Fish "missing link" found

[juvenissun]

Your question actually makes little sense. The trait did not evolve for any purpose. If a new trait that arrives via mutation or assortive mating is adaptive, then it will increase in a population until it becomes the norm.

But it did not.

 

[Smidlee]

Just a drive-by observation, not to imply my endorsement or non-endorsement of biological evolution, but this made me beg a question (to follow):



Wouldn't it more likely be a defect in the DNA that resulted in a signal for the eye to stop prematurely? Alternatively, wouldn't it be more likely that the signal for the eye to move never properly fired, but as the fish grew, the left eye wasn't 'anchored' and simply ended up where it did?

Someone forget to put their evolutionary glasses on. You mean like a person with both sexes or a person with a blue eye and a brown eye?

Of course we already been down this same road with looking for "little-head" people. Evolutionist found "little heads" but they were buried to close to modern humans. Obviously "little heads" doesn't not necessary mean transitional fossil.

P.S These flatfish lived with modern flatfish.

Fossils from excavations in northern Italy and Paris revealed that the intermediate specimens once lived together with flatfishes having both eyes on one side of the skull, he said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish_2.html

It's possible that the more modern forms eventually outcompeted the intermediate versions, Friedman added.

OR it's possible it's another case like the blind cave fish.

 

[CabVet]

If so, on what basis we can call it a "link"? Purely geometrical reason?

In fact, one major problem to me is why is "link" so rare? It is supposedly MORE survivable than the original fish and should have higher population.

It is a "link" because it is intermediate (or not optimal) between two optimal (eyes on just one side, or eyes on both sides of head) morphologies. This "link" is rare because it was short-lived in the geological time scale, non-optimal morphologies tend to be like that.

 

[juvenissun]

It is a "link" because it is intermediate (or not optimal) between two optimal (eyes on just one side, or eyes on both sides of head) morphologies. This "link" is rare because it was short-lived in the geological time scale, non-optimal morphologies tend to be like that.

If you call this one non-optimal, than what do you call the original fish? Defective?

 

[CabVet]

If you call this one non-optimal, than what do you call the original fish? Defective?

What original fish? What are you talking about? It is non-optimal in relation to the fish/environment interaction and to the other two phenotypes.

 

[juvenissun]

What original fish? What are you talking about? It is non-optimal in relation to the fish/environment interaction and to the other two phenotypes.

That means the fish before the fish with the top eye.

Ouch, I forgot. In order to change the position of the eye, the shape of the skull also has to be changed. Right? That is a big surgery. If so, why would the original fish have any environmental pressure to change it? It does not make sense.

So the argument was: the fish wanted to lay on the floor, so it switched the position of one eye.

Why not this: the fish has both eyes on one side, SO it laid on the floor.

You seems has the cause/consequence reversed.

 

[Split Rock]

That means the fish before the fish with the top eye.

Ouch, I forgot. In order to change the position of the eye, the shape of the skull also has to be changed. Right? That is a big surgery. If so, why would the original fish have any environmental pressure to change it? It does not make sense.

So the argument was: the fish wanted to lie on the floor, so it switched the position of one eye.

Why not this: the fish has both eyes on one side, SO it lied on the floor.

You seems has the cause/consequence reversed.

Are you claiming that several entire species of fish suddenly developed eyes on one side and therefore decided to lay on the seafloor?

 

[rush1169]

(AP Newswire): This just in. New transitional hominid fossil discovered. Researchers have unearthed a new species of hominid from an area of northern Zimbabwe. The creature features many similar features to modern humans, but features significant differences in the lower extremities. While modern humans exhibit 5 toes on a slender foot, this creature features only 2 large opposed toes on a rather wide foot. It is believed this creature marks the divergent point well back on the evolutionary tree at the approximate point at which the modern ostrich ultimately diverged. It's unusual foot design is believed to have evolved to allow the creature unique tree climbing skills as many hominds at the time were largely losing those skills. Science has named this creature Homo Sapien Ostrichica.

Well, I suppose it could'a happened that way

 

[juvenissun]

Are you claiming that several entire species of fish suddenly developed eyes on one side and therefore decided to lay on the seafloor?

I meant the one with two eyes on one side now. I don't know how many species are they.

Yes, I think one eye on one side and another eye on the top is also a very functional eye positions (even better than both eyes on the same side). Perhaps that strange fish should also flourish in population.

 

[Split Rock]

(AP Newswire): This just in. New transitional hominid fossil discovered. Researchers have unearthed a new species of hominid from an area of northern Zimbabwe. The creature features many similar features to modern humans, but features significant differences in the lower extremities. While modern humans exhibit 5 toes on a slender foot, this creature features only 2 large opposed toes on a rather wide foot. It is believed this creature marks the divergent point well back on the evolutionary tree at the approximate point at which the modern ostrich ultimately diverged. It's unusual foot design is believed to have evolved to allow the creature unique tree climbing skills as many hominds at the time were largely losing those skills. Science has named this creature Homo Sapien Ostrichica.

Well, I suppose it could'a happened that way

If you ignore the fact that humans and birds are not closely related. You guys always think theories develop in isolation, don't you?

 

[rush1169]

If you ignore the fact that humans and birds are not closely related. You guys always think theories develop in isolation, don't you?

Sorry Split Rock, I should have ended my post by letting everyone know I was just being playful. I made up that story in hopes to make at least someone smile a little bit - it wasn't meant to be scientific or anything, just fun.

 

[pgp_protector]

(AP Newswire): This just in. New transitional hominid fossil discovered. Researchers have unearthed a new species of hominid from an area of northern Zimbabwe. The creature features many similar features to modern humans, but features significant differences in the lower extremities. While modern humans exhibit 5 toes on a slender foot, this creature features only 2 large opposed toes on a rather wide foot. It is believed this creature marks the divergent point well back on the evolutionary tree at the approximate point at which the modern ostrich ultimately diverged. It's unusual foot design is believed to have evolved to allow the creature unique tree climbing skills as many hominds at the time were largely losing those skills. Science has named this creature Homo Sapien Ostrichica.

Well, I suppose it could'a happened that way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectrodactyly