This is going to get interesting. Here's a coelacanth
Posted on 04/15/2006 11:37:52 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Posted: April 15, 2006
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
It's been a week since the scientific world went gaga over a fish called "Tiktaalik," which is being billed as the missing link between water and land animals.
The paleontoligists say the fossils they date to 383 million years ago show how land creatures first arose from the sea.
Tiktaalik, they say, lived in shallow swampy waters and had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs and limb-like fins of so-called "early mammals."
"Tiktaalik represents a transitory creature between water and land," explained Farish Jenkins Jr. of Harvard University, one of the discovery team members. "Really, it's extraordinary. We found a fish with a neck."
Martin Brazeau of Sweden's Uppsala University said Tiktaalik is "unquestionably" the most land-animal-like fish known to date.
"Just over 380 million years ago, it seems, our remote ancestors were large, flattish, predatory fishes, with crocodile-like heads and strong limb-like pectoral fins that enabled them to haul themselves out of the water," explained Per Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala and Jennifer Clark of the University of Cambridge, in a commentary accompanying their report in the journal Nature.
As the New York Times reported the find, the fish has characteristics that "anticipate the emergence of land animals – and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs."
I'm glad these evolutionists are so giddy about finding one of their ancestors, but before we all go off the deep end about this latest discovery, understand what all the excitement is about.
For years, those who disbelieve in macro-evolution – people like me – have been saying to the evolutionists, "Show us evidence of one kind of creature becoming another kind." They haven't been able to do it – not with all the fossils they've studied and certainly not in their scientific observations of the world in which we live.
Tiktaalik is their best shot.
But let me tell you why it is most definitely not what the evolutionists suggest it is.
There is another fish called the "coelacanth." Ever hear of it? I've included a photo of one with this column – which, when you think about it, is really quite amazing. Because, just a few years ago, the same scientists who were calling the Tiktaalik fossil the missing link between sea life and land life were claiming the coelacanth fossils of the same era represented just that link.
Coelacanth
But, then, unfortunately for the evolutionists, coelacanths – these "350-million-year-old fossils" – turned out to be very much alive. They turned up regularly in fish markets. Today they live in aquariums – not terrariums – by the way.
The coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as the Tiktaalik. The fossil experts told us they enabled the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor. However, none have yet been observed walking. Instead, they use those lobe fins to swim better, not walk.
Like those of the coelacanth, the bones in the fins of the Tiktaalik are embedded in muscle – not part of the skeleton.
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.
The Tiktaalik is no more a missing link between sea life and land life than a Tic Tac is a missing link between a Lifesaver and an Altoid.
Notice not one of the stories you have read about the Tiktaalik has confronted the sensationally uncomfortable issues raised by the coelacanth.
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.
We simply don't know what we don't know. And I sure wish those who called themselves scientists would just admit that.
This is going to get interesting. Here's a coelacanth
Trusting what darwinist scientists and biologists have to say about the tiktaalik is like trusting what mullahs have to say about the Qu'ran.
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.
Please worldnetdaily, ignorance and arrogance are liberal values. Please stop writing these appallingly researched evolution op-eds.
What possible credentials does a physicist have on biology? And don't get me started on the Nobel Prize.
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).
"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!
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
Darwinists might believe their ancestors ate bugs, but Creationist's didn't (except locusts - goes on fours exemption)
Charlatans in desperation.. lol.
"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.
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?
Every religious theory, even one mislabelled as "science", takes faith. :)
Yet another wild, Evo claim that creationism will destroy Conservatism if it is not uprooted from the base!
LOL
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.
LOL
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.