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.
Wolf has to eat.
Wolf out
Here are over 500 skeptical of Darwinism, free-thinking scientists:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Check out their credentials.
When I checked a couple of months ago, it was 400. The list is growing.
Now besides this list, there are other free-thinking skeptical scientists.
For something like the Origin, IMO you have to use the book.
I can't imagine trying to read it off of a computer screen.
Excellent point, Slingshot! Well said.
Thanks so much, grey_whiskers, for the link to Chesterton's Everlasting Man. I haven't read Chesterton in years; probably it's time to reread him, he is so penetrating and wise. I especially appreciate his remark that modern man cannot stand agnosticism; and that this word came into currency about the time of Darwin's theory. You've heard the old saw: Who ceases to believe in God does not then believe in nothing; He'll believe in anything.
BTW, I think Chesterton's argument is just as cogent as ever, notwithstanding the advent of molecular biology and genetics, which "in principle" give us access to universals that may apply to govern "some aspects" of behavior we are attempting to model. It seems the point is we can't model any system completely because we don't and can't know everything about it as it evolves in space and time. All we can do is model some aspects of its behavior occurring at the space/time point of observation. There is no way we can say we know the whole system, only this or that aspect of it.
The other thing I wonder about is experimental tests require us to isolate the object of study out of its context. So we lose all sense that the object is a contingent object -- i.e., it does not stand alone in nature, it is not self-given or independent, but part of a greater dynamic whole. Though we seek "certainty," it is always completely beyond our grasp. So agnosticism creeps in -- which humans apparently cannot abide. Sometimes they'll concoct "just-so stories" to relieve themselves of it. Chesterton traces the route from agnosticism to dogma in Everlasting Man....
Thank you ever so much for writing, grey-whiskers! And again, for the great link!
The US graduates 70 thousand PH D's in science a year. China graduates 500 thousand in science a year. India graduates 300 thousand in science a year. This does not include the rest of Asia and Europe. However the total for the US, China and India for one year would be 870 thousand a year or for 10 years 8,700,000. Thats is .0001 of a percent or 1 out of 17,000 that would be skeptical. Do you think that some may have graduated from a college of theology. I would have thought there would be more. This is a much lesser percent than those certified insane by society. It gets much worse if you include the rest of the worlds science graduates or that the working life time of one of science may be 40 years. Maybe .0000000001 of a percent or less. You have a lot of work to do to convience science of your opinion.
I have a 21" screen and would rather read it from my screen. I just lean back in my chair and take my time.
Bingo.. Humans do love a good story.. And if nothing, evolution, as presented in its iterations, is a good story..
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."-G.K. Chesterton
"Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for we have made fiction to suit ourselves."-G.K. Chesterton
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."-G.K. Chesterton
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."-G.K. Chesterton
"I say you cannot really understand any myths till you have found that one of them is not a myth. Forged bank-notes mean nothing if there are no real bank-notes.-G.K. Chesterton
"It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can't see things as they are."-G.K. Chesterton
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - The Speaker, 12/15/00 -G.K. Chesterton
"All the exaggerations are right, if they exaggerate the right thing." -G.K. Chesterton
-and-
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."-G.K. Chesterton
on "the origins of the Earth" - if by "the Earth" you refer to the universe in toto, you are correct to assert that there is no testably hypothesis concerning its ultimate origin.
if, otoh, you refer to the planet and its system, you err - hypotheses dealing with formation of heavy elements in stellar explosions and with accretion due to gravity and current predate direct observation of the formation of other stars and planets. these hypotheses made predictions of what shall be observed when direct observation of such formations occur. Such predictions have been largely borne out thus far.
while such evidence do not directly prove the origins of Sol and its satellites, they do *support* the theory that they formed likewise.
other independent sets of evidence also support this theory of formation through accretion. None of this *proves* the theory, but does render the theory exceedingly well supported and left with no current competitor models.
Well as many science degrees that are pumped out yearly all over the world indicates that they cant be nearly as intellectually elite as might be inferred on these threads.
