Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html

check it out.

The most interesting part of this discovery is observing the responses of proponents of ID.

Good lord, we're decendants of giant-headed fish with weird fins!!!!
Can someone explain to me HOW a fish can lead to a mammal? I mean, I always thought we came from a central source of bateria that broke off of each other, each one creating the different branches of animals: insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals.

It's not a chain - that's how. It's a complex web. Not to mention the fact that if I remember my AP Bio class correctly, all life began in the seas because the land was too inhospitable.

This is really interesting, I'm reading it now.

Word Lana

Originally posted by Council#13
Good lord, we're decendants of giant-headed fish with weird fins!!!!
Can someone explain to me HOW a fish can lead to a mammal? I mean, I always thought we came from a central source of bateria that broke off of each other, each one creating the different branches of animals: insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals.

Where did YOU go to school, son?

I'm still IN school

Yeah, but I'm curious where. I've never heard that theory before.

Originally posted by Lana
It's not a chain - that's how. It's a complex web. Not to mention the fact that if I remember my AP Bio class correctly, all life began in the seas because the land was too inhospitable.

There were some science shows I saw in the last year or so which proposed a really interesting idea...

Although "all life began in the seas" is still the standard model, it has been suggested--thanks to the extremophiles discovered during the last few years--that, because "the land was too inhospitable," life may've begun underground, even before there were seas. It has further been suggested that the vast bulk of the biomass on the planet Is underground, and that life on the surface is but a "thin smear" by comparison.

Life began in the dirt. Casts Adam being created outta clay in a whole new light.

Originally posted by Wesker
Yeah, but I'm curious where. I've never heard that theory before.

it's basically what Lana said

Interesting indeed good catch PVS, as far as life undergound that is much harder to sustain then life in the water. Could it happen maybe however its highly probable that life started in the water as it supports a wider array of life already.

Or maybe I am just crazy and don't know sh1t.

too bad we cant read whob's input on this...........













































.

















BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHA

haha take that you bible bashing hippies

IT WAS PLANTED BY THE DEVIL TO TRICK PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING EVOLUTION! *HISS*

Well the actual "feet" on it are displayed as a drawing, so I feel safe in saying that it will be revealed in less than five years that they discovered:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.190.jpg




an aligator!

Originally posted by BackFire
IT WAS PLANTED BY THE DEVIL TO TRICK PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING EVOLUTION! *HISS*

lmao!

Originally posted by Wesker
Where did YOU go to school?

Kansas, maybe?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well the actual "feet" on it are displayed as a drawing, so I feel safe in saying that it will be revealed in less than five years that they discovered:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.190.jpg




an aligator!


Yes, I'm sure in five years they'll reconsider and declare it to be an alligator. Because, it's not like these scientists know what a fossilized alligator would look like or anything.

i love these theroies about evolution i saw tons of different show on these things LIFe began in the earth true true but no water???

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Kansas, maybe?




Yes, I'm sure in five years they'll reconsider and declare it to be an alligator. Because, it's not like these scientists know what a fossilized alligator would look like or anything.

i guess you're one of those people who just looks at the pictures and doesnt read?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well the actual "feet" on it are displayed as a drawing, so I feel safe in saying that it will be revealed in less than five years that they discovered:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.190.jpg




an alligator!


What if an alligator was the first?

Originally posted by PVS
i guess you're one of those people who just looks at the pictures and doesnt read?


Totally. I never read. Just like the president. Praise be to god!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if an alligator was the first?

What if humans were there before God and created him by farting.....


"What if"s are great...

I want one as a pet.

I'd call it 'Brian'.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well the actual "feet" on it are displayed as a drawing, so I feel safe in saying that it will be revealed in less than five years that they discovered:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.190.jpg




an aligator!

Boy, what a stupid comment. Do you think that they only went by that drawing as opposed to using that drawing to illustrate a point? I take it that you didn't read the article or even enlarge the picture. If you were trying to be humorous, you failed miserably. What was funny though, was the fact that you tried to make an observation seem witty and sharp, but ended up spelling the punchline incorrectly. It's "Alligator". Two L's.


Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I want one as a pet.

I'd call it 'Brian'.

Or you could name it 'Eric", but maybe that would work only if it were annnnnnnnnnnn halibut.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Totally. I never read. Just like the president. Praise be to god!

makes you wonder how some of these people can claim to follow reading as complex as the bible when they cant even decipher a NYT article. mindboggling

Originally posted by PVS
makes you wonder how some of these people can claim to follow reading as complex as the bible when they cant even decipher a NYT article. mindboggling


You don't have to read as long as you pray really, really hard for the information.

Originally posted by PVS
makes you wonder how some of these people can claim to follow reading as complex as the bible when they cant even decipher a NYT article. mindboggling

That's why the church reads for you.

In response to this silliness..

Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals






Other species of "Walking Fish"











They're actually many more of these types of "Walking Fish." The most recent specimen found is probably an extinct version of the this unique species. Sorry Darwinists..the search for the missing link begins again..next time try to find a half man/half ape

But don't sweat it Darwinist's..you still have the Neanderthal Man..Afterall..we can all tell from modern scientific depictions of this fellow..that he's definitely a different species of human...

http://argus.lakeheadu.ca/images/42_5/011.jpg

Fin

someone didnt read the POINT of the "hoax" in that the fossil had evolved finger bones within those fins. but thats ok, i didnt expect you to know that since you just like to look at pictures instead of all that pesky reading.

:edit: wait a minute, they DO show pictures of the finger bones, so i guess you have no excuse. glad to see you're back btw. discussions as of late just seemed far too linear.

toot Pictures rock!

Disclaimer - I'm kidding

Is it just me, or did he miss the point entirely? Nice try, ID advocate. Better luck next time.

