If you're interested in the early development of Tetrapods, I'd suggest, 'At The Waters Edge: Fish With Fingers, Whales With Legs' by Carl Zimmer. My copy is from 1999 and I don't know if there is a newer edition but it goes through alot of history from Owen to Save-Soderbergh, Jennifer Clack and Per Ahlberg, Deaschler and Shubin, etc and talks about the development of the field and interviews alot of folks like the latter. It was before the discovery of Tiktaalik bit it's still awesome, even goes into Alan Turnings work in biology

The video series is extraordinary. I've seen it a bunch of times.

You may enjoy Aron Ra's 50 part series 'Systematic Classification of Life' Im using it to memorize all of the clades mentioned as a bases to learn the other clades besides just those of Homo sapiens, along with 'Vertebrate Palaeontology' by Michael Benton, 'History of Life' by Richard Cowen and some other books

His book _Your Inner Fish_ did a much better job. I don't know if it will convince many creationists but at least they'll learn a bit of anatomy for their trouble.

I know what you mean, and sympathise with the idea, but we shouldn't allow Creationists to divert too much of our scientists time onto combating idiocy. I mean, I don't want the rocket scientists to stop building the Webb telescope to spend a bunch of time proving the earth isn't flat, opr demonstrating Newtonian gravity. I admire Jay-Gould and Dawkins etc for continuing to fight the good fight against stupidity, but somebody has to keep advancing the field as well.

Take a quick peek at Tiktaalik's fossil and have your eyes opened to the actual facts. www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fossil&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=3h3LRBfeemp57M%253A%252CJfQpmsce0MgauM%252C_&usg=__r48ClG1TAIW07mlLWT9C6BOw5Yw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj96M2C5rTaAhVO2FMKHR3mA9oQ9QEIYjAK&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=3h3LRBfeemp57 Notice that this lobe finned fish does not even have any fossilized material for the hind end, "legs", or even a fin, there. The highly fragmented frontal fins are mostly missing and going in a horizontal direction. not a vertical direction as would be needed for legs. (Frankly, when some claim to see legs forming on that fossil I have to laugh. It's knee slapping hilarious.) See any evidence - you know, what real science uses - that water breathing lungs are turning into air breathing lungs? . Lobe finned fish don't have legs. No fish have legs. Having a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, as they claim shows it evolved into you, just shows it had a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, i.e. minor variations such as we see constantly in nature. It doesn't show legs. . Though evolutionists want to tell us Tik evolved into a tetrapod amphibian with the cutsey nickname of "fishapod", ichthyologists call it a lobe finned FISH. Evolutionism presents theories that have no data and ignores the real data. Dont let evo-think rob you of your common sense and common knowledge about fish. Maybe read The Emperor's New Clothes. . The person who discovered Tik was Neil Shubin. (He claims to have predicted its discovery but I have seen no literature supporting that claim before the find. When I ask others, who believe the claim, to provide documentation, they never respond.) In his book Your Inner Fish he says himself that there is no way to be sure Tik was a transition of any kind. But he says that, if not, "something like it" was. . The evidence he presents for something like it? Zero. So, that's the big data showing you supposedly are a fish update? One incredibly fragmented, very incomplete, fossil which even its biggest supporter admits may not be a transition - while we are supposed to ignore the countless billions of fossils, and living exmples, that always show fish stay fish? . We have a planet overflowing with data! It shows fish in the real world and in the fossils. Fish never have had legs or even parts of legs. They stay fish. . Also, let's look at the artistic replicas of Tik that are pictured along with the fossil. Though the actual fossil has only small, close to the body, highly fragmented frontal fins, the artistic renditions show it with long, strong, muscular leg-like structuress as it makes its amazing "ascent" to land. Fictional artwork, including computer simulatioms which do not match the observable evidence, are consistently used to defend evoutionism. . Now, one artist's imaginary, small and flat, tail could presumably slide onto land. Also those artists who providced Tik with a snake- like tail present a scenario that makes a climb to land seem somewhat feasible. What about the tails lobe finned fish really have, however? Well, they have broad vertical tails - not exactly the kinds that would be most useful for climbs to land. . Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. . We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. . Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that has goes in the exact opposite direction of what the data showed. . Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. . As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. . But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family today? . Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution. . Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." . "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) . "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) . "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin) . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aq51pdChmrbeoas.html . Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.

Edwin Luciano, you wrote, "His book Your Inner Fish did a much better job. I don't know if it will convince many creationists but at least they'll learn a bit of anatomy for their trouble." I am a creationist, and I have that book by Shubin, as well as "Some Assembly Required" and "The Universe Within." I have found no evidence for evolution in any of them. If evolution were true, fossilized animals such as the Tiktaalik could rightly be considered a consequence of evolution, but never as evidence. Modern genetic research has virtually eliminated the possibility of random mutations creating the proteins needed for the evolution of a species of one family into a species of another family. Rather, mutations tend to be devolutionary. Therefore, until there is the discovery of a new evolutionary mechanism (currently unknown,) or the discovery of a finely-graduated transitional line of fossils of the type Charles Darwin sought, evolution must be considered to be, at best, a hypothesis. Dan

Lorica Lass, you wrote, "We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331." For what it's worth, I have that paper; and the last clause -- the clause after the ellipsis -- is not in my copy. Mine is from Vol.11, No.9; November, 1955. The key points of the first sentence were also in the last sentence, which is similar to your last clause, but not quite so dogmatic: _"Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function." [H. J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution." Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol.11, No.9; November, 1955, P.331]_ =========================== Lorica Lass, your next sentence reads, "Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway." That is paraphrased, but true. In the first sentence of the next paragraph Muller wrote: _"It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation. This could take place only because of the Darwinian principle of natural selection, applying to the genes." [Ibid.]_ Of course, that is absolute nonsense. From reading the paper, it appears Muller was so wedded to Darwinism that he felt obliged to give Darwin a "plug," no matter how silly it seemed. Naturally, Muller was not privy to the (future) Near-Neutral Theory, which determined that all mutations were deleterious, even when beneficial; nor was he privy to the 2008 research that determined a single pair of coordinated mutations in humans was virtually impossible, which for all practical purposes falsified human evolution. Dan

I just finished _Your Inner Fish_ which he wrote a few years back. *LOVED* it.

Several, look them up on Amazon

Pretty website but peer reviewed citations are scant. Pretty pictures. If I'm not mistaken Per Ahlberg says something simmilar but I'll wait for more consensus since I'm not a early tetrapod paleontologist and to make such claims is big because it would overturn alot.

It's stiil too recent... you might be interested in his latest book though released in spr 2020... Some Assembly Required...

I don't think anyone's going to answer because they're probably all out digging.

Hi! Indeed, I guess the answer to your three first questions is yes! And I guess, looking at these pictures, you can think that "we" changed pretty much while fishes seem to be the same or almost. To me, an interesting element of answer is that fishes of that time were already fit for their element (water), while our ancestors, in phase of terrestrialisation had to adapt the best they could, so to speak. But don't forget that fishes also evolved; just not the same way we did. Look at all their different shapes (sharks and rays are cousins, being chondrichtyans (cartilaginous fishes)). Think of the speed of the Mako skark, or those deep-sea creatures that produce light... And much more invisible evolutions (on a molecular scale).

Ok, lobed fin fish are Sarcopterygii, there are only two FISH groups of Sarcopterygii extant today, Lungfish and Coelocanth. 99.9% of the fish today are Actinopterygii (ray finned fish, which are a sister clade of Sarcopterygii). Tiktaalik is not Tetrapoda, Tiktaalik is somewhere around Stegocephalia. Ancient fish branched in many sections, it depends on how you define a fish, but the main two are Actinopterygii (ray finned fish) and Sarcopterygii (lobed fin fish). Tetrapoda did not derive from the genus Tiktaalik.

