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.
I did ~ very illuminating.
He is also busy conflating the existence of a written/printed text with the Scriptures ~
Christians do not worship the Bible.
your statement, dodger, was that NOT ONE SCIENTIST of his age EVER accepted his theory.
since then, you have backed off somewhat, saying "awww, shucks, he had his supporters and all, but..."
no "buts" about it, dodger.
Man up, admit your error, and promise to not do it again. You can cross your fingers behind your back, but I want your recantation on-record and absent of equivocation.
The philosophy argument for proof of faith and belief in Solipsism has been debated by philosophy every since Descartes proposed method by doubt. I think therefore I exist. There have been no new revelations since long before Scientific America existed and none since the late 1600's that I am aware of. However it is always studied in advanced philosophy studies every since proposed.
"We were discussing the Bible, not the meanings in the Scriptures.
Christians do not worship the Bible."
Correct, they believe it to be objectively true though.
"his age" ~ he was born in 1880. His book on Continental Drift was published (in Deutsche) in 1915. He would have been 35 at the time. By the time 1960 came around, he was 80. The normal lifespan for a man of his time was far less.
After all, one of the strong elements in their belief system is the idea that others can be forced to believe almost anything.
Once they have imposed their reality, it is objectively real ~ and, in fact, enforceably since any violation will be dealt with harshly.
Ever since the discovery of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the development of quantum physics, this question of "objective reality" has grown.
And Christians still do not worship the Bible.
dodging, dodging, dodging.
recant your false doubled-absolute assertion, or desist pestering me
You've got it bass ackwards. It begins with "God did it," and proceeds by asking "How does it work?"
So much for materialism ~ it's only a trivial part of knowledge.
Without understanding of methods little is possible and what is trivial remains opinion.
There are only 3 methods of acquiring knowledge known to man.
The method of Philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown.
The method of science is observation of a material fact, evidence and empirical evidence of the fact and the explanation of the fact that constitutes theory.
The method of Mathematics is designation of symbols and numbers to prove absolutes or determine laws.
The methods are separate and distinct and are not interchangeable. Philosophy has provided little or no new knowledge in thousands of years. All or most new knowledge since the early middle ages has been by mathematics and science. It is essential that each be understood in any meaningful discussion of knowledge.
Hi grey_whiskers! I happened upon this fascinating conversation you're having with KP and A-G. Hope you don't mind if I put my two-cents-worth in here.
What is this "primarily" thing in the above italics? 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?
You wrote: "If God did make the universe, why did he lie?" I'm not sure I'm following this. Where did God ever lie to us? Because He didn't tell us absolutely everything about the manner and details of His creation in the Holy Scriptures? Well, AFAIC, that's for Him to know and us to find out. There's nothing in the Bible that says we shouldn't try. And increasingly I find modern, state-of-the-art science is perfectly consonant with the Holy Scriptures. In other words, science does not contradict the Holy Scriptures.
As for God "lying," Francis Schaeffer put it this way: in the Holy Scriptures, "God has told us truly, but not exhaustively." That rings true in my spirit. It is also an invitation to see God in His creation. For He reveals Himself there, too, as well in the Holy Scriptures.
Thank you so much for this thought-provoking sidebar, grey_whiskers, King Prout, and A-G!
Where did you get that idea? Intelligent design assumes God intelligently created an intelligible universe, and created intelligent beings to observe it. So, as intelligent beings do science, they find evidence of intelligent design everywhere.
Some (namely those whose voices and words you would have outlawed in public schools) happen to take it as a given, and use the disciplines of science to ascertain in more detail how God did what He did and does what He does. The fact that certain creatures have the capacity to adapt to their environment (evolution) points to intelligent design. Every instance of organized matter performing specific functions points to intelligent design.
A fundamental difference between evolutionists and creationists is the ultimate cause of this organization of matter and the overall presence of an objective reality available to science on an intelligible basis. Some prefer to call it "nature." Others prefer to call it "God." To say the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions MIGHT be best explained by intelligent design is merely an overall, tentative summary based upon deduction.
Your protestations to the contrary evidence that your concern is not science, but theology and pholosophy. Otherwise you'd keep your nose to the science grindstone and keep your mouth shut.
If you ever record this version, can I play the cowbell? I got a fevah...
Well and truly said, TXnMA! A theory is always second-hand, at a second remove from the "real thing." It may or may not be fully consonant with reality. It makes for a useful tool, but Reality never reduces to the tool. For one thing, reality is not "static"; it is dynamic, constantly changing its current configuration, while remaining faithful to God's laws for it. We forget this at our own peril.
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Thanks so much for the ping, TXnMA!
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.