Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
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.

‘‘It sort of blurs the distinction between fish and land-living animals,’’ said one of its discoverers, paleontologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago. Some 375 million years ago, the creature looked like a cross between a fish and a crocodile. It swam in shallow, gently meandering streams in what was then a subtropical climate, researchers say. A meat-eater, it lived mostly in water.Yet, its front fins had bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist, Shubin said. From the shoulder to the wrist area, ‘‘it basically looks like a scale-covered arm,’’ he said. "Here’s a creature that has a fin that can do push-ups,’’ he said. ‘‘This is clearly an animal that is able to support itself on the ground,’’ probably both in very shallow water and for brief excursions on dry land. On land, it apparently moved like a seal, he said.

The creature was dubbed Tiktaalik (pronounced ‘‘tic-TAH-lick’’) roseae, and also had the crocodile-shaped head of early amphibians, with eyes on the top rather than the side. Unlike other fish, it could move its head independently of its shoulders like a land animal. The back of its head also had features like those of land-dwellers. It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said. Yet, the creature’s jaws and snout were still very fishlike, showing that ‘‘evolution proceeds slowly; it proceeds in a mosaic pattern with some elements changing while others stay the same,’’ Daeschler said.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said.
This is the sort of thing that turns me off to evolution. They are so concerned with proving it, that they assert things like this with no evidence whatsoever. If it is true, then let the data provie it. Making baseless assumptions only betrays the bias of the scientist and causes folks to question everything else that he or she says. This sort of statement really ought to be unheard of in real science. If evolution is true, then the data itself will show it to be true as the collection of data grows.
 
So… follow me here. Is it not possible they just found an amphibian? Could it not be an animal that was created to BE an amphibian, and, in fact, was an amphibian?

They could have found an ancient mud-guppy, but suddenly its now the missing link between fish and lizards because of their want to prove evolution?
 
40.png
ScottH:
So… follow me here. Is it not possible they just found an amphibian? Could it not be an animal that was created to BE an amphibian, and, in fact, was an amphibian?

They could have found an ancient mud-guppy, but suddenly its now the missing link between fish and lizards because of their want to prove evolution?
From the article:
From the shoulder to the wrist area, ‘‘it basically looks like a scale-covered arm,’’ he said. "Here’s a creature that has a fin that can do push-ups,’’ he said.
Amphibians don’t have fins or scales.

Peace

Tim
 
Let’s say this* is* an example of evolution for sake of argument. If it is so, it does not disprove Christianity from a Catholic perspective. Although I can see how it could be a crisis of faith for literalist Christians.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.** It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.** Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
 
Yet certain mammals don’t have duckbills either.

Except for one.

Lets say the platypus was extinct before our time, and we found the fossil of it in 2006… could we correctly assume we found the missing link between duck and mammal?

Would the evolutionists not have taken THAT nugget and ran?
 
40.png
Orogeny:
From the article:
Amphibians don’t have fins or scales.

Peace

Tim
Not modern ones, no. But, that still doesn’t prove that this animal was in any way transitional between land and sea creatures. It was what it was–an amphibious creature. Period.
 
40.png
Della:
Not modern ones, no. But, that still doesn’t prove that this animal was in any way transitional between land and sea creatures. It was what it was–an amphibious creature. Period.
I agree that that alone proves nothing. However, to call the creature an amphibian (without, by the way, having all the info) is premature, at best.

I’m not saying this fossil is the real thing since the paper hasn’t been published yet (I think, although if not, it should be today or tomorrow), but I’m not sure what it will take for some people to accept something as a transitional form. If this fossil has characteristics of both fish and amphibians, why would it not be a transitional form? I mean, there are many people who reject Archaeopteryx as a transitional form even though it has multiple features found only in birds and multiple features found only in dinosaurs. It almost seems that no evidence is good enough.

Peace

Tim
 
Tim,
The truth of the matter is that all the fossil evidence used to support the idea of transitional forms could easily fit in your car trunk, with tons of space left over for groceries.

And, keep in mind, much of that evidence has already been yanked from the argument, because some very “enterprising” Chinese “archaelogists” were caught pressing false “feather like markings” into existing fossils, with the knowledge that American museums would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for such “hot finds”.

So its still a disturbingly small amount of potential finds that are used in this discussion. This is especially true of homonid studies, where scientific scrutiny has debunked many alleged “solid finds proving evolution”.

Remember- as the Chinese learned- American museums and science labs will pay HUGE amounts for finds that they think will prove their preconception.

Meanwhile- like is the case at Carnegie Museum of Natural History here in Pittsburgh- index fossils such as that of the Coelocanth’s that no longer help them prove their case…

…end up in the basement of the museum.

Especially since we found them alive, and unchanged in an alleged 65 million years since they “went extinct”.

Tim, take it for what its worth, but realize that such finds are glossed over IF they no longer have value in proving the case science so desparately wants to prove.
 
