Fish fossil fills evolutionary gap

Al-Jazeera ^ | Thursday 19 October 2006 | NA

[Jeff Gordon]

A 380 million-year-old fossil found in Australia has filled a gap in the understanding of how fish evolved into the first land animals.

John Long, lead researcher at Museum Victoria, said the perfectly preserved skeleton has revealed that fish developed features characteristic of land animals much earlier than once thought.

Long said: "We've got a fish from the Devonian period about 380 million years ago and preserved in three-dimensional stunning perfection.

"It has revealed a whole suite of characters that link it to the higher land animals or tetrapods, so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

Head holes

The fossil of the Gogonasus fish, found in the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia, at a site of a former major coral reef, shows the skull had large holes for breathing through the top of the head.

The researchers said it also had muscular front fins with a well-formed humerus, ulna and radius, the same bones found in the human arm.

Long said: "The degree to which these features resemble the earliest four-legged land animals makes Gogonasus a new model in the picture of how fishes evolved into land animals.

"Gogonasus is the missing clue in vertebrate evolution, the world's first complete perfect skeleton of the kinds of fishes that gave rise to the first land animals.

"The transition from a fish living in water to an air-breathing land animal with arms and legs was one of the most dramatic transitions in the history of evolution and many unsolved questions remained."

Earlier this year, scientists reported the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old species of fish seen as the missing link in the shift from water to land animals.

While Tiktaalik had a skull that was identical to an amphibian, Long said Gogonasus looks much more like a fish.

He said: "I like to say it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's showing that evolution isn't as straightforward as we'd like to think."

The fossil was unveiled at the Melbourne Museum on Thursday and will remain on display for a month.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Conversely, are you sure the head is 380 million years old?

[Alter Kaker]

I would say my beliefs actually helped me grasp the sciences better.

That seems unlikely, given that you've stated that you're dogmatically opposed to the possible existence of a 380 million year old fish. Dogmatic positions are the antithesis of science.

Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists...but it seems totally stupid to me now.

Care to elaborate?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

That goes for Macroevolutionists, too.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Are you trying to get a Helen Thomas photo?

[petertare]

Is this guy objective, or does he maybe have some preconceived notion about this evolution business?

[Frwy]

It takes a whole lot of ignorance to believe the hooey.

[Alter Kaker]

That goes for Macroevolutionists, too.

I don't know what a "macroevolutionist" is. If you believe in microevolution, you also believe in macroevolution -- it's the natural consequence -- unless you think that there is some sort of timer out there that allows evolutionary processes to take place for a while, but then somehow shuts them down.

[satchmodog9]

Relative dating should tell. I'm sure they did all the tests. It's the usual method before publishing.

[gd124]

A flightless reptile with feathers would still have an advantage over a featherless reptile. Feathers provide insulation, which would reduce the energy needed to keep warm and enable the reptile to live in a wider range of climates.

[taxesareforever]

so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

So the B -I -I- I- I- I- I- I- I- G Gap is now the B- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- G Gap.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Al-Jazeera published this?

[fish hawk]

Wow, you actually know of a fossil that PROVES evolution? Would you like to share with us. Or is it just a "faith" in evolution like some have "faith" in a Creator. If you have the proof, there are thousands of hopeful scientists that would like to look at it as there aren't any to date.

[jennyp]

Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists

Seriously, and not wanting to embarrass you, but how long have you had a problem keeping singulars & plurals in sync when you write? Also, does the same pattern ever come up when you speak?

[edsheppa]

... fish developed features characteristic of land animals much earlier than once thought.

Creationist interpretation: those stupid scientists were wrong again.

[rusureitflies?]

mindreader...

[RunningWolf]

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I don't think you understand just how ironic you are there with that quote of Heinlein.

Heinlein was okay. I liked some of the novels from A. Clarke and Asimov better.

I think the point he is making is that these supposed transitional fossils held out as 'evidence that fills the gap' really strains the credulity. These fossil are about as much as a transitional as the Coelacanth was once touted to be. In other words the Gogonasus fish.., yes it is still a fish, and a vast vast distance from what it was supposedly evolving towards in areas physiology and skeletal structures, not to mention all other areas of comparison.

Coelacanth



Frog


Salamander


W.

[RunningWolf]

The answer is typo.

After you catch your breath, you can check 'typo' in your small victory column.

But hey, take it where you can get it I guess. Its the evo way.

W.

[Quark2005]

Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists...

What peer-reviewed research changed your mind?

[Quark2005]

In other words the Gogonasus fish.., yes it is still a fish, and a vast vast distance from what it was supposedly evolving towards in areas physiology and skeletal structures, not to mention all other areas of comparison.

Haven't you learned anything from these threads, yet? Evolution doesn't move 'towards' specific goals. Do you even know where Coelecanths fit it the evolutionary tree? Are you aware that lobe-finned fishes are still considered a likely early offshoot of the evolution between fishes and this first land amphibian?

Hint: before you can be considered competent to criticize the conclusions of PhD's, you should first learn as much as someone with a GED should know on the subject. Believe me, I'm not saying this in any sort of defensive posture; I genuinely feel embarrassed for you (and others like you).

You (and many others here) might want to read the definition of crank very carefully, and then take a long, hard introspective look at yourself before deciding what to say the next time you post on a science thread.

[Thinkin' Gal]

"It has revealed a whole suite of characters that link it to the higher land animals or tetrapods, so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.