Fin

Originally posted by PVS
someone didnt read the POINT of the "hoax" in that the fossil had evolved finger bones within those fins. but thats ok, i didnt expect you to know that since you just like to look at pictures instead of all that pesky reading.

:edit: wait a minute, they DO show pictures of the finger bones, so i guess you have no excuse. glad to see you're back btw. discussions as of late just seemed far too linear.


That would be a roger..................does someone have a baseball bat so we can explain "intelligent" design again....................and a victim, I mean a volunteer.

Originally posted by MC Mike
Is it just me, or did he miss the point entirely? Nice try, ID advocate. Better luck next time.

Fin

Mike, you sexeh biatch...

Originally posted by PVS
someone didnt read the POINT of the "hoax" in that the fossil had evolved finger bones within those fins. but thats ok, i didnt expect you to know that since you just like to look at pictures instead of all that pesky reading.

:edit: wait a minute, they DO show pictures of the finger bones, so i guess you have no excuse. glad to see you're back btw. discussions as of late just seemed far too linear.

Yes.. I definately see..fin bones resembling fingers in this picture..

http://www.world-science.net/images/tiktaalik-fossil.JPG

Seriously, I don't see how these "adapted fins" would be any different then the fins of the "spotted handfish" or similar of the family..

Of course as you evolutionist's like to do so often..you just make broad assumptions..and just throw a fictional picture up of what you believe the animal to look like...

I find it even more odd, that even the "fictional picture" already generated of this particular creature is extremely reminiscent to the "walking fish" that we currently see alive today.

Fictional Picture of Archaic/extinct species of walking fish..

http://www.world-science.net/images/tiktaalik.JPG


Modern Walking Fish..

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2002/07/03/image514180x.jpg

I don't know how such a discovery could be classified as the missing link..but hey, you all have found your calling..peace be to you my brothers. Now you only have about 1,000,000,000,0000,000 more "transitionals" to find.

I always love it when people use the word "darwinist." It's not often morons have the curtousy to tell you they're morons, right off the bat.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Of course as you evolutionist's like to do so often..you just make broad assumptions..and just throw a fictional picture up of what you believe the animal to look like...



Oh like Adam and Eve because we have tons of pictures of both and skeletons to prove their remains absolutely!

"Evolutionists." Whobdamandog, you are a precious and unique snowflake.

Wtf? Are we to expect things to evolve overnight ?

It looks like it

"In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.gif

"In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.gif

hey look guys..I found another transitional..it's called a platypus..I just made a new discovery...it's a cross breed between a bird, and a land mammal.

http://www.pbs.org/kratts/world/aust/plat/images/platypus.jpg



How come it didn't die out like the rest of the transitionals?

I thought PVS said this wasn't going to be a linear discussion.............

Wow and I just found out the world is 6000 years old, enlightenment is hard to reach.

ah yes, the good old 'flood and distract' method. classic whob. keep posting nonesense till we hit page 2 and maybe not everyone will notice that you got put in your place again for not reading the source.

Originally posted by Soleran
I thought PVS said this wasn't going to be a linear discussion.............

just keep posted here, its already begun. soon the circle will be complete....then again...and again...and again...till page 340

Originally posted by PVS
"In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.gif

Don't fish that have fin bones resembling hands already exist?


http://www.eaglehawkdive.com.au/Karen/images/Red-handfish-38_JPG.jpg

lol..I think so..

And guess what..my picture is actually a "real" picture of a fish. Not one that is drawn by an artist...

Originally posted by whobdamandog

And guess what..my picture is actually a "real" picture of a fish. Not one that is drawn by a artist...

yes whob, its all a lie. baby jesus is weeping.

:edit: also, we are talking about evolution. because an animal evolves doesnt mean that its predicessor's traits vanish. thus the reason why we staill have FISH perhaps?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Don't fish that have fin bones resembling hands already exist?


http://www.eaglehawkdive.com.au/Karen/images/Red-handfish-38_JPG.jpg

lol..I think so..

And guess what..my picture is actually a "real" picture of a fish. Not one that is drawn by a artist...

What do you want to say ?

So how did the one in the middle survive?


Did it breather water and air at the same time?

Did it live in water completly, out of water completly, or both?

Did it just sit on the rock there, kind of in-between?

Did it continue to eat sea food, land food, or a mix of both?

Did it mate with creatures from land or from water?

Where were its offspring habitating? In water or on land?



Oh wait, no answers for those questions, becuase nobody knows.

This is a fictitious creature, cobbled together from a warped alligator fossil.

(And they call ME crazy for believing in God.)

Originally posted by PVS
yes whob, its all a lie. baby jesus is weeping.

:edit: also, we are talking about evolution. because an animal evolves doesnt mean that its predicessor's traits vanish. thus the reason why we staill have FISH perhaps?


Seriously bud....you all are delusional..this is all you have to base your pictures off of....


http://www.world-science.net/images/tiktaalik-fossil.JPG


lol..and you wonder why I'm laughing...

One doesn't even need to get a degree at Harvard or Yale to figure out the absurdity of this new "missing link" claim..

As soon as I saw the contrived photo I began to laugh and think to myself..this looks exactly like a walking fish!!

What the heck have these guys been smoking!!

How is this an example of the missing link?!!



It was a worthy effort, reminiscent of the old piltdown and java man silliness..but I'm certain others will quickly catch on to the "silliness" to this most recent "evolutionary" discovery. You know how the old saying goes though..

A dying flame flickers violently, before it is about to go out...

With that being stated, unless a numerous amount of "valid" transitionals" are found in the coming years, I believe we'll see an end to this whole "macro evoloutionary" concept within the next decade or so.

Do you seriously expect every single answer to be found about something within weeks of it's discovery?

FFS.

Originally posted by PVS
"In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.gif

Again:


So how did the one in the middle survive?


Did it breather water and air at the same time?

Did it live in water completly, out of water completly, or both?

Did it just sit on the rock there, kind of in-between?

Did it continue to eat sea food, land food, or a mix of both?

Did it mate with creatures from land or from water?

Where were its offspring habitating? In water or on land?



Oh wait, no answers for those questions, becuase nobody knows.

This is a fictitious creature, cobbled together from a warped alligator fossil.

(And they call ME crazy for believing in God.)



by Whob:

"With that being stated, unless a numerous amount of "valid" transitionals" are found in the coming years, I believe we'll see an end to this whole "macro evoloutionary" concept within the next decade or so."


Indeed, micro-biology is proving evolution to be a statistical impossiblity.

Read Darwin's Black Box, a bestseller recently released.

i base my perception off of the research and testimonials of neil h shubin, university of chicago and the scientists which have reported him and his team's findings. you base it off of a low-res picture you found on the same article. i read, you look at pictures...so is it really safe for you to insult my intelligence? and its not a secretive study. all sceptical scientists are welcome to view their findings and scrutinise...yes not a blessed word from them as of yet.

but you and your bible thumping friend above can just stick shit in your ears and eyes, in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging what is being found. its worked for your type for so long, hasnt it? ignorance is truly bliss i see

Wait your mocking scientists for putting a puzzle together, while you base your information off of a fictional story book?

If you want to criticize be my guest, make sure you have credible proof to stand on.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So how did the one in the middle survive?


Did it breather water and air at the same time?

Did it live in water completly, out of water completly, or both?

Did it just sit on the rock there, kind of in-between?

Did it continue to eat sea food, land food, or a mix of both?

Did it mate with creatures from land or from water?

Where were its offspring habitating? In water or on land?



Oh wait, no answers for those questions, becuase nobody knows.

This is a fictitious creature, cobbled together from a warped alligator fossil.

(And they call ME crazy for believing in God.)



Hey Sith..

Check out my most recent thread..

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t400020.html

It's probably a species of walking fish..not very hard to deduce. Similar fish exist already today. No big discovery here people..move along..

*sigh* we need a thread merge.

breathing air and water...you mean like....
an amphibian?. I'm not even gonna bother to point out how much the skull of this fish resembles icthyostega, eryops and other large permain amphibians.
But wait, fossils were put in the earth by satan and radio carbon dating is just something made up by "darwinists" who are under the control of the communist gay agenda who themselves are pawns of the secret cabal of zionist muslim freemasons who want to rule the world and worship satan.

Originally posted by PVS
i base my perception off of the research and testimonials of neil h shubin, university of chicago and the scientists which have reported him and his team's findings. you base it off of a low-res picture you found on the same article. i read, you look at pictures...so is it really safe for you to insult my intelligence? and its not a secretive study. all sceptical scientists are welcome to view their findings and scrutinise...yes not a blessed word from them as of yet.

but you and your bible thumping friend above can just stick shit in your ears and eyes, in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging what is being found. its worked for your type for so long, hasnt it? ignorance is truly bliss i see


I don't think many of the scientist's are attempting to lie PVS, I just think that many of them are very dogmatic in their faith, and choose to disregard common sensical evidence in order to validate what they believe in. Based on the pictures that I've posted of similar species of fish, why is it so hard to believe that this new "discovery" is that much different than the current walking fish that currently reside in Asia today?

I've given you a picture of a spotted hand fish, which has fins that would be clearly more evolved than the one's scientist's are alluding that this particular extinct specimen had.

In addition to this, I've also given you actual photographs of many other species of fish that are able to breathe out of water, and have similarly developed fins/gills. You've given me fictional pictures, and an incomplete skeleton. Seriously Bud, which one of us seems to have the more favorable evidence?

Always get a good laugh when bible bashers try to discredit evolution. Heres an idea, go back and read the article instead of staring at the picture and using you're on bias views to judge. Hey whob, you think the earth is 60,000 years old? And tell me, wouldn't there have to be a lot of inter breeding for the human race to to thrive from just two people? Didn't think God allowed incest relationships.

your doing a one stop shop science whob................creatures evolve due to enviroment which hosts a huge array of change. Why aren't all fish the same then?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't think many of the scientist's are attempting to lie PVS, I just think that many of them are very dogmatic in their faith, and choose to disregard common sensical evidence in order to validate what they believe in. Based on the pictures that I've posted of similar species of fish, why is it so hard to believe that this new "discovery" is that much different than the current walking fish that currently reside in Asia today?

im just going to answer this under the assumption that you're right and those pictures posted by you are of fish which have finger bones, which they don't btw. anyway, by your logic the presence of FISH on the planet discredit evolution, under the ridiculously asinine asumption that once a species evolves new traits, those previous traits which they evolve from are no longer found in any species.
so therefor, by your logic, the existance of apes discredits evolution, in that since a more successful species (man) supposedly evolved from them, they (apes) should no longer exist. success of a new species does not necessarily bring about the extinction of its predecessor.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I've given you a picture of a spotted hand fish, which has fins that would be clearly more evolved than the one's scientist's are alluding that this particular extinct specimen had.

*see above reply*

Originally posted by whobdamandog
In addition to this, I've also given you actual photographs of many other species of fish that are able to breathe out of water, and have similarly developed fins/gills. You've given me fictional pictures, and an incomplete skeleton. Seriously Bud, which one of us seems to have the more favorable evidence?

look again, genius. the fins/hands are in tact.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/Untitled-1.gif

Originally posted by PVS
im just going to answer this under the assumption that you're right and those pictures posted by you are of fish which have finger bones, which they don't btw. .


