









Flatfish Fossils Fill In Evolutionary Missing Link2. Comment #208246 by mordacious1 on July 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm
This is cool, although let me check "Ancestor's Tale". Seems like there is a chapter on this.3. Comment #208248 by crusader234 on July 10, 2008 at 6:54 pm
4. Comment #208252 by 8teist on July 10, 2008 at 7:01 pm
5. Comment #208255 by Kubenzi on July 10, 2008 at 7:03 pm
6. Comment #208294 by Broshiesq on July 10, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Let's hear it for the Univ. of Chicago! The Chicago Tribune (my paper, unfortunately) carried this story on the first page, of the Second section. What a disaster. Someone turns up transitional fossils and it doesn't even make the front page in the city where it happened. Sad.7. Comment #208295 by The Schuermannator on July 10, 2008 at 8:08 pm
8. Comment #208366 by flobear on July 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm
...answered a question that initially stumped even Charles Darwin.
...A slightly asymmetrical skull offers no advantage.
9. Comment #208370 by Laurie Fraser on July 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm
10. Comment #208448 by rod-the-farmer on July 11, 2008 at 12:31 am
11. Comment #208572 by Marcus Hill on July 11, 2008 at 3:34 am
On a purely speculative note...12. Comment #208630 by Dhamma on July 11, 2008 at 5:17 am
13. Comment #208648 by Isherwood on July 11, 2008 at 5:51 am
14. Comment #208659 by phasmagigas on July 11, 2008 at 6:05 am
Mordacious, what do you mean when you say more gaps are created when they find these fossils? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
15. Comment #208696 by Dhamma on July 11, 2008 at 6:47 am
16. Comment #208714 by evotruth on July 11, 2008 at 7:11 am
I have a video on youtube explaining the evolution of the flatfish. It starts off with Richard and then David Attenborough explains in more detail...17. Comment #208729 by moderndaythomas on July 11, 2008 at 7:27 am
"Most remarkably," he said, "orbital migration, the movement of one eye from one side of the skull to the other during the larval stage, was present but incomplete in both of these primitive flatfishes." For both sets of fossils, the eye had begun the journey but had not crossed the midline from one side of the fish to the other.
18. Comment #208734 by Border Collie on July 11, 2008 at 7:33 am
I really wish that the so-called opposing viewpoint of creationism would not even be addressed and or alluded to in articles such as this. It gives them, by default, credibility they don't deserve. Who cares what they think? Addressing the point of 'missing links' or transitional forms falls right into their hands. It wouldn't matter if scientists found every possible transitional form from the earliest fossils to now, the creationists wouldn't get it and they would still be wailing and gnashing their teeth over evo. Just do the science for the sake of science and forget about the creationists.19. Comment #209170 by Sciros on July 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm
20. Comment #209185 by Mbee on July 11, 2008 at 7:41 pm
the sole plaice a flatfish could survive was on the bottom
21. Comment #209186 by 8teist on July 11, 2008 at 7:41 pm
22. Comment #209192 by mordacious1 on July 11, 2008 at 7:57 pm
evotruth23. Comment #209449 by moderndaythomas on July 12, 2008 at 9:17 am
ALL YOU EVOLINS IS STUPID THIS ONLY MEAN THERE IS NOW TO MISSING TRNASITIONAL FORMS NOT JUST ONE LIKE BEFORE!
24. Comment #209603 by Angelic_Atheist on July 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm
It's surprising how many fossils are hidden away in the archives of museums and universities. It's incomprehensible to me.
1. Comment #208244 by Grantaire of JC on July 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Hidden away for a hundred years? Someone needs to get museums to inventory their stock. What else is out there already discovered?Other Comments by Grantaire of JC