Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[dad]

We are talking about science, not politics. Offer evidences, or shut up.

I must be missing something. I can't see how very fast adapting in the past is a problem? Either God made this thing the way it was, or it adapted to the changing new planet as it was supposed to.
How could this in any way negate the creation of man, and sea creatures, and animals, etc, and Eden?

The ability to evolve and adapt in creations can't be a bad thing? We know God made sea creatures, and birds, and animals, this doesn't affect that in any way, save by assumptions on some unproven common ancestor nonsense?

 

[Split Rock]

The ability to evolve and adapt in creations can't be a bad thing? We know God made sea creatures, and birds, and animals, this doesn't affect that in any way, save by assumptions on some unproven common ancestor nonsense?

Except this fossil is exactly the kind of transitional "some unproven common ancestor nonsense" predicts we would find.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Except this fossil is exactly the kind of transitional "some unproven common ancestor nonsense" predicts we would find.

Yeah, but you know that the creationist version of what they expect from evolution and the evolutionary biologist version are two different things.

 

[dad]

Except this fossil is exactly the kind of transitional "some unproven common ancestor nonsense" predicts we would find.

But the nonsense neglects a few imporatant things, rendering it useless.

1) That a full spectrum of life was created originally, without the gaps we now see. Finding some fossils of part of the spectrum gone exinct is no big issue at all. For it to apply to old age evolution, one thing is missing. Not showing that things once filled the gaps, but showing what in heaven's name this has to do with Granny. See, if the thing was created, it matters not if it was bihabitat or cross habitat - or mid habitat.. That doesn't mean there wasn't still an ocean full of sea creatures, and land mammals as well!

2) Assuming that if it did evolve, or adapt from, say a sea creature, that this was not a normal function of God's creation, adapting to the changing planet. (Now, it is not normal, save in the observed slow adapting, and 'evolving' -but that's another issue)


So, as I say, I can't quite get the signifigance here, so what? Creation predicts a fuller spectrum of creatures as well.

 

[Split Rock]

1) That a full spectrum of life was created originally, without the gaps we now see. Finding some fossils of part of the spectrum gone exinct is no big issue at all. For it to apply to old age evolution, one thing is missing. Not showing that things once filled the gaps, but showing what in heaven's name this has to do with Granny. See, if the thing was created, it matters not if it was bihabitat or cross habitat - or mid habitat.. That doesn't mean there wasn't still an ocean full of sea creatures, and land mammals as well!

I don't know what it has to do with "Granny" since this is some weird term you invented as part of "Dadology."

2) Assuming that if it did evolve, or adapt from, say a sea creature, that this was not a normal function of God's creation, adapting to the changing planet. (Now, it is not normal, save in the observed slow adapting, and 'evolving' -but that's another issue)

I agree with the first part, that evolution from fishes to tetrapods that could inhabit the land may well have been a "normal part of God's creation." This "hyper-evolution" stuff you are eluding to is pure ad-hoc speculation on your part, however. Unless you give us a mechanism, or some physical evidence that evolution worked faster in the past, that is where the idea will have to stand with the rest of us.

So, as I say, I can't quite get the signifigance here, so what? Creation predicts a fuller spectrum of creatures as well.

The significance is that this organism had features in common with both lobe-finned fish and tetrapods (amphibians). It also occurs in strata preceeding well-developed amphibians and coming after the first lobe-finned fish. In addition, the other 14 or so known tetrapods from the Devonian Period are similarly not fully adapted to terrestrial life. Where are the frogs, turtles and snakes? Where are the salamanders? They didn't exist yet. This all supports evolutionary theory.

 

[Dr.GH]

Another important point relevant to the evo/creato issue is that the team of paleontologists went to that hostile location to work becasue the rock had been independently dated by radiometric methods, and the dates were when theory predicted that an aquatic to land transition would have occurred.

This totally refutes the creationist canard that "fossils date the rock, nad the rock dates the fossils."

 

[Pete Harcoff]

This totally refutes the creationist canard that "fossils date the rock, nad the rock dates the fossils."

Yeah, but do you think that will make any difference?

 

[Dr.GH]

Yeah, but do you think that will make any difference?

Only if they had a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

[dad]

I don't know what it has to do with "Granny" ....

It determines whether the supposed first lifeform (granny bacteria) has anything to do with the adapting and evolving, or the creation of God was the starting point! Who cares that some adapting and evolving went on, or the spectrum of created life on earth was greater?

I agree with the first part, that evolution from fishes to tetrapods that could inhabit the land may well have been a "normal part of God's creation."

Great, but how many of these kind of fossil creatures we can hardly figure out whether they are sea or land creatues are there? Not that many, so, who cares? If we could definitively show that these things did adapt or evolve, it doesn't mean the so called first lifeform magically appearing was the reason for it all!

This "hyper-evolution" stuff you are eluding to is pure ad-hoc speculation on your part, however. Unless you give us a mechanism, or some physical evidence that evolution worked faster in the past, that is where the idea will have to stand with the rest of us.

I don't need to hash that out here, any more than you need to hash out proving that the world was precisely the same back then, in genetical happenings. Suffice it to say that some adapting or evolution seems to have gone on, time isn't the issue in this thread. But the connection to a common ancestor, is, and there is no connection in the realm of evidence for that leap of faith.
You need to say more than, 'if things evolved from a common little lifeform, we expect a full spectrum of creatures, some that look like they evolved or adapted from the sea to land'. Just as a creationist has to say more than' if things started adapting or evolving from Eden, and creation, we expect there was a full spectrum of creatures, some that could adapt from sea to land as well'
Either way, such a transitional appearing fossil is not proof of their belief, or evidence that science says a thing about linking this to either creation, or the first lifeform! So, again, --so what?????

The significance is that this organism had features in common with both lobe-finned fish and tetrapods (amphibians).

As above.

It also occurs in strata preceeding well-developed amphibians and coming after the first lobe-finned fish.

So? Either it co existed with these other things, or was an adaptation. Great. So? What does that have to do with Granny Bacteria?

In addition, the other 14 or so known tetrapods from the Devonian Period are similarly not fully adapted to terrestrial life.

The planet there at that time seems condusive to such a creature collection then, perhaps there was a lot of water, and land, and these things really got around well. Maybe some adapting went on. So??

Where are the frogs, turtles and snakes? Where are the salamanders? They didn't exist yet. This all supports evolutionary theory.

They were still neared the sea of Eden, or ponds near Eden, etc. At least, they were not in some areas yet, that we know about. So?? Creation handles that without a sweat. This all supports creation. But it cannot be used as proof of creation, or that we came from the imagined first lifeform!!!! Creationism eats theories like evolution for breakfast.

 

[dad]

Another important point relevant to the evo/creato issue is that the team of paleontologists went to that hostile location to work becasue the rock had been independently dated by radiometric methods, and the dates were when theory predicted that an aquatic to land transition would have occurred.

This totally refutes the creationist canard that "fossils date the rock, nad the rock dates the fossils."

We all know that the decay rates old age time theories agree pretty well with theoretical old age evolution. I think this is evidence that the theories were intelligently designed!! Not by the Intelligent Designer Himself however!

 

[awesome liver]

if the bible said 1+1=3, these are the people who would believe it. it's not giving up, it's just ignoring, now.

 

[gluadys]

To take advantage of ecological niches: to help it evade predators since as yet there were no predators on land, or to nab insects or munch on plants just above the surface, or find a place to lay its eggs away from predators.

Actually since lungs appear very early in fish, any advantage they have for terrestrial habitats is moot as far as why they appeared and selected for. Stephen J. Gould held it is likely that lungs appeared first, and the swim bladders found in ray-finned fish are a modification of the lung. I don't know to what extent others agree with him, but it is a reminder that lungs were not developed in order to breath on land, nor to escape marine predators. They have a long pre-terrestrial history.

 

[gluadys]

Okay. But this is just an assumption being stated as fact.


This is another assumption. Remember, transitional fossils are extremely rare. There is not enough evidence for evolution to even make a good case for it.

It is not an assumption that these two groups of fish exist. It is not an assumption that they existed prior to any vertebrate life on land.

As to why they exist, the most rational explanation is speciation. There is no need to invoke "macro-evolution" because they are both still fish.

 

[RomanSoldier]

We know God made sea creatures, and birds, and animals, this doesn't affect that in any way, save by assumptions on some unproven common ancestor nonsense?

No we don't.

