How the fish got it's fingers

TasManOfGod · Apr 6, 2004

Here is an article which maybe of interest.
here
Does anybody here know about the area of this dig. When I read the aricle I wondered if there might be lots of flood evidence amongst it.

KleinerApfel · Apr 7, 2004

Sorry I can't help with your question on the area of the dig, but I did read the article in the original newspaper.
The article discusses a fish fossil, said to be in the process of growing limbs, so I wonder why they illustrated it with a 4 limbed animal with a tail? Looked rather like a lizzard from what I remember, but unfortunately I threw the paper out and the web version isn't illustrated.
Like all the "missing links", it won't stand up to proper scrutiny, imo.

Chi_Cygni · Apr 7, 2004

The Lord is my banner said:
Like all the "missing links", it won't stand up to proper scrutiny, imo.

Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the fossil record.

artybloke · Apr 7, 2004

The Lord is my banner said:
Like all the "missing links", it won't stand up to proper scrutiny, imo.

It's not exactly the first fish/tetrapod transitional, you know. They've found em in Greenland and Russia as well. Not many because we are talking late-Devonian: a very very long time ago, and most of the surface rock from that time has been subsumed or it's now very very deep.

I wondered if there might be lots of flood evidence amongst it.

Sadly, no. However, that part of Pennsylvania would probably have been underwater during the late-Devonian age. Not very deep though, and it would probably have been more like the Everglades. The fish/tetrapod transitional pictured would probably have been a relative of lobe-finned fish, so it would already be half-way to having legs.

TasManOfGod · Apr 7, 2004

The scientists who have excavated the Pennsylvania site said it contains fossils of other plants and animals that suggest the area was "teeming" with life more than 360 million years ago.

I wondered when I read this why the fish was still trying to grow fingers when some others around it had already apparently been successful. A point that maybe had escaped the "experts"

Chi_Cygni · Apr 7, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
I wondered when I read this why the fish was still trying to grow fingers when some others around it had already apparently been successful. A point that maybe had escaped the "experts"

This makes no sense. You seem to be implying that the individual elements of flora and fauna know of a collective state of evolution. I've never seen that put forward by evolutionary biologists, whom I might add are the "experts".

TasManOfGod · Apr 7, 2004

Chi_Cygni said:
This makes no sense. You seem to be implying that the individual elements of flora and fauna know of a collective state of evolution. I've never seen that put forward by evolutionary biologists, whom I might add are the "experts".

I presume that what you are saying is that at any one time we would see living elements of evolution. Why then don't we see any today ? Can you have it both ways ?

gluadys · Apr 8, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
I presume that what you are saying is that at any one time we would see living elements of evolution. Why then don't we see any today ? Can you have it both ways ?

We do see it today. Evolution is happening all around us---and to us. Every species is a transitional species.

With the impact of climate change reaching a peak in the next century, I expect we will see a lot of extinction, and a lot of new adaptation as well.

rmills · Apr 8, 2004

Humanity as well as various species the TEs love to use as the prime examples of evolution at work all seem to be devolving rather than evolving. Im sure there is an answer to this.

artybloke · Apr 8, 2004

rmills said:
Humanity as well as various species the TEs love to use as the prime examples of evolution at work all seem to be devolving rather than evolving. Im sure there is an answer to this.

Presumably you have some scientifically verifiable source for this you can post?

Anyway, it's the usual strawman. Evolution is not about "progress" in any particular direction, it's about "change": pure and simple. Things change; they don't go backwards or forwards or sideways. Ideas of "progress" are philosophical not scientific.

ThePhoenix · Apr 8, 2004

rmills said:
Humanity as well as various species the TEs love to use as the prime examples of evolution at work all seem to be devolving rather than evolving. Im sure there is an answer to this.

Define devolving? How does something devolve?

TasManOfGod · Apr 8, 2004

ThePhoenix said:
Define devolving? How does something devolve?

Devolve
It means that the fish that once grew fingers grrow out of having them, thereby we can assume that they were once around because they aren't anymore.

I hope that clears that up

ThePhoenix · Apr 8, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
Devolve
It means that the fish that once grew fingers grrow out of having them, thereby we can assume that they were once around because they aren't anymore.

I hope that clears that up

So everytime an organism loses an ability it's a devolution? Great, so if humans lost the ability to get cancer then it would be a devolution? Glad we cleared that up.

TasManOfGod · Apr 8, 2004

ThePhoenix said:
So everytime an organism loses an ability it's a devolution? Great, so if humans lost the ability to get cancer then it would be a devolution? Glad we cleared that up.

