Any one know any good websites that explain the evolution of fish?

Question

Thanks!

Answer 1

Let's see, I've seen some good things at, www.talkorigins.org

There's a good description of the likely evolution of the fish eye at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Here's a good place to start: http://www.lookd.com/fish/evolution.html

Nice Illustration: http://vivaldi.zool.gu.se/Fiskfysiologi_2001/Course_material/Introduction_fish_evolution/Images/teleost_evolution.GIF

Yes, please be weary of the answer from Chas_cha_123. This is a Creationist Troll who is much more interested in political and social manipulation than real science. They live in a fantasy world of their own making that neither the Christian Bible nor science supports. Even though the Theory of Evolution is better understood, and better supported by real evidence, than The Theory of Gravity they continue to reject it.

"Instead of 'likely evolution' it would be nice if evolutionists could provide some actual evidence :)"
Nothing in science is 100% absolute. It keeps changing as new evidence becomes available, unlike Creationist's dogma that never changes and is always out of date and WRONG ! There's overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, you just have to look for it and be willing to not accept on sight the lies and non-productive assumptions from Creationist's.

"Please be wary of talkorigins - it is highly biased and not a good place to go for scientific debate. "
It's up to date and effectively and realistically counters Creationist's stupidity. And, yes, it is highly biased, towards science rather than fantacy.

"The fact is that the fossil record shows fish - just as we see fish today. It most definitely does not show evidence of fish evolving into anything else."
This is nowhere near the case. A stunning example of a Creationist lie. Devonian placoderms ancient jawless and jointed, armored fish are nothing like any living family of fishes. http://paleo.cc/casts/placo1.jpg
The fossil record also includes fishes with six paired fins. Another family with no living relatives.
There are several significant transitional fish/amphibian fossils that show traits common to both groups. Tiktaalik roseae: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060405.tiktaalik.shtml
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega demonstrate the transitional stages from finned fishes to land trodding amphibians: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6893/fig_tab/nature00824_F4.html
http://www.devoniantimes.org/opportunity/tetrapodsAnswer.html
There are still living descendants of fish/amphibian transitionals today, such as mud skippers and African lung fish which have traits that are consistent with both groups of animals.

"Note the complete lack of evidence in the links in the above answer. The picture shows a lovely alleged evolutionary tree, but note that all that we observe is the leaves of the tree. There is no evidence that any of them have changed into anything else - that is no trunk to the tree!"
There is a lack of evidence only for those unwilling to look for it. The rarity of good fossils is one reason for supposed "missing links," however, genetic evidence is rapidly filling in these imaginary gaps. This is just another Creationist way of saying that there are no transitional fossils, and of course there are numerous transitional fossils as well as living transitional type animals, (platypus) and as all living organisms must ultimately become transitionals of some form, or extinct.

"Any websites that purport to explain the evolution of fish will be promoting philosophy, not science based on observed evidence."
And, Creationist's websites promote religion and not science. Certainly there is a vast amount of scientifically gathered evidence to support the evolution of fish and evolution in general. This is simply a knee jerk statement from a ‘sour grapes’ Creationist that is upset because someone doesn’t subscribe to their fantasy.

"A good example is the Coelacanth fish, thought to be extinct with the dinosaurs. Sadly for the evolutionists, live Coelacanth turned up live and well. This 'living fossil' was quite a shock for some :)"
A good example of how out of touch with reality Creationist's are. Lobe finned fishes such as the coelacanth died out long before the rise of dinosaurs. A much better example of a "living fossil" is the common shark. They are regularly represented in the fossil record and were never thought to be extinct. They are as iatrical to evolution, or much more so, as the coelacanth. The extinct fossil coelacanths are not the same species as the living ones, supporting evolution. Just because a species became rare and was then rediscovered has no affect on the validity of evolution. This is just another example of how Creationist's will grasp at straws and use completely non-relevant issues in an attempt to discredit real science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

Also, please notice that the Creationist only attacks evolution and offers no explanations of their own. This is because the Creationist has no real answers to offer and any statements that they do make can be quickly refuted by research and the scientific method.

I apologize for being pulled off subject into a creation/evolution debate. My justification is that these anti-science cultists must be strongly refuted and put down as stringently as possible because this is just the tip of a political iceberg who's motive is to destroy your hard won and much valued American freedoms and to replace them with a sick version of biblical law.

Answer 2

Instead of 'likely evolution' it would be nice if evolutionists could provide some actual evidence :)

Please be wary of talkorigins - it is highly biased and not a good place to go for scientific debate.

The fact is that the fossil record shows fish - just as we see fish today. It most definitely does not show evidence of fish evolving into anything else.

Note the complete lack of evidence in the links in the above answer. The picture shows a lovely alleged evolutionary tree, but note that all that we observe is the leaves of the tree. There is no evidence that any of them have changed into anything else - that is no trunk to the tree!

Any websites that purport to explain the evolution of fish will be promoting philosophy, not science based on observed evidence.

A good example is the Coelacanth fish, thought to be extinct with the dinosaurs. Sadly for the evolutionists, live Coelacanth turned up live and well. This 'living fossil' was quite a shock for some :)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5192/

Answer 3

previous answer aside.... there are lots of fossil indicators that show the evolution of fish, you just need a good ichthyology website.
this one has a good cladogram and a description of the traits that evolved with each node. (I hope you understand cladistics... it's useful in evolutionary biology.)

http://www.k-state.edu/fishecology/Ichthyology/Earlyevolution.htm