Comments on: Fossil Shows Fish Evolving Surf-To-Turf

Skull, Shoulders And Pelvis Found Of Most Primitive 4-Legged Creature In History

[nic1234567-2009]

and for nic...the word ''''reproduce'''' infers a reproduction....not a contortion, unless birds are mating with fish. Posted by checkthepast

I have no idea what it is you think you%u2019re saying. Evolution is drive through errors in the genetic code (mutations) that occur during Reproduction.

[nic1234567-2009]

and for nic...the word ''''reproduce'''' infers a reproduction....not a contortion, unless birds are mating with fish. Posted by checkthepast

I have no idea what it is you think you%u2019re saying. Evolution is drive through errors in the genetic code (mutations) that occur during Reproduction.

[hbevis]

RESEARCH AS TO WHY SOME MEN ARE GAY IS A PRETTY GOOD EXAMPLE. SOME RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT THERE IS AN AREA IN THE BRAIN THAT GIVE A MALE THING THAT HE IS A WOMAN.

THE TROUBLE IS THAT THE DATA THAT I HAVE READ ON THIS SUBJECT WAS DONE BY MEDICAL DOCTORS THAT HAD NO PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT THEY ARE GAY.

[caliengineer]

Wow! They extrapolated all this from an entire skull! Usually, they make their fictions with much, much less.

People, remember that the tetrapods and worms and bacteria... all life, according to evolution... came from "rain on the rocks".

That''s right: If you believe in macro-evolution, you believe you are descended from a ROCK!

Micro-evolution, which does occur, is part of God''s wonderful plan to preserve the created type. Praise God. He thought of everything.

[rf35]

nic1234567, thanks for that link about the bacteria. Very informative. How are the creationists explaining that one away? They have always asked to see evolution in the lab...well there it is.

[jon2012-2009]

Posted by checkthepast: "Let''''''''''''''''s see if I get this right...if I have a blue rock and a red rock, and then I find a purple rock, that proves the blue rock evolved into a red rock! WHAT?

It doesn''t prove but maybe, with more data, it could lead to something like what''s happening in the world of living things. You need consistent timelines showing the correct appearance of the rocks, for example. Dating that indicates the rocks were created at the same time, or in the wrong order, would probably invalidate your hypothesis right off the bat. And you need a theory to explain the progression, a mechanism that can be observed with other rock specimens.

Anyway, it''s a silly question. What do you expect?

[farmerbb]

These arguments are tiresome. Rational people will NEVER convince the bible-thumpers. They have closed their minds to rational thinking. I don''t see a way to fix this, although there is some hope when the children they raised to think the bible is literally true, apply to a university. More and more of them are going to find their 14th century science education will have to be ripped out, and replaced by modern stuff. That''ll cost them time & money.

[nic1234567-2009]

Neither the creationist not the darwinians have irrefutable proof that rules out the other yet they both do so. Posted by shaggydo

Even if your statement was true and it is not, it does not mean that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory. Science is the effort to discover, how the physical world works using observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding through experimentation under controlled conditions. The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. Creationism has not made that transition from hypothesis should not be considered a scientific theory.

[checkthepast]

correct docpeter!

and for nic...the word ''reproduce'' infers a reproduction....not a contortion, unless birds are mating with fish.

[gmcnally2]

Speciation does occur as a documented type of evolution. Species lose complexity, or can be bred that way. But that always results in less complexity, some information is lost. That is why purebred dogs are more prone to disease or genetic defects. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely without proof. Species do not gain complexity. Even this new fish is not half fish half other animal that it eventually became, it is just an extinct, albeit unusual, fish. Frogs are amphibians as well and yet do not prove the veracity of evolution. The problem with evolution is that it is presented as fact in articles like this one, and yet there is no support for it in the fossil record. Sure, there are some finds that are promoted as ''evidence'' but the fossil record would be chock full of tangible transitions if this is truly the way mankind came to exist. The fact is, such a burden of proof does not exist. And the exceptions that are always thrown in our faces as proof are always disputable, as in this case. The evolutionists exhibit far more faith than the creationists, and it is not based in science, but rather a denial of God. It is obvious why the notion of God would be a stumbling block, having tripped on it myself. It is the love of God that should be explored more by the creationists posting here, and the character of God. To argue evolution here just makes you look narrow-minded.