Skip to comments.Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition
Posted on 04/05/2006 11:22:49 AM PDT by planetesimal
NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.
Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.
The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He'd have to be a pretty Intelligent scientist to Design something like this.
just a joke
Similar but not identical article on the same subject.
Ah, my search missed that, thanks.
And still no answer about whether it tasted like fish or chicken.
When facts determined, watch for no retraction...(sic)
The article says they had little fossile evidence of the link to fish and land animals. I think they probably had other kinds of evidence, like genetics.
"The researchers have not yet dug up any remains from the hind end of the creature's body, so they don't know exactly what the hind fins and tail might have looked like."
Ok, if they haven't found any remains of the hind end, how do they know it had fins and a tail? Indeed, how do they really know that it was a fish? This will probably turn out to be an extinct species of crocodile, and the scientists will brush this under the rug along with Piltdown man and the rest of their circus sideshow attractions.
I see how the process works. Result=opinion. Here all along we have been hearing the evos touting evidence=results. Let's see, "scientists have know" but "little evidence"= ? Can't convince me that all the hearsay we hear from scientists is true. That goes for this article also.
From the article:
Knowing that detail about the transition from fish to land-dweller, she said, ''might help us to unravel why it happened at all. Why did creatures come out of the water and get legs and walk away?''
I wonder why/how they worked that out too. I would like some wings so I don't have to drive to work. Could someone tell me how I can "get" some?
Wait 5-6 billion years and it will happen automatically :)
I read this article and I agree it is so funny. I love the part about how these fish just got some legs and walked away. Their faith is how they "know" this happened.
The evidence for evolution is pretty circumstanial.
Nobody ever saw one species evolve into another before their eyes.
Nor, for that matter, have most people seen an atom.
But the circumstantial evidence for both is overwhelming.
Is there anyone out there who has studied the "walking catfish" that exists today?
Plug in Clarias batrachus into an search engine.
But the walking catfish and this critter have very little in common osteologically.
What the article here does not present is the detailed osteological analysis which has been done on fish of this nature. later primitive amphibians and primitive reptiles
and primitive and modern mammals.
The fossil evidence indicates that if they didn't follow a progressive evolution along the lines we suspect, more or less, the Almighty has decided to play quite a joke on us for no apparent reasons.
Wow, evolution threads really bring out the ID folks.
I actually think it's a little endearing when people mention "circumstantial" evidence when they have NO idea what the term actually means. To illustrate, if there's no "direct evidence" of a murder (such as an eyewitness), is it o.k. to convict based on circumstantial evidence such as blood stains on the defendant's clothing, the presence of his fingerprints on a gun or knife, and presence of DNA samples from the defendant on the victim? Sounds sort of convincing to me, but then again, I know what the term "circumstantial" means...
By the way, I assume everyone has "direct" evidence of God's existence to back up this intelligent design hackery. By that, I mean, you have a LIVING person willing to testify that they met/saw/heard from God Almighty Himself. Someone whose believability/sanity we can judge for ourselves. Otherwise, it seems sort of silly to denigrate "circumstantial" evidence when the only evidence you have for your own theory is circumstantial.
(By the way, I believe in God, have FAITH in Him, and fear Him enough not to ascribe an asinine theory like intelligent design to Him.)
I'm not quite sure what intelligent design means.
I believe in God and I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince any jury on earth (except perhaps a Muslim one) that evolution is a fact.
Belief in God and the Bible, and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Artist's conception from MSN version of article.
Good story, I am not sure if this is a related story and easily could have had it's own thread;
"The first time we saw it, we were amazed - it was really spectacular
Sam Van Wassenbergh, University of Antwerp
Scientists have described a fish that can hunt and catch its prey on land.
The eel catfish, Channallabes apus , is found in the muddy swamps of the tropics of western Africa.
The 30-40cm-long (12-16in) fish is able to propel itself out of the water and bend its head downwards to capture insects in its jaws.
The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from sea to land millions of years ago.
With a small head and a long, flexible body, C. apus has an eel-like appearance.
The fish's diet provided the scientists with the first clue to its remarkable behaviour - it mainly eats beetles which are found on land.
After an expedition to study the fish in its swampy habitat in Gabon, Africa, the team brought some of the animals back to Belgium for further research.
They placed the fish in a specially designed aquarium with both wet and muddy areas, mimicking C. apus's natural environment.
"We pointed high-speed video cameras towards the place where we had left the prey and waited until the fish was hungry enough to leave the water and catch it," explained Sam Van Wassenbergh, an author on the Nature paper and a biologist from the University of Antwerp, Belgium.
"The first time we saw it, we were amazed - it was really spectacular."
The fish captures its prey by propelling itself onto the shore, raising the front part of its body and bending its head downwards over the insect.
Usually, the fish uses suction to feed underwater; but because air is much less dense than water, the fish needs to employ a new strategy to catch its food."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.