Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Beats me. According to the evolutionist anything is possible. "

Not at all.

"Not only did we lay eggs once, we laid them while swinging from trees."

No evolutionary biologist has EVER said this.

" But a fish crawling upon land and thinking "hmmm, do I want to be a cocker spaniel or a human....decisions decisions."

They didn't *decide* anything. What a silly strawman.

"I'm keeping an open mind, just saying there IS no proof that evolution, a/k/a Darwinism, is nothing more than junk science."

Sometimes a mind is so open one's brains fall out. There is no *proof* for any theory in science. There is evidence that does or doesn't support them.

[PistolPaknMama]

Was this a frog? A toad? A salamander? You don't remember the name at all?

No I don't remember and I'm really sorry to be arguing about something I can't even remember. It was on Animal Planet's "Most Extreme Animals" a few nights ago. We always watch that at 7 PM with our 7 year old. I'll research it later. I'm truly not delirious, LOL. This episode got me to thinking about the whole evolution thing. It was really interesting in that regard. I'll ping you later if I find something.

[Junior]

Are gastroliths the stones swallowed by dinosaurs to aid with digestion?

Yes. Just like birds nowadays.

[ahayes]

According to the evolutionist anything is possible. Not only did we lay eggs once, we laid them while swinging from trees.

No, evolutionists have never said this. No wonder you think the theory of evolution is so improbable if you think that's what we think!

[Junior]

Dunno. However, many of the fundamentalists of my acquaintance consider the KJV to be the most accurate English translation. The translators used the word "repent" for a reason.

[Dimensio]

Are you suggesting that evidence exists that the techniques used in current genetic engineering methods were employed in th e past, despite no evidence of any species existing with the intellect or physical capabilities of using such methods?

[muawiyah]

Now you're being evasive and playing around with semantics. Evolution is more than simple change ~ let's go back to Darwin's point ~ evolution is change that explains the origin of species.

Due to modern discoveries in breeding that enabled researchers to move genes from one species of plant to another, there was some softening of this point. After all, it was beginning to look like plants were just one big ol' species with no boundaries, and no one wanted to deal with that.

Last week's Science News carried an article about even later research that indicates there are fixed boundaries to plant species, just like there are for animal species.

Consequently, it's safe to go back to the older standard and abandon the equivocation and cant.

Bacteria and archaeobacter have a different problem. Many bacteria of quite different species seem to be able to use conjugation to pass on beneficial genes to each other (presumably for immunological purposes, or maybe they're just into mysticism). Still there are species boundaries for bacteria, and no one has seems to have observed the creation of a new species lately ~ if ever, although they are all the time discovering new ones.

Now, what might the speciation among viruses mean? No doubt they evolve, but do viruses have species boundaries?

Again, mere change is not evidence of the original Darwinian claims for evolution. Else, we are all little different than the Creationist who accept breeding dogs for various traits, but reject the idea that such change might well end up with something other than a dog.

[muawiyah]

Just one new species ~ do it.

[muawiyah]

Can't get classier than Nature.

[William Terrell]

The theory of evolution says nothing regarding "something" rising from "nothing", nor does it say anything regarding "life" rising from "non-life".

If the vast array of species of plant, animal and insect here today were to have come into being by blind chance through a precess of evolution, you either have to start at some point with no life at all, or explain the origin of the proto-life.

Which would you choose?

[js1138]

Evolution is more than simple change

True, but all change between generations is minor. Always. There is never a case in which a child is a new species from the parent. Never.

[muawiyah]

Lungfish are not part of the chain. The differentiation began before today's lungfish came along.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"appeal to completely unrelated fields of studies and general assertions in lieu of actually supporting your claims with evidence?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.......
Evidence? I don't need no stinken Evidence!
but if you insist: the complex eye: as far as I am aware evolution data does not support the development of the complex eye with any historical data. Name one new species existent since man has had historical records ..please just one, or is evolution of species suspended with the advent of man?

[ahayes]

Since species transitions typically take thousands of years minimum, and changes on the order of what creationists would like to see demonstrated may take much much longer, these events don't take place on a time scale short enough for direct observation.

There are examples of populations that are diverging in an incipient speciation event. Two examples I've read about recently are with a species of frog and a species of abalone.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If the vast array of species of plant, animal and insect here today were to have come into being by blind chance through a precess of evolution,..."

Evolution doesn't proceed though *blind chance*.

" you either have to start at some point with no life at all, or explain the origin of the proto-life."

Evolutionary theory starts with the first imperfectly self-replicating organism. It matters not how this organism came to be. In the same way, it matters not when calculating f=ma where matter came from.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"The original motion filmed in a movie, however was not an illusion.

Or perhaps you think it was."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..............
You didn't post that really did you..how many movies such as the lord of the Rings have computer generated motion???
yes I think the moving monsters in that and King Kong are illusion ..your thinking is polluted with the inability to see reality lets hope you do not build nuclear weapons or we are all in trouble..

[js1138]

Plants sometimes have seeds with double the normal chromosome count. If these produce fertile plants it could be the beginning of a new species. But the large scale mutation that produces drastic changes in animal species is a figment of the Hollywood imagination.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That should be *through* not *though*.

[eleni121]

Yeah...that's definitely a transition of some kind. LOL.

[Dimensio]

If the vast array of species of plant, animal and insect here today were to have come into being by blind chance through a precess of evolution, you either have to start at some point with no life at all, or explain the origin of the proto-life.

This is incorrect. The process of biological evolution starts at the point where the first imperfect replicators start replicating for the first time. How those first imperfect replicators came to exist is not addressed by the process of evolution.