I never stated that they had finger bones PVS, nice attempt at trying to damage credibility. I did state that they had fins that resembled fingers/hands..that's why they're called "hand fish"

Having a fin which is "adapted" for travelling on land...doesn't make this particularly species a "missing link."

As stated before, there are many such species that have "evolved fins"
resembling the human hand. The spotted hand fish is but one of these types of fish, but there are many others.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I never stated that they had finger bones PVS, nice attempt at trying to damage credibility. I did state that they had fins that resembled fingers/hands..that's why they're called "hand fish"

Having a fin which is "adapted" for travelling on land...doesn't make this particularly species a "missing link."

As stated before, there are many such species that have "evolved fins"
resembling the human hand. The spotted hand fish is but one of these types of fish, but there are many others.

so in other words, you're using the "stuff shit in ears/eyes" method again? figures

again, FINGER B-O-N-E-S

Yes those definitely look like human finger bones..


http://www.dartmouth.edu/~anatomy/assets/bones/wrist-hand/bones2.gif

As does the the fin in this fictional picture of the so called "missing link"..(note: this pic is coming from your camp buddy)


http://www.world-science.net/images/tiktaalik.JPG


Call me crazy..but this "real" picture below of the spotted hand fish with it's "hand like" fins..looks to be a closer representation of the "missing link" than this particular specimen..


http://www.eaglehawkdive.com.au/Karen/images/Red-handfish-38_JPG.jpg




What do you think? I think I've found the missing link!!!

I think the spotted hand fish has evolved into its modern day form...........................or has it been that way since the beginning of time?

almost forgot:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't think many of the scientist's are attempting to lie

title of thread:

"Walking Fish" ...The most recent "Evolutionary Hoax"

hoax
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means

and if you want to call a graphic representation of scientific findings "ficticious" thats fine.

here is a direct link to the university's site:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/index.html

and video links:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/video.html

be sure to also check out the clip referring to it's independantly moving head, another evolutionary trait.
(for anyone interested in researching these findings rather than stick shit in their ears/eyes)

Merged threads.

Anyway..I think people are jumping the gun a bit on this "discovery."

As another poster noted, it's quite possible that this is an extinct species of amphibian, or as I had alluded to earlier..it's quite possible that this is just a archaic species of walking fish.

People need to get it out of their head that every new species found is some sort of "missing link" hell, there are a ton of undiscovered underwater creatures. Just look at any of those deep sea documenteries. As time passes, and our ability to comb the oceans and seas progresses, I'm certain we're going to find quite a few more "new species" of extinct land and sea animals.

I'm almost certain that if the platypus wasn't currently alive today, any remains of its skeleton would also be lauded as the next big "transitional fossil"

Well of course ID-ists are going to refute the find.

Try to refute them.

according to your holy bible....all humans look exactly alike because all humans have the exact same dna sequence. See......Eve was created from Adam's rib, meaning her DNA was his DNA...they were exactly the same. Eve was a clone (although a clone of different gender, damn that god's good). Their children and all subsequent offspring in the last 6,000 years (lol....) must have the exact same DNA as no other DNA sequences have been introduced to our gene pool. We are all clones.

not only that.......there are not different races of humans. There are no genetic differences between asians, caucasions, africans, etc. according to your idiotic book. See......any changes in DNA through natural selection, say a group of people being isolated passing down the same genetic traits over generations of breeding soly within the group resulting in subsequent generations all having many basic traits inherit to that group but much different from the rest of the species worldwide, would be considered evolution....and by your own admission, evolution doesn't exist. Well.....you said macro evolution.......but all macro-evolution is, is a series of micro-evolved traits therefore none of it can exist. That's right people. All humans are exactly the same.......no naturally selected, evolved traits creating different races......and all of us have the exact same dna sequence. After all, it says so in the bible. I'll try to remember all of this the next time I'm in the same room with Asians, caucasians and blacks. I'll try to remember that our skin color, eye color, hair and other morphological traits are all merely an illusion by the devil. I mean.....am I to trust my own eyes.....but then again, I have to read the bible don't I? If I can't trust my own eyes because everything I see is an illusion created by the devil, how can I trust the words in the bible if they must be read?

how can morons really believe this crap?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes those definitely look like human finger bones..

As does the the fin in this fictional picture of the so called "missing link"..(note: this pic is coming from your camp buddy)

Call me crazy..but this "real" picture below of the spotted hand fish with it's "hand like" fins..looks to be a closer representation of the "missing link" than this particular specimen..

What do you think? I think I've found the missing link!!!

^

Amphibians were the first vertebrates to take to land--they evolved DIRECTLY from fish during the Devonian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But ID does not disagree with evolution.


It most certainly does. It all depends on how the term "evolution" is being used. If we're referring to "evolution" as being the variation within a taxonomic family level..then yes, ID does incorporate the concept of "evolution" into it. Different species of dogs, cats, fish, birds, etc, are examples of this type of "evolution."

The exception to this of course being humans who are currently mis-categorized as being within the primate family. I believe many ID scientist's are still working very dilligently on taking humans out of the "primate" family and putting them into their own unique category.

Moving on, to the contrary most Darwinist's use the term "evolution" to denote what they believe to be changes outside of the family level. Changes such as a dinosaur changing into a bird, and a reptile "evolving" into a mammal. There's no real proof of this. Only a handful of questionable "transitionals." This recent "transitional" is obviously just as questionable as all of the others. Just more of the same silliness that's been presented over the years, and been refuted countless times. They always use the same format when presenting a so called "transitional" which consists of the following steps:

A. Informing all forms of the mass media outlets that support their positions. (Time, New York Times, etc...)

B. Getting an accomplished artist to draw a picture from an incomplete skeleton. Usually the skeleton that the artist bases its rendition on will consist of half of the body of the creature, sometimes even less..such as a tooth.

