Fish Fossils Found

[firefemme1202]

The fish that crawled out of the water

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060403/full/060403-7.html

Basically, a fish was discovered that isn't just a fish. It's a cross between a crocodile and a fish. The amazingly well-preserved fossils were found on Ellesmere Island in Arctic Canada and is considered the "missing link" by many paleontologists.

I think this is just one more step to proving that Evolution, or a theory related to it (i.e. a theory that is NOT Creationism or related to Creationism) is a fact.

The article isn't long; please read it and give me your opinions.

Edited April 5, 2006 by firefemme1202

[RamboIII]

Amphibian?

Its not amazing, really...

[Glacies]

i think it's amazing i mean, is it a fish? no, is it a lizard? no, crazzzzzzzzzy stuff there.

[zukie&jim]

375 million years back--that's an old fish. i wonder if it is as old as the celocanths ?

[vladdimpailer]

one more step closer to leaving mythology and fables behind and growing to our true potential

[ShaunZero]

How does evolution disprove creationism? Someone please do tell.

Anyhow, why do people complain when someone seems to be trying to prove evolution false, just to support creationism? But here, someone is doing the opposite. Trying to prove evolution to disprove creationism. Shouldn't we just want to all get along, and look for the truth without worrying about what others believe?

[ramster83]

I think this is just one more step to proving that Evolution, or a theory related to it (i.e. a theory that is NOT Creationism or related to Creationism) is a fact.

This is one more step to proving evolution full stop. Evolution does not even remotely damage the theory of creationism....My basic belief is that God works through evolution- the world changes and everything changes WITH the world so in the end it works out harmoniously. I believe that God created the "origins" of species...Think about it...A pine tree- its seeds drop to the ground- the tree that grows is much thinner than the one next to it- its branches are odd and curvy- its leaves are more tipped BUT its the same species.

See what i mean? Species that change came from an "origin" that God put in place and its through his miraculous works that evolution comes from. Evolution is not eligable to disprove creationism im sorry to say to all you hopefuls.

[Dakotabre]

I don't think this is as facinating as it seems.

They may have discovered a new species, but I doubt it's one thats evolving from a fish to a lizard/crocodile.

If scientists only now just discovered, axolotols (Mexican Walking Fish) or the eel that has legs. Or just discovered the tadpole that turned into the frog- Would they be saying this was proving evolution?

What makes this fossil creature any different to the frog or axolotol?

New Species Maybe?

Missing Link- Nope

[Bizeebutt]

that last comment brought up a good point... not that I agree with the rest of what Dakotabre said, but the generally animals were larger in the past (id: dinosaurs) and perhaps this really was the fossilized remains of some sort of amphibian/reptilian that died somewhere in its metamorphic state... maybe they arent finding the adult because they think they already have it or, perhaps it is what they say it is... the missing link.

Either way, it amazes me that even in this day and age we are STILL finding new species of critters that lived and died millions and millions of years ago. Pretty amazing to think that so many species have gone extinct.

[zandore]

How does evolution disprove creationism? Someone please do tell.

Evolution does not deal with life emerging. You (I think) might be thinking about the theory of Abiogenesis. Edited April 6, 2006 by zandore

[Wolfssd]

The one thing that I have a problem with about evolution is that there have been no in-between stages found. It seems that all fossils have been one species or another, but not one that looks as if it is in between species. Arms to short, wings that are deformed, etc. Do scientists think that one species gave birth to the next one day?

[firefemme1202]

How does evolution disprove creationism? Someone please do tell.

Anyhow, why do people complain when someone seems to be trying to prove evolution false, just to support creationism? But here, someone is doing the opposite. Trying to prove evolution to disprove creationism. Shouldn't we just want to all get along, and look for the truth without worrying about what others believe?

Well, I don't think anyone's goal as a paleontologist is to simply disprove Creationism. They are merely trying to prove the theory of Evolution. It has nothing to do with Creationism (it does, but not like that is their goal).

This is one more step to proving evolution full stop. Evolution does not even remotely damage the theory of creationism....My basic belief is that God works through evolution- the world changes and everything changes WITH the world so in the end it works out harmoniously. I believe that God created the "origins" of species...Think about it...A pine tree- its seeds drop to the ground- the tree that grows is much thinner than the one next to it- its branches are odd and curvy- its leaves are more tipped BUT its the same species.

See what i mean? Species that change came from an "origin" that God put in place and its through his miraculous works that evolution comes from. Evolution is not eligable to disprove creationism im sorry to say to all you hopefuls.

This is how I see things...I've never met someone who believed to closely in what I do. Nice to meet you!

[zandore]

The one thing that I have a problem with about evolution is that there have been no in-between stages found. It seems that all fossils have been one species or another, but not one that looks as if it is in between species. Arms to short, wings that are deformed, etc. Do scientists think that one species gave birth to the next one day?

This might help:

ucmp.berkeley.edu

[ShaunZero]

Well, I don't think anyone's goal as a paleontologist is to simply disprove Creationism. They are merely trying to prove the theory of Evolution. It has nothing to do with Creationism (it does, but not like that is their goal).

I was talking about the topic starter. I have nothing wrong with the paleontologists.

I don't think this is as facinating as it seems.

They may have discovered a new species, but I doubt it's one thats evolving from a fish to a lizard/crocodile.

If scientists only now just discovered, axolotols (Mexican Walking Fish) or the eel that has legs. Or just discovered the tadpole that turned into the frog- Would they be saying this was proving evolution?

What makes this fossil creature any different to the frog or axolotol?

New Species Maybe?

Very interesting point. I think you might have something there.

Edited April 6, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[frogfish]

There have been fish like this found before