quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Here they are. Couting about 10 "transitional" species there between fish and amphibians, not including the one in the OP: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm Also, I read this on another forum a couple of days ago. Please read it: For the same reason 99.9% of the species that ever walked this earth are extinct: they weren't fit to survive in the environment they eventually found themselves in.

Do these animals develop lungs before going on land? If so, what evolutionary process would have caused a fish to evolve lungs, and still have gills for the water?

I fail to see how this proves anything on either side of the argument. Like Opus said, it would help to know if the thread starter is being serious or sarcastic. Since I do not know the poster, I cannot make any conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Do these animals develop lungs before going on land? If so, what evolutionary process would have caused a fish to evolve lungs, and still have gills for the water?

1) Gills and lungs are not the same thing. There are still fish today that have both gills and lungs and this was undoubtedly the case for the species which existed between early fish and the earliest amphibians as well.

2) Don't you have google?

quote:

The current consensus is that earliest lungs were sacks used to hold air gulped in response to low levels of oxygen in stagnant pools.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...04962.Ev.r.html

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

He's obviously being completely, completely, completely facetious.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Do these animals develop lungs before going on land? If so, what evolutionary process would have caused a fish to evolve lungs, and still have gills for the water?

Many fish have lungs.

mmm... dolphin

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Many fish have lungs. mmm... dolphin

I thought dolphins were mammals?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I thought dolphins were mammals?

*zing*

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1) Gills and lungs are not the same thing. There are still fish today that have both gills and lungs and this was undoubtedly the case for the species which existed between early fish and the earliest amphibians as well. 2) Don't you have google? http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...04962.Ev.r.html

I thought about that. WIll definately do some research.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Do these animals develop lungs before going on land? If so, what evolutionary process would have caused a fish to evolve lungs, and still have gills for the water?

quote:

The Queensland Lungfish has a single lung, whereas all other species of lungfishes have paired lungs. During dry periods when streams become stagnant, or when water quality changes, lungfishes have the ability to surface and breathe air. When the Queensland Lungfish surfaces to empty and refill its lung the sound is reportedly like that of the "blast from a small bellows". Under most conditions, this species breathes exclusively using its gills.

http://www.amonline.net.au/FISHES/f...h/nforsteri.htm

quote:

Pick one: 1) There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. 2) All fossils are transitional. As impossible as it may sound, both statements are equally valid, at the same time, dependent only on what you consider a transitional fossil. It is important to recognize that there is no such thing as a distinct species in nature. Species, races, geni (gena? genii? help me out here guys.) etc. are all concepts defined by humans. Biology presents us with a continuum of ever changing creatures and we just pick certain points on the line of evolution of a "species" and give those different names. So, there is nothing species about a "transitional fossil". Imagine a color spectrum. There is no real difference between the color red and the color between orange and red. Orange-red is a transitional color that lies between orange and red. But at the same time, orange is a transitional color that lies between orange-red and yellow-orange. The only difference between proper colors and transitional colors is that we defined some to be proper and call the rest transitional. So, if you are looking for a transitional fossil that's half a fish and half a mammal (to exaggerate), you won't see that. But that is not what evolution predicts. You will see a very long list of fossils starting with fish and after countless generations (well not countless, i just have no idea what the actual number is. Some of the biologists here will be able to tell) you arrive at a mammal. But the step from each generation to the next is very very small, and every generation is a transitional that lies between it's parent and offspring generations.

excellent post.

quote:

And why are the hybrids so conveniantly extinct?

terrible post. i mean, are you going to argue that the crocodile isnt really a descendant of the dinosaurs coz all the dinosaurs are gone? please.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN terrible post. i mean, are you going to argue that the crocodile isnt really a descendant of the dinosaurs coz all the dinosaurs are gone? please.

my point was this. They are finding all these hybrid species. ok. that's great. we have more stuff to examine. but why aren't any one of these species they find still alive today? if they are, please show me a link.

With so much species diversity, there should also be just as many hybrids.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: my point was this. They are finding all these hybrid species. ok. that's great. we have more stuff to examine. but why aren't any one of these species they find still alive today? if they are, please show me a link.

read renegade's post. in essence, they are still alive. just at a further junction down the evolutionary line.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN read renegade's post. in essence, they are still alive. just at a further junction down the evolutionary line.

i see that now. how do intelligent design proponents explain this?