C. Getting an accomplished artist to draw a picture of how the "transitional" obviously fills the "missing link" gap, using the incomplete skeletal remains.

Silly stuff..nothing real new here. I guarantee you in the next several months, this creature will be found to be nothing more than an extinct amphibian or an extinct type of fish.

what, no reply to me successfully debunking the foundation of the Holy Bible in one post?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
what, no reply to me successfully debunking the foundation of the Holy Bible in one post?

The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally--its fulla metaphors. I'm not Christian and even I can tell you that. Now back to the topic...

but the topic evolved into evolution v/s intelligent design by one of it's "believers".........

the basis of intelligent design is that god created the earth and everything on it AS IS ........

the Adam and Eve crap is no metaphor. Taking a rib to create another human being has to other context and relates to nothing else. It is literally their version of the way the human being was "intelligently designed"...............ofcourse a simple DNA test of two seperate human individuals proves this completely wrong........still, it is their story and they are sticking to it. They even want it to be taught in schools.......science class does not teach "metaphors"......therefore they themselves do not believe this story to be a metaphor.

More interesting Stuff..



So it could just as easily be a lobe fin fish, or quite possibly it could be an amphibian, or it could be a walking fish. More tests will be done, but I'm almost certain that within the next several months, we'll see an article posted by the the mass media retracting this "missing link" discovery.

Of course this retraction won't be reported nearly as much as the initial story, and as Neo - Darwinist's always do, they'll continue to dogmatically have the drivel re-posted in various science journals and school curriculums even after it's been proven to be a misclassification.

And the beat goes on..

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/damandog/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.jpg

The illustration above posted by PVS wasn't even from a scientific journal..the text at the bottom of the picture indicates that the picture was generated by a New York Times' artist...

This same deceptive strategy was used when presenting "Java Man" and the "Neanderthals" years ago. A picture was drawn by a newspaper artist, which wasn't based on any skeletal remains. I believe with Java Man the an entire picture was contrived just from a tooth..a freaking tooth!!

Again more of the same silly drivel, meant to confuse..and keep people believing that Darwin's theory has some sort of validity to it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And the beat goes on..

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/damandog/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.jpg

The illustration above posted by PVS wasn't even from a scientific journal..the text at the bottom of the picture indicates that the picture was generated by a New York Times' artist...

This same deceptive strategy was used when presenting "Java Man" and the "Neanderthals" years ago. A picture was drawn by a newspaper artist, which wasn't based on any skeletal remains. I believe with Java Man the an entire picture was contrived just from a tooth..a freaking tooth!!

Again more of the same silly drivel, meant to confuse..and keep people believing that Darwin's theory has some sort of validity to it.

Probably another hoax.

So have many other species. Some animals are perfectly adapted to their enviroment. The shark, or the alligator for example, have not changed the slightest for millions of years.

Yet, we still need a new vaccine every year for ever-changing viruses.

Holy shit, how can that be!? Evolution is a bunch of crap! PFFT. Screw your vaccines!

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yet, we still need a new vaccine every year for ever-changing viruses.


Does a virus ever evolve into anything other than a virus?

Anyway. I think I've made my point.

We'll see what the tests find in the next couple of months. I'm still thinking archaic walking fish. But we'll see.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Does a virus ever evolve into anything other than a virus?



According to evolution a virus can possibly become a horse.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
According to evolution a virus can possibly become a horse.

Given enough time.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Does a virus ever evolve into anything other than a virus?

Anyway. I think I've made my point.

We'll see what the tests find in the next couple of months. I'm still thinking archaic walking fish. But we'll see.

No, you haven't. Evolving into a completely different species takes millions of years.

However, evolving to better survive your enviroment is still part of evolution.

You're never ever going to completely disprove evolution. Noone will. And the best part is, with science, anything that has been disproven is thrown away and replaced with more current and reliable information.

On the other hand, there's creationism. "Well, we can't explain this bit so...God did it. Yea. Write that down."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Given enough time.

Right, I mean according to doctor who ( he's seen evolution first hand) fish became quadrupeds by swimming in shallow water and randomly mutated, Seriously how do you know it takes millions of years if... oh wait you speculate and speculation isn't evidence

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right, I mean according to doctor who ( he's seen evolution first hand) fish became quadrupeds by swimming in shallow water and randomly mutated, Seriously how do you know it takes millions of years if... oh wait you speculate and speculation isn't evidence

So what you are saying is because I wasn't there, I can't have any idea what happened. So, sense you were also not there, you can't say anything either. The truth is, you would make a very bad detective.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So what you are saying is because I wasn't there, I can't have any idea what happened. So, sense you were also not there, you can't say anything either. The truth is, you would make a very bad detective.

What poor logic, so because i wasn't there it happened?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
What poor logic, so because i wasn't there it happened?

Most detectives were not at the crime sense. If they followed your line of thinking, no crimes would ever be salved.

Actually it's not called speculation. A scientist has data. He forms a hypothesis on that data. From there the hypothesis is looked at, tested, proved or disapproved. That is something of a scientific process.

Just because the good doctor wasn't there doesn't mean it is impossible to know it happened. I can write a paper on 3rd century Roman politics despite not being there. You know why? Because the passage of time, and event, anything, leaves evidence. Sometimes a little. Sometimes a lot. From that it is possible to build theories, test them. Sometimes they will stand up to the test, sometimes they wont. It is absurd to take the line "well, it can't be true because no one was there" You see, that is where science differs from mere opinion, faith, whatever. It is about scientifically plausible theories which are constantly challenged scientifically. They don't stand up to them they are removed, they do and they can be considered reliable, maybe even proven.

Now, as to it taking millions of years, let me do this simply (not chronologically accurate I know). Scientists know roughly how old the earth if. Let us say for the first 50 million years there are no land animals - only fossils of sea creatures. However fossils towards the end of this period are starting to show some basic differences to those towards the beginning. Then say another 3 million years later, we start getting animals with basic legs who bare some similarities to fossils of sea creatures (especially those who had been showing differences.) What does this tell us? It takes millions of years for such major changes to occur.



You are really a bit paranoid. It's not meant to be viewed as a real life picture. It is a diagram. A pictorial explanation of something people might not understand. You know, have you ever opened a science book? See a diagram of the solar system? The human body? The precipitation process? The nitrogen cycle? All 100% proven things? They will look like that. They will be done by artists to be used to aid peoples understanding of what is being said. It's not some conspiracy. It's not a form of brain washing. It is a valid learning aid for those people who prefer to understand the theory on offer and why it is such a strong theory - instead of remaining ignorant about a theory have little clear understanding of. And they will be used by the media who do articles on things such as this, so the readers will have some idea about what is going on.

And once again, if you bother to learn a bit about biology you would discover a great deal can be learnt from a single tooth, and it is possible to hypothesise about what the owner of the tooth looked like. Hypothesise, not prove, but plenty of times they hypothesis has been proven when later evidence comes to light.



No, that is not right. And it shows ignorance in regards to the actual evolutionary process. Evolution is not about something (like a flower) suddenly changing into something else (like a girl with red hair.) But a virus does evolve. Just because it hasn't become a duck does not mean it hasn't. It has to evolve to survive. It mutates and become more virulent, more infectious, able to infect different species, has a different incubation period, more robust etc. On a small scale it would be mere mutation, but when it is the whole viral strain, well, that could be considered some form of evolution. If the bird flu mutates constantly to become more infectious to humans it could be seen as evolving to better exist.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And the beat goes on..

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/damandog/0406-nat-webFOSSIL.jpg

The illustration above posted by PVS wasn't even from a scientific journal..the text at the bottom of the picture indicates that the picture was generated by a New York Times' artist...

Ah, the New York Times, which has been overtly administration supportive in the last four or five years. You spit the name NY Times, without even realizing they have been hijacked by the very people you support.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This same deceptive strategy was used when presenting "Java Man" and the "Neanderthals" years ago. A picture was drawn by a newspaper artist, which wasn't based on any skeletal remains. I believe with Java Man the an entire picture was contrived just from a tooth..a freaking tooth!!

Again more of the same silly drivel, meant to confuse..and keep people believing that Darwin's theory has some sort of validity to it.

Ah, so, there are more fossils with ricketts? Pictures drawn, rarely hold up to scientific scrutiny. Too bad scientists don't base their findings off drawings, like you and your kind. Which, you wish to provid as scientific fact. But, there have been few scientists that take the spoken word as fact without debate and study. Only people who are affraid of the end result are contesting the findings. Sounds like you, doesn't it?

Although, as Sithsabre said, in five years..after the bible thumping revolution...it'll be called an alligator.

Originally posted by Council#13
Good lord, we're decendants of giant-headed fish with weird fins!!!!
Can someone explain to me HOW a fish can lead to a mammal? I mean, I always thought we came from a central source of bateria that broke off of each other, each one creating the different branches of animals: insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals.

Not too wrong. A single universal ancestor (bacteria or something) which diverged at some point and which, theoretically, all life could be traced back to is one possible theory in the evolutionary process. However it didn't diverge so clearly at the time into recognisable kindoms of life (birds, fish etc) - that came later, and some of them came from older families (the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs which came from reptiles which evolved from etc.) And some familes which might not even remain. As others have said kind of a web like pattern, forks, links all that jazz.



Not just an alligator, an alligator with an ingrown toe nail and arthritis which led to it looking nothing like an alligator. Don't worry Tiktaalik, I'll remember the truth.

Imperial Samurai you're some sort of genius.

Imperial samurai I'm not debating evolution as a theory,I'm debating those who believe it's a fact. Evolution is a theory not a fact and until proven otherwise it will remain so. Macro evolution,common ancestry, and etc are theories that have not been proven, I dunno how many times I've said this. Know one knows if evolution happened for sure,they only speculate that it did. We can debate this forever but speculation is never evidence, I don't believe evolution happened but it could have,since know one has been alive for millions we cannot observe it, we can only speculate.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Imperial samurai I'm not debating evolution as a theory,I'm debating those who believe it's a fact. Evolution is a theory not a fact and until proven otherwise it will remain so. Macro evolution,common ancestry, and etc are theories that have not been proven, I dunno how many times I've said this. Know one knows if evolution happened for sure,they only speculate that it did. We can debate this forever but speculation is never evidence, I don't believe evolution happened but it could have,since know one has been alive for millions we cannot observe it, we can only speculate.

Ah, but that's the thing. At what point will a person accept a theory? Some say that every scientific theory, from gravity onwards, is just that, a theory - but at some point a theory becomes so plausible, so supported by facts one can accept it as the most likely answer.

Does this mean it wont change? No. Does this mean it wont be abandoned all together in the future? No. But a theory can reach that point where it can be claimed a fact, even if the small print says "thought there is a small chance this is not completely correct"

Now, from what I have seen in the thread, and others like it there is a group, often the "Intelligent Design" lobby who scoff and sneer and purposely misinterpret the whole thing. Nothing less then getting a badger, sitting it before them, and having it spontaneously evolve into a cheesecake could convince them. What am I saying, even that probably wouldn't be enough.

For me I think there is plenty of proof for evolution. I believe it occurred. I look at the theory and I say without fear "This is the most plausible, most evidenced, most accurate theory available on the origins of life" - no other theory comes close. ID is a void that refuses to offer any proof, it relies on trying to pick holes in Evolution to maintain itself (and does this poorly.) Most other theories on the subject have been disproved or are fringe (like aliens seeded us.) I will consider the fringe theories, but they almost have as little evidence as ID. Yes, evolution is a theory. But it is a theory that again and again has stood up to challenges. It again and again offers the most scientifically likely explanation.

Now you seem to know something of the scientific process - it is not speculation. It is a theory based upon what the evidence has revealed. It is a hypothesis that is still being tested which has not been disproved. That is enough to be able to say "strongly plausible." I can speculate the sky is blue because pixies coloured it so. I could speculate God made it blue. Science however had a theory. A hypothesis. They tested it, and revealed the cause People at the time probably scoffed and said "refracting light?" Same with evolution. It might not be 100% yet. It might never be, but it is still very strong.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
According to evolution a virus can possibly become a horse.
that would be highly unlikely since viruses are of a comletely different classification than archaea, prokariya and eukariya. Viruses are successful enough as parasites and do not rely on any kind of symbiosis for success and do not respire or consume anything for food, therefore the only evolutionary advances that are advantagous for viruses are different protein coat configurations and shapes. It would in no way be advantageous for viruses to combine into tissue because they don't have any food or oxygen to share evenly.

oh, and if aliens seeded us, we'd still have to evolve into humans. snap.

isn't the whole, antievolutionary debate based on some self-serving arogant idea that humans aren't animals and are somehow better and more entitled to everything else? Forgive me for going all biblical and apocryphal but that sounds pretty satanic to me.

there's no point arguing with them. im convinced that fundamentalists of all religions are evil, and would do the world a favor by...not breathing

yeah ok, unless you consider quantum mechanics to be a faith. I mean, a photon can exist in two places at once, but you still have to believe it.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Imperial samurai I'm not debating evolution as a theory,I'm debating those who believe it's a fact. Evolution is a theory not a fact and until proven otherwise it will remain so. Macro evolution,common ancestry, and etc are theories that have not been proven, I dunno how many times I've said this. Know one knows if evolution happened for sure,they only speculate that it did. We can debate this forever but speculation is never evidence, I don't believe evolution happened but it could have,since know one has been alive for millions we cannot observe it, we can only speculate.

Ah, amusing to see this kind of unintelligent comment still comes from people desperately wanting to knock evolution down...

As IS says, our understanding of gravity is only a theory. In fact, you will find that our understanding of just about everything is only supported by thoeries based on observable evidence, because to totally prove something scientifically is more or less impossible. All our ideas about how the universe works, how life works, even how our bodies work... they are theories.

Of course, taking gravity and evolution, they are theories that fit the facts and are massively supported by available evidence and have withstood rigorous scientific procedure, inclduing attempts to disprove them, which is a vital part of the scientific process. Yet, as with all theories, as more informatiuon becomes available, they will be modified to fit more accurately towards some form of final truth.

Calling something a theory does not take it down a peg, make it unlikely, or without value. 'Only a theory' is a nonsensical attack Science is ALL about theory, the question is about how supportable the theory is, and how well it can withstand attempts to disprove it. And this particular theory is very heavily supported. And more importantly... there isn't any better one. When you have a supported theory to explain an obsevred phenomenon and no other theory that even comes CLOSE to explaining it, what possible reason could you have to reject it? That goes against the very essence of science.

Those people saying that evolution is 'only' a theory until 'proven' are deliberately moving the scientific goalposts, trying to force evolution to be proven to a point which is not deemed necessary in any other rational branch of science. Seeing as these same people accept gravity and other theories that our day to day life is based upon, it can only be concluded that the only reason for their differing standards here is simply that the idea of evolution offends them personally. This lack of objectivity is what puts so many of these anti-evolutionists into such poor light.

Owned.

http://www.birkoph.com/owned/owned_help.jpg

Meh, i didn't feel i explained the satanic point enough since i got no responses. But hell, it's fun using scripture to argue for evolution. If opposing evolution comes from a sense of arrogance and superiority from human beings being "the highest and most loved of all of god's creatures" or whatever, didn't God cast the last creatures who said something to that effect into hell?

The article sounds like it would be a great read if I register with the New York Times website. According to their webmasters, if I become a member, I get these amazing features!!!!

• Breaking news and award winning multimedia
• New York Times newspaper articles
• Arts & Dining reviews
• Online Classifieds

Sounds great! I hope they deliver as much stuff as technology will allow them to e-mail to my account so I'll know it ALL about Award Winning Multimedia and especially the Art Reviews. Also, if I need to find someone to fix my gutters, I have the New York Times online classifieds right at my fingertips.

Doh!! looks like scientists 50 years ago beat you all to this "missing link" fish discovery


Damn the Darwinist's are getting desperate..they find a freakin lobe finned fish or walking fish, probably one that is related to the same species that was found over 50 years ago and is still alive today!!!

And let us not forget to remind everyone that there are numerous amounts of walking fish that are still alive today!!

And now they're calling this new finding the "missing link"!!!

Will the nonsense ever end?!!!

This debate is over my friends. I look forward to seeing the retraction of this so called discovery in the coming months.

And I look forward to the gradual demise of evolutionary theory within the coming years.

One last thing to remember my Darwinian friends, when it rains, it doesn't always mean that "baby Jesus" is weeping tears of sorrow, it can also mean that our God is weeping tears of Joy from the hilarity of man's foolish attempts to disprove his existence..

Peace out my brothers..

