Jump to content


Photo

Fishes With Arms And Legs


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:36 PM

Is this pic a hax or its true some how.

Posted Image

its offensive but I havent heard anything about this.

UPDATE

http://news.national...881_600x450.jpg its NATGEO makes me wonder.

#2 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:02 PM

Posted Image
Histiontophorus bassani

It seems real to me and pretty cool, but I don't think it's that significant. Histiontophorus bassani, from the Lutetian of Monte Bolca, is now considered to be a handfish, sometimes even being included in the genus Brachionichthys and it's supposed to be 55 million years old, but it hasn't evolved into anything completely different.

Posted Image

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:11 PM

They have to find a transitional fish with lobed fins. Frogfish etc. have highly specialized rayed fins that they use to walk with. The ironic part is that all fish with lobed fins do not use them to walk with - only ray finned fish do.

#4 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 10 May 2012 - 10:00 PM

They have to find a transitional fish with lobed fins. Frogfish etc. have highly specialized rayed fins that they use to walk with. The ironic part is that all fish with lobed fins do not use them to walk with - only ray finned fish do.


But they have found fish with legs. They're called 'fishapods'. I don't think any biologists thinks fish used lobed fins to walk. They believe lobe-fins gave rise to legs. They have transitional fossils (whether they evolved, I don't know) going all the way from fish to amphibian and beyond.

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 03:53 AM



They have to find a transitional fish with lobed fins. Frogfish etc. have highly specialized rayed fins that they use to walk with. The ironic part is that all fish with lobed fins do not use them to walk with - only ray finned fish do.



But they have found fish with legs. They're called 'fishapods'. I don't think any biologists thinks fish used lobed fins to walk. They believe lobe-fins gave rise to legs. They have transitional fossils (whether they evolved, I don't know) going all the way from fish to amphibian and beyond.



Actually that would be incorrect, as the claim is that they are “developing” legs. Therefore they MUST provide TRANSITIONAL evidence. As there is absolutely NO evidence that these fish haven’t ALWAYS been this way.

Conclusion: There is absolutely NO evidence for macroevolution here.

#6 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:46 PM

Developing legs or have had legs for millions of years?

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 07:23 PM

Developing legs or have had legs for millions of years?


And amazingly enough BOTH are assumptions, and nothing more...

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:56 AM

Posted Image
Histiontophorus bassani

It seems real to me and pretty cool, but I don't think it's that significant. Histiontophorus bassani, from the Lutetian of Monte Bolca, is now considered to be a handfish, sometimes even being included in the genus Brachionichthys and it's supposed to be 55 million years old, but it hasn't evolved into anything completely different.

Posted Image


So I guess it "found it's niche" and has been in evolutionary stasis. But other linages went on to become amphibians? Well obviously this fish walks on the seabed, so why didn't it evolve? If selection is indeed directional and a driver, then what caused it to become static, and others to evolve into a completely different species? Until we see a "selective constant," or a reason why there is a variation in such, and that constant or variation can be demonstrated, evos are living in a glass house. So they shouldn't be throwing stones.

#9 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 12 May 2012 - 08:36 AM

Actually that would be incorrect, as the claim is that they are “developing” legs. Therefore they MUST provide TRANSITIONAL evidence. As there is absolutely NO evidence that these fish haven’t ALWAYS been this way.

Conclusion: There is absolutely NO evidence for macroevolution here.


What I was aiming at was more like creatures from the past. Creatures that are supposted to be transitional with lobed fins are found in the fossil record. They call animals like Panderichthys and Tiktaalik fishapods. I don't really think it's a huge issue, I'm creationist anyway (for now). God could have made mosaic creatures, or created in a step-by-step process, who knows.

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:24 PM

What I was aiming at was more like creatures from the past. Creatures that are supposted to be transitional with lobed fins are found in the fossil record. They call animals like Panderichthys and Tiktaalik fishapods. I don't really think it's a huge issue, I'm creationist anyway (for now). God could have made mosaic creatures, or created in a step-by-step process, who knows.

Calum,
Sounds like you have doubts. There are many scientists and science related people who take the Bible literally. Nicolas Steno, the father of modern stratigraphy, believed the sedimentary record, of which you speak indirectly, reflected the Biblical account. You might ask why should we bring up sedimentology in this thread. Because it is in every way related to biostratigraphy, which is one of the major pillars that evolution rests on. And you have bought into it's assumptions, as though they are fact.

The fossils you speak of can well fit the flood model by ecological/catastrophic positioning. The fossils are found in sediments which were placed by current. This can be determined by particle segregation in strata and laminae, quantity and positioning of sediments in facies and formations, and positioning of grains and clasts within a formation. This has been determined experimentally, so that there is effectively no " grand ruler" for sedimentation.

So the geological timescale, which you seem to be struggling with, is based on many assumptions that may or may not be the case.


]
Time Required for Sedimentation
Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis ..........
Guy Berthault

CRS Quarterly, Spring 2010, V.46, No. 4

http://www.creationr...h.org/crsq.html

"It was discovered that varying the current velocity resulted in the superposed stratification based
on the segregation of particles by size, not on the time of deposition. Thus, Steno’s principle of superposition as an indication of relative time did not apply in this case."

Stratigraphy, the basis of geological dating, was founded in the seventeenth century on three principles proposed by Nicolas Steno:
superposition, continuity, and original horizontality. Successive observations and experiments show that his stratigraphic model was not in line
with experimental data, because it overlooked the major variable factor of sedimentation: the current and its chronological effects

The estimated time of deposition is often the crucial factor in developing a local timescale, and the paleohydraulic approach links deposition to the

critical transport velocity of current as determined by particle size. The time of sedimentation is the quotient obtained from dividing the
volume of sedimentary rocks by the transport capacity. A team of Russian sedimentologists have applied this method to geological formations of the
Crimean Peninsula and of the Northwest Russian Plateau in the St. Petersburg region. They discovered that the time required for sedimentation
was only 0.01% of the corresponding period of the geological timescale.

As Professor Gabriel Gohau of the French Geological Society wrote in his book A History of Geology (1990, p. 192), "Time
is measured by the interval required for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and
not by orogenesis or ‘biological revolutions.’ Biostratigraphy has proven no more successful than other modern
stratigraphic methods, because they all are heavily weighted by assumptions that cannot be demonstrated. Thus, the

stratigraphic approach has now reached the extreme of proposing to define age boundaries by fiat through the use of
global stratotype sections and points (Gradstein et al., 2004).

...there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallization, absent assumptions that the "clocks" are
set at zero time upon crystallization. Consequently, radioactivity does not date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements

contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma, where gravity separates the heavier parent element from the lighter
daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological significance.


[Conclusions of Experimentation done at Colorado State Universtiy]

1. The thickness of the laminae appears to be independent of the sedimentation rate but increases with extreme differences in the particle size in the mixture. Where a horizontal current is involved, thin laminated layers developing laterally in the direction of the current are observed.


2. Further experiments demonstrated that in still water, continuous deposition of heterogranular sediments gives
rise to laminae, which disappear as the height of the fall of particles into water increases and apparently their size.
Laminae follow the slope of the upper part of the deposit. In running water,
many closely related types of lamination appear in the deposit, even superposed
(Berthault, 1988).

 
3. It was discovered that varying the current velocity resulted
in the superposed stratification based on the segregation of particles by size,
not on the time of deposition. Thus, Steno’s principle of superposition as an
indication of relative time did not apply in this case.


4. Dessication [drying] Laboratory experiments on the desiccation of natural sands also show
the preferential fracturing (or joints) at the interface of layers of coarse and fine
particles. This shows that what is often interpreted as sedimentary bedding in
the field can form merely as a result of dewatering in beds formed by the
segregation of varying grain sizes.


5.[size=3] Superposed strata are not, therefore, necessarily identical to
successive sedimentary layers, as was thought by Steno.



#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:35 PM



Actually that would be incorrect, as the claim is that they are “developing” legs. Therefore they MUST provide TRANSITIONAL evidence. As there is absolutely NO evidence that these fish haven’t ALWAYS been this way.

Conclusion: There is absolutely NO evidence for macroevolution here.


What I was aiming at was more like creatures from the past.


As were we all…. Please review the OP, and stick with the context of the conversation.


Creatures that are supposted to be transitional with lobed fins are found in the fossil record.


Key words “Supposed to be”… As in “Believed to be true”, or “believe or imagine something to be the case”, or “imagine something to be a possibility”… Keeping in mind that “transitional” means “a process or period in which something undergoes a change and passes from one state, stage, form, or activity to another” (i.e. “transitional” is that area “in between”), and yet there is absolutely NO evidence for “transitional” (gradual or otherwise) legs being “developed” (as the OP suggests). Further ALL the animals you mentioned have absolutely NO gradual “transitional” animals to fill the time between them (i.e. there is absolutely NOTING leading up to them, or leading away from them), they simply “POP” into existence (i.e appear fully formed).


They call animals like Panderichthys and Tiktaalik fishapods.


Panderichthys supposedly (see the definition for supposed above) lived 380 million years ago, and Tiktaalik supposedly (see the definition for supposed above) lived 375 million years ago; so where are the “supposed” transitions from the intervening “supposed” 5 million years… That’s quite a “gap” (evolution of the gaps) to be filled in with evolutionary bondo.


I don't really think it's a huge issue, I'm creationist anyway (for now).


I like the way you keep attempting to reinforce that you are a “creationist”, like, for some reason, we need to be reminded. Which begs further questions (but we’ll most likely get to that at some future date). Anyway, it’s a really huge issue if we want to follow the evidences…


God could have made mosaic creatures, or created in a step-by-step process, who knows.


“Could have” is much like “supposed to”, except that Genesis is quite clear about God creating in literal twenty-four hour periods; therefore any “step-by-step process” would have to be with an incremental rapidly.

So, you ask “who knows?”… Well, according to the Bible, WE DO!

#12 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:18 PM

As were we all…. Please review the OP, and stick with the context of the conversation.


hi Ron,
thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts.

Your above quote could be traced all the way back to my response to Jason's claim, which was: "They have to find a transitional fish with lobed fins. Frogfish etc. have highly specialized rayed fins that they use to walk with. The ironic part is that all fish with lobed fins do not use them to walk with - only ray finned fish do."
I believe Jason (OP) was saying that they ought to find a lobe-finned fish developing arms today. However, we most likely wouldn't find lobe-finned fish today developing arms because there wouldn't be a point to it. These ray-finned fish are either developing it for an entirely different purpose, or would eventually evolve into tetrapod-like animals if the time called for it.


<Admin Edit> This post has been edited to remove Clear cases of misrepresentation, Equivocations, and other forum rules violations; along with attempted time wasting tactics...

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:17 AM



As were we all…. Please review the OP, and stick with the context of the conversation.



hi Ron,
thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts.

Your above quote could be traced all the way back to my response to Jason's claim, which was: "They have to find a transitional fish with lobed fins. Frogfish etc. have highly specialized rayed fins that they use to walk with. The ironic part is that all fish with lobed fins do not use them to walk with - only ray finned fish do."
I believe Jason (OP) was saying that they ought to find a lobe-finned fish developing arms today. However, we most likely wouldn't find lobe-finned fish today developing arms because there wouldn't be a point to it. These ray-finned fish are either developing it for an entirely different purpose, or would eventually evolve into tetrapod-like animals if the time called for it.



Calum, misrepresenting the OP by your “believing” what you want to interpret what Jason (or the OP) said (by the way, the OP was by “Gerson” not “Jason), is still misrepresentation (and still against the forum rules), so I would suggest that you keep an eye on the OP, and not your "beliefs".

Further, your “interpretation” of Genesis isn’t a “translation” of Genesis, and is therefore nothing more than an opinion, and we are dealing in facts here. If you want, I can translate it for you, to provide where you err. But, I will also succinctly point out that your “interpretation” is still a misrepresentation (and therefore anathema to forum rules).

This is a warning to insure that you adhere to forum rules, and debate from an honest and intelligent platform, and not from one that postulates, prevaricates on your mere “opinions”, “beliefs”, “suppositions” and “a priori” needs.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5566 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 May 2012 - 07:18 AM

Might I add in some more evolutionist assumptions and problems.


1- These "arms" and "legs" are not load bearing. Considering that in order to walk on land they would need to be load bearing means that this type / version of "leg" is not what is required. Evolutionists see the "hands" and "legs" and automatically assume that they are what evolved.

2- Where are the hips? In order to be load bearing there would need to be hips, (and perhaps shoulders?)

3- In order for the fish to properly move around outside of the water its spine would need to be closer to the end of the back, (a fish's spine runs through the centre)

However if this occurs whilst the fish is still in the water then it cannot swim properly... yet it is required for proper balance when on land

4- I find it amusing in that we have the lung fish and the hand fish, yet there hasn't been a fish combining these parts. THIS is what is required. Since the land fish would have breathing issues and the lungfish would have mobility issues.

5- However point 4 doesn't reveal the other issues

- change in digestive system for new food sources
- change in scales / outer protective barrier to protect from sun
- change to eyes to see properly out of water
- change to body so doesn't dry up out of water
- require all these changes in a mate in order to propagate.
  • AFJ, Salsa and JayShel like this

#15 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:12 PM

sheepsheadteeth-fishteeth.jpg

 

Fish with legs and fish with teeth. These are creepy. I don't claim that it proves anything. Just creepy.



#16 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:44 AM

Lots of fish have teeth. I guess the fish in the pic You posted has somewhat human like teeth, so that might mean something.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users