Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

Evolution is a fact because changes in the heritable traits of populations over generations have been observed countless times, and that is the definition of biological evolution.

The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's an explanation for evolution; theories explain facts. The theory of evolution is supported by a large number of facts (i.e. repeatedly verified observations).

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will see a self replicating robot you will not conclude design?

If the robot appears to be intentionally manufactured (tool marks, mold lines, non-natural materials, a label that says "made in China," that sort of thing) then yes. Evidence of intentional manufacture is evidence of design.
If the robot does not appear to be intentionally made, then no, I wouldn't be able to tell if it was designed or not. Just being a "robot" is not evidence of design. Just being able to self-replicate is not evidence of design.

And the answer will be the same the next time you ask. Similarity in form or function to a designed object is not evidence of design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if you will see a self replicating robot you will not conclude design?

You need to learn what evidence is. If you understood the concept there would be no need to ask.

 

[Kylie]

who said it is evidence against evolution? it was evidence against your claim that different codons for the same amino acid have no meaning.

If it is not being presented as evidence against evolution, why did you present it as evidence for a designer?

 

[MIDutch]

not if you refer to a common descent.

What, exactly, is your issue with common descent? It is a simple, observed process within the framework of biological evolution and the wider universe as a whole.

 

[xianghua]

Do words in Hebrew have only single meanings then? Are the meanings of words in Hebrew independent of how those words are used?

im not sure what do you mean.

 

[pitabread]

im not sure what do you mean.

Can a word in Hebrew have more than one meaning?

 

[Speedwell]

im not sure what do you mean.

Does the word for "gear" only mean an object of human manufacture with serried projections intended to transmit power?

 

[xianghua]

Can a word in Hebrew have more than one meaning?

i guess so. but i dont think as much as in english.

 

[xianghua]

Does the word for "gear" only mean an object of human manufacture with serried projections intended to transmit power?

if i undertsand your description then its actually a bit complicated. in hebrew gear means also this:

Sidewalk chalk - Wikipedia

and gears actually called "tooth wheels":

גלגל שיניים – ויקיפדיה

i think that some actually use the word gear for actuall gears when they are speaking about a car gear.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

and gears actually called "tooth wheels":

גלגל שיניים – ויקיפדיה

Then we agree that the insect legs you want to call gears in English are not "gears" in Hebrew since they are not wheels? Great, so now you can think about why they are not gears in English in the sense that you want them to be.

i think that some actually use the word gear for actuall gears when they are speaking about a car gear.

There you go. Hebrew speakers use different words where English speakers co-opt a word. You demonstrate nicely how your argument relies 100% on equivocation.

 

[Paul James]

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.

I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.

So say that the fish depicted in the fossil evolved into more complex fish, leading to land animals and then to humans is pure conjecture. There is no actual proof that the fish ever evolved into anything else, and it could have been an earlier form of moray eel, which went extinct long ago, but the same fish family still exists in the form of the moray eel, fresh water eel, and other eel types. We don't even know whether it was actually green! That's just from the imagination of the artist.

I could buy a new home, and discover buried in the garden a collection of bones, have them examined and find dog and cat bones, and then speculate that it is the discovery of an unknown species of dog/cat, piece the bones together to make a composite dog/cat skeleton and get an artist to draw his impression of what the animal looked like, and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?

 

[Speedwell]

I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.

So say that the fish depicted in the fossil evolved into more complex fish, leading to land animals and then to humans is pure conjecture. There is no actual proof that the fish ever evolved into anything else, and it could have been an earlier form of moray eel, which went extinct long ago, but the same fish family still exists in the form of the moray eel, fresh water eel, and other eel types. We don't even know whether it was actually green! That's just from the imagination of the artist.

I could buy a new home, and discover buried in the garden a collection of bones, have them examined and find dog and cat bones, and then speculate that it is the discovery of an unknown species of dog/cat, piece the bones together to make a composite dog/cat skeleton and get an artist to draw his impression of what the animal looked like, and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?

No, but it might make the front page of the National Enquirer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.

So say that the fish depicted in the fossil evolved into more complex fish, leading to land animals and then to humans is pure conjecture. There is no actual proof that the fish ever evolved into anything else, and it could have been an earlier form of moray eel, which went extinct long ago, but the same fish family still exists in the form of the moray eel, fresh water eel, and other eel types. We don't even know whether it was actually green! That's just from the imagination of the artist.

I could buy a new home, and discover buried in the garden a collection of bones, have them examined and find dog and cat bones, and then speculate that it is the discovery of an unknown species of dog/cat, piece the bones together to make a composite dog/cat skeleton and get an artist to draw his impression of what the animal looked like, and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?

Bolding mine. When you make obviously false claims as you did above you put yourself in a deep hole. If you claim that something is conjecture you take on a burden of proof. If you cannot support your claim you just broke the Ninth Commandment again.

Now if you did not understand it is perfectly okay to admit that. But to make a claim that you cannot back up is not the way that a Christian should act.

You did not understand the significance of the find. This is a very small "gap" in evolution that was being filled. You remember "gaps" creationists complain about them all of the time. The changes are small because this is a small "gap".

Once again you demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Why do you refuse to take me up on my offer?

 

[Paul James]

No, but it might make the front page of the National Enquirer.

True! Headline: This Is Your True Ancestor And There Is Nothing Fishy About This Story!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

True! Headline: This Is Your True Ancestor And There Is Nothing Fishy About This Story!"

Well not necessarily an ancestor. But at least close to your family line of descent. Perhaps a great to the umpteenth uncle.

 

[HitchSlap]

True! Headline: This Is Your True Ancestor And There Is Nothing Fishy About This Story!"

Speaking of fish, it’s why humans get hiccups.

 

[Paul James]

Speaking of fish, it’s why humans get hiccups.

Do you know that there are liars, damnable liars, and fishermen describing the size of the one that got away?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you know that there are liars, damnable liars, and fishermen describing the size of the one that got away?

Yep. We call them “televangelists.”

 

[Paul James]

Yep. We call them “televangelists.”

I guess you do.