Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/5/2006 2:14:33 PM EDT
Well this ought to throw another log on the Evolution vs. Creation debate

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190711,00.html

Arctic Fossil Bridges Gap Between Fish, Land Animals
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
By Bjorn Carey


A newfound beast with swim fins and a head like a crocodile fills an evolutionary gap between fish and four-legged land animals.

The creature had gills, a fish-like jaw and scales. But its mobile neck let it lift its head above water, and it could support its own weight on thick ribs and wrist-like bones. It may have even trudged across mudflats in the manner of early four-legged animals generally referred to as tetrapods.

"I would say it's a key transitional form in the fish-to-land animal transition," said study co-author Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago. "It has features of both fish and tetrapods — we call it a 'fishapod.'"

The animal, Tiktaalik roseae, lived about 375 million years ago, spanning the period between a fish called Panderichthys (385 million years ago) and tetrapods known as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega (365 million years ago).

The team discovered several well-preserved fossil specimens, ranging from 4 to 9 feet long from nose to the estimated end of the tail.


"If you look at joints of limbs, you can tell that the thing could perform a fish version of a push-up," Shubin told LiveScience. "It could bend its elbow and flex its wrist. It was certainly capable of supporting its body underwater, in the shallows, or in mudflats with its limbs."

The somewhat awkward animal probably didn't walk, since it likely couldn't rotate its shoulders. Instead it might have dragged itself along on land.

"It could either push itself straight up and down or pull itself forward," Shubin said. "It more likely flopped around like a seal rather than walked like a horse."

The longer snout suggests Tiktaalik bit at prey like a crocodile, rather than sucking on it like a fish.

[It's impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates, Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, who was not connected to the study, told the Associated Press, but if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, "you'd probably come up with something like this."]

The fossils were discovered in layered rock in Ellesmere Island in Canada. Although the site is 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle today, 375 million years ago the area straddled the equator. The landmass had a subtropical climate and Tiktaalik likely lived in a series of shallow streams similar to the Mississippi River Delta.

"Outside, it's a classic Arctic scene," Shubin said. "But inside those rocks is a tropical world."

[The site is in the autonomous Canadian Inuit territory of Nunavut, and "Tiktaalik" comes from the traditional local language, reports the AP. It refers to a large freshwater fish seen in the shallows.]

When a fossil like this fills a big gap, two smaller gaps are created, Shubin said, leaving the possibility that better transitional species have yet to be discovered.

The study is detailed in the April 6 issue of the journal Nature.


Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:20:47 PM EDT
God sent Jesus down a few thousand years ago to plant this stuff, cause there's on thing that makes the Omnipotent giggle, it's watching us ants try to figure out what old bones mean.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:22:17 PM EDT
How do they know it was the first?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:30:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:32:41 PM EDT
If you had a situation where a lake was slowly drying over a long, long time that might lead to a "transitional form" like this, why wouldn't the first generation of true fish simply die from exposure to air?

I mean, is it like there were isolated puddles with 1 fish in each of them and they had to flop across the dry ground to mate with eachother?

I guess I don't understand how such a creature could evolve, if in fact evolution is happening at all.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:36:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 2:39:27 PM EDT by MauserMark]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
If you had a situation where a lake was slowly drying over a long, long time that might lead to a "transitional form" like this, why wouldn't the first generation of true fish simply die from exposure to air?

I mean, is it like there were isolated puddles with 1 fish in each of them and they had to flop across the dry ground to mate with eachother?

I guess I don't understand how such a creature could evolve, if in fact evolution is happening at all.



Generally, and this applies to other areas of immense background knowledge, the evolutionists have it explained somewhere.

I had a roommate getting his PHD in microBiology, so this guy knew the evolution theory, and the thousands of theories that go with it along with their fossil evidence.

I tried in vain even with some good books to disprove evolution as a whole to argue with him against it. Every case including the one you pointed out, has a legitimate rebuttal by them. After about a year of this, and reading his material I am convinced there is overwelmingly more evidence in support of evolution than against it.

As someone pointed out in the Dinosaur thread recently, that creationism or the 6000 year old earth cannot be considered a theory by scientists because there is no viewable evidence to back it up. As some were calling it a theory, but by science's standards on what constitutes a theory it is not one. So what are you left with? I as one, and even my roommate agree there's nothing in the theory of evolution that somehow though disproves or says there is no original creation of existence as we know it.