40.png
ScottH:
Tim,
The truth of the matter is that all the fossil evidence used to support the idea of transitional forms could easily fit in your car trunk, with tons of space left over for groceries.
Actually, that is not true, but even if it were, it only takes one!
And, keep in mind, much of that evidence has already been yanked from the argument, because some very “enterprising” Chinese “archaelogists” were caught pressing false “feather like markings” into existing fossils, with the knowledge that American museums would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for such “hot finds”.
Yes, some frauds have existed, but who exposed them as frauds?
So its still a disturbingly small amount of potential finds that are used in this discussion. This is especially true of homonid studies, where scientific scrutiny has debunked many alleged “solid finds proving evolution”.
You again are wrong. Yes there have been frauds, but even you acknowledge that it is science that exposes those frauds. Now, if the goal is to find anything that proves a preconcieved notion, why do that? Especially when most non-scientists would never have found the fraud?
Meanwhile- like is the case at Carnegie Museum of Natural History here in Pittsburgh- index fossils such as that of the Coelocanth’s that no longer help them prove their case…

…end up in the basement of the museum.

Especially since we found them alive, and unchanged in an alleged 65 million years since they “went extinct”.
Are you suggesting that the living coelacanth is the same as the fossil specimans? Do you come by this erroneous conclusion based on study of the fossils or because you read it somewhere?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
ScottH:
Tim,
The truth of the matter is that all the fossil evidence used to support the idea of transitional forms could easily fit in your car trunk, with tons of space left over for groceries… So its still a disturbingly small amount of potential finds that are used in this discussion. This is especially true of homonid studies…
You are simply incorrect in the extreme. As just one of countless possible illustrations, consider Robert L. Carroll’s massive textbook Vertebrate Paleontology & Evolution, which discusses multiplied hundreds of intermediate fossil forms. No doubt, you would dismiss such empirical evidence as some kind of elaborate, science-wide conspiracy to undermine your personal religious beliefs. If not, on what possible scientific basis could your anti-evolutionism rest?

You seem to be caught in what some have termed “Gish’s Law,” which goes like this: Let’s say we have fossils ‘A’ and ‘D’, with one gap between them. If fossil ‘B’ is found, we now have two gaps, ‘AB’ and ‘BD’. Another find of fossil ‘C’ leads to three more gaps, ‘AB’, ‘BC’, and ‘CD’. In Gish’s tortured logic, therefore, as the fossil record becomes more complete, the number of gaps continually increases! The more fossil intermediates scientists locate, the louder the anti-evolutionist cries, “Look at the lack of transitional forms!” The criterion is both unrealistic and uninformed (i.e., it misunderstands completely what a transitional form actually is).

Please carefully study these links, and God bless:

talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 
lol, linking to talk origins as support that evolution is true is like linking to pepsi.com to support pepsi being the best cola.
 
Fish with fingers (Acanthostega and others)
Whales with feet (Ambulocetus and others)
Snakes with legs (Pachyrhachis and others)
Dinosaurs with feathers (Archaeopteryx and others)

And literally hundreds of mammal-like reptiles or reptile-like mammals (the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia).

That’s enough for me. I second Robert Carroll’s books. Do you want the paleontological evidence? It is readily available to anyone at your local university or public library. It’s a bit more than would fit in your car trunk. Ambulocetus alone would be a tight fit. 😃

Phil P
 
gels << lol, linking to talk origins as support that evolution is true is like linking to pepsi.com >>

Naw, it is just the quickest way to link to all the relevant facts, the good, bad, and ugly. I’ve double checked them against the paleontologists themselves: Robert Carroll (vertebrate evolution), E.N.K. Clarkson and James Valentine (invertebrate evolution), M.J. Benton (the complete fossil record), Jenny Clack (fish to tetrapod evolution), Gregory Paul (dinosaur to bird evolution). Go to a university library. Guess what, I find TalkOrigins gets the story straight. And books like Catholic biologist Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and evangelical geologist Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation agrees with them about the evidence.

Phil P
 
Ah, the glories of God, to have created a universe so rich in time as well as space! And ah, the glories of science, to give us so much more detail to praise God about!

Assuming, of course, that the scientists haven’t overreached their data … which sometimes happens. But God is still to be glorified.
  • Liberian
 
40.png
Liberian:
Ah, the glories of God, to have created a universe so rich in time as well as space! And ah, the glories of science, to give us so much more detail to praise God about!

Assuming, of course, that the scientists haven’t overreached their data … which sometimes happens. But God is still to be glorified.
  • Liberian
Yes indeed. the “stones cry out”.
Good post.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
ScottH << We agree to disagree then. >>

Yes, I understand your car trunks are the size of several large swimming pools. 😃 Get M.J. Benton The Fossil Record 2 or the books by Robert Carroll. You don’t have to disagree with me or the Pope any longer. 👍

Phil P
Phil,
I think one thing we agree on is that there can be good scientific data IF there’s an ability for some in science to get past their zeal for disproving Christianity.

It drives some. Eugenie Scott is one name that comes to mind.

Look at the news today. An “expert” at Florida Univ. claims he knows that Jesus stepped on a floating piece of ice and floated on water and really performed no miracle.

fsu.edu/~unicomm/pages/releases/2006_04/release_2006_02_04a.html

Another scientific"expert" in Israel contends he’s figured out that the conflict between David and Goliath wasn’t miraculous… its just that Goliath had an eye tumor that put him at a disadvantage.

This without the skull of Goliath, mind you.

glaucoma.co.il/english/ENG_press_JP2.asp

What’s the message they want to present?
 
40.png
ScottH:
Phil,
I think one thing we agree on is that there can be good scientific data IF there’s an ability for some in science to get past their zeal for disproving Christianity.
Nope. The data are either valid or not. The religious beliefs of anyone who uses the data are irrelevant.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top