Evolution of what?

[Valjean]

I figure that's how it likely is figured. Now you got me wondering as to whether there is any evidence that modern fish are evolving.

Why would anyone think otherwise? What fundamental biological principle changed? How is 'now' different from 'then'?

 

[sayak83]

I know about the Tiktaalik. I have no idea why it was extinguished. So I'm guessing that scientists think that this emerging organism duplicated itself over time. I'm thinking there should be more than one tiktaalik coming on land at the same time because these would need to duplicate. It couldn't be just one specimen because it would have to make more. There are male and female fish. Do you think it matters how they emerged and what they definitely evolved to?

No it does not. Not as evidence for evolution.
To make it clear.
The theory of evolution is the only theory that predicted that species like Tiktaalik, showing basal transitional features between aquatic fish and early land vertebrates will exist in the deep past at the time when land animals began to appear. Hence the discovery of this fossil is a confirmation of a unique prediction made by evolution.
Since fossil finds are rare, it is obviously true that the Tiktaalik specimen was part of a then extant species which would have had many many individuals like Tiktaalik.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it does not. Not as evidence for evolution.
To make it clear.
The theory of evolution is the only theory that predicted that species like Tiktaalik, showing basal transitional features between aquatic fish and early land vertebrates will exist in the deep past at the time when land animals began to appear. Hence the discovery of this fossil is a confirmation of a unique prediction made by evolution.
Since fossil finds are rare, it is obviously true that the Tiktaalik specimen was part of a then extant species which would have had many many individuals like Tiktaalik.

Not just one? Seriously I thought that Ray Comfort was alone in this sort of misunderstanding. If you do not know what I am talking about i could probably find a video of him using his "first dog argument" but you will probably knock yourself out with facepalms if I do so. It is worse than the crocoduck.

 

[sayak83]

I understand. However it doesn't answer the question as to why aren't fish evolving now? Also what species of fish, ancient or modern, did tiktaalik possibly come from. Also what happened to the tiktaalik. I am not contesting whether they existed. I am saying however there are questions about their emergency (evolution), disappearance, and if fish and other organisms are currently evolving in form.

Who said fish are not evolving now? Here is evidence.
Rapid evolution in fish: Genomic changes within a generation

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants, just like the one they invented for animals?

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

The oldest fossils we have are of single cell organisms, microbes, that were neither plants nor animals. "Prokaryotes were the earliest life forms, simple creatures that fed on carbon compounds that were accumulating in Earth's early oceans" The origins of life on Earth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I understand. However it doesn't answer the question as to why aren't fish evolving now?

They are. One of my favorite creatures is the Mud Skipper, a kind of fish that has legs and can live both in and out of the water, since it has both gills and also the ability to absorb air through its skin. It can even climb trees.

 

[John53]

They are. One of my favorite creatures is the Mud Skipper, a kind of fish that has legs and can live both in and out of the water, since it has both gills and also the ability to absorb air through its skin. It can even climb trees.

I sent her info on Mud Skippers a year or so back and got the reply "a few fish that flop about in mud are not proof". I wish you better luck.

 

[Valjean]

Mudskippers aren't unique. Snakeheads, walking catfish and others go on considerable hikes far from water sources.
Even more common are the terrestrial animals returning to the water. There are dozens of these, from animals that have become completely aquatic, to every land-water dwelling percentile imaginable.

 

[gnostic]

Not sure if I answered this or not, but the things not evidenced are supposed to have happened, right? For instance with Tiktaalik there is no evidence from which organism specifically it evolved from, is there? I mean one can say fish but do scientists know what kind of fish it evolved from?

What do you means there are no evidence of which the Tiktaalik evolved from?

Of course there are evidence, you are simply just do some research on the Tiktaalik. You expect everyone to answer your questions, but all I see from you is nio attempts to some works yourself - no reading, no research and hence NO UNDERSTANDING.

Plus, what explain to you, you just dismissively hand wave them away, and then ask the same question again.

it is exhaustive for other to repeat the explanation from your questions and you doing no research on the matter.

I am not giving you whole answer, so I would suggest that you looked them up.

You wanted to know about what came before the Tiktaalik, then you should start with following in term of timeline:

The superclass Osteichthyes (bony fish, Devonian), there are 2 main classes of bony fishes:

• class Actinopterygii (ray-finned bony fish) Most of fishes you would find in the seas, oceans, and freshwater are ray-finned fishes, that existed today modern actinopterygians - swordfish, tuna, salmon, pike, seahorse, etc. There are just too many actinopterygian orders, familie, genus and species to list them here.
• class Sacropterygii (lobe-finned bony fish)
  • subclass Actinista
    • coelacanths
  • class Dipnoi
    • lungfish
  • clade Tetrapodomorpha (this is the group that you should be interested in)
    • genus Eusthenopteron
      • genus Panderichthys
        • genus Tiktaalik
          • genus Elginerpeton
            • genus Acanthostega, stem tetrapod
              • genus Ichthyostega, true four limbs, hence tetrapod

You should considered the Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, etc, as clades. What the species to Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, & Tiktaalik showed, are increasing skeletal development of the lobe-fins into something becoming more limb-like.

