CACTUSJACKmankin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 279
The discovery of this fossil that is in the transition between fish and amphibians, is a big deal in the scientific community. To sum up this specimen is the earliest animal found that had fins that could be used to go on land for short periods of time. This animal was a fish but the advantage of these fins is that it would have been able to leave the water just long enough to escape predators. It also had the beginings of hand bones.
So, is this a missing link. This species shows a major component of a major step in the evolution of vertebrates. If that isn't a missing link, nothing is.
I know that people on both sides of the evolution "debate" are sick of hearing about archaeopteryx because the creationists dismiss it out of hand as a bird. Recently though, one of the best quality specimens to date was found and it had a hyperextended second toe a trait previously found in dromeosaurids. In english, the hyperextended second toe is the sickle claw of the velociraptor, thus this find places archaeopteryx even closer to dromeosaurids(velociraptors and relatives), than previously thought. So if it is a bird, it's a dinosaur too, thus birds evolved from dinosaurs. If that isn't a missing link, nothing is.
So if creationists aren't going to accept anything as a missing link, then what's the point of event using the term to shoot down creationism? It isn't like evolution would be in trouble if it weren't for these specimens. I say we retire the term missing link. It's irrelevant now, we are at a point in our knowlege of the fossil record that we aren't likely to find anything that will make the term useful. And in those specimens that it is useful for it won't convince the creationists so why bother?
So, is this a missing link. This species shows a major component of a major step in the evolution of vertebrates. If that isn't a missing link, nothing is.
I know that people on both sides of the evolution "debate" are sick of hearing about archaeopteryx because the creationists dismiss it out of hand as a bird. Recently though, one of the best quality specimens to date was found and it had a hyperextended second toe a trait previously found in dromeosaurids. In english, the hyperextended second toe is the sickle claw of the velociraptor, thus this find places archaeopteryx even closer to dromeosaurids(velociraptors and relatives), than previously thought. So if it is a bird, it's a dinosaur too, thus birds evolved from dinosaurs. If that isn't a missing link, nothing is.
So if creationists aren't going to accept anything as a missing link, then what's the point of event using the term to shoot down creationism? It isn't like evolution would be in trouble if it weren't for these specimens. I say we retire the term missing link. It's irrelevant now, we are at a point in our knowlege of the fossil record that we aren't likely to find anything that will make the term useful. And in those specimens that it is useful for it won't convince the creationists so why bother?
