Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,867
3,297
136
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.

But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals ? a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.

The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.

The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."

In two reports in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, the science team led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago wrote, "The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik."

Dr. Shubin, an evolutionary biologist, let himself go in an interview. "It's a really amazing remarkable intermediate fossil ? it's like, holy cow," he enthused.

Two other paleontologists, commenting on the find in a separate article in the journal, said that a few other transitional fish had been previously discovered from approximately the same Late Devonian time period, 385 million to 359 million years ago. But Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates," they said, that it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles, probably dinosaurs, and today's birds.

The writers, Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden and Jennifer A. Clack of the University of Cambridge in England, are often viewed as rivals to Dr. Shubin's team in the search for intermediate species in the evolution from fish to the first animals to colonize land.

In a statement by the Science Museum of London, where casts of the fossils will be on view, Dr. Clack said the fish "confirms everything we thought and also tells us about the order in which certain changes were made."

H. Richard Lane, director of paleobiology at the National Science Foundation, said in a statement, "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil 'Rosetta Stones' for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone ? fish to land-roaming tetrapods."

The science foundation and the National Geographic Society were among the financial supporters of the research. Besides Dr. Shubin, the principal discoverers were Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr., a Harvard evolutionary biologist.

Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research, said: "Based on what we already know, we have a very strong reason to think tetrapods evolved from lineages of fishes. This may be a critical phase in that transition that we haven't had before. A good fossil cuts through a lot of scientific argument."

While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.

One creationist Web site (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

Dr. Novacek responded in an interview: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"

Dr. Shubin and Dr. Daeschler began their search on Ellsmere Island in 1999. They were attracted by a map in a geology textbook showing the region had an abundance of Devonian rocks exposed and relatively easy to explore. At that time, the land was part of a supercontinent straddling the equator and had a warm climate.

It was not until July 2004, Dr. Shubin said, that "we hit the jackpot." They found several of the fishes in a quarry, their skeletons largely intact and in three dimensions. The large skull had the sharp teeth of a predator. It was attached to a neck, which allowed the fish the unfishlike ability to swivel its head.

"Fish feeding in water readily orient the mouth toward food by maneuvering the entire body," said Dr. Jenkins, who assisted in the interpretation of the fossils. "The head is rigidly attacked to the trunk by bones linking the skull and shoulder girdle, and thus fish have no neck."

If the animal spent any time out of water, he said, it needed a true neck that allowed the head to move independently on the body.

Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The scientists said the joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, they said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.

In their journal report, the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik is an intermediate between the fish Panderichthys, which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods. The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365 million years ago.

Tiktaalik, Dr. Shubin said, is "both fish and tetrapod, which we sometimes call a fishapod."

link
 

iamaelephant

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2004
3,816
1
81
Excellent stuff. Not that it will ever shut the Evos up, but it gives us yet more ammo. As if we needed it.
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Excellent stuff. Not that it will ever shut the Evos up, but it gives us yet more ammo. As if we needed it.
Unfortunately, you will never have enough ammo to win that war....
 

thehstrybean

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2004
5,727
1
0
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Excellent stuff. Not that it will ever shut the Evos up, but it gives us yet more ammo. As if we needed it.
Unfortunately, you will never have enough ammo to win that war....

That's so true. How many "missing links" has evolution had? Too many, there's no way, IMHO, that evolution can be true...
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Excellent stuff. Not that it will ever shut the Evos up, but it gives us yet more ammo. As if we needed it.
Unfortunately, you will never have enough ammo to win that war....

That's so true. How many "missing links" has evolution had? Too many, there's no way, IMHO, that evolution can be true...

The odds of a creature being fossilized are very very low, the odds that that fossil will survive are very very low, and the odds that we will find it are very very low.
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.
 

Greyd

Platinum Member
Dec 4, 2001
2,119
0
0
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Excellent stuff. Not that it will ever shut the Evos up, but it gives us yet more ammo. As if we needed it.
Unfortunately, you will never have enough ammo to win that war....

That's so true. How many "missing links" has evolution had? Too many, there's no way, IMHO, that evolution can be true...

The odds of a creature being fossilized are very very low, the odds that that fossil will survive are very very low, and the odds that we will find it are very very low.

Your faith is indeed great. ;)
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: Smartazz
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

Someone forgot to bring their sarcasm meter to ATOT today
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Smartazz
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

Someone forgot to bring their sarcasm meter to ATOT today

sorry, it's just that a lot of people on atot really aren't be sarcastic when they say that, but seriously, evolution has been seen happening around us, and is completely understandable.
edit: I may not agree with other's opinions, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they may be right.
 

iamaelephant

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2004
3,816
1
81
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Excellent stuff. Not that it will ever shut the Evos up, but it gives us yet more ammo. As if we needed it.
Unfortunately, you will never have enough ammo to win that war....

That's so true. How many "missing links" has evolution had? Too many, there's no way, IMHO, that evolution can be true...

Clueless. Utterly clueless.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Smartazz
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

I'm still waiting for evidence....but then again I'm a cynic.

Do you also realize that the therory of evolution has basically contorted itself, because of a lack of evidence, into something similar to creationism......a disprovable postulate. No longer did species gradually evolve, now there were a series of geographically specific mutations cause, you know, that way they'd be nigh impossible to uncover.

Species go extinct all the time.....including plenty of species we've never documented....especially species before man began documenting and keeping track. I mean, hell, we're trying desperately to save numerous species from instinction.....why haven't we seen any benefitial mutations to save any of them? 2,000 years should be more than enough time for one of the millions of spceies on earth to have radically changed, but, instead, the number of species in existence is declining.

Evolution makes sense. There's a logic to it. I think it's faulty logic, but there's logic nonetheless and I'm certainly not going to call anybody an idiot for believing in it. It's a work in progress, what can you expect. To me, however, creationism is more logical.

Go on and call me an uneducated fundamentalist sheep. You're not going to hurt my feelings and you're not going to help your cause, but you are going to make yourself feel better about having, at some point in acquiring your beliefs, agreed to just take somebody's word for it.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Smartazz
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

I'm still waiting for evidence....but then again I'm a cynic.

Do you also realize that the therory of evolution has basically contorted itself, because of a lack of evidence, into something similar to creationism......a disprovable postulate. No longer did species gradually evolve, now there were a series of geographically specific mutations cause, you know, that way they'd be nigh impossible to uncover.

Species go extinct all the time.....including plenty of species we've never documented....especially species before man began documenting and keeping track. I mean, hell, we're trying desperately to save numerous species from instinction.....why haven't we seen any benefitial mutations to save any of them? 2,000 years should be more than enough time for one of the millions of spceies on earth to have radically changed, but, instead, the number of species in existence is declining.

Evolution makes sense. There's a logic to it. I think it's faulty logic, but there's logic nonetheless and I'm certainly not going to call anybody an idiot for believing in it. It's a work in progress, what can you expect. To me, however, creationism is more logical.

Go on and call me an uneducated fundamentalist sheep. You're not going to hurt my feelings and you're not going to help your cause, but you are going to make yourself feel better about having, at some point in acquiring your beliefs, agreed to just take somebody's word for it.

Evolution is not mutation. Evolution is the selection of beneficial traits through breeding. Some species HAVE indeed evolved to adapt to human presence... For example the moth species that went from being mostly white to mostly black to better survive in coal era Britain blackened by soot by being black for camouflage. That kind of evolution is equivalent to some event happening that makes it almost impossible for one phenotype to survive. It would be equivalent to aliens coming and selectively killing almost all whites and Asians, so that the human race ends up being much darker. No mutation would be involved.

Most of the habitat destruction that is causing extinction has been occurring in the past hundred years or so. How do you propose that a species evolve to live without habitat, in 10 generations no less?

