Transitions among amphibians (Talk.Origins)

Response to Transitions among amphibians

CreationWiki response:

Reference: Palaeos Vertebrates 160.000 Temnospondyli: Overview

This category seems to consist of several kinds of animals, some of which seem to have different varieties. It is claimed that these form a transition from early to later amphibians eventually giving rise to modern amphibians. This claim is based on apparent trends in the palate, teeth, ears, pectoral girdle, and body size. It is interesting that they ignore the time order based on the geologic column referring to them as cousins, rather than ancestors or assuming that genera arose earlier than they have evidence for.

Reference:Palaeos Vertebrates 160.000 Temnospondyli:Overview

Click here for a picture of a fossil skull.

While the order is correct there is no reference to any connecting fossils. Not only are Dendrerpeton and Archegosaurus an entire Period apart, but they are significantly different. The only reason for making this link seem to be the assumption of Evolution.

Reference:Palaeos Vertebrates 160.000 Temnospondyli:Overview

Evolutionarily dated as older that Archegosaurus the last type on the list. There is no evidence of any trend in body or head shape.

Reference:Palaeos Vertebrates 160.000 Temnospondyli:Overview

Once again there is no evidence of any trend in body or head shape. These types fail to show any evolutionary change.

Click here for picture

Click here to see picture

Click on the links to see the skeleton.

Paleontology Amphibians, Photovault Image

Paleontology Amphibians, Photovault Image

Amphibamus lyelli

Here are a couple of good ones. Interesting how the last three skull shapes were very different, with no overall trend.

Amphibamus is evolutionarily dated as older than Trematops, Archegosaurus and Eryops; the last three types on the list. There continues to be no evidence of any trend in body or head shape.

Doleserpeton

Click here to see picture

The fossils descriptions that I have found are not complete, even if they are combined. Once again there is no evidence of any trend in body or head shape. --- Schoenfelderpeton

No information available on this type.

This a good example of comparing fossil animals without regards for order the animals appear by uniformitarian dating methods and ignoring physical characteristics that show no evidence of any trend.

Triadobatrachus is simply a kind of amphibian with some features similar to those of a frog. While there are similarities in the skulls, they still very different, and the pelvis and hind legs a very different.

Vieraella is a variety of frog. There are sufficiently large differences with triadobatrachus that claiming a comparison as evidence for evolution is problematic at best. Making a legitimate link between Triadobatrachus and Vieraella would require many intermediate forms, but there are none. Furthermore there is a gap of an entire Period between Triadobatrachus and Vieraella, with no intermediate transitions.

Click here to see picture

So Karaurus is a variety of salamander. There are no clear links to other types.

Click here to see picture

All that seems to have been found of proto-anthracosaur one is part of the animals pelvis.

This list consists of totally distinct kinds of animals. Some of the fossil evidence is questionable because of fragmentation. In one case nothing could be found. It shows that they even ignored their own dating methods to come up with a transitional list. They also ignore considerable differences between types in favour of the few similarities that favour evolution.