Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another fishy missing link
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 04/15/2006 11:37:52 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: PatrickHenry

This is going to get interesting. Here's a coelacanth

21 posted on 04/15/2006 3:13:34 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Deadshot Drifter

Trusting what darwinist scientists and biologists have to say about the tiktaalik is like trusting what mullahs have to say about the Qu'ran.


22 posted on 04/15/2006 3:15:52 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope

Acanthostega gunneri

The skull roof of Acanthostega gunneri was first recovered from Famennian deposits (360 million years ago) in eastern Greenland in 1933, and was described and named in 1952 by Erik Jarvik. Additional fossils were recovered during a 1970 geological expedition, but they languished in obscurity until rediscovered by Jennifer Clack. In a 1987 expedition led by Clack and Per Ahlberg recovered some exceptionally well preserved material from several individuals. The abundance and quality of Acanthostega remains has made it the best known of the early tetrapods. From their investigations of these remains Clack and Michael Coates have reported a series of remarkable findings that have necessitated changes in our thinking on early tetrapod evolution.

Prior to these findings, most scientists assumed that the evolution of legs and feet was initiated and driven by the colonization of land. Here, however, was an early tetrapod that was ill-suited for life on land. It had well-defined digits (fingers and toes), but no wrists or ankles. It had relatively long limb bones, but they couldn't support much weight. Its hip also couldn't support much weight since it was weakly attached to the spine.

A firm attachment to the spine wouldn't help much anyway, since its spine was structurally based on the (ancestral) notochord rather than on a series of interlocking, yet flexible, vertebrae. The spine was well-suited for handling the mechanical stresses of swimming but was nearly useless for supporting weight. Moreover, its short and thin ribs were incapable of protecting vital organs. Acanthostega also had a deep tail which sported a large bony fin. In short, it had a tail suited for swimming, a fish's spine and paddle-like limbs.

A primarily, if not exclusively, aquatic lifestyle for Acanthostega is further indicated by the presence of internal, fish-like gills. (Evidence for internal gills include bony gill arches and post-branchial lamina on the leading edge of the shoulder girdle. In contrast, all Carboniferous-to-modern gill-breathing amphibians have external gills.) Other features that indicate an aquatic lifestyle include a fish-like stapes (a bone which will evolve into the middle ear of terrestrial tetrapods) and the retention of the sensory lateral line system found in fishes. Acanthostega's small, fish-like nares (nostrils) were probably used only for smelling under water; air may have been brought to the lungs by gulping.

Although Acanthostega had many fish-like characteristics it did have legs and feet rather than fins. These feet, however, also affected our thinking on the evolution of tetrapod limbs. It was practically an article of faith that the first tetrapods had five digits, but Acanthostega had eight digits on the front leg and at least eight digits on the hind. (Subsequent analyses have indicated that at least two other early tetrapods, Ichthyostega and Tulerpeton, also had more than five digits.)

With its combination of fish-like and tetrapod features Acanthostega has engendered a variety of speculation about the paleoecology and evolution of early tetrapods. Its feet may have been superior to fins in negotiating shallow waters filled with aquatic plants and woody debris. (These shallow water habitats could have been wetlands, stream margins or inundated floodplains.) Acanthostega also had a protective covering of elongated ovoid scutes on its belly, but no scales on the rest of its body. These scutes may have protected it from abrasion as it moved about.

Acanthostega has been recovered from river deposits, and the presence of well-articulated and minimally reworked remains indicate that it probably lived there. Fossils of lobe-fins (Holoptychius, Eusthenodon and lungfishes) and placoderms have been collected in localities yielding Acanthostega. Acanthostega was about 60 cm (2 ft) in length.

23 posted on 04/15/2006 3:24:54 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Please worldnetdaily, ignorance and arrogance are liberal values. Please stop writing these appallingly researched evolution op-eds.


24 posted on 04/15/2006 4:04:01 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
If I was looking for the first vertebrate [or at least fish] to venture onto land I believe [perhaps incorrectly] that I would be looking for something that evolved as either an herbivore or an insectivore. Any critter that needed large meals [big and with a crocadilian jaw structure] would presuppose that large prey existed on land. I suppose that this would not rule out scavengers for "floaters" that washed up on shore, but that is not where the article implied that the scientists were heading.
25 posted on 04/15/2006 5:04:21 PM PDT by R W Reactionairy ("Everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... but not to their own facts" Daniel Patrick Monihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy
I would assume [perhaps incorrectly] that the first plants to grow on 'dry' land were exploiting a niche that the water bound herbivores were locked out of.

