Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Said To Be Missing Link Between Sea, Land Creatures


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Azat

Azat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests:wine, beer, food, art, jokes

Posted 07 April 2006 - 09:51 PM

http://www.latimes.c...-home-headlines

Fossil Said to Be Missing Link Between Sea, Land Creatures
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Times Staff Writer

12:40 PM PDT, April 5, 2006

U.S. researchers have found the missing evolutionary link between fish and land animals — fossils of a strange creature that first crawled onto the shore about 375 million years ago.

The fossils, found on Ellesmere Island in Arctic Canada, have the skull, neck, ribs and limb bones of four-limbed animals, but also the primitive jaw, fin and scales of fish, according to a report to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.

"This really is what our ancestors looked like when they began to leave the water," according to an editorial accompanying the report.

The newly discovered species, called Tiktaalik roseae, "blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said biologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago, one of the co-leaders of the expedition.

The creature lived in shallow waterways, where it hunted for prey with its mammal-like snout and sharp teeth, but it was able to pull itself out of the water for short periods of time and move around on its limb-like fins.

The fossils, ranging in length from four to nine feet, were remarkably well preserved, allowing the team to examine the joints carefully and to conclude that the shoulder, elbow and wrist joints were sufficiently strong to support the animal's body on land.

"Human comprehension of the history of life on Earth is taking a major leap forward," said H. Richard Lane of the National Science Foundation, which funded the research along with the National Geographic Society and others.

"These exciting discoveries are providing fossil Rosetta stones for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone — fish to land-roving tetrapods," he said.

In the Late Devonian period nearly 400 million years ago, the landmass where the fossils were found straddled the Equator and had a climate much like that now found in the Amazonian Basin. It was a flat coastal plain with shallow, slow-moving rivers that meandered to the sea.

"This kind of shallow stream system seems to be the place where many features of land-living animals first arose," said expedition co-leader Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.

But as the Earth's continental plates shifted, the mass was carried far north, to Canada's Nunavut Territory, more than 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Finding and extracting the fossils presented major challenges, starting with the need to helicopter into the region.

Freezing temperatures and high winds limited the amount of time the team could work each day, and the near-constant precipitation prevented the plaster used in the fossil-preservation process from drying.

"And we were always looking over our shoulders for polar bears. We saw lots of their tracks," Shubin said.

Team members all carried guns for protection.

The key breakthrough came on the 2004 expedition — one of five yearly trips — when team members spied the front end of a fish skull sticking out of the bluff. "That's ideal — having the snout sticking out — because in the cliff behind it is likely the rest of the animal," Shubin said.

The team ultimately found three nearly complete specimens, but they weren't totally sure of what they had until they returned to the lab and started studying the bones.

"As each piece to Tiktaalik's anatomy was exposed, we began to see just how wonderfully intermediate this animal's features were between land and water," Shubin said.

The creature had a very flat skull, like that of a crocodile, but it had armor like a fish. While crocodiles are reptiles, Tiktaalik also has features of a fish.

Moreover, it had a neck, making it the only fish known to have one. "The neck was one of the biggest surprises," Daeschler said. "This freed the skull from the shoulder girdle and gave the animal extra mobility."

Third, at the ends of the powerful fins, the team found wrists and bones similar to fingers. But the fins also contained the thin rods found in fish fins. "Here is a creature with fins that can do push-ups," Shubin said.

Finally, instead of the tiny rod-like ribs of a fish, Tiktaalik had full-fledged ribs that overlapped one another like those of an anteater. "Ribs like that produce a stiff trunk," said Farish A. Jenkins of Harvard University, another expedition leader.

"Fish that stay in the water are buoyant and don't need that, so this animal must have developed these structures for life in the shallows and making excursions onto land," he said.

"This animal is both fish and tetrapod," Shubin said. "We jokingly call it a fishapod."

Rather than follow the conventional protocol of using Latin for a new species name, the research team asked the Nunavut Council of Elders for suggestions. They recommended Tiktaalik, which means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuktitut language. Roseae honors an anonymous donor.

#2 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 07 April 2006 - 10:24 PM

i had heard something like the fossils we've discovered thus far have been only about 9% representation of the total # of fossils that could have been persereved.
i mean just imagine how much we would know if we were to find all those other ones.

