29 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThis appears to me to be a lot of speculations. I don't think you should put too much faith in it. Just saying.
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.
30 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is not an early fossil of a shark but simply another species of shark.
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.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe 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.
This appears to me to be a lot of speculations. I don't think you should put too much faith in it. Just saying.
30 May 15
Originally posted by C HessNo it is not a transitional fossil. It is just another fish fossil. 😏
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.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI 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.
No it is not a transitional fossil. It is just another fish fossil. 😏
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.
30 May 15
Originally posted by C HessMan has bone and cartilage and that does not prove man is transitional between sharks. So the whole idea is stupid.
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.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat 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).
Man has bone and cartilage and that does not prove man is transitional between sharks. So the whole idea is stupid.
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.
30 May 15
Originally posted by C HessBut my human boney cartilage straw man is a better one than the boney cartilage fish fossil straw man to tear down. 😏
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.