Do some reading, research from Osteichthyes to Sacropterygii, and then all the tetrapodmorpha sacropterygians (including the Tiktaalik, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega, then you will understand where the amphibians come from, followed by true terrestrial tetrapod vertebrates, the amniotes, which are ancestors to all modern reptiles, birds and mammals.

edit:

As books would be expensive, then Wikipedia & Google are your friends.

All those list of superclass Osteichthyes, class and the clades to the Sacropterygii (including Tiktaaki), can all be found in Wikipedia articles, and these include cited scientific papers in the bibliography, references, footnotes. So there are wealth of information from wiki articles.

do the research yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you means there are no evidence of which the Tiktaalik evolved from?

Of course there are evidence, you are simply just do some research on the Tiktaalik. You expect everyone to answer your questions, but all I see from you is nio attempts to some works yourself - no reading, no research and hence NO UNDERSTANDING.

Plus, what explain to you, you just dismissively hand wave them away, and then ask the same question again.

it is exhaustive for other to repeat the explanation from your questions and you doing no research on the matter.

I am not giving you whole answer, so I would suggest that you looked them up.

You wanted to know about what came before the Tiktaalik, then you should start with following in term of timeline:

The superclass Osteichthyes (bony fish, Devonian), there are 2 main classes of bony fishes:

• class Actinopterygii (ray-finned bony fish) Most of fishes you would find in the seas, oceans, and freshwater are ray-finned fishes, that existed today modern actinopterygians - swordfish, tuna, salmon, pike, seahorse, etc. There are just too many actinopterygian orders, familie, genus and species to list them here.
• class Sacropterygii (lobe-finned bony fish)
  • subclass Actinista
    • coelacanths
  • class Dipnoi
    • lungfish
  • clade Tetrapodomorpha (this is the group that you should be interested in)
    • genus Eusthenopteron
      • genus Panderichthys
        • genus Tiktaalik
          • genus Elginerpeton
            • genus Acanthostega, stem tetrapod
              • genus Ichthyostega, true four limbs, hence tetrapod

You should considered the Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, etc, as clades. What the species to Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, & Tiktaalik showed, are increasing skeletal development of the lobe-fins into something becoming more limb-like.

Do some reading, research from Osteichthyes to Sacropterygii, and then all the tetrapodmorpha sacropterygians (including the Tiktaalik, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega, then you will understand where the amphibians come from, followed by true terrestrial tetrapod vertebrates, the amniotes, which are ancestors to all modern reptiles, birds and mammals.

edit:

As books would be expensive, then Wikipedia & Google are your friends.

All those list of superclass Osteichthyes, class and the clades to the Sacropterygii (including Tiktaaki), can all be found in Wikipedia articles, and these include cited scientific papers in the bibliography, references, footnotes. So there are wealth of information from wiki articles.

do the research yourself.

I did some research as to the discovery of the Tiktaalik. This does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are. One of my favorite creatures is the Mud Skipper, a kind of fish that has legs and can live both in and out of the water, since it has both gills and also the ability to absorb air through its skin. It can even climb trees.

Again -- this does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it does not. Not as evidence for evolution.
To make it clear.
The theory of evolution is the only theory that predicted that species like Tiktaalik, showing basal transitional features between aquatic fish and early land vertebrates will exist in the deep past at the time when land animals began to appear. Hence the discovery of this fossil is a confirmation of a unique prediction made by evolution.
Since fossil finds are rare, it is obviously true that the Tiktaalik specimen was part of a then extant species which would have had many many individuals like Tiktaalik.

I understand you believe the theory of evolution without intelligent design behind the various entities is true. Animal life, including fishes, is a wondrous and fabulous thing to behold. I believe that there is a Designer behind the various entities of plant and animal life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Further, there are many varieties of fish around today. Has anyone seen any of these fish evolve in current times?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Again -- this does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

It depends what you mean. If you mean that there is some sort of intelligence behind the universe coming into existence, and ONLY that, you are correct. The problem is, that's not what intelligent design means. ID comes with all the baggage of creationism. And yes, Mudskippers pose a problem for creationists.

 

[McBell]

Further, there are many varieties of fish around today. Has anyone seen any of these fish evolve in current times?

Please give the details behind your belief concerning the diversity of the animal kingdom.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please give the details behind your belief concerning the diversity of the animal kingdom.

The only details I really know about are in the Biblical creation account. I mean we humans can observe animals and plants and see their needs and fabulous qualities, but that's about all I can say. How long it took is unclear except that I believe each 'day' could have taken thousands of years maybe longer. Yes, I have doubts concerning the dating processes, but that remains to be seen. To reiterate, the details I believe relating to my belief is that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And whether one agrees with the terms of that account or not, that is how I see it. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.
I see and believe the heavens (the sky) and the earth are too much for me to think as to how they physically happened. Others may like to think about it, meaning like maybe something came from nothing, but I'll wait for further explanation that I can appreciate. I'm sure you will probably agree that even scientists cannot really explain gravity.
I was watching a show about outer space today and a space traveler was interviewed. So the earth looks fabulously different from space than any other planet -- and he said that as soon as the spaceship left the field of gravity he began floating and then said that the space atmosphere is hostile to life. What is gravity?.
I like to keep my posts short so I'll stop there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did some research as to the discovery of the Tiktaalik. This does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

You have the burden of proof backwards. It is up to those proposing ID to "prove" their ideas. In the sciences an idea is treated as if it were false until the people proposing it provide ample evidence for it This is why evolution is extremely well accepted. There are literally mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. ID believers have not provided any evidence for their beliefs at all.

There is no evidence that life is not the results of fairies. Should we assume that fairies are true because no one has disproved them?

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends what you mean. If you mean that there is some sort of intelligence behind the universe coming into existence, and ONLY that, you are correct. The problem is, that's not what intelligent design means. ID comes with all the baggage of creationism. And yes, Mudskippers pose a problem for creationists.

As I have said and until shown differently, I believe there is a "intelligence" from a person (who is God) in generating and causing life. Tiktaalik do not prove or evidence evolution as if by necessity. Some animals are on the verge of extinction yet no evolution seems to be taking place there. Perhaps someone can provide evidence that some life forms being threatened now are evolving to forms that will enable them to live in those difficult circumstances. ?
The Bible explains more about why we suffer and it makes sense to me. None of us really want to die. For me, the idea of death is not a pleasant one. I do not want to die but I figure I may die, although I hope I can live forever in beautiful conditions some day.
Some turtles have longer lifespans than we do, which shows me that it is possible to live much longer than we do now. How Long Do Turtles and Tortoises Live?
and here I go, turtles do not compose music, they don't have orchestras. Or write books. (etc.) They are remarkable, however, in their own right. I certainly don't look forward to being a turtle, which some religionists might say that we can transmigrate to another form of life. (I hope not.) I don't believe that and never did even before I believed in the God that inspired the Bible. But then I don't think turtles think about these things, so they're safe in that respect. I don't think they worry or think about dying. But that's me, the way I think now. No, thank goodness turtles haven't spoken to me.

 

[McBell]

The only details I really know about are in the Biblical creation account. I mean we humans can observe animals and plants and see their needs and fabulous qualities, but that's about all I can say. How long it took is unclear except that I believe each 'day' could have taken thousands of years maybe longer. Yes, I have doubts concerning the dating processes, but that remains to be seen. To reiterate, the details I believe relating to my belief is that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And whether one agrees with the terms of that account or not, that is how I see it. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.
I see and believe the heavens (the sky) and the earth are too much for me to think as to how they physically happened. Others may like to think about it, meaning like maybe something came from nothing, but I'll wait for further explanation that I can appreciate. I'm sure you will probably agree that even scientists cannot really explain gravity.
I was watching a show about outer space today and a space traveler was interviewed. So the earth looks fabulously different from space than any other planet -- and he said that as soon as the spaceship left the field of gravity he began floating and then said that the space atmosphere is hostile to life. What is gravity?.
I like to keep my posts short so I'll stop there.

So basically, your demands for the details of evolution are at best dishonest, given you have no details other than the three word line of "GodDidIt"?

What is it that Jesus said about hypocrites?

 

[sayak83]

I understand you believe the theory of evolution without intelligent design behind the various entities is true. Animal life, including fishes, is a wondrous and fabulous thing to behold. I believe that there is a Designer behind the various entities of plant and animal life.

What we are discussing is irrelevant to what you believe or what I believe. The point of the conversation we are having is entirely different.
You stated that the theory of evolution has no demonstrable evidence.
I stated that fossils do demonstrate evolutionary theory. You asked to show this to you.
I described the fossil Tiktaalik and explained how it's transitional features between marine fish and land vertebrates is a confirmation of a unique prediction from the theory of evolution which states that land vertebrates evolved from marine vertebrates through a graded process thereby making the fossil a demonstrative evidence for the theory.
So, from my pov, I have succeeded in supporting my claim in an objective manner.