-mark
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:48:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
If you had a situation where a lake was slowly drying over a long, long time that might lead to a "transitional form" like this, why wouldn't the first generation of true fish simply die from exposure to air?

I mean, is it like there were isolated puddles with 1 fish in each of them and they had to flop across the dry ground to mate with eachother?

I guess I don't understand how such a creature could evolve, if in fact evolution is happening at all.



Generally, and this applies to other areas of immense background knowledge, the evolutionists have it explained somewhere.

I had a roommate getting his PHD in microBiology, so this guy knew the evolution theory, and the thousands of theories that go with it along with their fossil evidence.

I tried in vain even with some good books to disprove evolution as a whole to argue with him against it. Every case including the one you pointed out, has a legitimate rebuttal by them. After about a year of this, and reading his material I am convinced there is overwelmingly more evidence in support of evolution than against it.

As someone pointed out in the Dinosaur thread recently, that creationism or the 6000 year old earth cannot be considered a theory by scientists because there is no viewable evidence to back it up. As some were calling it a theory, but by science's standards on what constitutes a theory it is not one. So what are you left with? I as one, and even my roommate agree there's nothing in the theory of evolution that somehow though disproves or says there is no original creation of existence as we know it.

-mark



An explanation which hasn't been demonstrated is not evidence. All those explanations your friend gave you for all those different scenarios are called tentative hypotheses.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:52:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 2:53:09 PM EDT by TrashHeap]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
If you had a situation where a lake was slowly drying over a long, long time that might lead to a "transitional form" like this, why wouldn't the first generation of true fish simply die from exposure to air?

I mean, is it like there were isolated puddles with 1 fish in each of them and they had to flop across the dry ground to mate with eachother?

I guess I don't understand how such a creature could evolve, if in fact evolution is happening at all.



GOD will provide legs for fish when in peril. Isn't GOD wonderful.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:54:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
An explanation which hasn't been demonstrated is not evidence. All those explanations your friend gave you for all those different scenarios are called tentative hypotheses.



That's why it's called the theory of evolution, and not the law of evolution.

Evolution is not one unified theory. There are a lots of theories, and then there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is proven to a degree as to be as close to scientific fact as possible. Speciation as a result of evolution is more problematic, but clearly a better scientific theory than the one that involves clicking his divine heels together and making it all spring out of nothingness.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:56:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 2:57:25 PM EDT by gaspain]
IBTBB

(in before the bible bangers)

edit: oops too slow, they're already here
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:56:31 PM EDT
So they say....so they say.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:58:49 PM EDT
Notice who is bringing up God and religion in this thread, folks?

I never stated divine creation was more beleiveable than evolution. I never mentioned it, matter of fact.

But I don't beleive a "scientists" opinion is somehow more believable just because he calls himself a scientist.

I'm what scientists claim to be. Skeptical. I'll believe their opinion when they prove it with evidence, rather than with unsupported opinion.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:04:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Notice who is bringing up God and religion in this thread, folks?

I never stated divine creation was more beleiveable than evolution. I never mentioned it, matter of fact.

But I don't beleive a "scientists" opinion is somehow more believable just because he calls himself a scientist.

I'm what scientists claim to be. Skeptical. I'll believe their opinion when they prove it with evidence, rather than with unsupported opinion.



Evolution cannot be discussed without creation.

creation was the only source until some drunk figured out another way. and just like hippies...hook,line and sinker.

Yes, I believe in GOD and I'm going to heaven. That doesn't make me a bad person. It just makes me, not afraid to die. If I feel like posting my Opine on a thread, I'll do it. <--period.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:07:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NME:
How do they know it was the first?



That is what I'm thinking. I hate guys who say that. It is the first...............................until they find another animal that is older.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:07:27 PM EDT
In science everything is called a theory. This means they started with a hypothesis and came to a reproducible, valid conclusion. A theory is a collection of documented experiments and observations that lead one to a conclusion that is probably true. Their are no certainties in science, except in the mathematical sciences.

Not the best description of it. This is not an attack on science, merely an explanation of my understanding of the scientific method. I believe in the theory of evolution.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:09:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TrashHeap:
Evolution cannot be discussed without creation.



Your assumption is false. Try another one.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:14:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By clement:

Originally Posted By NME:
How do they know it was the first?



That is what I'm thinking. I hate guys who say that. It is the first...............................until they find another animal that is older.



The article CLEARLY states that when one gap is filled, two smaller ones are created

i.e. a gap now exists as transitional organisms that came before this critter and also after
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:15:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 3:16:32 PM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Notice who is bringing up God and religion in this thread, folks?

