Animation Source Forums

this is what i saw while coming to balto source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/?GT1=7938

WOOO! go science! even more proof of evolution! bout time! *dances and sings 'incompetent design' song*

Great! but how did they know that lot with only the front body? just asking...

for me. it might be a deep water fish. how did they know it is a water-to-land fish. it's arms look like of a fish in deep water. (I can't remember it's name. I call them "fish with arms" ) eyes on the top of head may be becuase they lived on the sea floor under the high-pressure-deep-water. that's why they had strong arms,maybe. there are fish with arms in the deep water, fish with lungs, and tree climbing fish even now. (they are in my country that's why I know. I already saw them with my eyes)

no offence. I'm just giving another point of view.

Interesting find.

Actually, evolution doesn't need to be proven. "Evolution" is factual, it's a process that is existant in nature as well as technical development, and therefore can't be doubted. "Evolution" doesn't mean anything different than the development of something. People often mistakenly use the term "evolution" for the most famous explanation of it given by Darwin: "Natural and Sexual Selection".

"Evolution by Natural Selection", or better said "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Live", is the theory - and that actually is the only thing that could be proven or disproven.


That's not much of a problem. In paleontology you can always go back to another related find and reconstruct the skeleton. In fact you don't have another choice, as not even 1 % of all finds (of more complex specimen) is complete. "Almost" complete specimen are pretty rare as well... so, yeah - it's the paleontologist's job to find out what an organism really looked like.

The name of the animal,that you're looking for is "walking catfish".

wow...that's pretty neat. i didn't know that fish could live on land. it would take millions of years of evolution for them to become accustomed to their new surroundings...

Then, where do you suppose are we coming from? For most time of earths history life on the land wasn't even possible.

Don't get me wrong! I agree with you! I'm a son of a scientist, I've met Ken Miller, I know about evolution. however, there are still some people *shifts eye to a certain moderator* who think evolution is fake and organisms cannot change over millions of years. I just like it when there is even more evidence on my side.

Well, no ofence, but in the article it explained about it's arm-like fins. Well anyway they have only discovered the fore-part, so you might be right!

when an organism is fossilized, it is buried and over millions of years the organic material is replaced with sediment and turned to stone. the earth forms layers as years pass by and dirt piles up. these layers are called strata, and are visible along cliffs or places where the earth is sheared off. by analyzing what layer of rock the fossil is buried in, they can attain the age.

How do they analyze how old the layer of rock is then, if the rock shows how old the fossil is?

By measuring the radioactive decay (to be more precise: half-life) of nuclides. Such methods allow us to date sediments back to several billion years. Additionally you can analyze the chemical constitution of the atmosphere (which is ALWAYS recorded in sediments) and assign it to certain geological eras and periods. It really isn't much of a deal anymore today to do that.

Carbon-14 ,right? could anyone that know about Carbon-14 Explain this please? I'm not THAT good at English. I don't know what to say.

Uuuh, not to offend anyone, but I don't really believe in evolution Actually, I believe in adaption on a lower level. A species of bird could move to a different land, and over a period of 10 years their beaks will slightly change shape to adapt to the food, but not as drastic as completely evolving