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 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
To: mlc9852
Agnostics are religious moderates. Can't make up their minds.

That is not true. We simply recognize the impossibility of reaching any certain conclusion as to whether there are no god, many gods, some gods, one goddess, demi-gods, etc. Anyone who says they are certain is simply emoting.

801 posted on 04/06/2006 10:46:16 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Which "church"? After all, some "churches" are founded on the idea that we are, as it were, the imaginings or thoughts of a sleeper who is awakening.


802 posted on 04/06/2006 10:46:28 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop; hosepipe
Thank you for your engaging reply!

Even mor offensive is their penchant for "dissing" the works of anyone who uses their Creator-given intellect to try to "fill in the blanks" with understanding of how the Universe has reached its present state.

OTOH, I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".

Neither have a corner on "truth" ...

I would go one step further and envision the situation like the ten blind men trying to describe an elephant. One thought it was a tree, another a fan, another a rope and so on.

Their only hope is to realize they are in fact blind - and what they observe is strictly a matter of their approach (leg, ear, trunk). Then perhaps they can quit the pointless recriminations and actually make some progress...

803 posted on 04/06/2006 10:48:09 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Darwin and his friends were looking at the critters, and not their machinery.

Mistakes were made.

804 posted on 04/06/2006 10:48:27 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Not all Christians worship the Bible like it's some kind of idol."

Saying that the Bible is objectively true is in NO way saying that the Bible should be or is worshiped.

"Your statement is false on the face of it."

How can you say that? You don't think that there is such a thing as objective truth. For all you know, false could mean true. Up could mean down. Peace could mean war. How would you know?

Your postmodernist ramblings are underwhelming.
805 posted on 04/06/2006 10:48:58 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

I thought you were an atheist. At least they have made some kind of decision.


806 posted on 04/06/2006 10:49:39 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
I'm just passing on a generalized complaint I've heard frequently over the years.

Alfred Weggener was laughed off the stage at his first presentation of his continental drift theory. Not a scientist of his age ever adopted the Weggenerian view.

Eventually, the new science of tectonics proved Weggener to be correct. All current scientists believe tectonics to be the correct answer.

At the same time all the unbelievers are now conveniently dead.

807 posted on 04/06/2006 10:54:47 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: js1138

CTM (Critical Troll Mass) achieved placemarker


808 posted on 04/06/2006 10:55:03 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Yes, attrition. They die off in fact.


809 posted on 04/06/2006 10:55:29 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Definitions of evolution on the Web:

development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


810 posted on 04/06/2006 10:55:56 AM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom
Having said all this about faith, and intuition, because it is what I personally "feel", I don't know another way to reason through subject matter with others then through philosophy.

Interesting story. I think most of us have experienced occurrences or feelings we can't logically explain. None of it meets any scientific criteria, of course, but "man does not live on bread alone," though, I'll be the first to admit.

811 posted on 04/06/2006 10:59:43 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
The scientists who ridiculed Weggener ALL believed in a different model ~ interestingly enough, they also believed in gradualism.

We now know gradualism doesn't work ~ tectonics work!

I detect a thread of "gradualism" in the posts from the Evos here ~ time to catch up to DNA though. The dynamics there simply do not require "gradualism". In fact, we can go in and change the whole picture ourselves. Over the long run we will probably take charge of our own and other genomes.

That's going to really pi$$ off the Creos too.

812 posted on 04/06/2006 10:59:52 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Alfred Weggener was laughed off the stage at his first presentation of his continental drift theory. Not a scientist of his age ever adopted the Weggenerian view.

1. Can you prove that doubled-absolute assertion?
2. Would you be willing to admit that a single counterexample invaldates such an absolute assertion?

813 posted on 04/06/2006 11:01:35 AM 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 807 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
It doesn't matter how evolution works anymore, at least not in this world. We humans are taking over the job, and we are going to have the best tasting ever chickens that produce a pound of eggs and a pound of meat for every ounce of feed (and that's just one example), plus, just before they slaughter themselves, they'll shed their feathers.

Have you looked into what's going on with the development of new bio-fuels? They (ADM, et al) are planning on inserting instructions in the genome for various plants that will create an enzyme that turns all the cellulose into alcohol when it is heated.

Evolution as we knew it IS OVER.

814 posted on 04/06/2006 11:03:52 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: js1138
...advantage is definded by which individuals produce the most offspring.

There goes the nieghborhood!

815 posted on 04/06/2006 11:05:36 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

"We now know gradualism doesn't work ~ tectonics work!"

Plate tectonics is a gradual process.


816 posted on 04/06/2006 11:06:25 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: js1138
At any rate, this is why a discussion of evolution only makes sense in the context of populations, and should not be applied to individuals.

Are you trying to say that mutations don't start in a mere individual??

817 posted on 04/06/2006 11:07:33 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
OTOH, I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".

But you steal a base, here. You use "truth of Scripture" like its an objectively proved fact. It isn't. In fact, given the historic propensity for humans to create religions, sects, cults, etc., and given that the content of no religion's scriptures can even begin to be demonstrably true, the phrase, "truth of Scripture" can objectively be termed an oxymoron.

There is no "truth" in any scripture, but simply the subjective emotions of its adherents.

818 posted on 04/06/2006 11:08:22 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
No, it really hasn't been defined as just "change" for hundreds of years.

BTW, my statement is correct whether we are talking about "defined" or "hundreds".

You have already said that the universe may be in your head. Solipsism. so you may have your own definition of evolution. However the world of science does not operate in your head and accepts the following definition of evolution that science determined.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another. 2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright © 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

819 posted on 04/06/2006 11:09:56 AM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I took geology before plate tectonics was accepted. I would like some references and citations for your claim that continental drift was laughed.

When I took geology it was taken quite seriously, even though there was no known mechanism capable of moving continents.

By "taken seriously" I mean the evidence for it (and there was quite a lot) was enthusiastically discussed at the introductory course level.

One of the things that made continental drift a serious hypothesis is that it predicted things which were, in fact found. It was accepted in half a century.

On the other hand, ID has been around in its present form for two hundred years without bringing any data to the table or making any predictions about what kind of data should be found. It has done no research and proposed no research. It has proposed nothing which would support or falsify its claims. It says nothing about the designing entity, nothing about the purposes, motives or methods of the alleged designing entity. All of these are elementary parts of any forensic investigation.

Last of all, and most sadly, ID advocates would not even have been looking for an intermediate fossil. There is no explanatory ID hypothesis that would expect an intermediate fossil.
820 posted on 04/06/2006 11:11:16 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 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