Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1


Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer 14 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.

Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water.

"It sort of blurs the distinction between fish and land-living animals," said one of its discoverers, paleontologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago.

Experts said the discovery, with its unusually well-preserved and complete skeletons, reveals significant new information about how the water-to-land evolution took place.

"It's an important new contribution to (understanding) a very, very important transition in the history of life," said Robert Carroll of McGill University in Montreal.

The new find includes specimens, 4 to 9 feet long, found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. It is reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature by Shubin, Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr. of Harvard.

Some 375 million years ago, the creature looked like a cross between a fish and a crocodile. It swam in shallow, gently meandering streams in what was then a subtropical climate, researchers say. A meat-eater, it lived mostly in water.

Yet, its front fins had bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist, Shubin said. From the shoulder to the wrist area, "it basically looks like a scale-covered arm," he said.

"Here's a creature that has a fin that can do push-ups," he said. "This is clearly an animal that is able to support itself on the ground," probably both in very shallow water and for brief excursions on dry land. On land, it apparently moved like a seal, he said.

It might have pulled itself onto stream banks, perhaps moving from one wet area to another, and even crawled across logs in swamps, said Daeschler.

The researchers have not yet dug up any remains from the hind end of the creature's body, so they don't know exactly what the hind fins and tail might have looked like.

The creature was dubbed Tiktaalik (pronounced "tic-TAH-lick") roseae, and also had the crocodile-shaped head of early amphibians, with eyes on the top rather than the side. Unlike other fish, it could move its head independently of its shoulders like a land animal. The back of its head also had features like those of land-dwellers. It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said.

Yet, the creature's jaws and snout were still very fishlike, showing that "evolution proceeds slowly; it proceeds in a mosaic pattern with some elements changing while others stay the same," Daeschler said.

If one considers adaptation as a process of collecting tools to live in a new environment, the new finding offers "a snapshot of the toolkit at this particular point in this evolutionary transition," Daeschler said.

In fact, much of its value comes from this insight into the order in which those tools appeared in fish, said Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, an expert unconnected with the study.

Knowing that detail about the transition from fish to land-dweller, she said, "might help us to unravel why it happened at all. Why did creatures come out of the water and get legs and walk away?"

It's impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates, she said, but if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, "you'd probably come up with something like this."

Shubin said the researchers plan to return to the small rocky outcropping that yielded the fossils and recover more material. "We've really only begun to sort of crack that spot," he said.

The site is in Nunavut Territory, and "Tiktaalik" in the creature's name comes from the traditional language used in the area. It refers to a large freshwater fish seen in the shallows.
 

Hutch

Sicc OG
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#3
Nice one 2-0-Sixx - too many people consider the absence of evidence as proof that the transition didn't occur the way in which it's portrayed in popular science - I didn't know that we (scientists) have fresh firepower with which to support our views. It should be interesting to see whether they find any more evidence whilst surveying the rest of the area.
 

askG

Sicc OG
Nov 19, 2002
2,178
31
48
#4
theres a simple reason why evolution from sea to land (if legit), because the deep sea is a scary place my friends...if i was a half croc half fish mutant, i wouldnt wanna be caught dead in the waters w sharks, jellyfish, and manowars.
 

VIC

Sicc OG
Oct 29, 2002
333
0
0
#8
AND THIS IS THE ONLY "THING" THAT SCIENCE EVER FOUND IN "TRANSITION"? IF "TRANSITION" DID HAPPEN, THERE WOULD BE MORE FOSSILz IN "TRANSITION FORM" THAN THE FINAL "CREATURE" YET THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT "TRANSITION" EVER HAPPENED. THE WAY THEY HAVE IT STANDING UP LOOKz VARY AKWARD, THERE IS NO WAY THOSE TINY FEET COULD SUPPORT THAT BODY, THAT IS A FISH.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#9
Ladies & Gentleman, we have our first creationist to enter the thread! Give a round of applause to the young evolution denier!

lmao

AND THIS IS THE ONLY "THING" THAT SCIENCE EVER FOUND IN "TRANSITION" IF "TRANSITION" DID HAPPEN, THERE WOULD BE MORE FOSSILz IN "TRANSITION FORM" THAN THE FINAL "CREATURE" YET THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT "TRANSITION" EVER HAPPENED.?
Um no, there have been many “things” that have been found in transition, such as the Archaeopteryx, famous for bridging the gap between reptiles and birds.

