Talk:There are gaps between fish-amphibian (Talk.Origins)

I hope you don't mind the pointing out of a couple of errors in this article re Kenichthys:

"Even if they are right about the nutch being an internal nostril, it is dated as 25-30 million years too old to be transitional between fish and amphibians."

quote from the paper: "Here we present new material of Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil fish from China" the dates from the paper and from the article are clearly totally different.

"There are several types of lobe finned fish that are considered ancestors to amphibians that are dated as yonger than Kenichthys but show no evidence of this internal nostril. This fact alone elimiates Kenichthys as being a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians. "

again from the paper: "Kenichthys is the earliest known and most phylogenetically basal tetrapodomorph" So Kenichthys is oldest lobe finned fish said to be closely ancestoral to tetrapods (Tetrapodomorpha) and the most phylogenetically basal - all subsequent Tetrapodomorph fish have the internal nostrils of tetrapods.

a link to the paper: http://www.student.tue.nl/t/p.kolbeek/kenichthys.pdf
 * To clarify this, the paper says 395 million; the Talk Origins quote says 395 million. The Devonian is said to be 400-360 million years ago and amphibians are claimed to have emerged in the late Devonian according to one site, but 400 million years ago according to another.  Oelphick 16:06, 10 September 2006 (EDT)