I never stated divine creation was more beleiveable than evolution. I never mentioned it, matter of fact.

But I don't beleive a "scientists" opinion is somehow more believable just because he calls himself a scientist.

I'm what scientists claim to be. Skeptical.
I applaud you for this...I wish more people thought this way
I'll believe their opinion when they prove support it with evidence, rather than with unsupported opinion.



Slight tweak to your last sentence. You'll go to your grave and never have "proof," but we're building a hell of a lot of evidence.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:16:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 3:18:20 PM EDT by 1Andy2]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
In science everything is called a theory. This means they started with a hypothesis and came to a reproducible, valid conclusion. A theory is a collection of documented experiments and observations that lead one to a conclusion that is probably true. Their are no certainties in science, except in the mathematical sciences.

Not the best description of it. This is not an attack on science, merely an explanation of my understanding of the scientific method. I believe in the theory of evolution.



Your definition is spot on.

However, most of the evidence of evolution I've seen presented are either animals that share some features of other animals or bones of the same. I've seen very few actual experiments or observations to prove evolution. The bulk of evolutionary theory I've seen has been at the hypothesis stage.

eta: I'm not a scientist or a microbiologist or anything-ologist. Take my opinion with a heaping cup of salt.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:19:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
In science everything is called a theory. This means they started with a hypothesis and came to a reproducible, valid conclusion. A theory is a collection of documented experiments and observations that lead one to a conclusion that is probably true. Their are no certainties in science, except in the mathematical sciences.

Not the best description of it. This is not an attack on science, merely an explanation of my understanding of the scientific method. I believe in the theory of evolution.



Your definition is spot on.

However, most of the evidence of evolution I've seen presented are either animals that share some features of other animals or bones of the same. I've seen very few actual experiments or observations to prove evolution. The bulk of evolutionary theory I've seen has been at the hypothesis stage.

eta: I'm not a scientist or a microbiologist or anything-ologist. Take my opinion with a heaping cup of salt.



can you clarify what you mean in blue? we have a femur, like dogs...is that what you're saying or something else?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:23:22 PM EDT
Evolution via natural selection really is at the theory level. While the evidence concerning ancient organisms isn't empirical, natural selection applies as a theory based on its ability to explain countless natural phenomena. Natural selection is supported by myriad examples, and has yet to be disproven. I see where you are coming from, but it's playing semantics, at best.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:27:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
However, most of the evidence of evolution I've seen presented are either animals that share some features of other animals or bones of the same. I've seen very few actual experiments or observations to prove evolution. The bulk of evolutionary theory I've seen has been at the hypothesis stage.



The problem with setting up expirements to do macro-evolution (ie, speciation) is the timescales involved tend to be a lot longer than human lifetimes.

Experiments on micro-evolution have been about as conclusive as possible (example: anti-biotic immunity experiments with successive generations in populations).

God is brought up because the vast majority of evolution critics are arguing from a religious basis. Just because you didn't mention it doesn't mean you don't have that bias (not saying you do, but it's one of those pretty safe assumptions).
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:30:35 PM EDT
the Flying Spaghetti Monster is amused by your pathetic attempts to understand his all encompassing plan, and the ease in which he distracts the unbelievers who have not been touched by his noodly appendage.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:30:54 PM EDT
Nothing but lies sent to test the faithful.



Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:31:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 3:34:46 PM EDT by 1Andy2]

Originally Posted By leakycow:
Evolution via natural selection really is at the theory level. While the evidence concerning ancient organisms isn't empirical, natural selection applies as a theory based on its ability to explain countless natural phenomena. Natural selection is supported by myriad examples, and has yet to be disproven. I see where you are coming from, but it's playing semantics, at best.



I'll agree that natural selection is happening. I don't think that proves that natural selection is causing one species to change into another over time.

For natural selection to count as proof of macro-evolution, you'd need to give a hypothesis of how or why it is causing macro-evolution and then support that with some kind of test.

Perhaps by subjecting some bacteria to different stimulae and seeing what happens. If you observe that it changes into something completely different, that would be compelling evidence that natural selection. If, however, you observed that remained essentially the same kind of bacteria, you might have to reevaluate your hypothesis.

eta: The rest of you can go fuck yourselves. Any time someone who disagrees with you tries to have a thoughtful discussion on this subject, you just have to chime in and start mocking and shouting him down.

