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 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,140 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; grey_whiskers

sometimes I loathe FR - it keeps me awake when I really need to be asleep.

anyway, let me start off by clearing up a poorly worded statement - the simulated combatants themselves didn't do anything, as they didn't exist even as much as being the products/calculations of individually tasked processors. AFAIK, all tens-of-thousands of the simulated combatants were the calculations of a single computer, based on the files it had on each individual's characteristics. sorry for having posted so gross an error.

next: "In that it assumes as true (valid) the very thing that remains to be tested, falsified, or "proved." I.e., that simulacra have free will, such that they can, for example, willingly flee a battlefield."

no. I did explicitly state that I do NOT consider this unanticipated result an example of free will. it was, however, an unplanned and unexpected complexity of organization.

lastly: were CS Lewis alive today and active on FR CREVO threads, he might argue against the ToE, but he'd at least (very likely) trouble himself to learn what the ToE says and does not say. If more folks here did so, these threads would be a LOT less nasty.

now, at long last, I really *am* going to bed


1,101 posted on 04/06/2006 10:19:17 PM PDT by King Prout (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: jec41

(What was it that science observed? I didn't get it)

You posted something to me earlier about "something being my opinion" While sometimes I may state my opinion as a matter of thought, or to provoke thought in others, I stay as far away as possible from arguing with it. I do this for two reasons: one; it's only of real value to me, two; you guys will tear me to shreds.

I thought you were responding to a previous post in which someone had challenged somebody to give intelligent design, or whatever else it can be called, an argument based on inductive reasoning. I stayed clear of my opinion in doing this.

Sorry about the mix up.


1,102 posted on 04/06/2006 10:25:07 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; grey_whiskers; King Prout; hosepipe
Thank you so very much for your excellent insights, dear sister in Christ!

Truly, I sped right over that assertion that God could lie because it is absurd on the face. He is not "in" space/time and thus when He says a thing, it is. The Scriptures declare that God cannot lie, that He speaks of the end from the beginning, that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that our names are recorded in the book of life from the foundation of the world and so on.

God cannot lie.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the Universe is an unimaginably, astronomically spectacular instance of superb engineering, AND is also a sublimely beautiful creation, as in a work of art. Why do we have to accept an "either-or proposition" here, when the Universe is (apparently) both?

Truly said. Creation is both spiritual and physical, heaven and earth, art and engineering.

There is much more I'd love to say, but as you have noted - this thread is now in the backroom.

1,103 posted on 04/06/2006 10:29:58 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell

Is that a trick question?


Which question? I ask alot. The trickiest I can think of today would be when I posted definitions for guided, as opposed to unguided, law, and force. Then asked if the term unguided force is an oxymoron. It's not really a trick question, just a brain twister. Or, as I like to say, something to think about.


1,104 posted on 04/06/2006 10:31:00 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom
Why do you think religion will lead back to the dark ages? There may be some on these threads that want to deny science. I think others embrace it, but view it differently

One observation might be that those countries where religion has suppressed science they remain poor. The US has been the exception but we are a maturing countries. If you are old enough to remember the differences of science and religious were of little concern until the late 70's. Since then with TV and the growth of fundamentalism science has been attacked. Many would discredit it in the schools and restrict knowledge. The number of students studying science has dropped and our world standing of high school performance in math and science has dropped from number one to 24 out of the top 25 countries in the world. We graduate but 70 thousand PH D's in math and science a year and more than half seek opportunity in other countries.

China graduates 500 thousand a year and India another 300 thousand. Our students rank first in high esteem and are taught that their faith and belief and opinion is the most important thing. Look at the Muslims, for centuries they suppressed science, allowed no new knowledge, think themselves superior, and allow no other beliefs than their own. They have high esteem but live in a decayed society and a IQ mean of 89. the US mean IQ has decreased from 100 to 97 in the last 25-30 years.

