nebula Posted November 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 29, 2006 You could have saved face My reasons for posting have nothing to do with self-face-ervation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted November 30, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted November 30, 2006 Lancelets probably have changed, but I should clarify that lancelets were not the link between invertebrates and vertebrates. Fossil evidence shows the first intermediary chordate to be an extinct fish called the Pikia. Modern lancelets came after Pikia, branching off of its descendents. Since primordial lancelets never evolved into vertebrates, their evolution to modern day really doesn't say anything about vertebrates. Lancelets weren't the link. And the fact modern lancelets are still pretty similar to the first lancelets only suggests that the lancelets' environment (underwater sand burrows), hasn't changed too much over time.) I still don;t see this as evidence, do you admit, that it is possible that it was created this way? I don't see it as too much a link, and a questionable link at that., so all life from this point is suposed to evolve from the pikia? lol There is a big gap there. ANd evidence of this, even based of a theory behind a link, holds no actual fact it evolved. No, the chordates are the evidence. Like vertebrates, they had a notochord, but unlike vertebrates, they lacked a spinal column. They are the link: one of these spineless chordates evolved into vertebrate. Evidence it evolved? if it is evidence it evolved, it is not evidence it evolved into another species. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution was published in 1987. 19 years ago. There have been many discoveries in the last two decades of research. One of them made the New York Times a few months back, the Tiktaalik, an unmistakable "halfway point" between primitive fish and tetrapods. Here's the Wikipedia entry. Here's an illustration from the NYTimes. Its anterior appendages have a balanced hand/fin design. Cool, huh? That is pretty cool, I'll admit that, but cartoon, and artwork doesn't prove that it evolved. and it doesn't prove that it is infact a link, though there are simularitys, in the bone structure, I didn't see how it could match too much without speculation. Species that demonstrate the traits of both, and which occur in an observable temporal transition from fish to tetrapod, thus illustrating a link between the two. Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega are other specimens may be just a few of these bridges species. Once again, artwork will not prove to me that this is a real, though I do find simularitys, is it fact that this is a link? or fact that this is supposed to be a link? There is no evidence, except slight simularitys with the bone structure. What else can they provide? rather than a guess, cause the fossils could be separate species, very much so. Other missing links were proposed before Tiktaalik was discovered, but none of them were so equidistant to fish and tetrapods as Tiktaalik. Evolutionarily, fish and tetrapods were connected by only one link, through a single species. These other proposed links are probably related to the link species; they are not that exact species. Tiktaalik is our best guest for that species; he clearly demonstrates a transitional form between fish and tetrapods. The tiktaalik actualy is pretty rad, but as far as transitional forms, he cleary demonstrates, he clearly doesn't demonstrate if he evolved, or if he was created. evidence? just a guess on his features. Nothing more, which doesn't provide a strong enough link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted December 1, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted December 1, 2006 You could have saved face My reasons for posting have nothing to do with self-face-ervation. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undone Posted December 1, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 819 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 1, 2006 Wasn't the Darwin family partial to maples? Or was it oaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts