Interesting transitional fossil

[MSBS]

http://www.discover.com/science_news/newsflash/gthere.html?article=news_fish.html

A 350-million-year-old fossil was labeled a fish, until close examination revealed a pelvis and femurs. Most of the pelvis is on the underside of the fossil, but part of it is visible (arrow, far right), a wide arc of bone above the darker-colored rock and below the vertebrae.
Photo by S. M. Finney, University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge.

 

This, IMHO, is indicative of continued discoveries on the fossil record which are filling in all of those "missing links" that people tend to go on about.

 

[lithium.]

thats freaky looking Glad its halloween hehe. But that is really interesting. I will have to look into this some more.

 

[ocean]

I wonder how the creationists will try to explain this.

 

[paulewog]

It barely even looks like a fish to me.

However, knowing how they thought this one apeman was an apeman even though it's teeth were FILED down...

I am skeptical of any finds for merely that reason. There have been lots of PROOF of transitional forms, absolute proof, taught in schools and all, discovered to be false later.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by ocean
I wonder how the creationists will try to explain this.

Originally posted by paulewog
It barely even looks like a fish to me.

 

[lithium.]

Pete lol did you forget something. lol

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by paulewog
It barely even looks like a fish to me.

However, knowing how they thought this one apeman was an apeman even though it's teeth were FILED down...

I am skeptical of any finds for merely that reason. There have been lots of PROOF of transitional forms, absolute proof, taught in schools and all, discovered to be false later.

Like, what has been discovered false.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by seesaw
Pete lol did you forget something. lol

No.. ocean was wondering what a creationist would say, and paulewog answered.

I thought about responding to the rest of paulewog's post, but thought better of it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by paulewog
It barely even looks like a fish to me.

I don't know. The shape of the rock sort of looks like "Bigmouth Billy Bass" to me. Does it talk?

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by npetreley
I don't know. The shape of the rock sort of looks like "Bigmouth Billy Bass" to me. Does it talk?

 

Yep....it used to repeat "Denial, denial, denial......." over and over and over.....

 

 

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
No.. ocean was wondering what a creationist would say, and paulewog answered.

I thought about responding to the rest of paulewog's post, but thought better of it.

Oh lol.

 

[paulewog]

/me thinks they're mocking me.

I said that just as a little addition. It barely looks like a fish. It sorta resembles one. But it doesn't resemble a pelvis

Oh, what's been proven wrong. A bunch of apemen. Hmmm, biggest one that comes to mind is "piltdown man." Also some living species like ... that deepsea fish, forgot it's name ... and some sort of horse thingy, I forgot it's name too, starts with an E though. hehe, real help aren't I

 

[lithium.]

Just a few have been proven wrong.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by paulewog
/me thinks they're mocking me.

Hehe, not really. You just happened to be the first creationist to respond

I said that just as a little addition. It barely looks like a fish. It sorta resembles one. But it doesn't resemble a pelvis

I agree (at least based on the photos) that it's pretty hard to tell what it is. But that's why I trust a palentologist's word (who would not only be handling the actual fossil, but also know what to look for) over my own layman's interpretation.

Oh, what's been proven wrong. A bunch of apemen. Hmmm, biggest one that comes to mind is "piltdown man." Also some living species like ... that deepsea fish, forgot it's name ... and some sort of horse thingy, I forgot it's name too, starts with an E though. hehe, real help aren't I

The only two "apeman" hoaxes I know of are Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.

The fish you're probably thinking of is the Coelacanth. Scientists thought it had gone completely extinct about 100 or so million years ago, until a modern version was found. However, the modern Coelacanth is significantly different from the fossilized ones from millions of years ago.

I'm not sure what horse you're thinking of, but there's quite a bit on horse evolution at talk.origins. Maybe you'll find it in there somewhere.

 

[lithium.]

I am not sure, but I think that there is new evidence or something about a "apeman" found they call it LUCY. It was almost compete. I just found some info about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/apeman/fact_file/finds/lucy/index_p.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/apeman/fact_file/species/gracile_one/index_p.shtml
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010607/science.htm#4

Before someone says anything I am posting these links cause I don't know much about LUCY.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by paulewog
and some sort of horse thingy, I forgot it's name too, starts with an E though. hehe, real help aren't I

I think you must be talking about the fossil formerly known as Eohippus.  Time to pull out ye olde talkorigins link again, I guess.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html

 

[sulphur]

The continued complexity of fossil groups such as trilobite and ammonites compared with age is as important factor as transition fossils. why is there an increase in complexity in the fossil record if not for evolution.There is also the exampes of mono-, iso-,and tetragraptus.hybrydization is occuring all the time in plants. Compare the modern potato with those first found in south america.Why do some fish have legs and walk around;and legless lizards exist?

 

[choccy]

What I don't get is why creationists insist on bringing up the Piltdown Man. Scientists were suspicious of the find because it didn't fit with what evolution predicted. That it was later proven to be a hoax can't be anything else than a big win for evolution.

Choccy

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by paulewog
It barely even looks like a fish to me.

 

paulewog, is it to much to ask for you to read the article before you comment?  It's not a fish, and you would have realized that had you bothered to read.