Evolutionary leap from fins to legs was surprisingly simple

Science Daily ^ | 3/8/16 | Univ. of Lincoln

[BroJoeK]

ifinnegan: "I disagree that paleontology is hard science.
It is too much subject to subjectivity.
That is not a knock on the field, just it’s nature by dint of Nature."

Please see my post #92 on the difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences.
Sir, "with all due respect, you don’t seem to understand the topic you are choosing to discuss."

iffinegan: "If their theory is worth anything, it should be able to predict relations of currently existing species."

Sir, "with all due respect, you don’t seem to understand the topic you are choosing to discuss."

[BroJoeK]

Seruzawa: "Simply, bone marrow cross sections of dinosaur bones show that the animals were warm blooded.
This evidence was always available to see."

They show the animals were more bird-like than reptile.
But as in anything else, you have to know what to look for.
So, if your criticism is that scientists don't always get everything right the first time, every time, then they have to plead "guilty".
But science is all about finding inconsistencies, and using them to improve or replace hypotheses & theories.

That's just what eventually happened in your example.

[BroJoeK]

RegulatorCountry: "Of what use were grossly malformed fins for millions of years, before turning into legs?"

There are many living and fossil examples of walking fish, including the mud skipper spectacularly shown in post #16 above.

Evolution theory tells us that every modification does not have to be "perfect" to be accepted by natural selection.
It only has to be good enough and better than other alternatives.
In the case of fish with primitive "legs", anything which helped them scramble across wet ground in search of food, or to escape predators, could become a transition form for future evolution.

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "calling something a ‘transistional fossil’ doesnt make it one....it is one if your theory requires one....despite it not being one...."

Anti-evos like to claim "there are no transitional fossils", but in fact the fossil record is full of intermediate forms.
Indeed, if you think about it, every fossil must be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
Not surprisingly, the lists of transitional forms are nowhere more complete than for ourselves:

• •(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• •(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• •(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• •(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• •(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• •(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• •(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• •(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• •(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• •(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• •(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• •(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• •(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• •(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[BroJoeK]

Secret Agent Man: "You dont get a foot or a toe mutating wing dna.
The mutations are either missing wing, an extra wing, or some other less beneficial outcome."

Of course, there's no fossil evidence of any wings mutating into feet or toes.
But there is abundant evidence of wings mutating to become flippers for swimming, i.e., penguins.

Secret Agent Man: "If mutations were wonderful and evolutionary people would be flocking to Fukushima for all the wonderful mutation advantges that could be achieved."

Basic evolution theory consists of two observed elements: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
The first means that every individual is born with some DNA modifications, usually of no affect, or negative affect, but occasionally beneficial.

Natural selection simply means those rare few mutations which benefit are more often selected for life & reproduction.

Evolution, both short term and long term, is all about the accumulation of those selected mutations.

[raygunfan]

placing skulls in an order THAT YOU WANT to create an effect THAT YOU WANT...still doesnt make them transitional,

plus these are not intermediates, just declared to be to prop up the theory...hardly news

a nice try though.

[Fightin Whitey]

You can find 'em cheep at the Third Hand store!

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "placing skulls in an order THAT YOU WANT to create an effect THAT YOU WANT...still doesnt make them transitional..."

So you are just going to hand-wave at the evidence, declaring it "non-existent"?
You also declare yourself the "Lord of definitions" entitled to wave away any you dislike?
Since "transition" doesn't suit you, you'll call it something else?

And that something is?

"a nice try though."

In fact, those sculls represent the major species & sub-species of pre-humans so far discovered, in sequence, dating back over two million years.
They are obviously intermediate & transitional forms, which no amount of your hand-waving can deny.

[stormer]

What I generally say is that evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms that lead to changes in populations and speciation, i.e., evolution.

[raygunfan]

no again, the your religion of evolutionism REQUIRES something called intermediates or transitionals....therefore, anything that be placed in the pre-conceived notion of ‘descent with modification’ will be DECLARED a intermediate or transitional....you fall for it all the time....kinda sad really, but, whatever makes you feel good and sleep at night...

[stormer]

What is your alternative?

[raygunfan]

the story of creation as detailed in the bible...it fits the evidence better.

biblical creation doesnt have to shoehorn ‘evidence’ to fit a preconceived secular creation story that excludes God.

[stormer]

Lol. Sorry, but I don’t think Bronze Age mythology adequately explains the complexity of nature.

[BroJoeK]

stormer: "What I generally say is that evolution is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms that lead to changes in populations and speciation, i.e., evolution."

Correct.
Basic evolution theory consists of two observed facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Those facts have been observed causing the first steps in speciation, for examples, in many breeds of domesticated animals.
In nature, evidence of speciation can be found in every population's DNA compared to other similar populations.
So short-term evolution is observed, confirmed fact.

Evolution theory says that longer term these short term adaptations can accumulate into all the speciation we see in the world today.
Evidence confirming that theory includes fossil records and DNA comparisons.

So evolution includes both facts and confirmed theory, along with hypotheses subject to falsification as new data is discovered.

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "the your religion of evolutionism REQUIRES something called intermediates or transitionals....therefore, anything that be placed in the pre-conceived notion of ‘descent with modification’ will be DECLARED a intermediate or transitional..."

First of all, the theory of evolution is no more a "religion" than is Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum theory or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
All are strongly confirmed and integral to the overall scientific enterprise.
All would be strongly defended if attacked on religious grounds.
But none are perfect and all could be falsified by new evidence or better explanations.

That makes science, including evolution, the opposite of religion.

Second, a definition:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group"

Since fossil records are chock full of such forms, and since DNA comparisons of living species shows degrees of relationship, the obvious conclusion is, those fossils fit the definition of "transitional forms".

Finally, here's the key fact: there is no other confirmed scientific hypothesis which could remotely explain the evidence discovered to date.
So any opposite explanations must fall into the category of religion, not science.

raygunfan: "you fall for it all the time....kinda sad really, but, whatever makes you feel good and sleep at night..."

The key point here to remember is that you personally are not required to believe a single word of natural-science explanations.
Reject them all, if you wish, or reject some and accept others, whatever turns you on.
But what you must never do is call your own beliefs, especially your religious beliefs by the name "science".
Your beliefs cannot legally be taught to public school children as "science", they can only be taught in classes on religion.

Stick to that, and everyone is cool with it.

[BroJoeK]

raygunfan: "biblical creation doesnt have to shoehorn ‘evidence’ to fit a preconceived secular creation story that excludes God."

A majority of Christians belong to churches which teach that God created evolution to accomplish His Plan and Purposes.
Most of us do not have problems fitting scientific theories such as evolution into the Biblical story of Creation.

But, if in doubt, we're content to leave final answers to a time when we expect to meet Him face to face.
If then we're somehow still in doubt, we can ask Him.