Walking Catfish

rox/Quetz, But are they?If they are neotenic then probably not. The limbs/digits are "inherited" from the non-neotenic form that was terrestrial.A truly great imtermediate would be a non-neotenic fully aquatic amphibian with limbs & digits that is not secondarily aquatic. This would clearly show that limbs & digits could evolve before terrestriality.Anyone?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

No, they can come out of the water & don't have digited limbs.

Chiroptera,Sorry, I never made myself clear. Quetzal pointed out that current theory suggests that early tetrapods gained limbs & digits before leaving the water. I pointed out that a neotenic salamander probably isn't a good example of a transitional because it gained it's limbs from a terrestrial ancestor. In that sense they are atavistic structures rather than structures that evolved for a purpose under water, even if the early tetropods did in fact look like that. Indeedy! Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

rox, see post 10.Mark

Quetzal, No, a fully aquatic ampbhibian is a fish.Thanks,Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2003]{

quote:

---

This message has been edited by mark24

---

ampbhibian (!?!?!?) - Adminnemooseus }[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-04-2003]

Quetzal, And so did you. I was trying to see what it was like to live in creationist land for a bit with the fully aquatic amphibians are fish comment. Clearly they are not fish. But you made my point better than I did. I actually think they are better examples of potential evolutionary intermediates for the reasons you mention, certainly in the evo/creo debate. There's no reason to believe that even fully aquatic salamanders aren't secondarily (or more) aquatic, for example. Like you say, they are highly derived. Salamanders look similar to the early tetrapods, but in no way can they be considered "living fossils" as they simply didn't exist in the late Devonian.Actual fish that are clearly more adapted for a marine/aquatic existence than a terrestrial one provide a far better predicate for inferring the possibility of water to land evolution than salamanders, IMHO. They have made the all important first step that stops the otherwise incredulous nose screwing.Interestingly, Acanthostega gunnari in my avatar is equipped with internal gill bars (as opposed to the external salamander ones) giving away it's fishy ancestry.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2003]