Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,799.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
  • Agree
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
43
tel aviv
✟111,555.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Researchers have discovered the fossil of a fish with finger-like digits in its fin that lived 380 million years ago, according to a new study. And they believe it bridges the evolutionary gap between marine and land vertebrates as one of the oldest examples of a skeletal pattern resembling a hand.

The study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

"Today we announce in the journal Nature our discovery of a complete specimen of a tetrapod-like fish, called Elpistostege, which reveals extraordinary new information about the evolution of the vertebrate hand," said John Long, study author and Strategic Professor in Palaeontology at Flinders University in Australia.

"This is the first time that we have unequivocally discovered fingers locked in a fin with fin-rays in any known fish. The articulating digits in the fin are like the finger bones found in the hands of most animals."


In the phylogenetic tree, this species is near the justly-famous Tiktaalik.

200318111514-02-fish-finger-evolution-exlarge-169.jpeg
that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil". more than that: we can also find transitional form between designed objects. but of course that it doesnt prove they evolved from each other, even if they were able to reproduce:

commercial-vehicles.jpg

(image from Commercial Transportation Insurance)
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,246
36,564
Los Angeles Area
✟829,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Prominent researchers who are evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould...

Are evolutionists. The internal squabbles in biology do not bring evolution into doubt.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,246
36,564
Los Angeles Area
✟829,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils

thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil".

It can be if you know what a transitional fossil is.

My family came from Germany by way of Pennsylvania. I still have relatives in Pennsylvania, even though I am not descended from them. Some of these transitional forms appeared after I did.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
43
tel aviv
✟111,555.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for your opinion on the theory of evolution.
variations among creatures is a fact (variations of dogs for instance). but the claim that a dog can evolve into something different (say a cat) isnt a fact but a theory.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: crossnote
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
43
tel aviv
✟111,555.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
It can be if you know what a transitional fossil is.

My family came from Germany by way of Pennsylvania. I still have relatives in Pennsylvania, even though I am not descended from them. Some of these transitional forms appeared after I did.
a transitional fossil should also fit with the time. in this case it doesnt since the first tetrapod predate all of this fish group.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,288
6,458
29
Wales
✟350,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil". more than that: we can also find transitional form between designed objects. but of course that it doesnt prove they evolved from each other, even if they were able to reproduce:

commercial-vehicles.jpg

(image from Commercial Transportation Insurance)

WRONG!
Seriously, you need so stop trying to make this argument work. IT NEVER WILL.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
variations among creatures is a fact (variations of dogs for instance). but the claim that a dog can evolve into something different (say a cat) isnt a fact but a theory.

A dog giving birth to a cat would be a blatant violation of the ToE.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
variations among creatures is a fact (variations of dogs for instance). but the claim that a dog can evolve into something different (say a cat) isnt a fact but a theory.
The descendants of a dog might evolve into cat-like creatures but could never evolve into cats.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
a transitional fossil should also fit with the time.

It appears you are still incorrectly conceptualizing evolution as a linear ladder. That's not how it works though. Evolution forms branching patterns of different biological forms over time. It's possible for a new biological form to 'branch' off of an existing population, and evolve independent of it, while the original ancestral population continues to exist.

In the same manner, it's possible for your family tree to have cousins, aunts, uncles, etc, all existing at the same time as you, your parents, and your grandparents.

Hence, why it's possible for transitional forms to exist as contemporaries as the biological forms they branched off from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
variations among creatures is a fact (variations of dogs for instance). but the claim that a dog can evolve into something different (say a cat) isnt a fact but a theory.

Except that evolution doesn't say that one extant species like a dog would evolve into another extant species like a cat. Rather, evolution says they share common ancestry.

When you use examples like this all you are doing is waving around a giant neon sign that says "I don't understand anything about evolution!" Instead of trying to keep arguing this, you should do yourself a favor and take some time to learn about biology.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
43
tel aviv
✟111,555.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
It appears you are still incorrectly conceptualizing evolution as a linear ladder. That's not how it works though. Evolution forms branching patterns of different biological forms over time. It's possible for a new biological form to 'branch' off of an existing population, and evolve independent of it, while the original ancestral population continues to exist.

In the same manner, it's possible for your family tree to have cousins, aunts, uncles, etc, all existing at the same time as you, your parents, and your grandparents.

Hence, why it's possible for transitional forms to exist as contemporaries as the biological forms they branched off from.
in this case we are talking about the first appearance. so its like saying that human evolved from a monkey even if the first monkey appearing after the first human.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
43
tel aviv
✟111,555.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Except that evolution doesn't say that one extant species like a dog would evolve into another extant species like a cat. Rather, evolution says they share common ancestry.

When you use examples like this all you are doing is waving around a giant neon sign that says "I don't understand anything about evolution!" Instead of trying to keep arguing this, you should do yourself a favor and take some time to learn about biology.
thanks but i know very well about evolution. what i said is true: according to evolution there is no problem that a dog will evolve into a cat or any other creature. i also gave it just as an example, it can be any other creature.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
thanks but i know very well about evolution. what i said is true: according to evolution there is no problem that a dog will evolve into a cat or any other creature. i also gave it just as an example, it can be any other creature.
No, it doesn't work for any other creatures either.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
in this case we are talking about the first appearance. so its like saying that human evolved from a monkey even if the first monkey appearing after the first human.
Yeah, that would be stupid. That's why the theory of evolution doesn't make such a claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,678
51
✟314,959.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil". more than that: we can also find transitional form between designed objects. but of course that it doesnt prove they evolved from each other, even if they were able to reproduce:

commercial-vehicles.jpg

(image from Commercial Transportation Insurance)
Say, aren’t they magical animal cars?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
thanks but i know very well about evolution.

^ This,

what i said is true: according to evolution there is no problem that a dog will evolve into a cat or any other creature.

^ is directly contradicted by this.

If you are trying to claim that evolution says that a dog can evolve into a cat (both being extant species), then that demonstrates you don't understand evolution at all.

This is why you need to stop trying to argue and start trying to learn.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
in this case we are talking about the first appearance. so its like saying that human evolved from a monkey even if the first monkey appearing after the first human.

No, it's more like saying "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

Just because populations branch off from ancestral populations and evolve independently, doesn't mean those ancestral populations automatically die off.

It's why you and your cousins can be alive at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0