There is a hard core movement to establish a religion of state in the US and it has had some success. A republic or democracy is still a relative new thing considering history. Before the early middle ages most Monarchies had a religion of state and the progress of science was restricted. Nothing could be taught without the approval of religion and any opposing could be put to death. Religion does not seek new knowledge, it seeks to protect it's philosophy of faith and belief with little or no change. Science is always a threat because a increase in knowledge forces changes in faith and belief. More change has been forced on religion in the last 400 years than in all the years before that is of our history. Thoughts of cars, planes, going to the moon, TVs, radios, bathing suits and numerous other things would have made one a heretic and eligible for the death penalty. Thats it for now.

1,105 posted on 04/06/2006 11:08:02 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1099 | View Replies]

To: jec41
Maybe I'm just weird. I honestly don't see science as a threat. Sometimes I wonder if we draw the wrong conclusions from what we've discovered. But in wondering that, I advocate for more study, research and discovery.

Sometimes I think a lot of the ongoing debates are a big miscommunication. I think the public is very poorly educated about how science works. When they hear the word theory, the equate it with an idea. I also think that TV isn't always helpful. I know the intention is to educate, but they also want to make it entertaining. So they draw up a story on hypothesis and fill in the holes with speculation. The public takes it as "science being presumptuous". Evolution doesn't address the origins of life, but once again most people don't know this. The public is under the impression that science is running over them, when in fact, it's not. I think that many feel they're personal beliefs are being suppressed. Some will go to the point of ignoring scientific discoveries. But many want the opportunity to leave, just a possibility, that there could be a designer for this wonderful creation, however it got here. They feel that is what is being denied. Now here's where they are wrong. It is not science's place to address this. But, they don't know that, so they avoid science instead. Once again, a poorly informed public. The place for this is philosophy. It would be a better approach to lobby for this venue in the schools as a counter balance. It would give kids a chance to voice their questions in a healthy and non-defiant way. I think another benefit is that it would encourage them to learn more about science to answer their questions.

Those are some pretty pathetic IQ scores, and I understand your concern.

We homeschool. I don't know if it will make you feel better, but I don't shy away from science with my kids. We are Christians, but we do study evolution. I'm not a YEC. I guess I'm more of an evolution theist. Anyhow, I've presented all of these to my kids. I want them to be able to make up their own minds as to how they view evolution and creation, otherwise I'm just brain washing them. Plus my son really enjoys science. He would be ill prepared if I hide things from him, furthermore that would be dishonest of me. Of our friends that are Christians, I can only think of one family that is believes the Bible is literal concerning creation. By the way, I've done quite a bit of research regarding different interpretation of creation from the Bible. Evolution and the creation are more similar than people realize.
1,106 posted on 04/06/2006 11:54:35 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1105 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
I'm hard-pressed to explain why hardly any of you creationists have stepped up to the plate to take the survey in post 946. If evolution is "slipping into the abyss of disproved theories", then surely you should be able to tell us which of those fossils - which look like us to be transitional between apes & humans - are merely "just an ape" or "just a human". How can we possibly take your creationist claims seriously if you can't tell us where to draw the line between the "ape baramin" and the "human baramin"?
1,107 posted on 04/07/2006 1:15:53 AM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Getting to Yes by Fisher & Ury)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1085 | View Replies]

To: jec41

"Evolution is a observed fact, the explanation of the observed fact (evolution) is the Theory of Evolution."

Who observed it? Obviously no one did, evolution is based on interpretation of available data. Depends on the interpreters agenda.


1,108 posted on 04/07/2006 4:10:18 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

"Humans didn't evolve from lungfish. But they did (likely) evolve from this thing or something similar."

I thought we evolved from monkeys? But then why are there still monkeys around?

We have fish today that walk on land.


1,109 posted on 04/07/2006 4:12:25 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

"You spoke so knowledgeably about the content later on yet you breezed on past it earlier.

Were you aware that you do post contradictory material with a great deal of regularity."

No, because it isn't true.

"What I find exceedingly pathetic is your tendency to describe as "lies" those things with which you disagree."

Examples please. I do see you are getting a little... testier now. Take a deep breath. Count to ten.

"You're a DU troll aren't you? That's their standard technique."

But maybe being a DU troll is really being a Freeper. Maybe YOU'RE the DU troll, and don't know it. You yourself said that there is no such thing as objective reality. That the people who believe in objective reality and objective truth are communists and fascists. How would you know the difference?

Your meltdown is complete. You're left with only paranoid, postmodernist ramblings. Thanks for the entertainment. :)


1,110 posted on 04/07/2006 4:51:59 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: jec41
All religions vary and in the end only one or none can be correct. The knowledge of science that you refuse to accept will become the religion that you accuse it to be and will be accepted by most.

We agree!


 
 

NIV Luke 13:22-28
 22.  Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem.
 23.  Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"   He said to them,
 24.  "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
 25.  Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, `Sir, open the door for us.'   "But he will answer, `I don't know you or where you come from.'
 26.  "Then you will say, `We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'
 27.  "But he will reply, `I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'
 28.  "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.
 
 

NIV John 14:6
   Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

NIV Matthew 7:13
   "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

1,111 posted on 04/07/2006 4:54:14 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1084 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Anyone miss this bit o' racism from the Creationoid PistolPaknMama?

I saw it and I'm INCENSED!!!

Dissin' us WHITE FOLK that way!

Jus' 'cause there's SO many more white on welfare than others, gives her no RIGHT to say bad disparaging remarks about us!

1,112 posted on 04/07/2006 4:57:44 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1089 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
(sarcasm aimed at the race baters and their liberal abetors, such as Alan Colmes)

There are SO many masters......

1,113 posted on 04/07/2006 4:58:58 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom

Sounds like he had a limited amount of cousins!


1,114 posted on 04/07/2006 5:00:21 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1091 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom
His second wife had been a part of the Branch Davidian(sp?).

As an aside, we have, in our church, (indianapolis) a lady who used to go to Jim Jones church here. [This was before he left the midwest and went to California - then to Guyana.]

She says his preaching was ok in the early days...

1,115 posted on 04/07/2006 5:02:47 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1091 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom

Well that's just purrfect!


1,116 posted on 04/07/2006 5:03:34 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Oh. I just noticed our little conversation has been removed to the "Smokey Backroom".... How delightful!

Don't most of them; after a while?

Sigh....

1,117 posted on 04/07/2006 5:04:46 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it."

Science at it's core is based on inductive reasoning. Pure deduction, like Descartes advocated, may give you logically true statements, but these statements will have no relation to reality unless the premises are checked against the real world. My point was that all of the deduction in the world won't help you without some real life observations to back it up. That's why Descartes, as brilliant as he was, often made the simplest of errors in his deductions because he didn't think it was necessary to actually observe the world.

Math can be purely deductive. Science absolutely needs induction (though obviously deductive reasoning is useful too).
1,118 posted on 04/07/2006 5:05:40 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1027 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
lastly: were CS Lewis alive today and active on FR CREVO threads, he might argue against the ToE, but he'd at least (very likely) trouble himself to learn what the ToE says and does not say. If more folks here did so, these threads would be a LOT less nasty.

This amoung the E adherant, too! ;^)


I think a lot of the fuss is NOT over what the ToE says; but about what many folks think that it IMPLIES!

1,119 posted on 04/07/2006 5:08:47 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1101 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"I do believe in absolutes and objective reality."

I know you did. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU didn't believe in an objective reality, and I am sorry if it looked that way. I was pointing out that there was at least one who is more on your side who didn't believe in it. I was browsing through the posts and your statement about absolutes caught my eye.

"I think, however, that being truly objective is very difficult. Our point of view tends to color what we see way too much and there's always room for error because there's always some decision made that is just a matter of judgment."

I agree. While I believe there is an objective reality, knowing what it is is always fraught with problems. That is why I don't think we can know anything about the world with 100% certainty (though obviously with enough to make decisions with a very high degree of confidence... I'll bet the farm that the Sun will rise tomorrow.).
1,120 posted on 04/07/2006 5:12:11 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1071 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,140 ... 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