Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

Paleontologists have discovered fossils of a species that provides the missing evolutionary link between fish and the first animals that walked out of water onto land about 375 million years ago. The newly found species, Tiktaalik roseae, has a skull, a neck, ribs and parts of the limbs that are similar to four-legged animals known as tetrapods, as well as fish-like features such as a primitive jaw, fins and scales.

These fossils, found on Ellesmere Island in Arctic Canada, are the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The new find is described in two related research articles highlighted on the cover of the April 6, 2006, issue of Nature.

"Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said Neil Shubin, professor and chairman of organismal biology at the University of Chicago and co-leader of the project.

Tiktaalik was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and a flattened body. The well-preserved skeletal material from several specimens, ranging from 4 to 9 feet long, enabled the researchers to study the mosaic pattern of evolutionary change in different parts of the skeleton as fish evolved into land animals.

The high quality of the fossils also allowed the team to examine the joint surfaces on many of the fin bones, concluding that the shoulder, elbow and wrist joints were capable of supporting the body-like limbed animals.

"Human comprehension of the history of life on Earth is taking a major leap forward," said H. Richard Lane, director of sedimentary geology and paleobiology at the National Science Foundation. "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil 'Rosetta Stones' for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone--fish to land-roaming tetrapods."

One of the most important aspects of this discovery is the illumination of the fin-to-limb transition. In a second paper in the journal, the scientists describe in depth how the pectoral fin of the fish serves as the origin of the tetrapod limb.

Embedded in the fin of Tiktaalik are bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals.

"Most of the major joints of the fin are functional in this fish," Shubin said. "The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land-living animals."

At the time that Tiktaalik lived, what is now the Canadian Arctic region was part of a landmass that straddled the equator. It had a subtropical climate, much like the Amazon basin today. The species lived in the small streams of this delta system. According to Shubin, the ecological setting in which these animals evolved provided an environment conducive to the transition to life on land.

"We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and the right ancient environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition," said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, a co-leader of the project. "Finding the fossils within this remote, rugged terrain, however, required a lot of time and effort."

The nature of the deposits where the fossils were found and the skeletal structure of Tiktaalik suggests the animal lived in shallow water and perhaps even out of the water for short periods.

"The skeleton of Tiktaalik indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land," said Farish Jenkins, professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University and co-author of the papers. "This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including humans--albeit a very ancient step."

The new fossils were collected during four summers of exploration in Canada's Nunavut Territory, 600 miles from the North Pole, by paleontologists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago and Harvard University. Although the team has amassed a diverse assemblage of fossil fish, Shubin said, the discovery of these transitional fossils in 2004 was a vindication of their persistence.

The scientists asked the Nunavut people to propose a formal scientific name for the new species. The Elders Council of Nunavut, the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, suggested "Tiktaalik" (tic-TAH-lick)--the word in the Inuktikuk language for "a large, shallow water fish."

The scientists worked through the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth in Nunavut to collaborate with the local Inuit communities. All fossils are the property of the people of Nunavut and will be returned to Canada after they are studied.

###

The team depended on the maps of the Geological Survey of Canada. The researchers received permits from the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth of the Government of Nunavut, and logistical support in the form of helicopters and bush planes from Polar Continental Shelf Project of Natural Resources Canada. The National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society, along with an anonymous donor, also helped fund the project.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 375millionyears; coelacanth; crevolist; lungfish; tiktaalik; transitional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
To: Zavien Doombringer

"so, mixing of DNA doesn't produce clones?"

No, it doesn't.


221 posted on 04/05/2006 1:33:45 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Junior

No thanks. I don't get my reading material from some rock band from way back when, I leave that for the Democrats.


222 posted on 04/05/2006 1:33:50 PM PDT by yellowdoghunter (I sometimes only vote for Republicans because they are not Democrats....by Dr. Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
And what Myth is in the Bible?

The worldwide flood is a good place to start.

223 posted on 04/05/2006 1:33:58 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Bubbatuck

"That's because new, better information has been discovered. Do you think there should be NO speculation on these issues until there is 100% certainty?"

No. I understand that studying the bones of T.Rex allowed them to draw better conclusions about how it likely moved. But looking at bones and a few fossilized tracks can only tell you so much about how these critters lived - the popular dinosaur shows state as fact things that are almost purely speculation, giving fuel to the creationist's claims against the science.


224 posted on 04/05/2006 1:34:51 PM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

so, then, you have a clone that doesn't have any DNA? Somewhere DNA has to be combined to create...You cannot get life with out life.


225 posted on 04/05/2006 1:34:58 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Like I said, we can agree to disagree. I must say that I hope scientists continue to talk down to people, assume they are stupid, etc...it only bolsters the argument that scientists think they are smarter than God.


226 posted on 04/05/2006 1:35:28 PM PDT by yellowdoghunter (I sometimes only vote for Republicans because they are not Democrats....by Dr. Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Dunkleosteus.

I told y'all I was a passable amateur paleozoologist...

227 posted on 04/05/2006 1:35:58 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
That's one big snapping turtle!

Actually, it's a fish.

228 posted on 04/05/2006 1:36:32 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
to make the remark that humans did evolve from something similar sounds like it is wishful thinking that he, a human, likes the idea of being a creation evolved from a fishlike creature, instead of being created by a loving God in His likeness...

Strategerist suggested that humans are likely descended from something similar to this creature, in light of this new fossil evidence. The fact that you've misunderstood his assertion as a "wish" demonstrates a great deal about your understanding of reality.

I'd like to be the first to tell you that reality does not depend upon what you or anyone else hopes or wishes is true, and that making an assertion based on evidence is not the same as closing one's eyes and hoping really hard. Since science is a methodology based upon an understanding of this, you would do well to grasp it before commenting on another science thread.
229 posted on 04/05/2006 1:36:36 PM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
Not a Myth:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

230 posted on 04/05/2006 1:36:39 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
There's more waiving of arms and flailing about in this thread than there is in any spastic ward. It's the all-too predictable reaction to any new piece of evidence that ringingly confirms the theory of evolution (yet again).

These spastic twitches are the evidences of the fantastic new science of pig-ignorantism. If you don't understand the evidence, if you fill the threads with smokescreens, distractions, evasions, and denials, then there is nothing new and threatening to deal with at all.

231 posted on 04/05/2006 1:37:00 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
But if it makes you feel superior to insult those who believe the Bible, go for it.

That's not what he did. Try reading his posts again.

232 posted on 04/05/2006 1:37:25 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

If that doesn't convince everyone, nothing will.


233 posted on 04/05/2006 1:38:26 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
No, I was beautifully and wonderfully made in God's image.

He shorted you in a few areas.

234 posted on 04/05/2006 1:38:47 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I read his post and responded. I believe he is able to answer for himself, though I am sure he appreciates your help.


235 posted on 04/05/2006 1:39:05 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You'll have to wait to see the research done in the 23rd century. That's the 21st century science.
236 posted on 04/05/2006 1:39:23 PM PDT by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy
I have a great concept of science, I also know that the base of science is with a hypothesis. That hypothesis is on an assumption of a "what if". Now, assuming you declare that this fossil has the origins of all life, you need to prove your hypothesis. Thus, theories are created.

Not wishful thinking, as some, before anyone can believe mankind evolved from any other creature, there has to be evidence of that, not creatures evolving to adapt to thier surroundings. Where is the proof of man evolving?

237 posted on 04/05/2006 1:39:49 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
Not a Myth: http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

Unfortunately, that account violates a huge amount of the real-world evidence, and thus has been falsified.

Problems with a Global Flood

"Polystrate" Fossils

Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"

Dinosaur Prints in Coal

The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood

Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?

Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust

Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust

What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?

Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood

Why The Flood Can't Be Global

The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce

The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See

Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood

Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?

Fleeing from the Flood

Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model

Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood

While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing

More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology

Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood

Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -- Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

If you ever managed to resolve all of those apparently insurmountable problems for the creationist version of a flood scenario, feel free to come back and present us with the results of your research. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with the totality of the evidence, however, and not just one tiny corner of it in isolation while violating most of the rest (a common creationist tactic).
238 posted on 04/05/2006 1:40:05 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
"so, then, you have a clone that doesn't have any DNA?"

Sorry, that is not a logical deduction from anything I said.

" Somewhere DNA has to be combined to create...You cannot get life with out life."

What does that have to do with what I said? You claimed to be a clone of your parents. As one of your parents was male and the other female, it is obvious that you could NOT be a clone of either one. You are a unique biological organism. There has never been someone with your genome before nor will there likely be one in the future. You only received one copy of the genes your parent's had, one from each at each allele. There were a number of crossovers and some mutations; the copying process is imperfect.
239 posted on 04/05/2006 1:40:05 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
When you have to resort to 3rd grade comments, you have already lost the argument. Didn't your mother teach you that????

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Still waiting on someone to explain the complexity of the cell to me or "molecular machinery". Nothing in Darwin's "THEORY" accounts for the complexity of the cell.

240 posted on 04/05/2006 1:40:31 PM PDT by yellowdoghunter (I sometimes only vote for Republicans because they are not Democrats....by Dr. Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,501-1,512 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson