Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 <a href="http://www.aol.com/redir.adp?_e_t=ap&_a_v=2.0&_a_i=100124311x1086605522x1075846738&_url=http" target="_blank">http://www.aol.com/redir.adp?_ e_t=ap&_a_v=2.0&_a_i=100124311x1086605522x1075846738&_url=http</a>%3a%2f%2farticles%2enews%2eaol%2ecom%2fnews%2farticle%2eadp%3fid%3d20060406093109990001%26ncid%3dNWS00010000000001 Hopefully this link works, but a new "transitional" fossil has been found that gives further evidence that fish evolved to land animals. Here are some highhlights. "Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, The New York Times (April 6) -- Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land. In two reports today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago say they have uncovered several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish in sediments of former streambeds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole. The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans. 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. Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory." "Two other paleontologists, commenting on the find in a separate article in the journal, said that a few other transitional fish had been previously discovered from approximately the same Late Devonian time period, 385 million to 359 million years ago. But Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates," they said, that it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles (probably dinosaurs) and today's birds." "Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in this country, but other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. One creationist site on the Web (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs /evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins, part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?""
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"" Videotape?
Originally Posted By woody Why are scientists so quick to declare the "missing link"? I would think they are ready to declare the end of religion rather than state a scientific fact. Whatever happened to "Lucy"? Lucy proported to show the transition from ape to humans. At best, these studies provides more evidence of evolution. At worse, they are premature and tinged with anti-religious bias. I have a problem with the article's declaration. Give it a break. Let's just talk to the facts.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Whatever happened to "Lucy"? Lucy proported to show the transition from ape to humans." That Desi Arnaz apparently had more patience than we know.
Originally Posted By Nautilus I love evolutionary Lucy! But I believe she was named after "the girl with kaleidoscope eyes."
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger In other news: <a href="http://web.utk.edu/~blyons/xcentaurfront.jpg" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~blyons/xce ntaurfront.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Every fossil and every living animal is "transitional". That's what evolution means.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Uh...scientifically speaking, the gaps in the fossil record are the single most compelling argument against Evolution...on a simple level of understanding. I don't think this will prove to be any sort of bridge for those gaps. On a more cellular or genetic level, MOST people confuse evolution with a little thing called natrual selection. You see, there are bascially NO mutations that occur which result in an upgrade. I am neither a creationist nor an evolutionist, but... There are no scientific arguemnts to support creation, (excepting the big bang theory which doesn't count) and pretty much no scientific evidence to support evolution. Ask the chemist which he believes and he says evolution, (it's the only logical explanation, life will find a way)...ask the physicist and he says creation, (everything is in a continual state of breaking down thus making evolution impossible.) Ask the biologist, and he straddles the fence.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy And if he does that too long, the biologist won't be able to have kids.
Originally Posted By idleHands I'm tellin' ya... way too much time spent down in that bunker, dude. 8^P
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Dagh! You're followin' me again---I don't even *hear* you when you do that! 8^o
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Scientifically speaking, there are no significant arguments against the Theory of Evolution.
Originally Posted By RC Collins <a href="http://www.tennapel.com/blog/WeFoundaMissingLink....shtml" target="_blank">http://www.tennapel.com/blog/W eFoundaMissingLink....shtml</a> Funny stuff.
Originally Posted By RC Collins It's hilarious. It is truly funny to see people who have pledged their undying allegiance to a presupposition (that the universe and all of the natural objects, conditions, organisms, and systems therein) must have formed without any kind of design or intelligence being involved) treat others like they are closed-minded zealots.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By woody >>Scientifically speaking, there are no significant arguments against the Theory of Evolution.<< That isn't how science is supposed to work. Evidence is supposed to prove the theory. Since there is no evidence for it, then why are we trying to prove it doesn't exist. LOL!!! Keep believing in the Theory of Evolution. I suppose there's no reason to doubt it except the lack of scientific proof.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Very interesting thread as you LPers are better than going to college.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad LOL joe! I was a Chemistry Major for 2 years, but to be painfully honest...I got too lazy to finish that route.
