Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

That transition from water to land has long fascinated scientists, but the fossil record of how it occurred is still incomplete.

The new finding suggests that certain aspects of tetrapod ears and limbs can be traced much further back in "fishy looking" fish than had been previously known, says John Long, head of sciences at Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia.

"They were just cunningly disguised in the fossil record by their more fishlike overall features," he said in an email interview.

"They tell us that evolution progresses steadily but often hides the evidence until a really well preserved fossil like this turns up."

Long and colleagues report their findings in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.

Dead Bones = dead bones, nothing else no proof that any thing else other then another one of the same kind came from it.

This is both a complete misrepresentation of fossil evidence for evolution and completely irrelevant to my questions. You do not demonstrated that the theory of evolution is folse by demonstrating that you are wholly ignorant of the evidence that is said to support it.

I was not responding to the fact that evolution does not exist in the real world

Your claim is demonstratably false.

and I know those who worship naturalist ways will never admit that God exists.

You are now willfully lying about those who accept the theory of evolution. This does not, in any way, support your claims.

But it is another grasp at a fictional process using evidence that proves nothing.

Given that you have made no demonstration that you actually understand the information in the article, or that you have even read the article, your claim is difficult to accept as reliable.

I said, "Dead Bones = dead bones, nothing else no proof that any thing else other then another one of the same kind came from it."

Please show me evidence contrary to what I said.

Because It is true 100%, you can not prove from dead bones ANY offspring came from it. If you can show me please.

Please show me my ignorance of the theory of evolution by my demonstration of evidence. You will not.

In a court of law I would win you would lose.

Your evidence is based upon what if, could have, might be, all circumstantial at best.

You do not have a leg to stand on, but Hey faith in your religion of evolution will evolve a leg someday.

Please show me evidence contrary to what I said.

Your use of the word "proof" suggests that you do not understand how science operates. Nothing in science is "proven". Rather, reasonable conclusions are drown from evidence. In the case of the fossil record, educated inferences are drawn from the appearance and layout of the fossil record. Merely saying "dead bones" does not demonstrate that you have actually analyzed the evidence. You cannot dispute evidence if you have not actually studied it.

Please show me my ignorance of the theory of evolution by my demonstration of evidence. You will not.

You claim that "dead bones" are the total evidence presented for the theory of evolution. That is not true. You are simply wrong.

In a court of law I would win you would lose.

You have not demonstrated this to be the case. Asserting that you are correct does not demonstrate that you are correct.

Your evidence is based upon what if, could have, might be, all circumstantial at best.

Given that you have not demonstrated that you even understand the evidence, I see little reason to trust your claims as accurate.

You do not have a leg to stand on, but Hey faith in your religion of evolution will evolve a leg someday.

The theory of evolution is not a religion. Claiming that it is a religion demonstrates either that you are wholly ignorant of the theory and as such are not qualified to discuss it, or that you are lying and as such are not qualified to discuss it.

Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

Seems to me by this definition I do know what science is. There is no I mean no testable method of evolution only fantasy.

You never have anything to say but circular reasoning. You never prove anything only claim that I am wrong without evidence. You claim I do not understand yet every time I prove you wrong. You bash me to make your self feel better. But you have not that is right not given me evidence that dead fossil bones gave birth to anything.

You would make a great politician, using many words and not saying a thing.

There is no I mean no testable method of evolution only fantasy.

Your ignorance of the existence of research supporting the theory of evolution does not negate the existence of research supporting the theory of evolution.

You never have anything to say but circular reasoning.

Please reference a specific argument that I have made wherein I assume the conclusion that I am attempting to demonstrate.

You never prove anything only claim that I am wrong without evidence.

You have claimed that nothing can be known from "dead bones". You are wrong.

. You claim I do not understand yet every time I prove you wrong.

You have proven nothing. Thus far you have asserted that evolution is false, but you have provided no explanation to demonstrate that you understand what the theory of evolution is, nor have you show that you have any understanding of the evidence used to support the theory of evolution. You have made references to "dead bones" and responded to questions with complete non-sequiturs. Your statements have "proven" nothing thus far.

You bash me to make your self feel better

I am not "bashing" you. Stating that your claims are incorrect is not an attempt to insult you.

But you have not that is right not given me evidence that dead fossil bones gave birth to anything.

You are again misrepresenting evidence. "Dead fossil bones" do not reproduce, and no one has claimed that they do. That you make such a demonstratably false claim further reinforces my belief that you have not actually studied any information relevant to this topic.

Dimensio,

You deny everything I have ever posted.

You argue like a child.

I have shown in the past my understanding of the fable called evolution.

Your proof of your circular reasoning is in your last post to me. Because I call evolution a fable I am ignorant of the subject, because you assume I am ignorant I do not understand the fable of evolution. You have done it time and time again.

You can never show evidence that is proved. Only whimsical views of evidence through the eyes of a blind man.

YOU SAID,"You are again misrepresenting evidence. "Dead fossil bones" do not reproduce, and no one has claimed that they do. That you make such a demonstratively false claim further reinforces my belief that you have not actually studied any information relevant to this topic."

Well I would have to agree that at least you understand dead does not make life.
Again you argue like a child you know all to well the meaning of the statement, you can not prove that the fossil is a product of a different kind of animal any more then you can prove it gave birth to something different.

