Periophthalmus modestus
heh hehe
Posted on 04/02/2004 4:25:18 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Arlington, Va.—How land-living animals evolved from fish has long been a scientific puzzle. A key missing piece has been knowledge of how the fins of fish transformed into the arms and legs of our ancestors. In this week's issue of the journal Science, paleontologists Neil Shubin and Michael Coates from the University of Chicago and Ted Daeschler from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, describe a remarkable fossil that bridges the gap between fish and amphibian and provides a glimpse of the structure and function changes from fin to limb.
The fossil, a 365-million-year-old arm bone, or humerus, shares features with primitive fish fins but also has characteristics of a true limb bone. Discovered near a highway roadside in north-central Penn., the bone is the earliest of its kind from any limbed animal.
"It has long been understood that the first four-legged creatures on land arose from the lobed-finned fishes in the Devonian Period," said Rich Lane, director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) geology and paleontology program. "Through this work, we've learned that fish developed the ability to prop their bodies through modification of their fins, leading to the emergence of tetrapod limbs."
NSF, the independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, funded the research.
The bone's structure reveals an animal that had powerful forelimbs, with extensive areas for the attachment of muscles at the shoulder. "The size and extent of these muscles means that the humerus played a significant role in the support and movement of the animal," reported Shubin. "These muscles would have been important in propping the body up and pushing it off of the ground."
Interestingly, modern-day fish have smaller versions of the muscles. According to Coates, "When this humerus is compared to those of closely-related fish, it becomes clear that the ability to prop the body is more ancient than we previously thought. This means that many of the features we thought evolved to allow for life on land originally evolved in fish living in aquatic ecosystems."
The layered rock along the Clinton County, Penn., roadside were deposited by ancient stream systems that flowed during the Devonian Period, about 365 million years ago. Enclosed in the rocks is fossil evidence of an ecosystem teeming with plant and animal life. "We found a number of interesting fossils at the site," reported Daeschler, who uncovered the fossil in 1993. "But the significance of this specimen went unnoticed for several years because only a small portion of the bone was exposed and most of it lay encased in a brick-sized piece of red sandstone."
Not until three years ago, when Fred Mullison, the fossil preparator at the Academy of Natural Sciences, excavated the bone from the rock, did the importance of the new specimen become evident.
The work was also funded by a grant from the National Geographic Society.
I can console myself it's in good company. (Except for the veggies.)
No need, really. There are so many "transitionals" that have already turned up that this is really no big deal. Except for those who've been told -- by those creationist websites -- that there are none at all.
I don't for one minute believe in evolution. It's not possible for a lightning bolt into a mud puddle to start life than ends up with the complexity of living things that exists today.
I believe that humankind has a soul that was instilled by GOD the Creator.
I also believe that after we die, we don't just go back into being a mud puddle. I think we will live forever, one place or the other.
I cannot prove that GOD exists, and you cannot prove that HE doesn't. I'll take my chances with my belief in the future, your's doesn't look so good.
Sorry it took so long to respond, the pizza man came.
Knowledge can be a scary thing, so new infusions of it are sometimes greeted as a vampire does sunlight.
But it's amusing watching the Kerryationists spin it. "It's just a fish! - It's just an amphibian! - fish! - amphibian! - It's a Specially Created Creature like Jonah's Fish/Whale! - Shaddup!"
"Oh, dear, Yankees in Georgia! How did they ever get in?"
Ah, that nebulous idea I once had now has words. Thank you.
What strikes me so ironic about such names as "The Discovery Institute" is that it's all an exercise in making what we do know go away.
A TADPOLE does that... so what? That's supposed to prove that the evolution is reasonable?
How can you say that, when the Theory Of Evolution makes no such claim? Please, learn what the Theory actually describes, and rely not on some myth you heard somewhere.
"I believe that humankind has a soul that was instilled by GOD the Creator.
I also believe that after we die, we don't just go back into being a mud puddle. I think we will live forever, one place or the other."
