Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[Split Rock]

Another reason why it's silly to believe evolution. If a fish didn't even develop something that would help it to breath out water, then it would basically die in only a few short moments out of the water, at most, maybe a minute.

Please read the link I provided earlier. The tranistional species such as Acanthostega, already had lungs (and weak legs) while still living in the water. It is likely that this originally gave them an advantage in shallow brackish water. It was only after plants began to transform the land in the late Silurian and Devonian periods that such animals were able to take further advantage of such features (lungs and legs) to use them to adapt to terrestrial life. This did not occur in a vacuum. We also know from the fossil record that the land was being transformed by the evolution and adaptive radiation of vascular plants.

from: http://www.devoniantimes.org/opportunity/opportunity.html

The diversification and expansion of trachaeophytes from the Late Silurian through the Devonian transformed the landscape. Vegetation at the beginning of this interval consisted of low-lying plants restricted to a narrow zone along the ocean's edge. By the Late Devonian, trachaeophytes expanded inland to form extensive marshes and extended upstream to form floodplain forests dominated by large trees. Plants may even have colonized drier habitats much farther from the water's edge. Terrestrial plant production had increased to the point that now coal was being formed and natural fires could be substained.

The ramifications of vegetational expansion were dramatic. These plants transformed the biosphere by transforming the terrestrial environment and linking it more closely with the aquatic realm. The first forests created a totally new biome. Terrestrial invertebrates responded to floral changes. Soil formation was accelerated and aquatic habitats became more diverse and stable. Freshwater and estuarine life became more diverse and productive. The effects of these plants are also implicated in global carbon cycling and the Devonian mass extinction.

These changes also set the stage for the evolution of tetrapods and their colonization of the land.

So often I think Creationists get too involved in the small picture, trying to find weaknesses in particular ascpects of evolution, that they ignore the big picture that shows how evolution makes sense of the entire fossil record.

 

[Pure_in_Heart]

Wonderful job! shinbits.

 

[shinbits]

many pools would have food in them. you're the one relying on the assumption that no pools have food.

Did u read my post? I didn't assume that it wouldn't have food, but explored that possibility.

you are assuming that it would only be able to find a very small pool.

As the water starts to dry up in a river, the fish receed to places where there is still a lot of water. If there is a hole deep and wide enough to hold a lot of water, the fish would retreat there well before they would get stranded. So that's why you can't say, "Maybe it would find a big pool."

And that being the case, that's another hazard the fish would have to face: if it's in a groove deep and wide enough to be considered a big pool, then when the water there dries up, it is doomed, since it can't jump.

Which makes evolution even more improbable, if that's an example for it.

you're the one making all the assumptions now, and really bad ones too. like instant death

First of all, I never said instant death.
Second, tell me, how long would an animal that has no way to breath air last out of water?

 

[shinbits]

Wonderful job! shinbits.

Thanx!

 

[Split Rock]

first of all, you're assuming that evolution is a fact, and therefor transtional forms actually exist. You have to be careful of that. But let's look at the quote:

Evolution hepls us make sense of what we find in the fossil record, not the other way around. Remember, Darwin's arguments in Origins did not center on transitionals in the fossil record as proof of evolution.

The term "ill suited" is a subjective comment here. If we look at the skeleton of a seal, it can apear to be ill-suited for life on land and be mistaken for a transitional form. But we know that seals can actually be quite fast on land. Looking at it from the creation standpoint, that woudn't be the seals main purpose anyway; it's mainly a land animal.

The same thought can easily be applied to this creature that was discovered.

This is a ridiculous statement. Seals spend most of their life in the water (at least most of their productive time). They are indeed ill-suited for terrestrial life! In any case, since seals actually have wrists (because their ancestors had wrists) they are probably better adapted to terrestrial life than Acanthostega was.

Again, from a creation stand point, those digits are to help it move better on land. Since we have many examples of sea creatures that spend some time on land, this is a perfectly sound conclusion.

Then why is it that modern terrestrial animals have only 5 digits?

The thought that transitionals did occur is pure speculation. The trans forms to support it are extremely rare if any even exist for this creature.

LOL! Here we go.. find a transitional and now you have two new "missing links" that evolutionists can't find! The link I provided for you shows 14 known tetrapods from the Devonian Period. Guess how many are well adapted to life on land? None! How do you explain that?