#3 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,599 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2006 - 10:37 PM

QUOTE(Azat @ Apr 7 2006, 11:51 PM) View Post
In the Late Devonian period nearly 400 million years ago, the landmass where the fossils were found straddled the Equator and had a climate much like that now found in the Amazonian Basin. It was a flat coastal plain with shallow, slow-moving rivers that meandered to the sea.

I think the auther got it all wrong, it should be Late Levonian period. tongue.gif

#4 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 April 2006 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE(armjan @ Apr 8 2006, 12:24 AM) View Post
i had heard something like the fossils we've discovered thus far have been only about 9% representation of the total # of fossils that could have been persereved.
i mean just imagine how much we would know if we were to find all those other ones.


It depend on what you mean by 'that could.'

First pseudo-vertebrates didn't have a storng armature and the process of sedimentation would not allow sedimentation.

This new discovery while helpful, was already predicted, there were drawing of this animal long before and it represent more or less what was discovered.

#5 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 08 April 2006 - 12:05 PM

Obviously this is yet another attempt by God to mislead the fools who don't particularly believe in creationism.

#6 Zartonk

Zartonk

    Magnificent!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Մարդկության ու ճշմարտության միջև

Posted 08 April 2006 - 09:08 PM

Fascinating discovery. The difficulty of the excavation is applaudable.

Edited by Zartonk, 08 April 2006 - 09:09 PM.


#7 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 08 April 2006 - 09:59 PM

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 8 2006, 10:35 AM) View Post
It depend on what you mean by 'that could.'

First pseudo-vertebrates didn't have a storng armature and the process of sedimentation would not allow sedimentation.

This new discovery while helpful, was already predicted, there were drawing of this animal long before and it represent more or less what was discovered.

yeah, good point.
there are diff types of fossils too, for example trace fossils may have been perserved here.

and let's not forget, if u can't find it, you can probably find the thing that eats it smile.gif althought i doubt that would help us much here.

#8 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 12 April 2006 - 07:08 PM

Looks like yet another topic to talk about around the table for the evolutionist tea party.

#9 Azat

Azat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests:wine, beer, food, art, jokes

Posted 12 April 2006 - 07:57 PM

are you inviting us over to your place for tea?

#10 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 13 April 2006 - 12:33 AM

Why the forum religion and not science?

#11 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2006 - 01:56 AM

QUOTE(Azat @ Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM) View Post
are you inviting us over to your place for tea?


That all depends on whether the evolutionists can demonstrate some evolution in action, and no we do not mean bacteria or moths, we mean macroevolutionary changes.

#12 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2006 - 02:05 PM

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Apr 13 2006, 03:56 AM) View Post
That all depends on whether the evolutionists can demonstrate some evolution in action, and no we do not mean bacteria or moths, we mean macroevolutionary changes.


Yet, anonesense paradox, requesting demonstration when he reject rationality. The never ending absurdity.

Edited by QueBeceR, 13 April 2006 - 02:17 PM.


#13 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2006 - 06:49 PM

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 13 2006, 03:05 PM) View Post
Yet, anonesense paradox, requesting demonstration when he reject rationality. The never ending absurdity.


Rationality is simply a perspective. What you advocate is rationalism, which is the conceit of rationality.

So you didn't take me on my offer to show evolution in action. What a pity! And here I thought I was going to serve you tea.

Edited by Anonymouse, 13 April 2006 - 06:50 PM.


#14 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2006 - 07:08 PM

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Apr 13 2006, 08:49 PM) View Post
Rationality is simply a perspective. What you advocate is rationalism, which is the conceit of rationality.

So you didn't take me on my offer to show evolution in action. What a pity! And here I thought I was going to serve you tea.


A valid demonstration is done with a hypotetico/deductive approach, which validity you reject. You can not request demonstration when you reject the value of demonstrations.

#15 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2006 - 09:06 PM

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 13 2006, 08:08 PM) View Post
A valid demonstration is done with a hypotetico/deductive approach, which validity you reject. You can not request demonstration when you reject the value of demonstrations.


If you can demonstrate how, per Stephen J. Gould's assertion of 'punctuated equilibria' some simple celled organism can change into something totally different, I am all ears.