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Smartazz
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

I'm still waiting for evidence....but then again I'm a cynic.

Do you also realize that the therory of evolution has basically contorted itself, because of a lack of evidence, into something similar to creationism......a disprovable postulate. No longer did species gradually evolve, now there were a series of geographically specific mutations cause, you know, that way they'd be nigh impossible to uncover.

Species go extinct all the time.....including plenty of species we've never documented....especially species before man began documenting and keeping track. I mean, hell, we're trying desperately to save numerous species from instinction.....why haven't we seen any benefitial mutations to save any of them? 2,000 years should be more than enough time for one of the millions of spceies on earth to have radically changed, but, instead, the number of species in existence is declining.

Evolution makes sense. There's a logic to it. I think it's faulty logic, but there's logic nonetheless and I'm certainly not going to call anybody an idiot for believing in it. It's a work in progress, what can you expect. To me, however, creationism is more logical.

Go on and call me an uneducated fundamentalist sheep. You're not going to hurt my feelings and you're not going to help your cause, but you are going to make yourself feel better about having, at some point in acquiring your beliefs, agreed to just take somebody's word for it.

Evolution is not mutation. Evolution is the selection of beneficial traits through breeding. Some species HAVE indeed evolved to adapt to human presence... For example the moth species that went from being mostly white to mostly black to better survive in coal era Britain blackened by soot.

Most of the habitat destruction that is causing extinction has been occurring in the past hundred years or so. How do you propose that a species evolve to live without habitat, in 10 generations no less?

#1. You believe in evolution and have no clue what the popular version of it is? :thumbsup: I told you, they keep changing it to make it more plausible and the latest version is far superior to the gradual adaptation version some people are clinging to.

#2. That moth example was disproven. Think about it. Once soot covers everything, white moths are easier to spot and be preyed upon. Black moths would then increase in numbers as the white moths were killed off. That's, in fact, what happened. The moths were different types. Look it up.........you owe it to yourself when your belief system is based on it.
 

iamaelephant

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2004
3,816
1
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Smartazz
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

I'm still waiting for evidence....but then again I'm a cynic.

Do you also realize that the therory of evolution has basically contorted itself, because of a lack of evidence, into something similar to creationism......a disprovable postulate. No longer did species gradually evolve, now there were a series of geographically specific mutations cause, you know, that way they'd be nigh impossible to uncover.

Species go extinct all the time.....including plenty of species we've never documented....especially species before man began documenting and keeping track. I mean, hell, we're trying desperately to save numerous species from instinction.....why haven't we seen any benefitial mutations to save any of them? 2,000 years should be more than enough time for one of the millions of spceies on earth to have radically changed, but, instead, the number of species in existence is declining.

Evolution makes sense. There's a logic to it. I think it's faulty logic, but there's logic nonetheless and I'm certainly not going to call anybody an idiot for believing in it. It's a work in progress, what can you expect. To me, however, creationism is more logical.

Go on and call me an uneducated fundamentalist sheep. You're not going to hurt my feelings and you're not going to help your cause, but you are going to make yourself feel better about having, at some point in acquiring your beliefs, agreed to just take somebody's word for it.

2,000 years is no where near enough time to expect to see significant amounts of macro evolution. Despite that we have witnessed some evolution in our time studying evolution. You must not underestimate the vast amounts of time that evolution has been happening for. Never underestimate just how long 2.5 billion years is - that is a ridiculously long period of time.

If you are genuinely interested in debating evolution and creationism come visit http://www.evcforum.net where you will find there are people a hell of a lot more intelligent than me who can guide you through exactly how evolution works and show you the staggeringly large amount of evidence there really is.
 

thehstrybean

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2004
5,727
1
0
Listen, as a Christian I can't accept evolution. God created the world, universe, and everything in it. Some Christians will say that God created one species and allowed it to evolve. I don't see Genesis as saying anything like this. That's just my belief.