 

[gluadys]

No it isn't. The entire link explains in detail why fossils are rare.

It is quote mining since you don't put in the qualifier.

Fossils are rare in proportion to the number of individual animals, plants, bacteria, etc. that ever lived. Extremely rare.

That doesn't make them scarce.

Despite the fact that the proportion of organisms which fossilized compared to those which did not is probably well under 1%, we still find lots of fossils.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Actually, physics permits a mathematical calculation of whether legs are likely to support the weight of the body. This is a matter of understanding biological engineering, not a subjective comment based on a quick glance.

 

[Split Rock]

It determines whether the supposed first lifeform (granny bacteria) has anything to do with the adapting and evolving, or the creation of God was the starting point! Who cares that some adapting and evolving went on, or the spectrum of created life on earth was greater?

Perhaps you mistakenly posted in the wrong thread. This thread is not about abiogenesis or where the first life came from. It is about the transition from water to land that the tetrapods (us) made during the Devonian Period.

Great, but how many of these kind of fossil creatures we can hardly figure out whether they are sea or land creatues are there? Not that many, so, who cares? If we could definitively show that these things did adapt or evolve, it doesn't mean the so called first lifeform magically appearing was the reason for it all!

Please read the O.P.!

I don't need to hash that out here, any more than you need to hash out proving that the world was precisely the same back then, in genetical happenings. Suffice it to say that some adapting or evolution seems to have gone on, time isn't the issue in this thread. But the connection to a common ancestor, is, and there is no connection in the realm of evidence for that leap of faith.

It is the entire issue of this thread!! If time isn't an issue for you and you agree evolving went on, then what is your problem, dad??

You need to say more than, 'if things evolved from a common little lifeform, we expect a full spectrum of creatures, some that look like they evolved or adapted from the sea to land'. Just as a creationist has to say more than' if things started adapting or evolving from Eden, and creation, we expect there was a full spectrum of creatures, some that could adapt from sea to land as well'

Fine. Can you provide us with an example of evidence that would disprove the creation account? Or will you say no matter what we find, that it proves creationism?

Either way, such a transitional appearing fossil is not proof of their belief, or evidence that science says a thing about linking this to either creation, or the first lifeform! So, again, --so what?????

Again, please read the O.P. If you think the O.P. is not very interesting (because it doesn't discuss "Granny"), then Don't Post Here!

As above.

As Above!

So? Either it co existed with these other things, or was an adaptation. Great. So? What does that have to do with Granny Bacteria?

Nothing At All! Read The O.P.!!!

The planet there at that time seems condusive to such a creature collection then, perhaps there was a lot of water, and land, and these things really got around well. Maybe some adapting went on. So??

Great. Then you agree with the O.P.!

They were still neared the sea of Eden, or ponds near Eden, etc. At least, they were not in some areas yet, that we know about. So?? Creation handles that without a sweat. This all supports creation. But it cannot be used as proof of creation, or that we came from the imagined first lifeform!!!!

Why don't we find turtles, salamanders and frogs? They live in the same type of ecosystem, don't they? Also, we find these animals (and not the others) everywhere in the Devonian record, not just in one location.

Creationism eats theories like evolution for breakfast.

Sorry dad, but your Dadology eats nothing but your own brain cells..

 

[USincognito]

Another important point relevant to the evo/creato issue is that the team of paleontologists went to that hostile location to work becasue the rock had been independently dated by radiometric methods, and the dates were when theory predicted that an aquatic to land transition would have occurred.

This totally refutes the creationist canard that "fossils date the rock, nad the rock dates the fossils."

Quoted and blued for the lurkers since the intransigents won't care.

 

[Vermithrax]

This all supports creation. But it cannot be used as proof of creation, or that we came from the imagined first lifeform!!!! Creationism eats theories like evolution for breakfast.

You're using Creationism as another goddidit, not as an explanation, and certainly not as one with predictive qualities.

 

[Pure_in_Heart]

Here is a great summary of the transitional features of the new find. It is written by Martin Brazeau (Martin B) of Internet Infidel's fame. He and Per Ahlberg are scientists within the field of tetrapod evolution. The site includes pictures of the actual fossils and other great info geared towards the creo vs. evo debate.

I clicked the link repeatedly, but it couldn't be visited. Why?