1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    29 May '15 21:12
    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.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    29 May '15 21:31
    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.
  3. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    30 May '15 00:10
    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.
  4. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    30 May '15 04:46
    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.
  5. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    30 May '15 04:51
    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. 🙄
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    30 May '15 05:47
    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. 😏
  7. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    30 May '15 06:16
    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.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    30 May '15 16:19
    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.
  9. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    30 May '15 19:29
    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.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    30 May '15 20:04
    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. 😏
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    30 May '15 20:40
    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.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    30 May '15 22:31
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Only in what is left of your self lobotomized tenth century mind.
    Another ad hominem attack.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    02 Jun '15 14:18
    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.
  14. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8514
    02 Jun '15 14:24
    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.
Back to Top