[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Re: Reply to Gilgamesh
>Obviously the coelocanth was one fish that didnt evolve
>into anything approaching an amphibian or it still wouldnt
>have been a fish. This fact doesnt mean its a closed book.
>Some other fishy form may have evolved. If you're looking
>for a living transitional form check out the mudskipper or the
>walking catfish. Just my 2/100ths of a U.S. dollar.
Actually, the walking catfish and the mudskipper can only be transitional
forms if they evolve into something else, although they may give us
physiological and morphological clues as to the origin of the tetrapods.
(However, they may not, as evidence continues to mount that the earliest
tetrapods were far less terrestrial and far more aquatic than previously
Futhermore, unlike what the previous poster said, the skeleton and soft anatomy
of coelocanths (fossil & modern) do show important information as to the common
ancestor of coelocanths and tetrapods. Some of that information is described
in the works I (very breifly) described earlier: if someone can find the full
refs of these, please post.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
Colege Park, MD 20742