Until then, and we both know that has never happened and never will, you can speak of "hypotetico/deductive" nonsense, but you will never address the point that rationality is a perspective, rationalism is a dogma.

#16 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2006 - 09:14 PM

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Apr 13 2006, 11:06 PM) View Post
If you can demonstrate how, per Stephen J. Gould's assertion of 'punctuated equilibria' some simple celled organism can change into something totally different, I am all ears.

Until then, and we both know that has never happened and never will, you can speak of "hypotetico/deductive" nonsense, but you will never address the point that rationality is a perspective, rationalism is a dogma.


You are simply misinterpreting Gould's theory, which is a flavour of evolution and is not quite popular right now. If just now you could stop pretending to know about something and start reading and understanding, perhaps we could expect you to understand the implications and the validity of a position.

First, you should aknowledge the validity of the scientific methology and the value of demonstrations, until you refuse to aknowledge they are valid, there is no way of debating with you.

#17 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 13 April 2006 - 11:37 PM

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 13 2006, 10:14 PM) View Post
You are simply misinterpreting Gould's theory, which is a flavour of evolution and is not quite popular right now.


That's exactly what happens with evolution. When something doesn't fit or doesn't seem to support the immutable theory it has to be dumped or made to fit in somehow. That is the only way to hold fast to an immutable theory.

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 13 2006, 10:14 PM) View Post
If just now you could stop pretending to know about something and start reading and understanding, perhaps we could expect you to understand the implications and the validity of a position.


Wow, there you go. That really meant something! That was powerful. Here, let me send you my version of the same.

If just now you could stop pretending to know about something and start reading and understanding, perhaps we could expect you to understand the implications and the validity of a position.

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 13 2006, 10:14 PM) View Post
First, you should aknowledge the validity of the scientific methology and the value of demonstrations, until you refuse to aknowledge they are valid, there is no way of debating with you.


I have read enough and have enough understanding of the scientific method to know that evolution contradicts or does not meet the full requirement of the scientific method. And if there is no way of debating with me, why did you respond in an attemtp to?

Edited by Anonymouse, 13 April 2006 - 11:38 PM.


#18 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2006 - 12:17 AM

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Apr 14 2006, 01:37 AM) View Post
That's exactly what happens with evolution. When something doesn't fit or doesn't seem to support the immutable theory it has to be dumped or made to fit in somehow. That is the only way to hold fast to an immutable theory.
Wow, there you go. That really meant something! That was powerful. Here, let me send you my version of the same.

If just now you could stop pretending to know about something and start reading and understanding, perhaps we could expect you to understand the implications and the validity of a position.
I have read enough and have enough understanding of the scientific method to know that evolution contradicts or does not meet the full requirement of the scientific method. And if there is no way of debating with me, why did you respond in an attemtp to?


Accusing someone of ignorance just for the pleasure of doing it, doesn't make that accusation as credible.

Gould's theory has never been dumped because it never was considered as a primary hypotheses but simply a flavor trying to match in his time the many theories on 'punctual' evolution. Theories and hypotheses in science are in constant evolution, they are modified and change with time, this doesn't mean they are nonesense but rather that there are new theories that answer best what we observe.

Also, since you claim being more knowledgeble than I on the subject, maybe you could help me with the due paper I am writting about the different mechanism of action in the syntheses of proteins and why the current theory of evolution need to adapt to explains it. Isen't it amasing that every self proclamed know it all about natural selection who dismiss it aren't even able to cite its true weaknesses(of its current form that is), but it would be too much asking of course to request from their parts to study the matter.

Oh and a last thing, for when the alternative you were supposed to come up with? The last time you have tried to bring one, it was your ridiculous alien theories. I guess that you could use a scientific method to prove. But trying to understand your [lack of] rational is quite an entreprise...

#19 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 14 April 2006 - 06:37 AM

QUOTE(QueBeceR @ Apr 14 2006, 06:17 AM) View Post
I guess that you could use a scientific method to prove.

But he doesn't partake to the scientific method, either.

#20 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2006 - 11:41 AM

QUOTE(Stormig @ Apr 14 2006, 08:37 AM) View Post
But he doesn't partake to the scientific method, either.


He only want it to be applied to 'prove' what he don't like, when you are able to do so, he'll reject its value.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users