Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Hmm, that's what I thought. But surely modern fish are just as much descended from them as we are?
Absolutely.
Surely the common ancestor species wasn't a fish, in the modern sense of the word?
They looked quite unlike modern fish, although they had the same general shape and some kinds of fins.
Or are modern fish a fossil species? Relatively unchanging over the aeons, compared to us?
No. Here's a bit on the subject.
The modern bony fishes, class Osteichthyes, appeared in the late Silurian or early Devonian, about 395 million years ago. The early forms were freshwater fishes, for no fossil remains of modern bony fishes have been found in marine deposits older than Triassic time, about 230 million years ago. The Osteichthyes may have arisen from the acanthodians. A subclass of the Osteichthyes, the ray-finned fishes (subclass Actinopterygii), became and have remained the dominant group of fishes throughout the world. It was not the ray-finned fishes, however, that led to the evolution of the land vertebrates.
The ancestors of the land vertebrates are found among another group of bony fishes called the Choanichthyes or Sarcopterygii. Choanate fishes are characterized by internal nostrils, fleshy fins called lobe fins, and cosmoid scales. The choanate fishes appeared in the late Silurian or early Devonian, more than 390 million years ago, and possibly arose from the acanthodians. The choanate fishes include a group known as the Crossopterygii, which has one living representative, the coelacanth Latimeria. During the Devonian Period some crossopterygian fishes of the order (or suborder) Rhipidistia crawled out of the water to become the first amphibians.
They looked quite unlike modern fish, although they had the same general shape and some kinds of fins.
No. Here's a bit on the subject.
The modern bony fishes, class Osteichthyes, appeared in the late Silurian or early Devonian, about 395 million years ago. The early forms were freshwater fishes, for no fossil remains of modern bony fishes have been found in marine deposits older than Triassic time, about 230 million years ago. The Osteichthyes may have arisen from the acanthodians. A subclass of the Osteichthyes, the ray-finned fishes (subclass Actinopterygii), became and have remained the dominant group of fishes throughout the world. It was not the ray-finned fishes, however, that led to the evolution of the land vertebrates.
The ancestors of the land vertebrates are found among another group of bony fishes called the Choanichthyes or Sarcopterygii. Choanate fishes are characterized by internal nostrils, fleshy fins called lobe fins, and cosmoid scales. The choanate fishes appeared in the late Silurian or early Devonian, more than 390 million years ago, and possibly arose from the acanthodians. The choanate fishes include a group known as the Crossopterygii, which has one living representative, the coelacanth Latimeria. During the Devonian Period some crossopterygian fishes of the order (or suborder) Rhipidistia crawled out of the water to become the first amphibians.
One theory for amphibian evolution was to escape predators. Fish had very large and sharp teeth compared to modern fish. They were built for the kill. Those fish who were able to spend longer amounts of time on land were selected for, and subsequently their progeny passed on genes allowing more and more time on land, and eventually amphibians.
I haven't got to the hiccups part let. I'll let you know if it's mentioned there.
Modern fish are quite different from eachother in their means and efficiency at getting oxygen. Some can only live in cold well oxygenated water, and others can live for days out of water. And some quite famously climb out of the water and head across the golf course, or whatever is there.
Early fish that were best able to live in low oxygen swamps, leave the water and catch food / escape predators / seek out a new habitat have an obvious advantage.
With all of the land wide open to being colonized, there was an advantage to being able to go do so.
The ancestors of the land vertebrates are found among another group of bony fishes called the Choanichthyes or Sarcopterygii.
I've been using a quip to comment on layman terms vs. scientific for a while now:
Humans are fish in the sense that we are Sarcopterygiians. Humans are apes in that we are Hominidae. This doesn't mean we're trout or gorillas though.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
I've been using a quip to comment on layman terms vs. scientific for a while now:
Humans are fish in the sense that we are Sarcopterygiians. Humans are apes in that we are Hominidae. This doesn't mean we're trout or gorillas though.
That is why paleontology is a total nonsense. It tried to classify things based on morphology and ignore everything else. It is REALLY STUPID to call yourself an ape even you acknowledge the idea of common ancestor. A twins look like each other. That does not mean they are the same person.
That is why paleontology is a total nonsense. It tried to classify things based on morphology and ignore everything else. It is REALLY STUPID to call yourself an ape even you acknowledge the idea of common ancestor. A twins look like each other. That does not mean they are the same person.
So juv could you list for us the "everything else" that you think paleontology ignores? I really think you owe that to us.
If I were to say that the Bible is total nonsense, and that it is REALLY STUPID to believe any of it, that would really call on me to put up or shut up. So put up, just what are those things that paleontology stupidly ignores?
Twins btw are not the same person but their appearance sure suggests a common ancestor doesnt it? Call humans apes of turnips, it wont change where we came from.
Anyway, we need to see some examples of what paleontology ignores, making it all nonsense. Otherwise, we will have to consider the statement to be nonsense from you.
A twins look like each other. That does not mean they are the same person.
Genetically, identical twins are the same person.
__________________ Thalidomide, Pluto, and Challenger. Not a good argument against science.
Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
Divinity= selflessness rather than selfishness. What is more selfish than sending somebody to hell because they don't love you?
That is why paleontology is a total nonsense. It tried to classify things based on morphology and ignore everything else.
Which shows how little you know about palaeontology.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
It is REALLY STUPID to call yourself an ape even you acknowledge the idea of common ancestor. A twins look like each other. That does not mean they are the same person.
No, but they do have the same family name. Likewise, though we're not the same species as chimps, we're both descended from proto-ape species, so we both have the 'ape' moniker.
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !
Reps for you!! 
.
Linear Mode