No it would be a medical breakthrough. That means that there would be the intervention of intelligence. You are not suggesting there was any intelligence involved in the design of fish are you?

ThePhoenix · Apr 8, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
No it would be a medical breakthrough. That means that there would be the intervention of intelligence. You are not suggesting there was any intelligence involved in the design of fish are you?

Are you deliberately shoving words down my throat, or is this an honest misinterpretation. Edited version of the statement, for those confused by the orginal one:

so if humans, through mutation, lost the ability to get cancer then it would be a devolution? Glad we cleared that up.

TasManOfGod · Apr 9, 2004

Disease control via mutation - what a novel idea. Has there been example of this to your knowledge?

ThePhoenix · Apr 10, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
Disease control via mutation - what a novel idea. Has there been example of this to your knowledge?

Lets say, Sickle cell anemia?

TasManOfGod · Apr 10, 2004

ThePhoenix said:
Lets say, Sickle cell anemia?

If you can find any redeeming features in the following , please let me know

Sickle cell anemia

Definition:Sickle cell anemia is an inherited disease in which the red blood cells, normally disc-shaped, become crescent shaped. As a result, they function abnormally and cause small blood clots. These clots give rise to recurrent painful episodes called "sickle cell pain crises."

Read lots more information here

Of course you my try and convince me that those with sickle cell anemia are immune from malaria but this by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed an example of disease control - more the reverse. It is a ridiculous suggestion This to me is typical of the lies of God's enemys - you trade up - you get a bigger problem when you try to overcome a lesser one when you omit God from the equation

lucaspa · Apr 11, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
Here is an article which maybe of interest.
here
Does anybody here know about the area of this dig. When I read the aricle I wondered if there might be lots of flood evidence amongst it.

The article must be bought, so I didn't buy it.

Here it is in more detail: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/science/06ARM.html

There have been fossil fish with fingers discovered before:http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/1998/012898/FishFingers.html

This, however, is a transitional species further back, the first humerus or upper arm bone.

No, there is no evidence of a Flood. That area of Pennsylvania at the time was an inland sea. There's not evidence of a flood but rather all the fossils indicate a quiet sea where creatures settled into the mud at the bottom when they died (after being eaten by scavengers, of course).

lucaspa · Apr 11, 2004

TasManOfGod said:
If you can find any redeeming features in the following , please let me know:
Sickle cell anemia

Definition:Sickle cell anemia is an inherited disease in which the red blood cells, normally disc-shaped, become crescent shaped. As a result, they function abnormally and cause small blood clots. These clots give rise to recurrent painful episodes called "sickle cell pain crises."

Read lots more information here

Of course you my try and convince me that those with sickle cell anemia are immune from malaria but this by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed an example of disease control - more the reverse. It is a ridiculous suggestion This to me is typical of the lies of God's enemys - you trade up - you get a bigger problem when you try to overcome a lesser one when you omit God from the equation

Douglas Futuyma Evolutionary Biology, pages 384-385.

"If the heterozygote has higher fitness than either homzygote, both alleles are necessarily propagated in successive generations, in which, of course, union of gametes yields all three genotypes among the zygotes. Hterozygote advantage is also termed overdominance or heterosis for fitness. If the fitness of AA, AB, and BB are 1-s, 1, and 1-t respectively, selection wil bring the allele frequences from any initial value to the stable equilibrium
p = t/(s+t, q = s/(s+t) where p and q are the equilibrium frequencies of A and B respectively. The equilibrium frequencies of the allesles and genotypes thus depend on the balance of fitness of the two homozygotes."

"Single locus heterozygote advantage has been documented in a few cases, including WAtt's study of PGI in Colias butterflies. The best known case is is the beta-hemoglobin locus in some African and Mediterranean human populations. One allele at the is locus, sickle-cell hemoglobin (S) ... The relative finesses have been estimated as W(aa) = 0.89, W(as) =1, W(ss) =0.2 [where aa is homozygote normal and as is heterozygote, and ss is homozygote sickle
cell]. The heterozygote advantage therefore arises from a balance of opposing selective factors: anemia and malaria. IN the absence of malaria, balancing selection yields to directional selection, because then the AA genotype has the highest fitness. In the African-American population, the frequency of S is about 0.05 and is declining due to mortality."

Now, this may be over your head. If so, please keep asking until you understand.

How the fish got it's fingers

Untatted Saint

When I awake I am still with You

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Untatted Saint

Well-Known Member

Untatted Saint

Legend

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Untatted Saint

Well-Known Member

Untatted Saint

Well-Known Member

Untatted Saint

Well-Known Member

Untatted Saint

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency