Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.

[- Qatada -]

Hey.


What are your views on the Cambrian Explosion?


Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? Because i hear so much about man evolving from a 'common ancestor' - yet i can't seem to find any pics of the fossils which other animals 'evolved' from. Any pics with sources?


And what are your views on the trilobite? Which is a product of the Cambrian explosion?




Thanks in advance.

[wilberhum]

Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory?

There is no PROOF. That is why it is called a THEORY. You can not prove a not repeatable event. But hundreds of thousands of pieces of information all pointing in the same general direction is good enough for me.

[Philosopher]

There is no PROOF. That is why it is called a THEORY. You can not prove a not repeatable event. But hundreds of thousands of pieces of information all pointing in the same general direction is good enough for me.

Do you know what a "theory" is on scientific terms?? A theory (in the proper definition) is a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested many times and is widely accepted as being true. So evolution is a theory, but that's a very robust and positive statement. It doesn't mean that evolution is just a guess.. A fact is better defined as an observed situation that has reality in an objective sense. So we observe that species adapt to their environment. This has been observed and so could be taken as a fact. The explanation for why species might do this is evolution (or more properly 'natural selection'). Another example might be that the Yankees have won the World Series 26 times -- that's a fact. However the explanation that the Yankees pay off the umpires is a hypothesis (and not a theory).

For the OP, for summary of major proofs on evolution, please visit the following documentary by Arizona State University (click on the orange box that says "Launch Documentary"):

http://www.becominghuman.org/

[ranma1/2]

Hey.

What are your views on the Cambrian Explosion?

Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? ..
Any pics with sources?

And what are your views on the trilobite? Which is a product of the Cambrian explosion?

Thanks in advance.

I would recomend some general reading on evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

and a basic one on the cambrian explosion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Philosopher]

You should also search for Richard Dawkins videos on YouTube

[Trumble]

Knowing next to nothing about trilobites, I'll stick with people.


THIS is fun; sorry, I couldn't manage to get the table to appear, so go check it out.


"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)

It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.

Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case. "


Also, purely as an example, Skull D2700 . The article is well worth reading, if only to ram home the point that just because creationists keep desperately repeating the "no transitional fossils" mantra that still doesn't actually make it true. Transitional fossils.

[Malaikah]

Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? Because i hear so much about man evolving from a 'common ancestor' - yet i can't seem to find any pics of the fossils which other animals 'evolved' from. Any pics with sources?

:sl:

The idea is that humans and animals (and bacteria, fungi, protists and plants) all evolved from the same common ancestor.

We just branched away from them a little later on.

[Abdul Fattah]

So I geuss nobody dears to tackle teh cambium explosion here. It's a really though nut to crack. And so far it's still in it's shell blocking evolution theory.

And to those telling us to check out this and this and this, I reply, check out Harun Yahya's evolutionary deceit. He talks about cambrium explosion to :)

[ranma1/2]

So I geuss nobody dears to tackle teh cambium explosion here. It's a really though nut to crack. And so far it's still in it's shell blocking evolution theory.

And to those telling us to check out this and this and this, I reply, check out Harun Yahya's evolutionary deceit. He talks about cambrium explosion to :)

well apart from you refusing to read something about science what are your questions about the cambrian explosion? There is nothing wrong about it. It does not in anyway contradict evolution.

If it helps , at the point of the "explosion" was when creatures started to develope harder body parts that were more easily fossilized.

I might also suggest reading up on the process of fossilization.

[Trumble]

So I geuss nobody dears to tackle teh cambium explosion here. It's a really though nut to crack. And so far it's still in it's shell blocking evolution theory.

Unless we have have a resident paleontologist hiding in the woodwork, I doubt anyone could sensibly add to the Wiki article ranma1/2 linked to. There is no point in just playing the cut n' paste game. That article seems to present are careful, balanced view including suggested explanations which, as usual, is more than can be said for Harun Yahya.

[Abdul Fattah]

I agree partially Trumble. The link is indeed balanced and shows suggested explenations. The problem is, suggested explenations = speculation
And speculation does not equal theory. so in that sense the suggested explenations are no different from Harun Yahya's work.

[Idris]

Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? Because i hear so much about man evolving from a 'common ancestor' - yet i can't seem to find any pics of the fossils which other animals 'evolved' from.

They aways find some fossil.... but in a month or 2 they find out it's bogus

[- Qatada -]

Thanks everyone for the responses :)


Obviously, depending on what side you're starting from (i.e. the creationist, or the evolutionist) - our perceptions will be biased.


I've already checked out that Cambrian Explosion link previously, and an outcome of that was the trilobite, which is such an advanced creature* that i did some research on it, and i found some people stating that it depended on faith also.

In the absence of physical evidence for the evolution of complex systems and in the absence of evidence for any increase in the information content of existing complex systems, a belief in the theory of organic evolution remains a matter of pure faith.

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/compl...eng/index.html

* The Trilobites - Holochroal eyes Holochroal eyes had a great number of (tiny) lenses (sometimes over 15,000), and are found in all orders of trilobite. These lenses were packed closely together (hexagonally) and touch each other. A single corneal membrane covered all lenses.

When i used to hear about the big bang explosion, i wondered how the first living cell came into existence (i heard some arguments, but i don't want to discuss that issue in this thread.)

But when i heard about the Cambrian Explosion, it totally gave me an emaan boost (faith boost) because we know that Allaah/God placed the creatures on the earth within certain time periods. So that Cambrian Explosion could have been a scientific explanation and proof for that.



Also, Trumble - you said;

"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils.

[...]

It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc.

So this makes me wonder whether both sides depend on faith, and therefore according to my understanding - both parties are in a similar position - both using the issue of faith, or depending on the future to see if our positions can be clarified using science or other means?


It's not just directed at you, but at any evolutionist.




Regards, and thanks in advance.

[Trumble]

And speculation does not equal theory. so in that sense the suggested explenations are no different from Harun Yahya's work.

The difference is that that Yahya assumes there is no explanation other than the one he prefers, and claims the absence of same somehow 'disproves' evolution. Advocates of all the explanations, being scientists, would quite happily change their minds should additional evidence suggest that one of the alternatives is, in fact, correct.

The Yahya approach is a fairly 'classic' one. If a perceived gap in scientific understanding exists you assume it can never be filled with a definitive explanation, and so it is legitimate to insert God to plug the gap. What that ignores is that the whole history and purpose of science is to fill those gaps; that is what science is for. Without such puzzles it would not exist, and could never have existed.

So this makes me wonder whether both sides depend on faith, and therefore according to my understanding - both parties are in a similar position - both using the issue of faith, or depending on the future to see if our positions can be clarified using science or other means?

No, it isn't a matter of 'faith' from the evolutionist/scientific point of view. The evolutionary theory is accepted because it is the best scientific theory we have. There is nothing else that even comes close. It is important to realise that that does not make it right, and nor does it eliminate the possibility of a partial or even complete alternative. Should such come along and 'disprove' evolution, or even just provide a more convincing explanation of the empirical facts, it will replace evolutionary theory as the accepted theory.

I think it is frequently misunderstood what scientists hold most dear, particularly in regard to such things as the evolution and intelligent design debate. It is not that they have a fear that some theory may be proved to be wrong (unless maybe they wrote the paper that suggested it!), and their 'faith' in it will be overturned. It is that the scientific method itself is abandoned and corrupted. Creationism and ID are perfectly good theories, but they are not scientific theories. Their claim for admittance to 'science' is solely a negative one; that they can fill gaps science has has not yet managed to fill with a rational, material explanation. But without any positive element, theories why that gap should be filled by God (you would first need to prove there is a God, for starters), supported by empirical evidence, it cannot be science. Those "other means" are necessary.

[- Qatada -]

Thanks trumble, just one more point though - does this Cambrian Explosion, and the issue of the fossils being 'debatable' or controversial mean that the scientists aren't certain for sure either? And that they can only find this out if there is further research (in the future) which proves what they state?

[Trumble]

Thanks trumble, just one more point though - does this Cambrian Explosion, and the issue of the fossils being 'debatable' or controversial mean that the scientists aren't certain for sure either? And that they can only find this out if there is further research (in the future) which proves what they state?

Exactly, apart from the "proves" bit. The situation is much the same with regard to any branch of scientific research. You encounter a puzzle (which the Cambrian explosion is), and seek possible solutions. Initially those will be speculative, but the better ones are used to form tentative hypotheses which are then tested as far as possible to see if they stand up; if they do a theory would be built on that.

The trouble with this particular area is that you can't just summon up the evidence or create an experiment, as you might be able to do in physics or chemistry. You have to rely on what happens to crop up, and then see how that fits into the picture and with the hypotheses you have. Nobody is ever "certain for sure" even in much more 'certain' areas; scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven. Nobody has ever 'proven' the theory of gravity, the best you can say is no experiment has ever disproved it!

[- Qatada -]

That's kool, thanks alot. :)

[- Qatada -]

Hey.


Need some more info.



What are the views of evolutionists on, i.e. the same 'common ancestor' - when it evolved, how did it have offspring? Is there any reference for that?


Also, the Electric Fish - what did that evolve from? Any views or fossils etc?



Thanks in advance.

[ranma1/2]

Hey.
Need some more info.

What are the views of evolutionists on, i.e. the same 'common ancestor' - when it evolved, how did it have offspring? Is there any reference for that?

Also, the Electric Fish - what did that evolve from? Any views or fossils etc?

Thanks in advance.

Im not sure i understand your question but ill try.
Evolution involves small gradual change "in general" as well as populations.
If say one creature developes a benefitial mutation and that mutation gets put into the population then the population is evolving. After many many mutations the population maybe substantially different from what it once was. Of course this does not mean that the ancestor does dies out. populations can split if there are niches available.

electric fish? Do you mean the eel?

[- Qatada -]

Thanks ^ i meant that if for example, i think it's said that the fish was the first thing which evolved (from a sea animal to a land animal) and then grew legs etc. and then turned into a land animal right?

Now if this fish turned into a land animal, how did it reproduce? i.e. did it reproduce asexually? Or some other alternative?



The electric fish can send electronical signals i think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_fish


thanks for your time. :) i'll respond tomorrow insha Allah (God willing)




Peace.

[ranma1/2]

Thanks ^ i meant that if for example, i think it's said that the fish was the first thing which evolved (from a sea animal to a land animal) and then grew legs etc. and then turned into a land animal right?

Now if this fish turned into a land animal, how did it reproduce? i.e. did it reproduce asexually? Or some other alternative?

The electric fish can send electronical signals i think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_fish

thanks for your time. :) i'll respond tomorrow insha Allah (God willing)
Peace.

Thanks Qatda, I always appreciate good converstations.
As i said before , evolution takes place in populations and over a period of time. So there would have been multiple memebers to procreate with.
Of course just speculating "i could probably look it up" but i imagine that like current land striding fish, there was some sort of advantage to going to land even if for short times. fish that either developed a way to breath air or hold their breaths for longer times might have been able to escape to predator free land.

as for electric fish.

I assume then you are asking how did they evolve electricity?
Actually the wiki link you provided gives some ideas.

As stated before evolution in general occurs gradually. if a mutation creates some sort of advantage then it may be spread into the population.

"electric fish produce their electric fields from a specialized structure called an electric organ. This is made up of modified muscle or nerve cells, which became specialized for producing electric fields. Typically this organ is located in the tail of the electric fish. The electrical output of the organ is called the electric organ discharge (EOD).

Fish that have an EOD that is powerful enough to stun their prey are called strongly electric fish. .....

By contrast, weakly electric fish generate a discharge that is typically less than one volt in amplitude. These are too weak to stun prey, but are used for navigation, object detection (electrolocation) and communication with other electric fish (electrocommunication). ...."

It is easy to see how a mutation that allows for an electric organ could produce an intial advantage. "oops i should probably back up".
Many organs have had multiple or different functions in the past. "our hand are essentially modified feet and fins." feathers on birds are speculated to have surved to provide insulation and cover before aiding in flight.

these electric organs provided some sort of advantage. In the weaker fish it is used as a sensor "which is very common in marine life" if this were to get stronger for some reason "perhaps providing longer range or some other advantage" it could then develope another advantage such as one strong enought to stun attackers or prey.

peace

[Trumble]

Now if this fish turned into a land animal, how did it reproduce? i.e. did it reproduce asexually? Or some other alternative?

No great mystery with this one. Take a look at this little chap (and chap-ess!); the Grunion. Don't forget as well that the movement from 'fish' to 'land animal' was via 'amphibian' and present-day amphibians have a huge range of reproductive behaviors; some on land, others in water.

[- Qatada -]

Kool, i get the point of view about the amphibians now. I'd still love to see some solid evidence though, maybe pics of fossils etc. The grunion thing was interesting.


Anyway, about the electric fish. Ranma, thanks for your time. Focusing on what you said:

..if a mutation creates some sort of advantage...

This part got me thinking, do scientists really believe that there are advantages within mutations? Because from my understanding, mutations can only cause negative or harmful effects, and not really any positive.


For example, i've read some studies of fruit flies being tested with mutations by scientists. And there hasn't ever been any positive results. It's always negative, i.e. the fly may have become disfigured, unfit, weak etc.


Here's a link for some examples:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibit...ant_flies.html


So if something is unfit, then that means that it's less likely to survive, therefore it isn't able to exist/survive in the world too long. How come the electric fish was able to, and still does today? Any ideas? If you don't know, it's no problem. Just want your opinions with evidences would be good if you are able.


Thanks for your time. I never knew this stuff was so interesting lol. :)



Peace.

[ranma1/2]

....

This part got me thinking, do scientists really believe that there are advantages within mutations? Because from my understanding, mutations can only cause negative or harmful effects, and not really any positive.

For example, i've read some studies of fruit flies being tested with mutations by scientists. And there hasn't ever been any positive results. It's always negative, i.e. the fly may have become disfigured, unfit, weak etc.
...

If i were to guess i would imagine your understanding of mutations came from a creationists source?

Mutations are either, positive, neutral or negative.

What makes a mutation P,Neg or Neu is mostly dependent on the enviroment and whether it prevents the thing from reproducing "death being a main stopper"

This site as provided before has most of the answers to your questions.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

and more specific on mutations
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_01

of course what may be a positive mutation in one aspect can be negative or neutral in another.

sickle cell is a good example.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_06

....
So if something is unfit, then that means that it's less likely to survive, therefore it isn't able to exist/survive in the world too long. How come the electric fish was able to, and still does today? Any ideas? If you don't know, it's no problem. Just want your opinions with evidences would be good if you are able.

Thanks for your time. I never knew this stuff was so interesting lol. :)

Peace.

Since mutations can be positive then that pretty much answers your question. The electric fish had a advantageous mutation. Sensing prey or predator is a defintite advantage. stunning them is also an advantage.


Cheers.

p.s.
the fly link you provided even spoke about benefital and negative mutations.

[Malaikah]

This part got me thinking, do scientists really believe that there are advantages within mutations? Because from my understanding, mutations can only cause negative or harmful effects, and not really any positive.

:sl:

It depends where the mutation happens. Mostly mutations are disastrous or unnoticeable, beneficial mutations are rare.

For the mutation to be involved in evolution, it has to happen in a germline cell (i.e. an egg or sperm). A beneficial mutation will only happen about once every 200,000 years though.

Sorry I can't provide you with a source, but it was taken straight from my university lecture notes.

[ranma1/2]

:sl:

It depends where the mutation happens. Mostly mutations are disastrous or unnoticeable, beneficial mutations are rare.

For the mutation to be involved in evolution, it has to happen in a germline cell (i.e. an egg or sperm). A beneficial mutation will only happen about once every 200,000 years though.

Sorry I can't provide you with a source, but it was taken straight from my university lecture notes.

sounds right to me. Of course benefital mutations do occure "and the situation often decides if they are postive, neutral, or negative."

[root]

We should be very careful when attributing genetic mutation & evolution, since it's not always as black and white as creationists like to make us believe.

-Qatada- For example, i've read some studies of fruit flies being tested with mutations by scientists. And there hasn't ever been any positive results. It's always negative, i.e. the fly may have become disfigured, unfit, weak etc.

Actually, the entire species has evolved to become 40 times more resistent to insectgices.

Drosophila melanogaster aka Fruit-fly. A transposable DNA called "accord" (Transposable means that it jumps around a genome copying itself).

Accord landed in Cyp6g1, a gene that makes detoxification agents. Accord copied itself and then jumped out again leaving behind a 149 base-pair footprint (a section of DN called a long terminal repeat) This LTR just happens to express itself in exactly the same way as Cyp6g1. With double the gene expression, double the amount of detoxification agent was made - and the insect became resistant to the insecticide DDT, as well as a whole slew of new insecticides

Source: (Genetics, DOI: 10.1534/genetics.106.066597).

This one gene went on to become present in all fruit flies via Evolution, double the resistence double the chances of survival, double the chances of reproduction and bang, within 40 years all fruit flies have common ancestory with that single mutated fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evolution in action

[- Qatada -]

Thanks for all the feedback, i'm checking out the info so no worries. :)



Peace.

[guyabano]

Already the fact, there would be a common ancestor is already ridiculous. I would call it incest in that case. You cannot reproduce a copy from a copy from a copy...etc.

[- Qatada -]

Hey guys.


Are there anymore negative mutations which turned into positive? Links or small snippets of info is good.


And about the electric fish, is there a solid scientifical explanation on how it mutated, and got that ability?



Thanks again.

[Malaikah]

:sl:

What do you mean? That it started out negative and later became advantageous?:?

ranma1/2 gave the example of the mutation that causes sickle cell anaemia. In Africa it is found that sickle cell aneamia, which is rather deadly, helps protect people who are infected by malaria, since the disease can not function/survive properly in the mutated blood cells.

That only applies to the heterozygous individuals though because they are olmy 'half-sick' and so the sickle cell anaemia isn't bad enough to kill them, yet is strong enough to ward of illness due to malaria.

In this case the mutation it acting as a benefit.

[جوري]

brother Qatada..
this article is for your other topic (evolution) as an Islamic perspective... which I have searched for and couldn't find ( I did however promise I'd find you an article)-- I don't want to get into another long winded debate... but surely you can read it and draw your own conclusions, this was featured on Sat, Jun 23
11:00 AM Mysteries of the Smithsonian
as was stated in the program and later in various scientific articles, this is the so-called "missing link" (the transition between sea life and land life) surprisingly found today-- leading some to reflect on the possibility of species simply gone extinct, rather than a huge leap into humanoid primates and later humans..
This one however managed to survive... and I guess it is back to the drawing board to re-hypothesize "origins" and "common ancestor" ...

Virtually unique in the animal kingdom, with a saga steeped in science and popular imagination, the fabulous Coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), that 400 million year old "living fossil" fish, swims on. Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth with its "missing link" "proto legs" was "discovered" alive and well in 1938! At least three people have perished in the quest for the coelacanth, and possibly several others. Read all about it- including the latest efforts to protect the creature, and its pop-up appearances in "out of the way" places. Click in the navbar to the left. Check the News and Recent History sections and don't miss visits to the Coelashop for t-shirts and other "Coela-gear". The bottom of the Biology and Behavior page links the World's most complete Coelacanth Bibliography. Our favorite "Dinofish" is "age-free" and never boring! (In case you think conservation is dull, we put some of our best stuff on that page.)This is the web site of the Coelacanth Rescue Mission, a project under the direction of Jerome F. Hamlin to raise Coelacanth awareness. Welcome to award winning dinofish.com.

http://dinofish.com/


for some reason the image links aren't working, if you can modify them?
thank you!
:w:

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


May Allaah reward you sis PA! that seems interestin.. i'll check out the link insha Allaah.

[Trumble]

This one however managed to survive... and I guess it is back to the drawing board to re-hypothesize "origins" and "common ancestor" ...

Why do you think the fact that by some fluke one species managed to find it's own secure ecological niche and survive requires going "back to the drawing board" for anything?

[جوري]

This isn't any "one specie" this is according to scientists is where you came from... The fish that made it to land

The coelacanth is not just any living fossil fish. It is perhaps the most important variety of living fossil fish that could be discovered. It is a member of the lobe-finned fishes, one species of which first ventured onto land and evolved into ambhibians, later giving rise to reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals and every other type of land animal (with the exception of bugs and a few land-dwelling crustaceans). The coelacanth is the closest living relative among the fishes that you and me have.

http://www.newanimal.org/coelacanth.htm

found alive and well today, with no prospect of having transitioned.. perhaps by a long leap of faith and a pinch of some pseudo-science, some decided to pack their bags and developed legs whitest the rest took a long sabbatical under water? At this point trumble et al you are free to believe what you wish, when it comes down to it, it is really no more no less "magical" than G-D saying be and it was!

peace

[جوري]

:salamext:


May Allaah reward you sis PA! that seems interestin.. i'll check out the link insha Allaah.

Shokran Akhi-- jazaka Allah khyran
I have gone into great details into some of your questions on this thread, if you have a minute you may want to check it out:
http://www.islamicboard.com/recycle-...olution-3.html

unfortunately I can't dedicate as much time as I want to, to this forum anymore but, you may ask me by PM, if the answer you are looking for isn't answered on the link enclosed, as I am about to unsubscribe from this thread.. lastly I deliberately didn't enclose a Harun Yaha page with the previous info. on the account I know how others like to character assassinate him-- but as you can see from previous links, as well as on the program : mysteries of the Smithsonian, that this is in fact true.. this Coelacanth is thought to be our ancestor which somehow developed lungs and a brain.. as you can see the fact that it still exists puts a dent into that theory..

this is from the harun Yahaya website, which I didn't want to resort to, in fact I didn't even know it existed until five minutes ago as you can tell from previous links... but worth a read nonetheless..

Up until 70 years ago, evolutionists had a fossil fish which they considered "the ancestor of land animals". Scientific developments, however, put an end to all evolutionist claims about this fish.

The absence of intermediate form fossils between fish and amphibians is a fact evolutionists also admit to today. However, until 70 years ago, it was accepted that a fossil fish called the coelacanth was an outright intermediate form. Evolutionists claimed that the coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These evolutionary interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth in scientific circles until the end of the 1930's.

Until a living specimen of it was found, evolutionists presented the coelacanth as the ancestor of "all land animals". Drawings such as the above were presented as fact and took their place in textbooks. When a living example of the fish was caught, all these evolutionist allegations were debunked.

However, on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct 70 million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist, J.L.B. Smith, said that he could not have been more surprised if he had come across a living dinosaur.28 In the following years, more than 200 coelacanths were caught in different parts of the world.



Before a living example of it was caught, evolutionists believed that the coelacanth had organs which were half-fin and half-foot that enabled it to creep on land. When the living coelacanth was examined, it was understood that the fins of the fish had no such additional function.


Evolutionists had claimed that the fish had a primitive lung. However, the organ that was supposed to be a primitive lung turned out to be a lipid pouch.


It was asserted that the brain structure of the coelacanth also resembled that of land animals. However, it was revealed that its brain was no different from that of modern fish.

Living coelacanths revealed how far evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to their claims, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers claimed to be a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.29 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and always stayed more than 180 metres below the surface.30

:w:

[Trumble]

This isn't any "one specie" this is according to scientists is where you came from... The fish that made it to land


http://www.newanimal.org/coelacanth.htm

found alive and well today, with no prospect of having transitioned.. perhaps by a long leap of faith and a pinch of some pseudo-science, some decided to pack their bags and developed legs whitest the rest took a long sabbatical under water? At this point trumble et al you are free to believe what you wish, when it comes down to it, it is really no more no less "magical" than G-D saying be and it was!

:? ????!!!!

Even before a live coelacanth was found we knew they had been around up until around 65 million years ago. The giant sauropods were long dead, T-Rex was stalking the land and about to become extinct itself - and the first fish had crawled onto land over two hundred million years previously. So what did the discovery change? So it didn't have a 'primitive' lung or different brain structure (I've been unable to source either of those speculations), but no doubt those that made it to land did - it would have been essential at some point regarding lungs, at least. Such species exist today! It's just "God in the gaps" again, and it's a VERY small gap.

Nobody has ever claimed the coelacanth species to be the "missing link".. knowing its history that would be absurd. It is merely an example of the sort of evolutionary trends that occured. It is a freak in that one or more populations found themselves in an ecological niche for which they were perfectly adapted. Many similar species, and no doubt some populations of coelacanth descendants, were not so lucky, continued to evolve, made it to land and the rest was history. No pseudo-science, no leap of faith... except maybe by those desperate to fit God into the equation somewhere.

May I respectfully suggest you read more science books and less Harun Yahya?!

[جوري]

according to "scientists" this fish pre-dates dinosaurs..

Coelacanths first appear in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian, about 410 million years ago

originally thought to have gone extinct 65 mil yrs ago, but it is 410 mil yrs old!
this was featured on the Sat, Jun 23 issue of "Mysteries of the Smithsonian"-- you may call the Smithsonian giftshop online or whatever, and order yourself a copy, if you have any questions or would like to juggle dates differently than previously thought and documented to prove a point be my guest!..
If you have any questions after this, of true nature and not of I am putting a dent in "your theory" aka ( science as documented by other than my person) nature, you may PM as stated I am about to take a sabbatical myself from the forum.. but I doubt very much that purchasing a copy of the program wouldn't allay some of your deep concerns.
I have stated plenty fitting G-D into your life or anyone's life is really not my job. I get no credit or joy whatsoever into bringing G-D into your home. As my grandmother (G-D rest her soul) used to say (3a'alak fi rasak t'3raf khlasak) -- in other words if you have a head on your shoulder, you can reason your way through your life...

have a great weekend

[Trumble]

if you have any questions or would like to juggle dates differently than previously thought and documented to prove a point be my guest!..

Who is juggling dates?! Sure it was around long before the dinosaurs. So what? We knew that long before we found a live one.

[جوري]

Who is juggling dates?! Sure it was around long before the dinosaurs. So what? We knew that long before we found a live one.

if you knew that long before you had a live one, why did you write this?

Even before a live coelacanth was found we knew they had been around up until around 65 million years ago. The giant sauropods were long dead, T-Rex was stalking the land and about to become extinct itself

I don't understand what this means really? or how it fits into the debate... seem ridiculous, further if the other sources aren't sufficient for you then that is your problem not mine!-- but pls. don't come and suggest to me what I should or shouldn't be reading!... in fact, I didn't know of the Harun Yaha page until later on when I was browsing all the pages that had to do with that fish; not that I have to defend what I do or do not read!..

I am not sure why you have to insinuate yourself in this debate actually I shouldn't call it a debate, since it was especially addressed to one person, but somehow irks you so (G-D of the Gaps, well here is science of the Gaps) so again I say back to the drawing board before we recycle any more cheesy lines!

people hypothesized and very incorrectly, I am pointing it out to Bro. Qtada.. it doesn't seem like a significant "so what" to you but it actually is!... according to the Smithsonian it is even more significant than a "walking dinosaur" given its age!... your eldest ancestor still swims today "un-evolved" -- that is the bottom line!

addendum

Nobody has ever claimed the coelacanth species to be the "missing link".

Because of its bony fins, coelacanth was itself thought to be a "missing link," with the bony fins thought to enable it to "walk" on the muddy bottom of bodies of water. At least that was the common assumption until, much to paleontologists' surprise, a live specimen of the supposedly extinct fish was netted by a fishing boat off the coast of South Africa in 1938!

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn65/science65.htm

and according to the Smithsonian today, the same exact line was used.. afraid to invest in the video? please do watch and read before you write, further before suggesting to us what we should watch and read!

peace

[Trumble]

people hypothesized and very incorrectly, I am pointing it out to Bro. Qtada.. it doesn't seem like a significant "so what" to you but it actually is!... according to the Smithsonian it is even more significant than a "walking dinosaur" given its age!

People, allegedly (as I said, I cannot source that), suspected that the coelacanth may have had primitive lungs, bony fins or a different brain structure to your bog-standard Devonian fish. It turns out it didn't, but again, "so what"? You seem to have no answer to that. Sure, it suggests that the coelacanth itself was not the single "missing link" between fish and early amphibians, but the whole suggestion anyone ever thought it was is a Yahya strawman. As I said, it was merely an indicator of the sort of evolutionary changes that were going on. Quite apart from all of that, there is absolutely no reason why one coelacanth population may have remained as is while others did not for reasons I have described already. You don't think that, had an event in 1938 proved going "back to the drawing board" was necessary, we might have heard a bit more about it? Or has every paleontologist and evolutionary biologist since that time been existing on 'pseudo-science' and 'blind-faith'?! Absurd. Yup, some folks guessed wrong about the coelacanth. Does that shoot down the whole theory about how vertabrate life moved onto the land? Nope, not a bit of it.

Of course it was a very significant discovery! Finding a species alive and swimming that we thought died out 65 million years ago is amazing. But that significance has nothing to do with the implications you are trying to associate with it... which are, I'm afraid, complete nonsense.

!... your eldest ancestor still swims today "un-evolved" -- that is the bottom line!

I have already explained twice why that is neither particularly surprising nor that it has the implications you wish to associate with it. Yet again; We already knew the coelacanth was alive and swimming 2 hundred million years after the transition to land. So what did that discovery change? Your argument, such as it is, is identical whether the coelacanth was around 200 million years after the land was colonised by proto-amphibians or 265 million years after.

[جوري]

Yahaya seems to be your Achilles? I assure you if I leave the minuscule paragraph he wrote up there or remove it, it wouldn't make a difference whatsoever in the voluminous literature on the pseudo-science linking this fish as the transitional form (the bridge to primates. The answer as to the "so-what", is nothing more or less than people hammering in that these early so-called tetrapods are our ancestors, in fact they aren't! maybe by a long stretch of the imagination they can be.. but fact remains, and it is a fact that these 410mil. year old species still live today un-evolved.. whether or not you can source this, isn't my problem since all you have to do is either purchase the video suggested from the Smithsonian or do a simple google search , perhaps it is a psychological issue with you more than a scientific one?
further I have already included two links http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf
that speak of the impossibility of an undirected mutation causing different species whether or not caused by this so-called missing link the coelacanth .. perhaps you have a scotoma?

peace!