1. All fins were true fins, but it also had five radial bones (found only in fish fins) connected to the pelvis. It had a symmetrical tail with the vertebral column that extended straight back. Eusthenopteron evidently had bones connecting the rear fins to the backbone.

2. darwinists state this creature is from the late Devonian and is, according to Colbert (2001), “of particular importance” saying “The crossopterygians are to us perhaps the most important of fishes; they were our far-distant but direct forebears” p. 81. Some Darwinists feel this creature may be the true “missing link” instead of the coelacanth.

3. This was the “gold standard” of fish with alleged legs according to darwinists. However, the portion of Eusthenopteron considered by evolutionists to be like that of a land animal was not the body (e.g. fins) but the head region – which has features that are frog- like according to Jarvik in Devonian Fishes and Plants of Miguasha, Quebec, (1996, p. 288). “Our fingers and toes really did evolve from the fins of ancient fish … but they do not appear to have any bones that could have gone on to produce digits” – Hecht, J. ‘The fishy origin of our fingers and toes’ New Scientist, October 26, 2007. Eusthenopteron was a fish, having no legs or feet. The fins were true fins with a distinctively fish-like arrangement. Non-darwinian zoologists ask how the gills of Eusthenopteron changed into the lungs of Ichthyostega. By a series of beneficial mutations, a pelvis must evolve in Ichthyostega from where there was no pelvis in Eusthenopteron.

However, taking the whole morphology of the fish, with its streamlined torpedo shape, and dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins placed near the back of the body, it seems that the lifestyle of Eusthenopteron was much more like that of a modern pike (Esox), a fully aquatic lurking predator. – Clack, J., Gaining Ground, p. 63

Benton (2005) states, “Eusthenopteron could not have walked properly on land on its fins” (p. 76).

A recent discovery in Australia now places a question mark over Eusthenopteron and what position it has – if any – regarding its supposed transitional status,

Our new phylogeny replaces the tristichopterid Eusthenopteron as the typical fish model for the fish-tetrapod transition – Long et al, Nature ‘An exceptional Devonian fish from Australia sheds light on tetrapod origins’ October 18, 2006

There is a total lack of fossil evidence documenting the supposed appearance of a pectoral girdle from the tristichopterid fish to a basal tetrapod. The best that Benton can do is state, “The pectoral girdle became separated from the skull in the earliest tetrapods” (p. 77). There is no paleontological documentation.

For example, Clack (2002) says

In effect, the head is no longer supported by the shoulder girdle, so the vertebral column and its muscles must do the job instead. Thus, tetrapods have necks. – p. 38

In the next paragraph she states “the back of the tetrapod head became gradually adapted to provide anchorage and space for these muscles to attach” [emphasis Sherwin] (pp. 38-39). These are not scientific descriptions, of course. This applies to the pelvic girdle as well, “The pelvic girdle was also much modified” (Benton, p. 77).

2. darwinists suggest Osteolepiform fish are the ancestors of the Tetrapoda because of their paired lobed fins. Hunt states

. . . one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.

3. Colbert (2001) subjectively states that the osteolepiforms had “a skull pattern remarkably prophetic of the skull pattern seen in the early amphibians” (p. 82). But Benton does not refer to this osteolepiform as a transition, stating “The relationships of the sarcopterygian groups to each other have been controversial” (p. 68). Benton went on to state that there are no less than “four competing theories for the relationships of the sarcopterygian fishes and tetrapods . . .” (p. 69). Clack calls Osteolepis a “so-called” osteolepiform (Figure 3.16) and that it is “one of the most primitive forms from the Middle Devonian” (p. 61), but does not state it was a transition.

YUP macroevolution is a fact!!

I’m working (cough) on a story (cough) and I’m interested in any kind of evolutionary info linking people to the sea/ocean/water/whatever.

Unfortunately, as a non-scientist, I have absolutely no clue as to how to find information that I’ll actually be able to understand. Not that I consider myself an eejit, but, well, anyway.

Is there an actual branch of studies for what I’m looking for? I wonder if that Paul Burnett fellow above has what I’m looking for. I shall check.

Cheers.

Angel – Glad you got through it!

Jason – I’m not going near climate change, not my forte.

NATUI _ You should point out to him that it was a Canadian living in Sweden. Lest he gets all nationalistic.

Mickey – I’d be curious to check that out as well, for a laugh, but like you wouldn’t give them any money.

If I ever find an excuse to travel up to northern Kentucky I’d like to visit that creationism museum they have there. It’s about time somebody erected a monument to irrational, faith-based thinking and I’d like to see how that is working out for them. Problem is, I don’t want them to have my money.

mickeys last blog post..Phil, if you’re gonna spew, spew into this

NATUIs last blog post..Somebody’s Grampa, Somebody’s Son