Much Love,

Whob

I love how he just ignores everything posted, states walking fish are alive today and decides to never come back. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY. Missing link being the key word here, they are trying to show that this fossil although a fish is in the process of developing joints and what not so as to walk on land. Not that it is merely a fish that can walk on land, which it is not. Well done, you look like a complete fool.

Get a clue mate.

Originally posted by Magee
Well done, you look like a complete fool.

he's a professional.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Doh!! looks like scientists 50 years ago beat you all to this "missing link" fish discovery

Damn the Darwinist's are getting desperate..they find a freakin lobe finned fish or walking fish, probably one that is related to the same species that was found over 50 years ago and is still alive today!!!

And let us not forget to remind everyone that there are numerous amounts of walking fish that are still alive today!!

And now they're calling this new finding the "missing link"!!!

I am sorry, but your logic here (or lack of) is totally confusing. The fish you pulled up just there has nothing to do with this debate at all. It is not a missing link. It is a particularly ancient type long thought extinct, which is why it was so important, as well as some of the features it posessed.

To claim it is somehow proof that evolution doesn't exist is... I don't know. Like getting a picture of a cat and using it to disprove the existence of dogs. What are you thinking? I mean you really have little respect for scientists don't you? Do you honestly think they would look at the remains of Tiktaalik and not know if they were an existing fish? Do you honestly think the scientific process is so inept that they would make such a mistake? Tiktaalik is not Coelacanth. Coelacanth does not posses the features that allow scientists to call Tiktaalik a potential example of a transitory species. You argument here, and using coelacanth as the basis, borders on the farcical.



I wonder the same thing when I read some arguments posted...



Actually he is probably weeping at the poor job his supporters are doing of defending his existence. With supporters like these, who needs enemies?

Originally posted by PVS
he's a professional. lol this guy seems to be living in his own little world where he just doesn't have a clue what is going on. I hate to insult the guy like this but, fuk, what is wrong with you whobdamandog? I mean how can you ignore all things posted in this thread, ignore all the evidence which strongly supports evoloution, laugh at the theory and find it so hard to believe in such a thing. Yet you take the word of a 2000 year old fairy tale book as gospel to how the Earth and all life was created? It seems so absurd to me but hey, to each his own

These threads are tough to stay neutral in. On the one hand, I've taken a class specifically devoted to evolution, on the other hand, I am a religious type.

Middle ground: I've seen more than enough data to be convinced of microevolution. I even lean to the macroevolution as far as speciation goes. The only place I really have trouble is with the beginnings of it all. there are some things that I find difficult to believe could come to pass by chance. (A fish developing a mutation that causes bony appendages isn't one of those, in fact my research paper for the class was pretty much the reverse: the evolution of whales from land animals)

Originally posted by Magee
I love how he just ignores everything posted, states walking fish are alive today and decides to never come back. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY. Missing link being the key word here, they are trying to show that this fossil although a fish is in the process of developing joints and what not so as to walk on land. Not that it is merely a fish that can walk on land, which it is not. Well done, you look like a complete fool.

Get a clue mate.

Welcome to Message Board 101. The easiest way to piss people off is to ignore their insults and keep on posting and posting and posting without one single regard for what your opponents have to say. That will drive every single person, who's trying desperately to get through to them and tell them they're an idiot, insane.

Jackie Malfoy is nothing short of a genius with this tactic.

At least I get remarks back..............Though I seem to get under peoples skin sometimes..........Think of me like a tick...........lol

Originally posted by botankus
Welcome to Message Board 101. The easiest way to piss people off is to ignore their insults and keep on posting and posting and posting without one single regard for what your opponents have to say. That will drive every single person, who's trying desperately to get through to them and tell them they're an idiot, insane.

Jackie Malfoy is nothing short of a genius with this tactic.

Comparing WhoB to Jackie is an insult to Jackie.

Whob's back? Oi.

And whatever happened to Jackie Malfoy?

^^ @ Janus
Damn, you've had a lot of usernames! I was just getting used to Wesker.

I'll stick with this one for a bit. Just call me Janus. lol

A modern day fish is found that can bend its neck much like the so called "missing link"



This is getting silly. How many modern species of fish with the same physical anomalies as Tiktaalik rosea does one need to find, before one starts to realize that the "missing link" is no more unique than any other fish that currently exists today?

Finding modern fish that do the same thing doesn't mean it's not a missing link. There's more than one way for a species to evolve, branching off from the original species, or members of the original species going extinct and therefore leaving only the evolved ones.

Besides, what is the count up to? Two species of fish that do the same thing? Don't overreact.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
A modern day fish is found that can bend its neck much like the so called "missing link"

This is getting silly. How many modern species of fish with the same physical anomalies as Tiktaalik rosea does one need to find, before one starts to realize that the "missing link" is no more unique than any other fish that currently exists today?

What is a link? Something that connects two or more things together. You are finding living fish that are showing evolutionary signs that they could have once been moving towards land life - evolving into something else. BUT they didn't, did they. They aren't missing links as they don't connect a creature a. to a creature c. They aren't a creature b. See what I mean?

Now Tiktaalik apparently is a link between Eusthenopteron (creature a.) and Ichthyostega (creature c.) - therefore it is a link. It evolved from creature a. before evolving into creature c. in the process becoming extinct as creature b. The fish you keep bringing up didn't do these things, thus can not be considered "links", let alone missing links. What Tiktaalik might offer is allowing us to see the moment (in broad terms), the transition between two different species (families, kingdoms etc.) What your fish allow us to look at is the process leading up to such a transition. As such they are vital, but in a different way to a creature that could be called a missing link.

And you do realise you are bringing up other organisms that add to the theory of evolution, don't you? That are also supporting it? Just thought I should tell you that.

the only dubious fossil here is you whob