What question would you like supporting evidence that disproves your religion.

And do not claim it is not because it is only a theory and requires faith to believe it happened. No EVIDENCE no PROOF.

Science is testable over and over again.

Evolution is failure and not a process of evolution.

BTW which form do you believe?
life formed in a puddle and mutated into everything or many life forms formed in a puddle and mutated into their respective class.

Talkorigin is often quite deceitful & known for leaving out important info when trying to make their case- Try Trueorigin.com for rebuttles to their biased info. Free to dispute? Oh, their assertions have been prattyy thoroughly disputed with scientific evidences- the problem with talkorigins is that they present half-truths in an effort to malign I.D-ers instead of being objective scientists & simply presenting what they beleive to be evidences open to discussion- as such talkorigin often makes fools of themselves as the site I mentioned trueorigin.com takes science and disputes their site quite thoroughly- We've looked into the claims of evolutionsits Dimensio- extensively. Scientific proof for evolution has a huge barrier that they MUST jump if they are to prove evolution & that barrier is the 'kind begets kind' problem- in order for kind to beget non-kind, gene transference MUST take place- otherwise- no new information can be 'created' through mutations- mutations simply take information already present and alter it along the same line- it turns it into freak info in otherwords- in order for a nipple to turn into an eye for instance (Yes, I know- rediculous example- but bare with me- just using a 'for instance' annalogy), NEW information from an outside source MUST be introduced- No amount of manipulation of information already present in the animal will change that nipple into an eye- it can't- it goes against the law of kind begets kind- Biologically speaking- it's impossible- We've tried and tried- but have never once mutated a gene capable of this- the evidence is so overwhelming against mutations creating new species that science has fairly recently had to be herded in another direction- gene transference. Even gene transference has it's problems however- which is another argument- I'll be happy to explain more- if you like- but htis could get quite long- suffice it to say - gene transeference is similiar to the 'genetic drift' that talkorigin attempts to define as 'evidence for evolution' but it falls far too short due to every creatures built in protection mechanisms that prevent perversion of genes beyond acceptable deviances.

Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...

Besides- all this 'science' ignores the very core problem with evolution- the information in the DNA thast I mentioned before- in order for evolution to even be a viable question. one would have to explain where the information for the DNA came from- was it eternal? It must have been because the info could not come from nothing as evolution insists that it did. The info- which is far to advanced for mere evolving from nothing to account for, had to have a mind behind it's creation- look- we can argue symantics all day long, but at the end of the day, the problem of Gene information still plagues the evolution hypothesis. Then, you STILL have the problems of overcoming the obstacles of jumping amino acids to protiens which is impossible but an absolutely necessary process for evolution to be viable.- Then, after overcomming that impossible leap- you STILL have the problem of gene transfereance in order for species to evolve into other species- THEN- you have to explain the Cambrian explosion where entire and vast and complete species showed up on the scene all at once- Then you have to overcome the mutation conundrum where it would mathematically require a universe full of DNA and constant lightening strikes 24/7 for billions of years to create even one mutation that would be considered 'useful' enough to advance a species. The Time required is yet another impossible scenario for evolution to be viable. Talorigin can insult I.D all they like- they can cite this article and that one- but in the end- they take a HUGE leap of faith- and MUST rely on impossible hypothesis in order to beleive in their models of life.

Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...

One more thing Dimensio- you said: [Nothing in science is "proven". Rather, reasonable conclusions are drown from evidence.]
No sir- it is NOT reasonable to conclude that species took impossible leaps in their evolutionary process- yet that is Exactly what Must be done if you beleive in evolution- There were secular scientific meetings in Chicago a few years ago in which the majority of scientists came to the conclusion that the present direction of evolution simply wasn't a feasible direction to take & it was overwhelmingly decided that a new direction had to be found if they were to keep the 'dream of eovlution' alive- Darwin himself, a self proclaimed denier of God, admitted that his model was a sham due to the lack of evidence which he correctly noted should be so evident that one could not deny evolution- Yet that is far from what we have- we have only titilating similarities between certain species that requires again huge leaps in faith. Evolutionsits will point to two similiar species & say- there you go- look- this one has stumps on the side of it's body & this one has more advanced 'legs' proving that they are related and evolving- what they DON'T tell you is the fact that biologically, the two species are so far apart that they can NOT be realted- not even close- They point to chimps and humans and tell you that because there is only a 6% difference (The actual biological figure is more like 20% difference, but they won't tell you this) thatwe must be related- Again- what they fail to inform you of is the fact that the remaining 6% (never mind that it is closer to 20% difference) is so incredibly huge in regards to the vast amount of gene differences, that there is no way we could be realted- we're not talking about simply a few genes here, and a few genes there- nope- we're talking about billions of gene information differences- anatomically, we're also seperated by a huge gulf that evolution simply could not overcome- Shows like the Natiuonal geographic love to present hteir fantasies and imply that the differences don't matter- but biologically and anatomically- these shows are right full of deceit. it aint as simple as they make it appear. Yet they won't for one minute admit that- So no Dimensio- Science is NOT about 'coming to reasonable conclusions' far from it- it is more like 'ingoring the impossibilities, and insisting that their view is right' (not to mention- attackign anyone that dissagrees with them and calling them ignorant)
Here is the link to the scientific meetings: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.