As for linking water to land creatures, there has been evidence found, but never has there been such a so well-preserved and complete find, as in this case (remember this is likely over 400 Million years old).


THE WAY THEY HAVE IT STANDING UP LOOKz VARY AKWARD, THERE IS NO WAY THOSE TINY FEET COULD SUPPORT THAT BODY, THAT IS A FISH.
How many years have you been a Paleontologist? What kind of credentials do you have that authorize you to make such a claim?

You should know that most of the major joints of the fins of the creature are functional. The fish has shoulders, elbows and parts of wrists.

"Tiktaalik has lost a series of bones that, in fishes, covers the gill region and helps to operate the gill-breathing mechanism," she said. "The air-breathing mechanism it had would have been elaborated and having lost the series of bones that lies between the head and the shoulder girdle means it's got a neck, it can raise its head more easily in order to gulp the air. The flexible robust limbs appear to be connected with pushing the head out of the water to breathe the air."

Lmao at the threatened creationists!
 

VIC

Sicc OG
Oct 29, 2002
333
0
0
#10
2-0-Sixx said:
Ladies & Gentleman, we have our first creationist to enter the thread! Give a round of applause to the young evolution denier!

lmao
THANK YOU, THANK YOU....


2-0-Sixx said:
Um no, there have been many “things” that have been found in transition, such as the Archaeopteryx, famous for bridging the gap between reptiles and birds.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY "IN BETWEEN" "TRANSITION" OF THE REPTILE TO THE BIRD BESIDE THE "ARCHAEOPTERYX" AT SOME POINT THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF THEM BUT THERE IS JUST REPTILE FOSSILz, "ARCHAEOPTERYX", AND BIRD, NO IN BETWEENz.



2-0-Sixx said:
As for linking water to land creatures, there has been evidence found, but never has there been such a so well-preserved and complete find, as in this case (remember this is likely over 400 Million years old).

SUCH AS FROGz, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING IN "TRANSITION" IT IS A TADPOLE TO FROG.



2-0-Sixx said:
How many years have you been a Paleontologist? What kind of credentials do you have that authorize you to make such a claim?

You should know that most of the major joints of the fins of the creature are functional. The fish has shoulders, elbows and parts of wrists.

"Tiktaalik has lost a series of bones that, in fishes, covers the gill region and helps to operate the gill-breathing mechanism," she said. "The air-breathing mechanism it had would have been elaborated and having lost the series of bones that lies between the head and the shoulder girdle means it's got a neck, it can raise its head more easily in order to gulp the air. The flexible robust limbs appear to be connected with pushing the head out of the water to breathe the air."

Lmao at the threatened creationists!

SO IS THIS THE NEW "MISSING LINK" LIKE THE FISH THAT WAS FOUND TO BE EXTINCT THAT THEY FOUND ALIVE, I THOUGHT THAT THIS CERTIN "MISSING LINK" COULD WALK ON LAND TOO AND HAD "LUNGz" ALSO. COULD YOU HELP ME WITH THE NAME OF THAT "MISSING LINK":rolleyes:
 

VIC

Sicc OG
Oct 29, 2002
333
0
0
#11
2-0-Sixx said:
Um no, there have been many “things” that have been found in transition, such as the Archaeopteryx, famous for bridging the gap between reptiles and birds.



HAVE YOU WATCHED THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL WHERE THEY SHOWED HOW EASY IT WAS TO FORGE THE "ARCHAEOPTERYX". SO, FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING A REPTILE WAS BORN WITH WINGz AND BECAME A "ARCHAEOPTERYX" AND MILLIONz OF YEARz LATER AN "ARCHAEOPTERYX" GAVE BIRTH TO A BIRD?, WITH OUT ANY IN-BETWEEN "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz?
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#12
VIC said:
HAS THERE BEEN ANY "IN BETWEEN" "TRANSITION" OF THE REPTILE TO THE BIRD BESIDE THE "ARCHAEOPTERYX" AT SOME POINT THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF THEM BUT THERE IS JUST REPTILE FOSSILz, "ARCHAEOPTERYX", AND BIRD, NO IN BETWEENz.
Yes, there have been other transition species found. Research Confuciusornis, Microraptors, and Cryptovolans. (And there are more.) All possess characteristics of birds and reptiles.
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#14
VIC said:
HAVE YOU WATCHED THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL WHERE THEY SHOWED HOW EASY IT WAS TO FORGE THE "ARCHAEOPTERYX". SO, FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING A REPTILE WAS BORN WITH WINGz AND BECAME A "ARCHAEOPTERYX" AND MILLIONz OF YEARz LATER AN "ARCHAEOPTERYX" GAVE BIRTH TO A BIRD?, WITH OUT ANY IN-BETWEEN "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz?
You need to understand that it's difficult for organic things to be preserved after tens or even hundreds of millions of years. As birds began to evolve, wings became more lightweight, and therefore, even harder to preserve. Even still, the fossil record shows bird-like orgaisms becoming less and less reptilian, and more distinctively bird-like over time. And that last question of yours shows your lack of understanding about how evolution and genetics work.

Great read, by the way.
 

VIC

Sicc OG
Oct 29, 2002
333
0
0
#15
RedStorm said:
You need to understand that it's difficult for organic things to be preserved after tens or even hundreds of millions of years. As birds began to evolve, wings became more lightweight, and therefore, even harder to preserve. Even still, the fossil record shows bird-like orgaisms becoming less and less reptilian, and more distinctively bird-like over time. And that last question of yours shows your lack of understanding about how evolution and genetics work.

Great read, by the way.



THATz THE WAY 2-0-Sixx MADE IT "SEEM" THATz HOW EVOLUTION WORKED, WOULDNT THERE BE A VAST AMOUNT OF "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz? YET WE ARE ONLY PRESENTED WITH "IN-THE-MIDDLE" FORMz SUCH AS THE "ARCHAEOPTERYX" YOU THINK THE "MISSING LINKz" OR THE "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz WOULD BE MORE PRESENTABLE OR TO MORE "VALUE", BUT THE WAY IT IS PRESENTED IS....FISH, REPTILE, "ARCHAEOPTERYX", AND BIRD.... I THINK THE "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz OR "MISSING LINKz" WOULD BE THE MOST VALUE.
 
May 6, 2002
2,969
1,111
113
42
nonstop.bandcamp.com
#16
i havent read thru the whole thread, but i really think that that is the transition to reptiles, i believe there were other organisms that contributed to the warm blooded creatures, i believe whole-ly that cold blooded animals came from sea dwealing creatures.. im not sure that mammals came from the water.. shit, we all may have tho..
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
40
www.myspace.com
#18
VIC said:
SO, FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING A REPTILE WAS BORN WITH WINGz AND BECAME A "ARCHAEOPTERYX" AND MILLIONz OF YEARz LATER AN "ARCHAEOPTERYX" GAVE BIRTH TO A BIRD?, WITH OUT ANY IN-BETWEEN "TRANSITIONAL" FORMz?
RedStorm said:
And that last question of yours shows your lack of understanding about how evolution and genetics work.
"Holy Shit! Where the fuck did this ENTIRE ARM come from?"

Yeah, thats it. From a nub, to an arm with a wrist. Sounds about right.


And people say Science isn't a religion
 
Aug 13, 2005
522
0
16
#19
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things. (The Noble Quran, 24:45)"

"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran, 21:30)"

"We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves, until it is plain to them that it is the Truth" (Qur'an 41:53).
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#20
Dirty Shoez said:
"Holy Shit! Where the fuck did this ENTIRE ARM come from?"

Yeah, thats it. From a nub, to an arm with a wrist. Sounds about right.


And people say Science isn't a religion
OK, I meant the second to last question he asked. I didn't see the question mark.