Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

National Geographic ^ | October 18, 2006 | John Roach

[SubGeniusX]

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.

[SubGeniusX]

.... I really do love science ...........

[gotribe]

I've got to see that! I hope they televise it.

[Coyoteman]

Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution

That is journalist-speak for "added a few new details."

Sorry if any creationists got all excited, but science adds new details all the time. Its what scientists do.

[SubGeniusX]

Coyoteman .... just to clarify ... I really do love science ... there was no /sarc tag on that ... but I can see where that headline might get some IDers all exited...

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman .... just to clarify ... I really do love science ... there was no /sarc tag on that ... but I can see where that headline might get some IDers all exited...

That's the problem. Many scientists are quite good at technical writing (with extensive from the technical staff assigned to them), so they do not tend to write popular articles.

The journalists who write most of the popular articles are illiterate at science, or they would not be journalists in the first place!

These journalists are the ones from whom the majority of folks get their science.

So, no. I am certainly not blaming you for their headline. But I did feel the urge to take a poke at it!

[TheCrusader]

"Ancient Fish Fossil May Rewrite Story of Animal Evolution"

And they will continue to eat crow as they constantly rewrite the story of evolution, until they finally have to admit that there was no evolution, that God created the universe and it is not some 'accident'.

[SubGeniusX]

Crusader, please see post #3 and then read the article ... this only furthers the case for evolution, with empirical evidence ....

Coyoteman, you pegged that one early

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Found this while fiddling around:

Life Kingdoms

Nice overview of the Tree of Life.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Biology does not include cosmology as a sub-discipline.

[ahayes]

Coyoteman, you pegged that one early

We have learned creationists are pretty predictable!

[Dimensio]

And they will continue to eat crow as they constantly rewrite the story of evolution, until they finally have to admit that there was no evolution,

How does a possible, not yet confirmed, change in the knowledge of evolution of tranition to land-walking life show that the theory of evolution will be admitted to be "false"?

that God created the universe and it is not some 'accident'.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer and why do you reference that particular deity to the exclusion of all others? Also, how does this logically follow from your unsubstantiated assertion that "they" will "have to admit that there was no evolution"? In fact, how is it at all related to your unsubstantiated assertion?

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

If the oldest dinosaurs to date are approx. 230M years old (Hererrasaurus and Eoraptor) then this fish, if being claimed as the transitional fossil, at 380M years only leaves only 150M years to go from walking fish to dino? Seems rather short, no?

[Creationist]

The Bones are dead.

That only proves that a creature lived and died.

No proof that it was different then its parents or it's offspring were different.

Only appears to be an extinct kind of fish.

[Creationist]

"1": And God spake all these words, saying,

"2": I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

"3": Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

"4": Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

"5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

"8": Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

"9": Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

"10": But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

"11": For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[Dimensio]

Your resposne does not not fully address my question. You have not demonstrated what the passages that you have quoted are factual, and you have also not addressed my question about who "they" are and why "they" will be forced to admit that there is "no evolution" on the basis of one fossil find.

[grey_whiskers]

That's the problem. Many scientists are quite good at technical writing (with extensive from the technical staff assigned to them), so they do not tend to write popular articles.

The journalists who write most of the popular articles are illiterate at science, or they would not be journalists in the first place!

These journalists are the ones from whom the majority of folks get their science.

Agreed...but as I have said before, writing snippy putdowns toward those who don't know science, is not going to educate people very much.

Not that you've done that too often...but there seem to be a number of opuses and near-opuses from many of the pro-evo regulars on the crevo threads...

...was this planned earlier on Darwin Central or something?

Cheers!

[Coyoteman]

Agreed...but as I have said before, writing snippy putdowns toward those who don't know science, is not going to educate people very much.

Not that you've done that too often...but there seem to be a number of opuses and near-opuses from many of the pro-evo regulars on the crevo threads...

...was this planned earlier on Darwin Central or something?

Since you have been one of the honest posters on these threads I will give you the best answer I can.

I have tried to write a number of full responses to the science-deniers, but I get little in return. For example, I have done a lot of long explanations of radiocarbon dating (one of the things I do a lot of), only to be answered by 1) a snippet from a creationist website which is dedicated to apologetics, and to trashing science, or 2) something on the intellectual level of "where you there?" This has happened in the posts I have made dealing with fossil man (a subject I studied extensively in grad school).

The opuses and near-opuses are from folks who have tried to explain science to those who are unwilling to learn, and who have exhausted their patience. FR in the last year or so has taken a decided anti-science stance, and the real scientists on the site are either leaving or cutting back on their posts.

For the moment I am still holding out. I have actually taught some of these subjects, and I'm an archaeologist, so I guess I have a little more patience than some of the others.

And no, Darwin Central is more of a retreat from the anti-science attitudes than anything else. We have a lot of folks drop by, and some like what they see. As individual posters reach their limits here, or are banned--lately for some very unclear reasons--some migrate our way.

So, I guess in answer to your implied questions: Each poster is different, and reacts in different ways. Some can tolerate the increasing anti-science attitudes better than others. Some were banned for comments that are tolerated in the opposition. We can see which way the wind is blowing, but it gets discouraging after a while.

I'm going to hang on as long as I can, in spite of the turn for the worst here on FR. I may be able to pass on some of the things I have learned in literally a lifetime of studying. And there is always Darwin Central when I get too disgusted or finally get banned for not toeing the party line.

[banalblues]

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

Understatement

[CottShop]

I love it- Scientists have loads of info pointing to each species being unique, but have to grasp at straws when trying to make the gigantic leap of evolution. Funny- the cambrian age, the earliest known age (there was no time period before the Cambrian age) shows an explosion of complet complex creatures- Entire lines of species have beeen found, yet science tells us that the vast diversity came from a single cell- but offer no explaination or evidence showing that evolution- An entire diverse ecology of species just 'hid out' for millions of years as they secretly 'evolved' and hid their remains fro menquiring minds until one day there was an explosion of revelation. Examples of evolution? Nope- none- can't be reproduced- Life from nothing? Nope- science can't recreate this (the best they can do under ideal controlled circumstances is creat left hand amino acids- the wrong type for life- & which quickly die off when the controlled environment is removed.) Amino acids making an impossible leap which would be necessary for life to protiens? Nope- sorry- that doesn't work either. Where did the information- the incredible amount of info at that- present in DNA come from? No answer- Here's a little publicised fact- It would take a universe jam packed with DNA (which again ignores the questions where the inof for the DNA comes from) 24/7 lightening for a billion years striking a perfectly conditioned pond to create on single 'useful' mutation (not that there are even demonstratable 'useful' mutations- all mutations are abborations of perfection which cause decline- not incline in species evolution. Then you'd need the freak of nature mutated cell waiting around for a billion more years for the lightening to cause another mutation that could work in harmony with the first mutation- the more mutations you create, the greater the increases needed to create a mtuation that could coincide with the last mutation. how much time does evolution need? Answer- too much time.

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

[Creationist]

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

I was not responding to the fact that evolution does not exist in the real world and I know those who worship naturalist ways will never admit that God exists.

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