This board is unbelieveable.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:33:40 PM EDT
All this scientific stuff is useless without recipes for preparing them for consumption.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:34:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Nothing but lies sent to test the faithful.

img238.imageshack.us/img238/6479/307555282m1tv.jpg




Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:35:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 3:38:20 PM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By leakycow:
Evolution via natural selection really is at the theory level. While the evidence concerning ancient organisms isn't empirical, natural selection applies as a theory based on its ability to explain countless natural phenomena. Natural selection is supported by myriad examples, and has yet to be disproven. I see where you are coming from, but it's playing semantics, at best.



I'll agree that natural selection is happening. I don't think that proves that natural selection is causing one species to change into another over time.

For natural selection to count as proof of macro-evolution, you'd need to give a hypothesis of how or why it is causing macro-evolution and then support that with some kind of test.



how or why? geographic isolation is a quick one.


Perhaps by subjecting some bacteria to different stimulae and seeing what happens. If you observe that it changes into something completely different, that would be compelling evidence that natural selection. If, however, you observed that remained essentially the same kind of bacteria, you might have to reevaluate your hypothesis.


well, you don't necessarily have to come to that conclusion...if the stimuli don't create a strong enough selection pressure, there is no reason to predict a gene shift (evolution). i.e. if I woke your family up at 6:29 every morning instead of 6:30, that's not likely to shake your world to the foundation.

eta: remember, variability has to exist before hand, and the selection pressures (you're referring to them as stimuli, which is fine) have to favor certain traits over others. Give it some time, and voila!
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:37:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
the Flying Spaghetti Monster is amused by your pathetic attempts to understand his all encompassing plan, and the ease in which he distracts the unbelievers who have not been touched by his noodly appendage.




Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:37:46 PM EDT
everything was created 6000 years ago! inlcuding 1 billion year old fossils
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:41:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By leakycow:
Evolution via natural selection really is at the theory level. While the evidence concerning ancient organisms isn't empirical, natural selection applies as a theory based on its ability to explain countless natural phenomena. Natural selection is supported by myriad examples, and has yet to be disproven. I see where you are coming from, but it's playing semantics, at best.



I'll agree that natural selection is happening. I don't think that proves that natural selection is causing one species to change into another over time.

For natural selection to count as proof of macro-evolution, you'd need to give a hypothesis of how or why it is causing macro-evolution and then support that with some kind of test.



how or why? geographic isolation is a quick one.


Perhaps by subjecting some bacteria to different stimulae and seeing what happens. If you observe that it changes into something completely different, that would be compelling evidence that natural selection. If, however, you observed that remained essentially the same kind of bacteria, you might have to reevaluate your hypothesis.


well, you don't necessarily have to come to that conclusion...if the stimuli don't create a strong enough selection pressure, there is no reason to predict a gene shift (evolution). i.e. if I woke your family up at 6:29 every morning instead of 6:30, that's not likely to shake your world to the foundation.



Obviously the test would need to be much broader in scope than only a single experiment equivalent to waking a family one minute earlier than normal.

Stuff like exposing it to various other kinds of bacteria. Keeping it in a hot dish just slightly below its max survivable temperature. Prolonged moisture exposure. etc.. I dunno. Whatever bacteria people do to bacteria.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:42:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Obviously the test would need to be much broader in scope than only a single experiment equivalent to waking a family one minute earlier than normal.

Stuff like exposing it to various other kinds of bacteria. Keeping it in a hot dish just slightly below its max survivable temperature. Prolonged moisture exposure. etc.. I dunno. Whatever bacteria people do to bacteria.



That's cool...and exactly what a lot of biologists end up doing.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:43:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:43:25 PM EDT
Cool find on the fish-agator thingy.

Evolution is an extremely coplex subject and not as simple as my bible teachers liked to make it out to be. It is a theory not fact. And for the sake of argument if it is fact and we would never have enough evidence to prove it. It is simply the most accurate observation based system to explain our planet and the life found therin. It is our "best guess" based on available information.

There is also a great deal of politics involved in the various theories under the main heading of evolution, and it is not nearly as simple cut and paste as many creationists would have others believe.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:46:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1_AR_NEWBIE:
i28.photobucket.com/albums/c207/dr_mers/notthisshit.jpg



Rookie.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 3:48:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 9:04:56 PM EDT by sta1treeman]
If all creatures evolved from the same ancient creature, how did we evolve into different creatures?ETA-Valid question, and I have never heard the evolutionary theory that covered it. Where did everyone go?
Top Top