Fish fossil fills evolutionary gap

Al-Jazeera ^ | Thursday 19 October 2006 | NA

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Conversely, are you sure the head is 380 million years old?

[Alter Kaker]

I would say my beliefs actually helped me grasp the sciences better.

That seems unlikely, given that you've stated that you're dogmatically opposed to the possible existence of a 380 million year old fish. Dogmatic positions are the antithesis of science.

Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists...but it seems totally stupid to me now.

Care to elaborate?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

That goes for Macroevolutionists, too.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Are you trying to get a Helen Thomas photo?

[petertare]

Is this guy objective, or does he maybe have some preconceived notion about this evolution business?

[Frwy]

It takes a whole lot of ignorance to believe the hooey.

[Alter Kaker]

That goes for Macroevolutionists, too.

I don't know what a "macroevolutionist" is. If you believe in microevolution, you also believe in macroevolution -- it's the natural consequence -- unless you think that there is some sort of timer out there that allows evolutionary processes to take place for a while, but then somehow shuts them down.

[satchmodog9]

Relative dating should tell. I'm sure they did all the tests. It's the usual method before publishing.

[gd124]

A flightless reptile with feathers would still have an advantage over a featherless reptile. Feathers provide insulation, which would reduce the energy needed to keep warm and enable the reptile to live in a wider range of climates.

[taxesareforever]

so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

So the B -I -I- I- I- I- I- I- I- G Gap is now the B- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- G Gap.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Al-Jazeera published this?

[fish hawk]

Wow, you actually know of a fossil that PROVES evolution? Would you like to share with us. Or is it just a "faith" in evolution like some have "faith" in a Creator. If you have the proof, there are thousands of hopeful scientists that would like to look at it as there aren't any to date.

[jennyp]

Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists

Seriously, and not wanting to embarrass you, but how long have you had a problem keeping singulars & plurals in sync when you write? Also, does the same pattern ever come up when you speak?

[edsheppa]

... fish developed features characteristic of land animals much earlier than once thought.

Creationist interpretation: those stupid scientists were wrong again.

[rusureitflies?]

mindreader...

[RunningWolf]

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I don't think you understand just how ironic you are there with that quote of Heinlein.

Heinlein was okay. I liked some of the novels from A. Clarke and Asimov better.

I think the point he is making is that these supposed transitional fossils held out as 'evidence that fills the gap' really strains the credulity. These fossil are about as much as a transitional as the Coelacanth was once touted to be. In other words the Gogonasus fish.., yes it is still a fish, and a vast vast distance from what it was supposedly evolving towards in areas physiology and skeletal structures, not to mention all other areas of comparison.

Coelacanth



Frog


Salamander


W.

[RunningWolf]

The answer is typo.

After you catch your breath, you can check 'typo' in your small victory column.

But hey, take it where you can get it I guess. Its the evo way.

W.

[Quark2005]

Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists...

What peer-reviewed research changed your mind?

[Quark2005]

In other words the Gogonasus fish.., yes it is still a fish, and a vast vast distance from what it was supposedly evolving towards in areas physiology and skeletal structures, not to mention all other areas of comparison.

Haven't you learned anything from these threads, yet? Evolution doesn't move 'towards' specific goals. Do you even know where Coelecanths fit it the evolutionary tree? Are you aware that lobe-finned fishes are still considered a likely early offshoot of the evolution between fishes and this first land amphibian?

Hint: before you can be considered competent to criticize the conclusions of PhD's, you should first learn as much as someone with a GED should know on the subject. Believe me, I'm not saying this in any sort of defensive posture; I genuinely feel embarrassed for you (and others like you).

You (and many others here) might want to read the definition of crank very carefully, and then take a long, hard introspective look at yourself before deciding what to say the next time you post on a science thread.

[Thinkin' Gal]

"It has revealed a whole suite of characters that link it to the higher land animals or tetrapods, so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.