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.
Yeah. Right. That's why ya'll are never seen on anything but one of these tribal gatherings. Every once in a while you use the word conservative, and that's cover?
re: Well, the anti-evos have a right to post here too. It's a big tent.)))
Indeed, without them all you'd have is the Master's IM.
How many threads a week? Sheesh. Ping 'em, Junior! Time to roll out the same ole spam, for the third time today. What have you gotten yourself into?
Another evo-tick. Postmodernist neo-deconstructionist paleo twaddle-waddle. Throw out a word and hope it means something. Say hi to js on IM, BTW...;->
67 days?
The absence of free-thinking in science would mean that it goes nowhere. And of course there are scientists that have more education than I (I dont know about your educational level), but Id like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"
I also doubt he/she would be hung up on the word theory.
This might be a good time to reiterate a previous statement I posted to you, which you didnt address. The pro-ID people are presently engaged in attempting to change the definition of science in an effort to claim ID is scientific. This in and of itself should be a convincing demonstration that ID isn't science. Am I leaping to an unwarranted conclusion here?
I'm also so secure in my beliefs that I don't need to put people down who don't disagree with me, as you and some other evos have attempted to do. Thou doth protest toooooo much.
You know what? Youre right. I'll apologize for the tone of my last post to you right now. I'm sorry about that, and I'll try harder to stay on an even keel in the future. But I have to add this: Its not insecurity, its exasperation. It seems clear from your stated unwillingness to accept that certain fields have their own vocabulary and their own particular uses for certain words that youre unfamiliar with the topic youre attacking. Am I wrong?
To illustrate, lets go over this one again: My favorite flavor of quark is charm. Others are partial to up. Do flavor, charm, and up have the same meaning in this context as they do in everyday conversation? Of course not!
ID is a scientific theory, and Evo is a scientific theory.
In what way is ID a scientific theory, as the word is currently defined? Here are three questions every scientific theory must be able to answer in order to be considered scientific. Thus far, no ID proponent has offered answers to any of these:
1)What predictions does it make?
2. What new lines of inquiry will result from it?
3) How can it be falsified?
If you can answer these questions, youve done something no ID advocate has done to date. If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or dont do, or pretend not to understand what falsifiable means in a scientific sense, then all youve done is demonstrate that you dont know what youre talking about
Do you think any of these guys (also free thinkers) might have more scientific education than we do?
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Czech_Intelligent_Design.html
Monday, October 24, 2005
'Intelligent design' supporters gather
By ONDREJ HEJMA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
--snip--
Pavel Kabrt, a Czech who served on the committee that organized the event, said the capital of the ex-communist country _ now a highly secular republic _ was a fitting backdrop for the debate.
"Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school," said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/34122.html
Next science:
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
Read all about it: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm
Last but not least: Now you seem to want me to define science by your criteria, Gumlegs. Here's my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker:
A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.
http://websekolah.bharian.com.my/F1Sci/june15.html
Again, this is a recent discovery.
"They'd love to believe they can set the terms."
So I've noticed. :)
I was born on this boat and have sailed the seven seas. There is no evidence of water. Its just a THEORY.
Scientists as a group are more rational and skeptical than the general population, but that doesn't mean there won't be outliers who have pet ideas, succumb to religious fanaticism, or are outright nuts.
Some may even give in to the lure of money and become charlatans who've discovered that promoting crazy ideas is a good way to make a lot of money without doing a lot of work by fleecing the ignorant and gullible.
Evolution & Creationism
Terminology in Conflict
Richard Joltes
Some do, some dont. I notice, by the way, that the article states that the hundreds of supporters who gathered were ignored by Czech scholars but well ignore that. Its hilarious, though, that wed read, "Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school, said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.
Communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, explicitly rejected the Theory of Evolution, and demanded the theories of Lysenko be accepted.
But again, I digress. None of this answers any of the requests or questions I asked in my last post to you. Here they are again:
1. Id like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"
2. The article does not address this: The pro-ID people are presently engaged in attempting to change the definition of science in an effort to claim ID is scientific. This in and of itself should be a convincing demonstration that ID isn't science. Please comment.
3. The article doesnt address this: Here are three questions every scientific theory must be able to answer in order to be considered scientific. Thus far, no ID proponent has offered answers to any of these:
What predictions does it make?Regarding the article, The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory, the author relies quite a bit on Dembski. It should be pointed out that Dembskis examples fail to meet his own mathematical criteria, that his mathematical critera have never been explained (he's never stated a basis for the numbers he uses), and that Dembskis most important criterion (never stated, but apparently the one that governs his theory), is I know it when I see it.
What new lines of inquiry will result from it?
How can it be falsified?
Last but not least: Now you seem to want me to define science by your criteria, Gumlegs.
Not my criteria, the criteria used by science. All of science, not just the Theory of Evolution.
Here's[sic] my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker:
A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.
Your criteria have nothing whatever to do with science. How would A, for instance, address gravitational theory? Please note that the criteria I posted (again, I didnt make them up), apply to every scientific theory. Theres no proof that an ape can become human is again merely an attempted attack on the Theory of Evolution, and is in no way support for any other theory. Incidentally, if it could be shown that an ape became a human, it would be considered disproof of the Theory of Evolution.
In my last post to you, I stated,
If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or dont do, or pretend not to understand what falsifiable means in a scientific sense, then all youve done is demonstrate that you dont know what youre talking about.All youve done is complain about the Theory of Evolution. Youve just supplied an example of not knowing what youre talking about.
Each and every statement in B is just silly. Lets take them in order: Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information. Im not sure what you mean by this, but Darwins theory was new when he proposed it. What antiquated information was he using? I dont know where the one cell notion youve stated comes from but Id like to see a citation one from Darwin, and not Jack Chick. In any case, the Theory of Evolution doesnt stand or fall on the number of cells in the human body or any other body, for that matter.
Your objection to the Theory of Evolution being modified to account for new discoveries is more support for my contention that you dont know anything about science. In fact, this objection is an objection not to the Theory of Evolution, but to science itself!
See, there's the fact of water and the theory of water ... and on the seven seas, nor any drop to drink.
1720 alert.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head in wonderment.
It is true that everyone starts out as a single cell, but I suppose the stork theory is taught by anti-evolutionists.
It's a recent discovery.
Darwinian Sleeper Cells?
1300.
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.