500 Vertebrate Fish Found in Early Cambrian

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/30/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[CalConservative]

500 Vertebrate Fish Found in Early Cambrian   01/30/2003
Where only one incomplete fossil had been known before, now 500 specimens of early Cambrian agnathan fish of the genus Haikouichthys have been reported in the Jan. 30 issue of Nature.  This wealth of new fossils “reveals a series of new and unexpected features that imply a major reconsideration of several features of early agnathan evolution,” says the team of Chinese and European paleontologists.  The fish appear to have had eyes, gills, and olfactory organs, and were swimmers.  The authors explain the implications (emphasis added):

The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.  Although evidently a jawless fish, its precise phylogenetic position is still speculative because this fish shows a puzzling mixture of characters contrary to some previous expectations.

How did this assemblage of fish die?  “The specimens may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of storm-induced burial.”

This can’t be good news for evolutionists, even though they try to put a happy face on it, saying the discovery may “extend further our knowledge of their earliest evolution.”  But what evolution?  They use to claim no fish were found till the Devonian, as if that somehow muffled the Cambrian explosion a little bit.  But now, here you have advanced features in vertebrate fish right in the early Cambrian, and evidence that supports flood burial.  Don’t tell the creationists.

[CalConservative]

Too late - the creationists have already found out!

[Jimmyclyde]

Time to change Evolution.......

AGAIN!!

[Taliesan]

I predict this will be viewed as further confirmation of both evolution and creation. As would the absence of any such fish.

[the_doc]

Thanks for the article.

[Taliesan]

It's just a punk in the eek. We knew it all along.

[dirtboy]

Kewl. They found additional fossils that alter the timetables regarding evolution. However, I have yet to see accounts of land plants, amphibians, reptiles, sauropods, birds or mammals existing in the Cambrian. So I don't think this gives creationism quite the boost that they envision. Until they find an early homonid of limited cranial capacity and intelligence (i.e., a Democrat) in Cambrian sediments, they have a hard case to make.

[HamiltonJay]

These fish are a lie, everyone knows the earth is only 3,000 years old... the fundamentalists tell me so...

[The_Reader_David]

Very astute. Among those who actively debate the issue on both sides, the two views have become functionally closed systems of thought, inseceptible to refutation.

[68skylark]

What is the time period for the Cambrian period?

[John H K]

It's pretty sad when the only evidence the creationidiots can pretend to come up with these days is work done by evolutionists to flesh out the story of evolution.

The creationidiots can't even muster the energy to go out and fake some Paluxy man-tracks or anything anymore. Sad.

[Jimmyclyde]

It's 6,000 years old.

If your going to goof on YEC get it right.

[dirtboy]

What is the time period for the Cambrian period?

From about 540 million years ago to 490 million years ago. When I was in college, they thought the Cambrian started about 580 million years ago, but they have steadily been refining the dates. The time period in question regarding the fossil fish was about 530 million years ago.

[doodad]

And please don't explain to anyone that the conditions for fossilization are very rare. Almost always, the best conditions are in catastrophic inundation with soft sediments. Preferably sediments with plenty of water soluble minerals. Floods and ash falls/flows are the most common.

[Junior]

Ping.

[MoGalahad]

An even sadder thing is a man who believes a lie and calls everyone who doesn't share his viewpoint ignorant!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Try this link. It really gives the evolutionists something to ignore. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3920929567c4.htm

[CalConservative]

It's pretty sad when the only evidence the creationidiots can pretend to come up with these days is work done by evolutionists to flesh out the story of evolution.

Which is an interesting statement in light of the fact that much of modern science is based on the works of Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Mendel, van Leeuwenhoek, Boyle, Pascal, Harvey, Pasteur, etc., etc. who were all creationists. If they were just "creationidiots" and their work was all faked, then science is in real trouble, I would say!

[Calvin Coolidge]

If 'evolutionism' is such a closed system of thought, then how does this article, in which evolutionists discuss the results of their research and its implications for their theories, even exist?

Just above, someone is complaining that those durn evolutionists keep changing their story. That is what happens when you pursue science. You do research, you state the results of that research, and you update your theory to match the available evidence.

[balrog666]

It's 6,000 years old.

That's not the doctine of Last Thursdayism!

[Dimensio]

Yep. What kind of scientific theory rewrites itself when new evidence shows up?

Oh, wait. That would be 'a good one'.