Posted on 03/08/2016 10:19:08 AM PST by JimSEA
New research reveals that the limbs of the earliest four-legged vertebrates, dating back more than 360 million years ago, were no more structurally diverse than the fins of their aquatic ancestors.
The new finding overturns long-held views that the origin of vertebrates with legs (known as tetrapods) triggered an increase in the anatomical diversity of their skeletons.
The research was carried out by Dr Marcello Ruta from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Lincoln and Professor Matthew Wills from the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath in the UK. The authors found that fish and early tetrapods developed similar levels of anatomical diversity within their fins and limbs, despite the fact that their skeletons were constructed in very different ways.
Published in the leading scientific journal Palaeontology, the findings challenge some long-standing assumptions about evolution. It is generally expected that when organisms evolve new features -- or 'key innovations' -- that enable them to exploit new environments, the rate of evolution and diversification will speed up. This is believed to have happened with the evolution of birds from dinosaurs and, most iconically of all, in the transition from finned aquatic fish to limbed tetrapods.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
More on the fossils of transitional species that some claim do not exist. The fins of fish had evolved to perform many of the functions in the water (moving along to bottom of shallow ponds or shorelines) that would be necessary to later creatures transitioning to land animals.
Yet another article where they find their evolutionary assumptions don’t hold up. Amusing.
more handwaving and ‘just so’ stories....anything to prop up the religion of the secularists....
In before the Finnish leg pictures...Dang it...Too early!
calling something a ‘transistional fossil’ doesnt make it one....it is one if your theory requires one....despite it not being one....
Some people make whole careers on hand-waving.
Whole fields of study seem to be hand-waving.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your post.
Now I’d like to see these guys from Bath now make a prediction based on their theory that can be tested in a hard science way, eg comparative genomics.
Then see if their prediction holds.
To the contrary, the examination of relatively newly discovered fossils reinforces the evolutionary path from fish to amphibians by showing that species of fish had fin structures very similar to the feet and legs of early land dwellers. It wasn’t as much of a “leap” as earlier fossils had suggested.
Evolution does not exist.
Mutations affect what is already in the code.
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. If mutations were wonderful and evolutionary people would be flocking to Fukushima for all the wonderful mutation advantges that could be achieved.
***More on the fossils of transitional species that some claim do not exist.***
Evolution has always been and can never be anything more than conjecture. It is not observable, testable science. It is philosophy based on the premise that there is a natural explanation for everything..... an unprovable assertion that lies at the foundation of the evolutionary belief system.
We see what we want to see...if there is a Creator, we’re accountable to Him. Most do not want any part of that.
As for transitional fossils..... Gould posited punctuated equilibrium precisely because of the lack of evidence for them.
They’ve been irradiating fruit flies for thousands of generations trying to get mutations and selection to produce a new species. What they wind up with are fruit flies, dead fruit flies and damaged fruit flies.
Watch the existing fish.
They are supposed to evolve fins to legs very quickly, right?
Sit by the beach, or set up a few traps on the shoreline.
Hmmm maybe that’s why we are wasting fresh water on the Delta Smelt.
Mmmeeeehhhhh, men on the left are going from having testicles to no testicles....doesn’t really seem all that far-fetched anymore.
Historical science is little more than a priori assumption and conjecture. It bears no resemblance to operational science.
And the more we do know, the dumber it looks.
It is “hard” science. Paleontology is the study of fossils including comparisons of morphologicaly similar fossils. Of course, over deep time, DNA comparisons are impossible. That doesn’t mean that observational science doesn’t exist.
You really stirred up a hornet’s nest of ignorance.
Your proof being??? When will creation science venture into original, peer reviewed science rather than just manufacturing glib criticism of other people’s research. When will they pause their construction of straw men to make actual comparisons without misstating others hypothesis?
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.