Evolution does not discuss either of these beliefs, nor disprove them.
"I cannot prove that GOD exists, and you cannot prove that HE doesn't."
Scientists are not trying to disprove the existance of God. However, you are correct that it cannot be proven, either, which is why science must ignore it as a factor. It deals with PROVABLE observations and data.
You operate from some misconceptions. Perhaps I could suggest doing some research on your own?
About time.
I don't for one minute believe in evolution.
Nobody cares what you believe. Probably not even your mother.
It's not possible for a lightning bolt into a mud puddle to start life than ends up with the complexity of living things that exists today.
Why not?
I believe that humankind has a soul that was instilled by GOD the Creator.
Again, nobody cares what you believe. Oh, and just what is a "soul"? Oh, and which creator - Jehovah, Wodan, Zeus, Vishnu, the Trickster Coyote, or one of the many other "creators"?
I also believe that after we die, we don't just go back into being a mud puddle. I think we will live forever, one place or the other.
Well, bully for you. But nobody else cares what fairy tale you believe, so just why did you mention it?
I cannot prove that GOD exists, and you cannot prove that HE doesn't.
No sh@t, and that goes for each and every one of the last 5,000 gods that conmen have created to fill their needs.
I'll take my chances with my belief in the future, your's doesn't look so good.
From my perspective, your view is laughable at best.
Sorry it took so long to respond, the pizza man came.
Oh, good something we can agree on.
A baby amphibian looks like a grown-up fish.
Did you know that a baby horseshoe crab looks like a grown-up (but quite extinct) trilobite? Did you know that a baby lamprey (primitive jawless fish) looks like a grown up primitive chordate? I suppose you knew that hatchling insects typically look like segmented worms.
In each case (supported by independent lines of evidence) it appears that the resemblance is based upon descent. That is, amphibians indeed spring from fish, insects from segmented worms, etc.
Yes, if added to all the other evidence collected over the decades.
I've yet to see any evidence collected by creationists/IDers. All I've ever seen them do is trash the one theory which HAS evidence to support it. Their arguments are entirely negative; no positive evidence is ever offered, save Scriptural quotes which are unverifiable.
Because you've spent a lot of time learning about that branch of biological science and have identified methodological flaws in it? Or for... other motivations?
It's not possible for a lightning bolt into a mud puddle to start life than ends up with the complexity of living things that exists today.
Leaving aside the issue that you've clearly got an erroneous grade-school level view of what evolution actually says ("lightning in a mud puddle"??), and the fact that evolution by definition does *not* deal at all with the question of how life may have first started, you have failed to explain why you believe that such a scenario would be "not possible", end of story.
That's pretty much just as undeveloped an argument as your original "BS" declaration. In fact, it's just a longer version of the same thing. Sitting there and simply declaring, "Nonsense! Poppycock! Balderdash!" all day still doesn't count as a rebuttal.
It also fails to address the fact that regardless of how against "common sense" the scenario may be, nonetheless there are mountains of evidence indicating that indeed, that's what happened, and an honest man would go where the evidence indicates rather than reject the obvious "on principle".
I believe that humankind has a soul that was instilled by GOD the Creator. I also believe that after we die, we don't just go back into being a mud puddle. I think we will live forever, one place or the other.
What exactly does any of that have to do with evolution, if anything?
I cannot prove that GOD exists, and you cannot prove that HE doesn't.
What does any of this have to do with evolution? (Hint: Many Christians have no problem accepting evolution as well.)
And what on Earth caused you to jump to the conclusion that I would care to try to prove that God doesn't exist?
I'll take my chances with my belief in the future,
Feel free.
your's doesn't look so good.
You haven't a clue about my beliefs or my future, but I see that this doesn't stop you from smugly declaring that I'm likely damned. How sweet of you. And arrogantly judgmental.
Sorry it took so long to respond, the pizza man came.
No apology necessary, pizza would be my first priority too, if one arrived here.
"Believe me, my friends, they have no evidence!"
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.