Then a few herbivores started browsing on the vegetation that was in the wave washed areas. The ones that needed less frequent immersions got more food, and less predation and therefore had a higher change of living long enough to reproduce.

By the time vertebrates were ready to play the dry land game there was a mini Eden filled with tender herbs and yummy protein on the, uh, 'hoof'.

I would expect herbivores carnivores and scavengers would all try to move in on these riches.

The sample they found happens to be one of the carnivores. Time will tell if other beasties dating to the same time frame and filling the herbivore/carnivore niches will be discovered.
26 posted on 04/15/2006 6:06:35 PM PDT by null and void (Pay no attention to the imam behind the curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Dr. Laughlin is no creationist. He is a Stanford University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1998

What possible credentials does a physicist have on biology? And don't get me started on the Nobel Prize.

27 posted on 04/15/2006 6:09:30 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

For that matter, what scientific quals does Farrah have?

He is really destroying the credibility of WWN with this wild unsupported conjecture (although he does get the CRIDers all excited).


28 posted on 04/15/2006 6:13:16 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

"We don't know that the Tiktaalik lived 383 million years ago. We don't know that it used its unusual fins to walk. We don't know that it ever left the water. We don't even know for sure that it is extinct today. And we sure don't know that it represents any link between one species and another."

But...but...but...these scientists, aren't they??? They know everything that happened, even if it was 383 million years ago and know one was there! Hm...on the other hand, maybe the scientists are...drum roll here...God!


29 posted on 04/15/2006 6:17:11 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DennisR
But...but...but...these scientists, aren't they??? They know everything that happened, even if it was 383 million years ago and know [sic] one was there!

When it comes down to it, its safer not to bet the rent money against what scientists say.

Heinlein said it best:

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


30 posted on 04/15/2006 8:07:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Thas article blows apart Darwinism like a nuclear bomb
31 posted on 04/15/2006 9:44:03 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: null and void
what did its descendants eat when they completely left the water to forage on land?

The land invertebrates. Snails, slugs, spiders, insects and other arachnids.

Darwinists might believe their ancestors ate bugs, but Creationist's didn't (except locusts - goes on fours exemption)

32 posted on 04/15/2006 9:47:49 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Charlatans in desperation.. lol.


33 posted on 04/16/2006 1:58:19 AM PDT by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

"Thas article blows apart Darwinism like a nuclear bomb "

Yeah, I am sure the rest of the world outside of a few people on FR that believe WND as a credible source on evolution will wake up now!

Alert the world media, WND has solved the evolution debate!!!!!

LMAO.


34 posted on 04/16/2006 3:42:40 AM PDT by LongsforReagan (Dick Cheney is the best elected official in this country. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
*shrug* I've been known to eat the occasional bug myself. Termites are OK, fried meal worms are pretty good.

So before the rules were laid down in Leviticus I assume your ancestors were prescient enough to eat Kosher before God defined Kosher?

You do come from a remarkable blood line, don't you?

Any hints on the next set of rules?

35 posted on 04/16/2006 7:03:42 AM PDT by null and void (Pay no attention to the imam behind the curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
In other words, there is a whole lot of supposing going on about the Tiktaalik that is reminiscent of the kind of supposing that has gone on for as long as evolutionary theory has been around.

Every religious theory, even one mislabelled as "science", takes faith. :)

36 posted on 04/17/2006 6:47:33 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus (All strong Reagan Conservatives belong in the Constitutional Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
He is really destroying the credibility of WWN with this wild unsupported conjecture...

Yet another wild, Evo claim that creationism will destroy Conservatism if it is not uprooted from the base!

37 posted on 04/17/2006 8:15:21 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Yet another wild, Evo claim that creationism will destroy Conservatism if it is not uprooted from the base!

LOL

38 posted on 04/17/2006 2:51:09 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus
Every religious theory, even one mislabelled as "science", takes faith

Yeah, like those that believe that aerodynamics hold airplanes aloft and other "science" that require faith. We all know that our alternative belief that angels hold airplanes aloft is of equal value and truth and should be taught alongside physics.

39 posted on 04/17/2006 2:54:03 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
(except locusts - goes on fours exemption)

LOL

40 posted on 04/17/2006 3:02:35 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson