Missing link of shark found, with bones!

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-fossil-ancestor-sharks-bony.html#nRlv

The fossils are almost 400 million years old and show that early sharks were not soft like now but have actual bones in them.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-fossil-ancestor-sharks-bony.html#nRlv

The fossils are almost 400 million years old and show that early sharks were not soft like now but have actual bones in them.

This appears to me to be a lot of speculations. I don't think you should put too much faith in it. Just saying.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-fossil-ancestor-sharks-bony.html#nRlv

The fossils are almost 400 million years old and show that early sharks were not soft like now but have actual bones in them.

It is not an early fossil of a shark but simply another species of shark.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This appears to me to be a lot of speculations. I don't think you should put too much faith in it. Just saying.

The theory of evolution predicts that we should find transitions between forms in the fossil record, and that they must fit in time and location relative to the forms between which they represent a transition. This fossil fits the requirements for such a transition from bony fish to "cartilage only" fish (the shark). It is therefore yet another piece of evidence for evolutionary theory. No faith required. Just saying.

Originally posted by Dasa
It is not an early fossil of a shark but simply another species of shark.

Well, it would be another species, given that it's been identified as a transitional form between species. 🙄

Originally posted by C Hess
The theory of evolution predicts that we should find transitions between forms in the fossil record, and that they must fit in time and location relative to the forms between which they represent a transition. This fossil fits the requirements for such a transition from bony fish to "cartilage only" fish (the shark). It is therefore yet another piece of evidence for evolutionary theory. No faith required. Just saying.

No it is not a transitional fossil. It is just another fish fossil. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
No it is not a transitional fossil. It is just another fish fossil. 😏

I don't know what you think of when the words "transitional" and "fossil" echoes through your skull in that order, one after the other, but to the rest of the world, it means you've got a homologous fit between other fossil forms.

If you wish to argue that this is not a transitional fossil, you need to demonstrate how it's not a homologous fit between bony fish and cartilage only fish, even though it's a cartilage mostly fish with some bone cells in its' skeleton.

Simply stating that it's not a transitional fossil is not nearly good enough. This goes for all transitional fossils found, by the way.

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't know what you think of when the words "transitional" and "fossil" echoes through your skull in that order, one after the other, but to the rest of the world, it means you've got a homologous fit between other fossil forms.

If you wish to argue that this is not a transitional fossil, you need to demonstrate how it's not a homologous fit between bony ...[text shortened]... onal fossil is not nearly good enough. This goes for all transitional fossils found, by the way.

Man has bone and cartilage and that does not prove man is transitional between sharks. So the whole idea is stupid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Man has bone and cartilage and that does not prove man is transitional between sharks. So the whole idea is stupid.

What you just did there is what's commonly known as a straw man. You misrepresented what we're talking about by replacing the transitional fossil with humans (creating a straw man), and then you claimed the whole idea is stupid (tearing down the straw man), because really, to suggest that man is a transitional fossil between shark species is indeed stupid (this is where you erroneously thought you made a good point, when in fact it wasn't even a decent straw man).

Seriously, learn about homology, and you'll see that to determine if a fossil represents a transition between species is a little more involved than you apparently think it is.

Originally posted by C Hess
What you just did there is what's commonly known as a straw man. You misrepresented what we're talking about by replacing the transitional fossil with humans (creating a straw man), and then you claimed the whole idea is stupid (tearing down the straw man), because really, to suggest that man is a transitional fossil between shark species is indeed stupid (th ...[text shortened]... presents a transition between species is a little more involved than you apparently think it is.

But my human boney cartilage straw man is a better one than the boney cartilage fish fossil straw man to tear down. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
But my human boney cartilage straw man is a better one than the boney cartilage fish fossil straw man to tear down. 😏

Only in what is left of your self lobotomized tenth century mind.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Only in what is left of your self lobotomized tenth century mind.

Another ad hominem attack.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Another ad hominem attack.

But 100% true in this case. You BELONG back in the tenth century where you would no doubt be the town inquisitor.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But 100% true in this case. You BELONG back in the tenth century where you would no doubt be the town inquisitor.

No, i think even back then he would still have been the village idiot.