Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals

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.

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

Originally posted by PVS

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

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!!!

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.

Updated: Latest Fossil Find "No Threat" To Theory of Intelligent Design

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/latest_fossil_find_no_threat_t.html

“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design.” So says Discovery Institute senior fellow and leading intelligent design theorist Dr. William Dembski, adding:

“Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes--as opposed to intelligence--can create biological complexity and diversity.”

The journal Nature is making news by publishing a report today that a group of researchers claim to have uncovered the skeleton of a 375-million-year-old fish in the Canadian Arctic that they believe is a missing link in the evolution of some fishes to becoming land walking vertebrates. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, meaning "large shallow water fish."

Even though this find does not challenge intelligent design, there may be good reasons to be skeptical about it.

These fish are not neccesarily intermediates, explain Discovery Institute scientists I queried about the find. Tiktaalik roseae is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics--these fishes have advanced fully formed characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that have half-fish/half-tetrapod characteristics. Rather, they have a combination of tetrapod-like features and fish-like features. Paleontologists refer to such organisms as mosaics rather than intermediates.

The anatomical characters of Tiktaalik and similar taxa were "coded" and analyzed by a computer program. Because of the presence of some advanced characters, the analysis placed Tiktaalik next to a group of tetrapod-like fishes. What is clear is that forms like Tiktaalik are a melange of primitive and more developed features. It is not clear whether they are true transitional forms.

According to DI Fellows a number of these fishes—Ichthyostega, Elpistostege, Panderichthys—have been hailed in the past as the “missing link.” Maybe one is a missing link; maybe none are. What remains unexplained is how natural selection and random mutation could produce the many novel physiological characteristics that arise in true tetrapods.

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.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
[b]
Updated: Latest Fossil Find "No Threat" To Theory of Intelligent Design

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/latest_fossil_find_no_threat_t.html

“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design.” So says Discovery Institute senior fellow and leading intelligent design theorist Dr. William Dembski, adding:

“Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes--as opposed to intelligence--can create biological complexity and diversity.”

The journal Nature is making news by publishing a report today that a group of researchers claim to have uncovered the skeleton of a 375-million-year-old fish in the Canadian Arctic that they believe is a missing link in the evolution of some fishes to becoming land walking vertebrates. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, meaning "large shallow water fish."

Even though this find does not challenge intelligent design, there may be good reasons to be skeptical about it.

These fish are not neccesarily intermediates, explain Discovery Institute scientists I queried about the find. Tiktaalik roseae is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics--these fishes have advanced fully formed characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that have half-fish/half-tetrapod characteristics. Rather, they have a combination of tetrapod-like features and fish-like features. Paleontologists refer to such organisms as mosaics rather than intermediates.

The anatomical characters of Tiktaalik and similar taxa were "coded" and analyzed by a computer program. Because of the presence of some advanced characters, the analysis placed Tiktaalik next to a group of tetrapod-like fishes. What is clear is that forms like Tiktaalik are a melange of primitive and more developed features. It is not clear whether they are true transitional forms.

According to DI Fellows a number of these fishes—Ichthyostega, Elpistostege, Panderichthys—have been hailed in the past as the “missing link.” Maybe one is a missing link; maybe none are. What remains unexplained is how natural selection and random mutation could produce the many novel physiological characteristics that arise in true tetrapods. [/B]

But ID does not disagree with evolution. It only states that an intelligence is behind the sense making things happen. Evolution could be the hand of God.

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.

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..

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23010

David Menton, an Answers in Genesis lecturer who served as a biomedical research technician at the Mayo Clinic, helped craft the creationist rebuttal.

“[Tiktaalik] is not an amphibian or a reptile,” said Menton, who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. “It belongs to a group of fish called lobe-fin fish.”

The lobe-fin fish have bones similar to other vertebrates. Tiktaalik, Menton said, is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them. Evolutionists say the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago.

Coelacanth, in particular, supposedly vanished 135 million years ago before its hyped 1938 discovery in waters near Madagascar, Menton noted.

“It was known in the fossil record a long time before we found a living one,” Menton said. “They are a fish; they do not walk on the land; they use these fins to swim with.” A 1955 Scientific American article exposing its consistent lineage embarrassed evolutionists, he said, because “it didn’t evolve; it didn’t change; it looked like the one found in the fossil record.”

None of the lobe-fin fish, including Tiktaalik, have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton, Menton said.

“This means that these limbs would not be weight bearing,” he said. “I don’t believe the fish walked because the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate.”

On a side note, Menton said creationists actually believe in more variability in species than evolutionists.

“The coelacanth appears not to have changed in over a hundred millions years,” despite evolutionary time calculations, he said.

Putting ill-advised announcements in perspective, Answers in Genesis cited another mass-media misfire in recent history: “The discovery of the fossil ‘Tiktaalik’ has been one of the most-widely picked up pro-evolution media stories since the (in)famous 1996 claim -– eventually shown to be false –- that life had been found in a meteorite from Mars.”

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.