 

[Pure_in_Heart]

oh look, someone who isn't paying attention and doing nothing more than skimming headlines.

do some reading and then come back. if all you have to offer is tripe like this, then just don't bother ok?

I have carefully read several links you guys offered, and found nothing to exactly confirm that fossil to be a fish.

 

[Jet Black]

Did u read my post? I didn't assume that it wouldn't have food, but explored that possibility.

for your post to be relevant, there would have to be no pools with food in them.

As the water starts to dry up in a river, the fish receed to places where there is still a lot of water.

empirically false.

If there is a hole deep and wide enough to hold a lot of water, the fish would retreat there well before they would get stranded. So that's why you can't say, "Maybe it would find a big pool."

again, empirically false. fish often get stranded in small pools.

And that being the case, that's another hazard the fish would have to face: if it's in a groove deep and wide enough to be considered a big pool, then when the water there dries up, it is doomed, since it can't jump.

so? you are now relying on... let me see....

pools with no food in them, no pools big enough to keep some water in them, no small pools in proximity to large bodies of water, fish that can only survive for fractions of a second in air, fish that lie down and die without moving when exposed to air....

First of all, I never said instant death.

well all right, I'm exaggerating, but you have been saying that they can only move inches.

Second, tell me, how long would an animal that has no way to breath air last out of water?

most fish can survive for a few minutes out of water. They can actually breathe out of water, just not at the rate that they require oxygen.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

First of all, I never said instant death.
Second, tell me, how long would an animal that has no way to breath air last out of water?

I don't know xactly but when I was an undergrad one of my housemates had a siamese walking catfish. It got out of his aquarium on the second floor and down the stairs to the first before we found it. I don't know how long it was out of water but it had to be at least an hour and it was fine when we returned it to the aquarium.

 

[Jet Black]

I have carefully read several links you guys offered, and found nothing to exactly confirm that fossil to be a fish.

diagnostic expert are you? would the scales, gills, fins and so on give you a clue? I mean, I suppose with gills you might like to argue that it is an octopus or a mosquito larva or something, but that would just be creepy and weird.

 

[shinbits]

for your post to be relevant, there would have to be no pools with food in them.

If you look at everything I've been posting, such as issues with predators, limited food sources in pools and other issues, then NO. It doesn't need no pools to be relevant.

empirically false.

Tell me: Why wouldn't a fish go into a deep grove wide enough to last for a while? Why not? That's the only logical decision a fish that can't last long out of water would make.

Do you believe a fish would purposely go to where there is less water, especially in light of the fact that water's drying up?

again, empirically false. fish often get stranded in small pools.

You're not reading simple words like "if". I said IF there were a large whole deep enough to last in, the fish would go there. But If there is no large hole to go to, then the fish would be forced to go to a small pool---and that's IF it can even find one.

Please read my posts correctly.

so? you are now relying on... let me see....

pools with no food in them, no pools big enough to keep some water in them, no small pools in proximity to large bodies of water, fish that can only survive for fractions of a second in air, fish that lie down and die without moving when exposed to air....

Now you're putting words in my mouth. First of all, I NEVER said a fraction of a second. Yes, you admitted you were exagerating, but you're still putting words in my mouth.
But about the rest you've mentioned......I'm not relying on them.....rather, you're assuming---again---that very natural and comnon hazards wouldn't much of a factor. That's not an intelligent thing to do.

well all right, I'm exaggerating, but you have been saying that they can only move inches.

well, they can't move far.

most fish can survive for a few minutes out of water. They can actually breathe out of water, just not at the rate that they require oxygen.

I know. Mentioned these facts more then once while making my posts. But factors like predators, or simply dying from lack of oxygen before anything lucky happens, in addition to other factors I've mentioned make that fact very weak as evidence that they may survive.

 

[shinbits]

I don't know xactly but when I was an undergrad one of my housemates had a siamese walking catfish. It got out of his aquarium on the second floor and down the stairs to the first before we found it. I don't know how long it was out of water but it had to be at least an hour and it was fine when we returned it to the aquarium.

That's a cool animal.

But in what you've quoted me asking, I asked how long would an animal that has no way of breathing air last (which I got no answer to.) A siamese walking catfish at least has gills, and aparently they work very well. Not so, however, with creatures who are not supposed to have yet evolved a way to even breath air.