Also how many of them are just getting the degree to reach the real goal=$$. Some people will put more money at the top of all priorities and their choices become corrupted by it.
It could just be that many of these 'science degrees' pay lip service only to the evo-god. I think there is good basis here to call your calculations wildly off base, as also your conclusions false on this.
BTW I don’t know who 'science' is but several of you people seem to want to speak for 'him'. Is this another 'appeal to authority?
Wolf
There are three methods of knowledge known to man. You seem void of knowledge of any of the three but they are named Philosophy, Science, and Mathematics.
The method of philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown. In thousands of years it has provided little or no new knowledge. It is void of any fact and all proofs have remained argument.
The method of science is observation of a material fact, evidence, and empirical evidence of the fact and a explanation of the fact with evidence that constitutes theory. Aristotle is known as the father of science. The method of science was invented to exclude faith and belief because faith and belief obstructs and fights new facts or knowledge and views science as a threat. Aristotle's science was retrieved from the Arabs in the early middle ages and accepted by the western world as Aristotelian thought and the method of science. It has no method of observing anything other than a material fact. Faith and belief cannot be observed as a material fact or knowledge and remain argument. Proof is not a term of science. Science provides evidence.
The method of mathematics provides proof of absolutes and determines laws by designation of symbols and numbers. Descartes is thought the father of mathematics and turned to mathematics when his philosophy failed to provide proof of doubt and remained argument that was refused by the church.
The three methods are separate and not interchangeable. Philosophy can only argue faith and belief and is void of facts. Science can only observe material facts and provide the evidence for the fact, not proof. Mathematics only determines absolutes and laws. It does not determine faith and belief not does it observe new facts.
Last there is the failed method of knowledge, Opinion. Opinion is despised by Science, Philosophy and Mathematics. It is incapable of logical argument, is void of facts and knowledge and determines no absolutes or laws. Opinion seeks agenda by accusation, name calling, misrepresentation of facts, lack of knowledge and in the end violence when opinion is refuted. One of opinion is usually known as a opinionest or opinion est. Opinion is thought to be the most vile of all unethical acts.
Now comes a old argument of theological philosophy,(creation dressed up as ID), that has been relegated to opinion for centuries. It begs to be accepted as science. It's premise is that you can't disprove creation or ID and uses a term of philosophy. Well who cares except the opinionest who can't prove or disprove anything by opinion and philosophy. Science simply asks is there any new evidence of a observed fact or knowledge that we can explain by the scientific method. The reply is we have faith and belief, argument and opinion. Science answers you have had thousands of years to provide new facts or knowledge to be explain by science and have failed. You remain argument and the method of philosophy and not a observed fact by science.
Once rejected Creation and ID says we will accomplish our agenda with opinion. We will use the power of philosophical law to impose our faith and belief in science and require it taught as theory. We will distort the meanings and terms science. We will deny any facts of science with opinion. We will refuse and keep from others any knowledge of the scientific method. We will discredit science by any agenda of opinion possible.
However one should caution opinionest to be careful of what they wish. If science ever observes ID or Creation as a fact, that fact will be explained by science whether the the fact is a Deity, God or a unknown. It will not be explained by philosophy. All of faith and belief may cease to exist. Only one or none of religion will be correct. Most of faith and belief along with opinion will become ridicule. The total of their knowledge may be tugging a goat or riding a donkey if lucky.
A example of opinion can be observed in the first four paragraphs and is furnish by another poster. We would like to thank him because opinion can only be accomplish by meaningless, random, and useless thoughts. Not many are so capable of such opinion.
Hi RWP...by way of a nice analogy, thermdynamics does not require the atomic theory :-)
Full Disclosure: ...but it sure is convenient, isn't it?
Cheers!
Careful there, RWP. You're getting dangerously close to channeling Feynman and C.S. Lewis simultaneously :-)
Cheers!
Not necessarily. It depends (you were vague) on the size of the cells, the distance between them, and our size.
Just being a nitpicker because I am procrastinating on my exercise for the night :-)
Cheers!
And the skeptics would argue that religious believers have been getting fleeced ever since then. :-)
Cheers!
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.