earliest
>tetrapods. In "this argument" we had "here a year ago", Ashby Camp
>posted:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>As Ahlberg and Milner point out (p. 507), the oldest panderichthyids
>currently known date from the Lower Frasnian (Upper Devonian - about
>375 mya). There is solid evidence, however, for the existence of
>tetrapods back to the Lower Devonian, some 25 million years earlier
>(Anne Warren, Robert Jupp and Barrie Bolton, "Earliest tetrapod
>trackway," _Alcheringa_ 10: 183-86 [1986]). This rather
>inconvenient piece of data was omitted from the Ahlberg and Milner
>review. If tetrapods existed millions of years before
>panderichthyids, then tetrapods either evolved in more than one line
>or panderichthyids had nothing to do with their evolution.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>If indeed tetrapod tracks exist from "the Lower Devonian, some 25
>million years earlier" than "the oldest panderichthyids...from the
>Lower Frasnian (Upper Devonian...), then there is still a chronology
>problem. In that case, Pitman's point is still valid:
>
>"Although newt-like Ichthyostega has 'fin-bones' in its tail, it is
>very different from a coelacanth, lungfish or Eusthenopteron. It has
>a true neck, limbs, fingers, toes and a greatly modified skull.
>Since the earliest tetrapods are found in upper Devonian rocks,
>contemporary with the fish from which they are supposed to have
>descended, some unseen line is supposed to have evolved from
>lobe-fins." (Pitman M., "Adam and Evolution", Rider & Co: London,
>1984, p199)
>
To use the Warren, Jupp and Bolton article as proof of Lower Devonian
tetrapods is almost laughable. The rock containing the tracks was found in
the courtyard of a house built (I believe, i didn't look it up) in the latter
part of last century. They guessed that it is lower devonian but aren't really
sure. The authors state that no digits are preserved in the tracks and so they
aren't sure that it is even a tetrapod!
So you are citing a case where the authors don't know where the rock came
from, what age the rock really is, and aren't sure that it is even a tetrapod
as proof of the existence of tetrapods in the Lower Devonian. This is not
good science Stephen.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm