English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It is from Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_fish_limbs

2007-05-24 02:03:40 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

7 answers

I have a hard time swallowing stories like this one.Just because its a couple of guys who aren't sure and they are more or less guessing about it.When there is facts I'll believe it.

2007-05-24 02:16:41 · answer #1 · answered by Christal 3 · 0 3

Humbled, by both the years and years of work it took to make this planet I'm on now (and me!) and by the intelligence and hard work of these scientists. I have believed in evolution for a while, and the idea that fish may have been able to evolve limbs doesn't trouble me one bit. I have always felt connected to fish, as a swimmer. (I was always the kid who was happiest when wet.)

My first response to the article was, "Oh, wow. Awesome. The Gods are soooo cool! Thank You!"

As for Theophilus--you should be grateful that scientists are never absolutely certain and believe there's always more to be learned. This statement is based on the best available explanation and techniques,. This means they're willing to accept better theories if they exist and are diligently trying to find the precise truth, *not* that they know nothing and are just guessing. After all, they weren't *there*. If scientists just sat back and said, "Oh, God did it," you wouldn't have vaccines or medications or the very computer you're typing on!

2007-05-24 09:42:47 · answer #2 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 0 0

Anyone who has looked at Hox genes at all should have no doubts about evolution, even before this interesting new find (and thanks for the link--cool story).

For example, in humans, we can see where the gene duplicated way back on the evolutionary tree and then evolved down four separate paths since then. We can play with Hox genes in bugs and make them sprout legs on their heads (showing that it doesn't always take much genetic change to get vastly different large-scale changes). And so on.

Evolution is not all about fossils or dinosaurs or families of apes or, worse, the ever boring finches. Some of the most exciting marks of evolution show up at the molecular level.

2007-05-24 09:19:37 · answer #3 · answered by Minh 6 · 2 0

I can't believe Ajo is still crowing about a fish caught in 1938! We've learned a lot sense then. This web site shows a lot of intermediate fossils. http://evolution.berkeley.edu I read in the national geographic web site about a 40,000,000 year old complete fossil of a sea cow with legs. Not to mention whale fossils with legs, discussed in the Berkeley site.

2007-05-26 07:59:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I like the way scientists always say that something 'MAY HAVE' when they are expositing on a finding. Really makes me feel that they know the truth.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that modern inventions depend on believing in evolution. Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments was instrumental in the technology used to build computers.

grace2u

2007-05-24 09:20:13 · answer #5 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 0 3

How should it make one feel? It seems to support existing theory that land animals evolved from those of the sea.

2007-05-24 09:14:49 · answer #6 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 2 0

My response is one of disbelief. Not because I don't want to believe, but because they can't even decide which fish died off 365 million years ago and which fish some local fisherman hooks in to.... hence the yahoo story just a couple days ago.

:0)

2007-05-24 09:14:03 · answer #7 · answered by Ajo 2 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers