Ancient arm bone shows fish used limbs

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040402.wxarm0204/BNStory/Front/

American scientists have unearthed the world's oldest arm bone, a 365-million-year-old fossil that provides key evidence that fish used limbs in water well before animals used them to climb up on land.

In Friday's issue of the journal Science, researchers describe an aquatic, salamander-like creature that would have pushed its arms downward to move through shallow rivers, and used them to prop itself up while waiting for prey or to get air.

Its upper arm bone or humerus, which was discovered along a road cut in Pennsylvania, bridges a major gap in our grasp of the progression from fins to limbs, say authors Neil Shubin and Michael Coates of the University of Chicago and Ted Daeschler of Philadelphia's Academy of Natural Sciences.

?It immediately became evident that, wow, this really helps us understand the evolution of the limb,? Dr. Daeschler said. ?The story of the emergence of animals with limbs from their fish ancestors is the sexiest part of what we do.?

Little is known about that topic.

The Devonian period in which this creature lived is thought to have been a hotbed of evolutionary activity among plants, invertebrates and vertebrates.

There were three main continental masses; what is now North America and Europe sat together near the equator with much of the land largely under water.

The first land plants developed, into so many types of vegetation that the phenomenon has been called the ?Devonian explosion.?

Animals in these shallow, freshwater environments experimented with all sorts of designs of fins, and eventually limbs, to exploit different ecosystems, Dr. Daeschler said.

Some creatures had both gills and lungs to survive above and below water. Others were starting to develop limbs, but there were no vertebrates living on land even in the late Devonian period of 370 to 360 million years ago.

Permanent land-living animals took another 30 million years to develop into reptiles, birds and mammals, but what happened during that transition is unclear.

?We're learning now what the animals, during that 20- or 30-million-year gap, were doing with their limbs,? Dr. Daeschler said.

Sometimes that happens by accident.

The fossil in Pennsylvania was found in 1993 along a highway. It was among layers of rock formed by an ancient stream system that deposited sediment as it flowed through what is now known as Red Hill, a region rich in fossils from the period.

The importance of this fossil went unnoticed until 2001, when the red sandstone that encased it was picked away to expose a humerus from an unidentified metre-long tetrapod, or four-limbed creature.

Analysis of the arm bone, which is small enough to fit in the palm of a human hand, suggests a shoulder joint that would not allow a great degree of motion.

However, it would anchor a large muscle across the chest, enabling the tetrapod to produce a pushup or bench-press motion in a low, wide stance.

Fish also possess this kind of structure, but in a much less sophisticated design.

?This function represents the intermediate condition between primitive steering and braking functions in fins and the derived aquatic or terrestrial walking gait,? the study noted.

What's also interesting is that this humerus bone looks different from those of other early limbed vertebrates.

It suggests some variety among the first sets of arms and legs, which in turn may be important in explaining strange sequences of early footprints in river beds, the scientists say.

Dr. Daeschler said this creature probably would have had more than five digits on each limb and a flattened newt-like tail, and was likely a competent swimmer in open water.

?These early tetrapods are essentially entrepreneurs of the Devonian,? Dr. Daeschler said.

?Evolution took advantage of the niches in these shallow freshwater environments.?

The researchers also noted punctures on the surfaces of the fossil, suggesting it could have been bitten, perhaps killed, by another creature. Some aggressive carnivores lived at this time, including a ?spiny shark? that grew longer than nine metres.

In an accompanying article, From Fins to Fingers, Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University describes the discovery of what could be a previously unknown tetrapod as another in a series of important finds from this region.

?These are not the conservative, clumsy creatures envisaged by popularists,? Prof. Clack wrote...."These animals probably did not walk efficiently, but their modes of locomotion certainly varied, as they adapted skeletons and sensory organs for the challenges posed by emergence from the water.?

This research was funded by the National Geographic Society and the U.S. National Science Foundation. The scientists are to return to the site next month.
 

BugsBunny1078

Banned
Jan 11, 2004
910
0
0
I see . Isn't it possibl that this dried up old bone belonged to a creature who never evolved into anything else and merely went extinct. Isn't it too possible that it was a genetic mutation which has no relatives anything like itself? It is a pretty far stretch.The bone could even belong to a species that is around today. A genetic defect.
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I see . Isn't it possibl that this dried up old bone belonged to a creature who never evolved into anything else and merely went extinct. Isn't it too possible that it was a genetic mutation which has no relatives anything like itself? It is a pretty far stretch.The bone could even belong to a species that is around today. A genetic defect.


Better be quite buggs or we will send your to Georgia or Tennessee................

EVERYONE KNOWS evilution is REAL stuff........................... LOL x2
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I see . Isn't it possibl that this dried up old bone belonged to a creature who never evolved into anything else and merely went extinct. Isn't it too possible that it was a genetic mutation which has no relatives anything like itself? It is a pretty far stretch.The bone could even belong to a species that is around today. A genetic defect.

It's also possible that it's the remains of a pet of a space alien.


It's not probable, though, and neither are your suggestions.
 

