Skip to comments.
New Fossil Links Four-legged Land Animals To Ancient Fish
National Science Foundation ^
| 01 April 2004
| Staff
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.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biology; creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; michaelcoates; neilshubin; paleontology; teddaeschler
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 441-456 next last
To: Piltdown_Woman
Irrelevant, as we Piltdowns have all evolved.Whoohoo! Evolved is right. :-)
To: daddyOwe
...but I only have two legs... You have four, just like all the other tetrapods. Your forelegs are simply modified for purposes other than locomotion, now.
382
posted on
04/05/2004 6:56:18 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: js1138; Piltdown_Woman
To: Piltdown_Woman; RadioAstronomer; longshadow; VadeRetro; balrog666
384
posted on
04/05/2004 7:48:40 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Hic amor, haec patria est.)
To: PatrickHenry
I'm glad Senator Schumer (D-NY) is doing something for the cold-dwelling mammals.
To: RadioAstronomer
You are right, teach both evolution and creationism. Let's be fair here. Either both or neither. You can't have it all your way.
To: fish hawk
Actually we can, because one is science and the other is religion.
387
posted on
04/05/2004 8:04:34 AM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: js1138
No, they both are religion. Evolution is the god to many on this thread.
To: fish hawk
You are right, teach both evolution and creationism. Let's be fair here. Either both or neither. You can't have it all your way. Fairness is what matters. What is truth, anyway, right?
Holy Warrior Syndrome.
You may say that something is wrong, but who is to say you're right? You may say that the evidence excludes a thing, but who is to say what is evidence? Is your reality any more valid than anyone else's?
Liberals and creationists! You got it bad.
To: fish hawk
And if you were king of the world you pathetic bleatings would be tthe law, and you could imprison anyone who disagreed. But, alas for you, you are not, and no one cares about your attempts to redefine reality.
390
posted on
04/05/2004 8:11:30 AM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: js1138
Then why do you keep writing me? You just like to argue?
To: VadeRetro
You are right about Creationist, but Liberal? I guess you have to label everyone. The best Conservatives I know are Christians. Without us you would be a lost minority.
To: fish hawk
My impression is that most Christians are not creationists. At any rate, I tend to notice commonalities between how liberals and creationists argue. From the other side, it tends to look like this:
- Your opponent is working for a better world to come (in this life and/or the next).
- You are evil and dumb for disagreeing.
- You do not deserve honest answers. You deserve facile, smirking dismissals, patent dishonesty, or simple shouting down.
- If you protest at your treatment, you will be told that "your side" has been equally dishonest, so all is fair. This logical fallacy of tu quoque--"You're another!"--is applied even if, quite unlike your antagonist, you personally have done nothing but try to honestly explain what you believe and why.
- Even if you're absolutely right, arguments against your position are entitled to consideration on "fairness" and "intellectual diversity" grounds.
A recent post of yours reminded me of the last point in particular.
To: fish hawk
I guess you have to label everyone. Exactly how John Kerry answers when asked "Are you a liberal?"
To: VadeRetro
Your "impression" is that evolution is fact. You are an Impressionist. This is really fun, but I have to go to work now. Oh, I forgot to SHOUT this. LOL
To: Piltdown_Woman
As per my previous post. It is obvious that you think myself and other Christians are morons because we don't have so much faith in human scientific knowledge. Yes I have run up against nothing but people patronizing me whenever I do have these types of discussions. I really don't care if you aren't as nice. I will continue to pray for all of us. Did I misspell any words this time? I sure hope not, I would hate to make a mistake once in a while. No further correspondence necessary, goodbye.
396
posted on
04/05/2004 8:47:05 AM PDT
by
vpintheak
(Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
To: vpintheak
Did I misspell any words this time? I sure hope not, I would hate to make a mistake once in a while.The funny thing is, RA made a spelling mistake in the post prior to yours and she must not have noticed. Course, evo's would never criticize a scientist.
To: PatrickHenry
At last, we've explained what 'I am the walrus' means!
To: PatrickHenry
Walruses (Odobenus), however, which live in the frozen Arctic, weigh less, at up to 1,700 kilograms, but have a baculum that can reach up to 60 centimetres in length - one of the largest members of any mammal in both absolute and relative terms. Brings up the old joke -- Why do Walruses have two feet?
400
posted on
04/05/2004 9:10:11 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 441-456 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson