So that's why he hasn't been around Tweb!

[Kelp]

See bolded.

Your cousin is not your descendant.

Is your great-great nephew your descendant? Are the Romans the descendants of the Etruscans? It depends on what you mean by 'descendants', right?

Descendant means descendant.

Which, in the context of our discussion about transitional species, does NOT imply a direct line of ancestry. The criteria for detrmining a transitional are purely observational. As we explained repeatedly.
In fact, you had pretended to get it. Imagine that.
But now you resort to the expected: You leech onto a single word a poster said, and ignore our repeated explanations, still trying to claim that transitional species imply a direct ancestor-descendant line. Hoping everyone's forgot the last ten pages of discussion ever took place.

Pretty lame, mags.

The idea that, because you have two feet, that shows that jelly fish turned into giraffes is , shall we say, 'out there'?

Yeah well, it's a good thing no one says anything like that. Are you trying to look dumb, or is ridiculous strawmen all you have left?

Now for your last question -
Case 1.
Start with fish - fins and weak ribs
Then Tiktaalik - strong fins, strong ribs
Then tetrapod - Feet and lungs.
But that's not what happened.

Case 2.
Start with fish - fins and weak ribs
Then Tiktaalik - strong fins, strong ribs
Extinct.

LOL. What makes you think one excludes the other, mags? Who told you that Tiktaalik is the sole father of all tetrapods? In fact, we told you the exact opposite, didn't we? Why are you assuming what you're supposed to prove?

But even IF Tiktaalik was on a direct ancestral line leading to all tetrapods (it's not), why does that mean it can't go extinct? Let's see you justify that...

If Tiktaalik's features (above) are the ones that set Tiktaalik apart from other fish, then they are the features causing extinction.

...I said JUSTIFY your idiotic fallacy, mags, not reassert it. How do you explain and support this "If-Then" conditional claim? "Looks that way to me"?

Let's apply that Illogic to other examples:

Archaeopteryx had a capability of flight that set it apart from other maniraptorans. Therefore, that capability is what made it go extinct. Flight kills- who knew? Most birds must be zombies I guess.

Or:

The Hittites were the first to work iron and make weapons from it. The Hittites are no more, therefore, working iron is what made them perish. Whoops, better start using bronze swords again, looks like the safest way to defend our nation.

Or:

Johnny wore a new coat to school yesterday, then later in the day he was run over by a car. Therefore, buying that coat got him run over by a car. See that's why I dress light ma, it's a safety issue!

Starting to get it, mags?

Don't you call that sort of thing Natural Selection?

No, I call it a blatant case of Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

You are quite happy to appropriate strong ribs and strong fins as a reason for survival.

I am, since a good reason for it exists (ability to raise the body and support its structures). And guess what, strong ribs and strong "fins" are needed for survival TODAY- just look at any tetrapod. And if you don't believe me, ask your friend Menton.

What's YOUR reason for thinking that those features led Tiktaalik to extinction?
Mags, a species can become extinct by an immense variety or reasons, relating both to the environment and other organisms. From all the different possible options, I need only mention one: The possibility that Tiktaalik was out-competed into extinction by species with MORE derived and functional 'ribs and fins', IOW more derived and adapted tetrapods.

And THAT is part of what Natural selection is, Mags.

Now, do you have an actual argument, or is it just logical fallacies and "Rogue said 'descendants' so there"?

Someone needs to contact Johnny MacManky and see if he's ok ....