BugsBunny1078

Banned
Jan 11, 2004
910
0
0
Well their likelihood is greater than the one offered by the 'scientists'.
The chance that this one bone proves a link between man and fish? Cmon now that is too far fetched for even the sci fi channel.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I see . Isn't it possibl that this dried up old bone belonged to a creature who never evolved into anything else and merely went extinct. Isn't it too possible that it was a genetic mutation which has no relatives anything like itself? It is a pretty far stretch.The bone could even belong to a species that is around today. A genetic defect.

It is entirely possible that this particular creature was an evolutionary dead end however it does illustrate that there were organisms evolving in that direction at that time.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
Well their likelihood is greater than the one offered by the 'scientists'.
The chance that this one bone proves a link between man and fish? Cmon now that is too far fetched for even the sci fi channel.

Cathy is that you???

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
Well their likelihood is greater than the one offered by the 'scientists'.
The chance that this one bone proves a link between man and fish? Cmon now that is too far fetched for even the sci fi channel.

Just because your feeble mind cannot comprehend the macro-evolution scale which comprises hundreds of millions of years does not dismiss this find as astounding.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I see . Isn't it possibl that this dried up old bone belonged to a creature who never evolved into anything else and merely went extinct. Isn't it too possible that it was a genetic mutation which has no relatives anything like itself? It is a pretty far stretch.The bone could even belong to a species that is around today. A genetic defect.


Better be quite buggs or we will send your to Georgia or Tennessee................

EVERYONE KNOWS evilution is REAL stuff........................... LOL x2



The Flat Earth Society checks in again.




:moon:
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I see . Isn't it possibl that this dried up old bone belonged to a creature who never evolved into anything else and merely went extinct. Isn't it too possible that it was a genetic mutation which has no relatives anything like itself? It is a pretty far stretch.The bone could even belong to a species that is around today. A genetic defect.


Better be quite buggs or we will send your to Georgia or Tennessee................

EVERYONE KNOWS evilution is REAL stuff........................... LOL x2



The Flat Earth Society checks in again.

The earth is not flat, but bad science is bad science


:moon:

 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: gistech1978
blasphemy!
we all know fossils are put by Jesus to test our faith.
remember?


Don't have a problem with fossils or the "world" existing for 60zillion years (whatever) but EVILution come on lets get into the 21st century and leave Mr Darwin in the past where he belongs
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,721
48,537
136
The earth is not flat, but bad science is bad science

If you're so concerned over 'bad science,' then maybe you should appeal to your bible institute friends and Young Earth Creationist buddies to stop using it to prop up their silly arguments.
 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: gistech1978
blasphemy!
we all know fossils are put by Jesus to test our faith.
remember?


Don't have a problem with fossils or the "world" existing for 60zillion years (whatever) but EVILution come on lets get into the 21st century and leave Mr Darwin in the past where he belongs

okay, lets leave Isaac Newton there
lets leave Jonas Salk there.
and to top it off lets leave Jesus there too.

pathetic argument. simply pathetic.
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: gistech1978
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: gistech1978
blasphemy!
we all know fossils are put by Jesus to test our faith.
remember?


Don't have a problem with fossils or the "world" existing for 60zillion years (whatever) but EVILution come on lets get into the 21st century and leave Mr Darwin in the past where he belongs

okay, lets leave Isaac Newton there
lets leave Jonas Salk there.
and to top it off lets leave Jesus there too.

pathetic argument. simply pathetic.

Dont misrepresent me nor misunderstand me just let go of Darwin....... the rest are fine.

Darwin IS BAD SCIENCE, as proven by CURRENT science OK please Ok ??????
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,528
605
126
This reminds of a few years back when there was conclusive proof of evolution and it was proven to be a fraud.
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Gaard
What makes a science = bad science?

When it disagrees with your rigid adherence to some religious beliefs.

No when its PROVEN wrong by NEW science.........

I am a professional engineer, I understand "bad" science, and it has nothing to do with religion
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: gistech1978
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: gistech1978
blasphemy!
we all know fossils are put by Jesus to test our faith.
remember?


Don't have a problem with fossils or the "world" existing for 60zillion years (whatever) but EVILution come on lets get into the 21st century and leave Mr Darwin in the past where he belongs

okay, lets leave Isaac Newton there
lets leave Jonas Salk there.
and to top it off lets leave Jesus there too.

pathetic argument. simply pathetic.

Dont misrepresent me nor misunderstand me just let go of Darwin....... the rest are fine.

Darwin IS BAD SCIENCE, as proven by CURRENT science OK please Ok ??????


Which current science proves that "Darwin" is "Bad Science".
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Romans828
For petes sake just google it.......

I aint your daddy or your professor

No, my daddy was a professor and despite being an Orthodox Jew he had a firm grasp on reality and science.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
but seriously why would a fish grow an arm? probably got tired of getting eaten so it figured "hey i'll try land for a change"

it's a classic mystery, just like why is naruto taking 365 million years to beat gaara.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,721
48,537
136
He's a professional engineer! He doesn't have to support anything here! JEEEEEZ! What's wrong with you people?!?!




;)