Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Speedwell]

View attachment 273778

I wonder what difference it makes to the creatures at the tips of the branches whether the branches are all joined in a single trunk or not.

 

[Kylie]

I wonder what difference it makes to the creatures at the tips of the branches whether the branches are all joined in a single trunk or not.

When a creature at the top of one branch has inherited something from the common ancestor it shares with the creature at the top of another branch, I'd say it makes a big difference.

 

[Speedwell]

When a creature at the top of one branch has inherited something from the common ancestor it shares with the creature at the top of another branch, I'd say it makes a big difference.

Well, yes. Evolutionary biologists are convinced that the same kind of evidence we use to identify splittings above the top of the "fence" exists for splittings which occur below it. But the placement of that fence line by creationists is entirely arbitrary and there is no empirical evidence that it exists at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What have I said that implied that I don't understand the concept of evidence?
How To Argue On The Internet: A Step-By-Step Guide
The linked satire article above is heavily exaggerated and not meant to attack you, but it has a point. If you want to convince someone of your position, comparing them to an ignorant flat earther doesn't generally do so.
Anyway, observed changes in the fossil record aren't evidence for evolution alone because change over time is part of the Biblical model. The Bible teaches fixity of 'kinds' however we cannot equate that with species. The diagram below is helpful.

View attachment 273778

I am sorry, but there really is not that much difference between you and a flat Earther. It is rather ironic that you call them ignorant.

And please, I do not just point out the unpleasant truth. I offer a solution. Why are you scared to death to discuss the nature of evidence? According to Rule Number One you are in no position to demand or even ask for evidence. And this is not an argument. This is a discussion with the hopes that you will see why you are in error. But until you understand the basics of science you will never let yourself learn.

So, are you ready to discuss the nature of evidence yet?

Let's get back to the OP. Is the fossil find scientific evidence for the theory of evolution or not?

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Alas, this idea does not fit what we see in reality. Let me show you something...

View attachment 273779

See the green part on the left? There are two branch tips in that group. We can look at the different species represented by each branch tip and compare them, and we see clear evidence that they shared a common ancestor. And that common ancestor is represented here by the point where the branch actually splits.

And we'd find similar results if we compare the two blue branch tips, or the two purple ones, or the two orange ones.

But the problem is that if we compare the green branch tips to the blue branch tips, we find that they also share indications of a shared common ancestor. However, there is no point at which this ancestor could have lived. This idea is utterly incapable of explaining how there could be any evidence between species from two different colours. According to this idea, such connections can not possibly exist, yet the clear evidence from reality says there must be a connection.

So either this idea is wrong, or reality is wrong.

And I doubt reality is wrong.

This argument doesn't work unless you can show that there is no reason for common structures in organisms to exist apart from a common ancestor. It would make sense for God to design creatures with similar structures because if all animals were very different then that would point to polytheism.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I am sorry, but there really is not that much difference between you and a flat Earther. It is rather ironic that you call them ignorant.

And please, I do not just point out the unpleasant truth. I offer a solution. Why are you scared to death to discuss the nature of evidence? According to Rule Number One you are in no position to demand or even ask for evidence. And this is not an argument. This is a discussion with the hopes that you will see why you are in error. But until you understand the basics of science you will never let yourself learn.

So, are you ready to discuss the nature of evidence yet?

Let's get back to the OP. Is the fossil find scientific evidence for the theory of evolution or not?

Please answer my question. How have any of my previous posts implied that I don't understand the concept of evidence.
Rule number 1 of what?
And I already answered you question. Before you referred to change in the fossil record, now it's become 'the fossil find'. Change over time (recorded in the fossil record) is part of the creationist model, so not evidence for evolution.
In a previous post you asked me to support my argument with reasons. Well, you haven't provided any reasons for any of your arguments at all.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I wonder what difference it makes to the creatures at the tips of the branches whether the branches are all joined in a single trunk or not.

The point is that natural selection and speciation shouldn't surprise serious creationists

 

[Qwertyui0p]

@Qwertyui0p you asked earlier for definitions of species and speciation, evolution, and natural selection. I've provided them, in post 351. Did you have some purpose in mind in asking for those definitions? If so, what was it?

I was specifically asking Subduction Zone (I was quoting him/her in the post)

 

[Jimmy D]

The Bible teaches fixity of 'kinds' however we cannot equate that with species.

A moot point, but it doesn’t actually teach the “fixity of kinds” does it?

 

[Qwertyui0p]

A moot point, but it doesn’t actually teach the “fixity of kinds” does it?

Genesis 1:11, 1:21 and 1:25

 

[Jimmy D]

Genesis 1:11, 1:21 and 1:25

Where does it mention that they’re “fixed”? Those passages are compatible with evolution.

Not that I think that an ancient poem has any relevance to a modern understanding of biology of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This argument doesn't work unless you can show that there is no reason for common structures in organisms to exist apart from a common ancestor. It would make sense for God to design creatures with similar structures because if all animals were very different then that would point to polytheism.

No, this is a shifting of the burden of truth. She was showing how the evidence supports her claims. That means that you need to find evidence for your claims. And "It would make sense" is not a valid argument. I could say "It would make sense that an all knowing all powerful God would have no need to reuse structures. Creating similar structures points to a very limited God. ".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please answer my question. How have any of my previous posts implied that I don't understand the concept of evidence.
Rule number 1 of what?
And I already answered you question. Before you referred to change in the fossil record, now it's become 'the fossil find'. Change over time (recorded in the fossil record) is part of the creationist model, so not evidence for evolution.
In a previous post you asked me to support my argument with reasons. Well, you haven't provided any reasons for any of your arguments at all.

Almost all of them. That is why I offered to discuss the concept with you.

And no, there is no "creationist model". That is one of its problems. Remember the scientific method? To be able to claim that one has a model the model has to be testable based upon its own merits. What reasonable test could possibly refute creationism? If you cannot answer that reasonable question you do not have a model. You only have an ad hoc explanation. And by definition there is no evidence for that concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was specifically asking Subduction Zone (I was quoting him/her in the post)

And others answered that question and I added to those answers. Why did you ignore those answers?

 

[Tom 1]

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.

This may explain James Weldon Johnson’s cryptic comment ‘ask Jonah’ when quizzed on why dem bones in Ezekiel’s valley didn’t have no hand, finger nor arm bones.

 

[kiwimac]

God created everything. God created man in His image.

We didnt evolve from apes!

Evolution does not claim that we did. It notes that modern Great Apes and Humans have a common ancestor as we do.

 

[Ophiolite]

Evolution does not claim that we did. It notes that modern Great Apes and Humans have a common ancestor as we do.

A small technical correction: we are apes. A fact I celebrate in the text on the left, below my avatar: Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

 

[Tom 1]

A small technical correction: we are apes. A fact I celebrate in the text on the left, below my avatar: Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

A reprocape? One up on reprobate I suppose.

 

[Speedwell]

This argument doesn't work unless you can show that there is no reason for common structures in organisms to exist apart from a common ancestor. It would make sense for God to design creatures with similar structures because if all animals were very different then that would point to polytheism.

Maybe He did just that using the evolutionary process. That God uses evolution to produce splits in those evolutionary branches is something we agree on. The question is, did that branching start with one origin point or with several? Either scenario accounts for the similarities, and ether scenario is consistent with divine providence. How shall we tell which is true?

 

[Lost4words]

Evolution does not claim that we did. It notes that modern Great Apes and Humans have a common ancestor as we do.

Common DNA.

God is our creator. We were made in HIS image and likeness.