Tiktaalik is around Stegocephalia. Use this example of where the Lungfish split from our shared clades, Lungfish are Dipnomorpha which is the sister clade of Tetrapodamorpha. Find Elpistostegalia and Stegocephalia that's around where Tiktaalik split from the Tetrapoda line. Post Metazoa clades we humans share with "Lungfish": KINGDOM: Anamalia aka Metazoa (animals) Subkingdom: Eumetazoa (true animals) Clade: Parahoxozoa Clade: Bilateria (bilaterally symmetrical animals) Clade: Nephrozoa Superphylum: Deuterostomia (the anus forms first, the mouth second) Phylum: Chordata Clade: Olfactores (olfactory system) Subphylum: Vertebrata Infraphylum: Gnathostomata (everything with jaws) Clade: Teleostomi Clade" Euteleostomi Superclass: Osteichthyes (bony fish) Clade: Sarcopterygii (lobed fin "fish", this is an important clade) Clade: Rhipidistia (fish with lungs essentially) ----THIS IS WHERE LUNFISH DIVERGE FROM THE LINE THAT BECOMES TETRAPODS. ####################### Taxonomically we Homo sapiens are: ...alot of stuff starting with Eukaryota (beings with Eukaryotic cells decended from Eukaryotic cells) and then eventually: KINGDOM: Anamalia aka Metazoa (animals) Subkingdom: Eumetazoa (true animals) Clade: Parahoxozoa Clade: Bilateria (bilaterally symmetrical animals) Clade: Nephrozoa Superphylum: Deuterostomia (the anus forms first, the mouth second) Phylum: Chordata Clade: Olfactores (olfactory system) Subphylum: Vertebrata Infraphylum: Gnathostomata (everything with jaws) Clade: Teleostomi Clade" Euteleostomi Superclass: Osteichthyes (bony fish) Clade: Sarcopterygii (lobed fin "fish", this is an important clade) Clade: Rhipidistia (fish with lungs essentially) Clade: Tetrapodamorpha Clade: Eotetropodaformes Clade: Elpistostegalia Clade: Stegocephalia Superclass: Tetrapoda (4 limbs) Clade: Reptiliomorpha Clade: Amniota (amniotic eggs) Clade: Synapsida Clade: Mammaliaformes Class: Mammalia (mammals, we have mammary glands) Subclass: Theria Clade: Eutheria Infraclass: Placentalia (placental mammals) Magnorder: Boreoeutheria Superorder: Euarchontagliers Grandorder: Euarchonta Mirorder: Primatamorpha Order: Pan-primates, Order: Primata (primates) Suborder: Haplorhini (dry nose primates) Ifraorder: Semiiformes (all monkeys and apes) Parvorder: Catarrhini (old world monkeys) Superfamily: Hominoidea (old world tailless simians) Family: Hominidae (great apes) Subfamily: Homininae (African Apes) Tribe: Hominini (Chimps, Bonobos and Humans) Genus: Homo (all humans. ie. erectus, heanderthalensis, heidelbergensis, sapien, ergaster etc) Species: sapien kzfaq.info/sun/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

@@tristanhiller6139 There were no predators on land in the Devonian period but there were plants and arthropods (the ancestors of insects) to eat, so there was a massive selective pressure. Limbs developed underwater first, in a long transition from Sarcopterygii, to Rhipidistia, Tetrapodamorpha, Eotetropodoformes, Elpistostegalia, Stegocephalia, then Tetrapoda. Sarcopterygians (lobed fin fish) developed their lobes which eventually formed a proto autopod in stegocephalians that was beneficial in the benthic zone of shallow waters, probably in paludal, fluvial, lacustrine and deltaic areas. This benthic aspect is why all Stegocephalians like Tiktaalik, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega have flat heads like a catfish, catfish are bottom feeders (cat fish are not Sarcopterygii though, they are Actinopterygii, ray finned), . I imagine a pinniped autopod is a suffecient analogy to the stem tetrapoda autopod. The only extant (existing) Sarcopterygii FISH are the lungfish and coelacanth, but all Tetrapods are also Sarcopterygii in monophyletic taxonomy because you can't grow out of your ancestry. So the "bugs" followed the plants and the "fish" followed the bugs.

Water-dwelling mammals - such as whales, dolphins, and manatees - have the same basic bones in their flippers (forelimbs) as four-legged land mammals do: one "upper arm" bone, two "forearm" bones, a small cluster of "wrist" bones, and "finger" bones.

Don't forget about Mesozoic reptiles. The well known ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs and plesiosaurs as well as crocodile-family members that evolved flippers

Yes the mammalian and reptilian adaptations aren't really fins. I once had a creationist try to tell me that penguins didn't have wings co-opted for swimming but that they were indeed chimeras that had fins.

Check out 'At the Waters Edge: Fish With Fingers Whales With Legs' by Carl Zimmer, a little dated but still a really good and informative read

If there was actually evidence of a creator, then scientists would believe in a creator, but thus far, there is no evidence of a creator so it’s something that most scientists don’t believe in. I’m an atheist, I do not believe in a creator because there has simply been no evidence for one. If evidence ever pointed to a creator, then I’d believe in one, but I won’t believe without evidence, However, it’s highly unlikely that a creator would be a ‘God’ as described in any of the major religions. There are so many variations upon which ‘God’ is described that if a creator existed, that creator wouldn’t be any of the ‘Gods’ that religious people believe in, so that’s a likely thing we can rule out.

"evolutionists" 🤦 you glow in the dark It's odd the millions of ways these fools still try to push their ideologies onto others.

@@leahdragon See the light and come to our lord Christ... opher Hitchens.

You are obviously talking about your religion and your magical anthropomorphic immortal superfriend

@@patldennis Materialist Religion assertion of magic is a morbid insult to intelligent life not worthy of devotion yet seemingly? it is maintained anyway

@@Jeshua1737 no idea what you're babbling about Don. Materialist "religion" equipped you with that smart phone (or whatever device you are using) that enables to vomit your drivel

@@patldennis Hatred for God is a wasted unproductive endeavor

@@patldennis Technology is only possible because of precise order nature provides

There is no need to believe in evolution bc as this video demonstrates one can know evolution is a fact through observation. It is your god that is not observable bc it has no properties, bc it does not exist and therefore requires belief

@@patldennis Thank you for your faith-based comment in favor of your belief in evolutionism and atheism. Please don't confuse the capacity for an already intelligently designed population of organisms to vary and adapt... with the arrival of dna in the first place along with with self correction machinery, molecular machines, complex physicolgical systems, etc. Nobody disputes any aspects of observable and repeatable science such as wolves being able to be intelligently be bred into various dog breeds and/or for finch beaks to be able to vary, it's the unsubstantiated, unscientific and unobserved "just so stories" from the ancient past told by evolution believers that require an immense leap of faith on your part.

@@livinginthespirit407 fossils and as you mentioned DNA and its adaptation for turning fins to limbs is not faith based.. as it can be observed. Thanks for equivocating evolution and atheism, but what about Francis Collins? Kenneth Miller? Mary Schweitzer? Or were you just demonstrating Aron Ra's 1st foundational falsehood of creationism? Sorry, but your YEC and/or ID narrative is fringe even within Christians

@@livinginthespirit407 why did your god have to "design" invertebrate chordates before it decided to make some of them vertebrate chordates? Since chordates are necessarily deuterostomes as well, why did your supernatural designer also make the echinoderms be deuterostomes?

@@patldennis I would encourage you to be more cautious against being a dishonest communicator. I didn't equivocate evolutionism with Atheism. I was referring to you personally as a believer in both based upon your comment. Please stay away from strawman arguments. Not only are they deeply dishonest, but they are also a shameful waste of everybody's time and energy including presumably your own. A word of advice is to read comments much more carefully and to actually respond to what was written rather than a misrepresentation of it. Aron Ra does the same thing, so i can see where you picked up the dishonest habit.

"Magically"?

what the hell kind of nonsense is this

Wrists and ankles are homologous idiot

You do realise the transition from sea to land was a very slow process and fins originally would have hardened for fish to ‘crawl’ along shallow river beds and this is why they also evolved to breath air (shallow environments again) before they even started to adventure their way onto land 🙃 It’s not like fins just suddenly became legs one day 🙃 Something similar is happening in mudskippers today. They can breathe air and have hardened fins. Also, wrists and ankles are literally the same thing, there’s really only the distinction in humans because we are upright animals but they’re still the same thing, our 4 limbs are made of the exact same bones as every other tetrapod whether you call them wrists or ankles.

They're Sarcopterygii Stegocephalians, they already freaking had a stylopod, zeogopod and and autopod, complete with the corresponding bones within 4 LOBED fins. They're god DAMN SARCOPTERYGII, STEGOCEPHALIANS!!! Read: 'Gaining Ground' by Jennifer Clack 'How Vertebrates Left the Water' by Michel Laurin 'At the Waters Edge Fish With Fingers Whales with Legs' by Carl Zimmer (intended for mainstream but still informative)

Did you even watch the video you dolt?