 

[Pure_in_Heart]

diagnostic expert are you? would the scales, gills, fins and so on give you a clue? I mean, I suppose with gills you might like to argue that it is an octopus or a mosquito larva or something, but that would just be creepy and weird.

The fossils are just some fragmentary skeletons, where are the scales, gills, and fins?

 

[shinbits]

Please read the link I provided earlier. The tranistional species such as Acanthostega, already had lungs (and weak legs) while still living in the water.

If you look at it from a creation standpoint, remember the example of a seal, which isn't that well suited for land. A seal wasn't created specially for land, but for water.

This creature may have lungs, but from the creation standpoint, it wasn't created to stay long on land. But it has lungs and legs to at least spend some productive amount of time on land.

God is a wonderful designer.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's a cool animal.

But in what you've quoted me asking, I asked how long would an animal that has no way of breathing air last (which I got no answer to.) A siamese walking catfish at least has gills, and aparently they work very well. Not so, however, with creatures who are not supposed to have yet evolved a way to even breath air.

What are you talking about? You seem to be attacking a strawman here.

 

[Jet Black]

The fossils are just some fragmentary skeletons, where are the scales, gills, and fins?

go and do some reading before posting falsehoods.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I have carefully read several links you guys offered, and found nothing to exactly confirm that fossil to be a fish.

Comments like this puzzle me. Every time a fossil discovery is posted, invariably a creationist will offer their own opinion of what it is or isn't supposed to be. Never mind that these opinions are coming from people with no relevant training in the field of paleontology and based on an article on the internet. But hey, that's all one needs to be an expert in paleontology right?

 

[Grizzly]

If you look at it from a creation standpoint, remember the example of a seal, which isn't that well suited for land. A seal wasn't created specially for land, but for water.

This creature may have lungs, but from the creation standpoint, it wasn't created to stay long on land. But it has lungs and legs to at least spend some productive amount of time on land.

God is a wonderful designer.

How about dolphins? The poor guys live their entire lives in the water. Wouldn't gills have done better? They are slaves to air, but live in water.

Is that an intelligent design?

 

[Jet Black]

If you look at everything I've been posting, such as issues with predators,

what predators?

limited food sources in pools and other issues, then NO. It doesn't need no pools to be relevant.

que?

Tell me: Why wouldn't a fish go into a deep grove wide enough to last for a while? Why not? That's the only logical decision a fish that can't last long out of water would make.

because sometimes they don't find them. I tell you what, next time I am on the beach or near a small pool with a fish in it, I'll ask it for you. The fact of the matter is, that we do find fish in small pools.

Do you believe a fish would purposely go to where there is less water, especially in light of the fact that water's drying up?

Well sometimes they do end up in small pools.

But about the rest you've mentioned......I'm not relying on them.....rather, you're assuming---again---that very natural and comnon hazards wouldn't much of a factor. That's not an intelligent thing to do.

The point is, that those natural and common factors would be pretty uniform for any fish that landed in this situation, and we are talking about a statistical effect here.

well, they can't move far.

they can move several feet. that's enough to get from one pool to another.

I know. Mentioned these facts more then once while making my posts. But factors like predators,

what predators?

or simply dying from lack of oxygen before anything lucky happens,

well that will happen alot. I've never said it wouldn't.

in addition to other factors I've mentioned make that fact very weak as evidence that they may survive.

but they do for crying out loud. we do see this happening.

 

[Pure_in_Heart]

go and do some reading before posting falsehoods.

So, you cannot quote some helpful stuffs to support your argument, can you?

 

[Split Rock]

The fossils are just some fragmentary skeletons, where are the scales, gills, and fins?

While some tetrapod finds are fragmentary, many are not. For example, Acanthostega is well represented in the fossil record. Please see the following link:

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

You can also click on the links at the bottom of the page for more details. Also, you can check out other tetrapod fossils from the Devonian at the left of the page.

Please stop assuming that paleontologists are incompetent, evolution-indoctrinated ignoramuses that spend their time trying to prove evolution by turning "a few fossil fragments" into imaginary transitional species.

*note added* Many of the links on the bottom of that page are broken.. my apologies for not checking them out first. This link is good and shows the actual fossils of Acanthostega: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanth...rial_Vertebrates&dynnodeid=12088&javaOff=true