Log in

View Full Version : Fossil could be missing link


Atomical
2006-04-06, 01:05
http://www .chicagotr ibune.com/ news/local /chi-06040 5fossil,1, 7958496.st ory?coll=c hi-news-hed

quote:

By Peter Gorner

Tribune science reporter

Published April 5, 2006, 7:11 PM CDT

Paleontologists announced Wednesday the discovery of a creature they say bridges the gap between life in the water and life on land: the "missing evolutionary link" connecting fish and the first animals that crawled ashore more than 300 million years ago.

The animal, described in the journal Nature, stands at a critical juncture in the story of life on earth. Scientists believe the transition from fins to limbs was a major evolutionary change that eventually led to the existence of humankind.

Three specimens of the creature, called Tiktaalik roseae, were unearthed from frozen river sediments on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic. The fossils, 375 million years old, show evidence not only of fish scales and fins, but also of primitive wrists, fingers, ribs and a neck-qualities shared with four-limbed land animals, called tetrapods. Its fins could have flexed and extended like an arm, leg or wing.

Some observers say the animal, which its finders jokingly dubbed a "fishapod," could be an icon of evolution as potent as Archaeopteryx, the feathery fossil showing the transition between reptiles and birds.

"It represents the transition from water to land-the part of history that includes ourselves," said Neil Shubin, the University of Chicago scientist who co-led the expedition that found it. "When we talk about the fish's wrist, we're talking about the origin of parts of our own wrist."

According to H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundation's division of earth sciences, "human comprehension of the history of life on Earth is taking a major leap forward" with this discovery. The foundation was a major sponsor of the project, along with the National Geographic Society and the researchers' home institutions.

The genus name Tiktaalik (tick-TAH-lick) means "large freshwater fish" in Inuit and was supplied from the elders of Nunavut Territory, which encompasses Ellesmere Island, just 600 miles from the North Pole. "Roseae" came from the name of an otherwise anonymous donor.

Shubin, Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish Jenkins of Harvard reported the discovery. The fossil-hunters spent six years searching in the icy desert of the Canadian tundra, so inhospitable they could only work there for one month a year.

Looking for fossils from the late Devonian Period, 380 to 365 million years ago, the team endured 24-hour daylight and sleeting Arctic storms. They armed themselves with shotguns against the possibility of polar bears. "We were always looking over our shoulders; we saw lots of tracks," Shubin said.

Scientists have known that fish evolved into land creatures with backbones and four legs more than 365 million years ago, but the fossil record held large gaps about how exactly this occurred.

After learning that Devonian-age deposits in Canada had never been explored, the scientists set out in 1999 to search for elpistostegid fish, the group considered to be most closely related to tetrapods. They worked 12-hour days, often walking 10 to 15 miles a day, scouring the rocks for signs of fossils.

Tantalizing fragments uncovered in 2000 convinced the scientists to return to the site. More evidence was found in 2002, and the team returned two years later to excavate layers of a rock bluff and look at fish bones piled there by the hundreds.

On the third day of the 2004 expedition, the team members spotted something embedded in the bluff-a crocodile-like snout.

"We did a few high fives when we uncovered the fossil, but there's only so much celebrating you can do in the Arctic," said Shubin, who is chairman of organismal biology at the U. of C.

It wasn't until the scientists got the material back to their lab and teased the fossil from the rock that they fully realized what they had.

"What we saw was a real mosaic between characteristics of fish and those previously thought to be only in land animals. The fossil was showing us how creatures were assembled over time to live on land," Shubin said.

Unlike any fish known to exist before or after it, Tiktaalik had jointed bones in its pectoral fins making up parts of an elbow and a wrist and primitive parts of a hand. The creature would have been capable of a sort of pushup, Shubin said, but its mobility on land would have been very limited.

"The skeleton of Tiktaalik indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land," said Harvard's Jenkins.

Researchers ultimately collected well-preserved material from several specimens ranging from 4 to 9 feet long and determined Tiktaalik was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and a flattened body. They speculate that crawling out of the water allowed the animal to escape pursuit by other, fiercer aquatic meat-eaters.

"This is an example of an important and extremely interesting transitional form between fish and tetrapods. It's wonderful material. The surprise is that the material is so well-preserved you can study that transition in detail," said John Bolt, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Field Museum.

The new discovery suggests the transformation from life in water to life on land happened gradually in fish living in shallow water. When Tiktaalik was alive, the land where the scientists found it was located at the equator and had a subtropical climate. Over millions of years, drifting continental plates eventually brought the area north to the Arctic.

"It's the best fish-fossil found so far to show how the first land animals evolved," said Jenny Clack, a land animal evolution expert from Cambridge University who contributed an article in Nature explaining the significance of the find and comparing it to Archaeopteryx.

"It confirms everything we thought and also tells us about the order in which certain changes occurred."

pgorner@tribune.com



Is it still not enough to prove evolution is real?

IanBoyd3
2006-04-06, 01:08
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:

http://www .chicagotr ibune.com/ news/local /chi-06040 5fossil,1, 7958496.st ory?coll=c hi-news-hed

Is it still not enough to prove evolution is real?



It was enough years ago, but if you realize how blindly stubborn or ignorant all creationists must be by this point, then no, they still want an infintessimal fossil bed.

Rust
2006-04-06, 01:17
They will demand that science fill the "gaps" between this intermediate specimen, and the others specimens it fits between. When they find more intermediate specimens, they'll ask for more specimens to fill the new "gaps" it made; so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Anyways, what's interesting about the fossil is that they were specifically looking for it, before even having seen it. They had studied the evolution leading to modern tetrapods, and knew that such a specimen should have existed if the evolution were correct, and if their particular understanding of the lineage was correct as well. In other words, they were using the predictive power of evolution as a scientific theory; and while that is not something that is new, it's good to see a more contemporary example.

hyroglyphx
2006-04-06, 01:20
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:

http://www .chicagotr ibune.com/ news/local /chi-06040 5fossil,1, 7958496.st ory?coll=c hi-news-hed

Is it still not enough to prove evolution is real?

Given the fact that so many once-proposed missing links haven't turned out to be legitimate, no. Its a little too early to say anything like that. I'd like to see the little critter. But if its anything like this litter critter, I won't hold my breath.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/03/29/dino_bird010329

Rust
2006-04-06, 01:32
The little critter: http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/04/tiktaalik-rosae.html



P.S. As far as Archaeoraptor goes, you do know that it ends up vindicating the scientific method, don't you?

Atomical
2006-04-06, 01:36
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Given the fact that so many once-proposed missing links haven't turned out to be legitimate, no. Its a little too early to say anything like that. I'd like to see the little critter. But if its anything like this litter critter, I won't hold my breath.

ht tp://www.c bc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/03/29/dino_bird010329 (http: //www.cbc. ca/story/n ews/?/news /2001/03/2 9/dino_bir d010329)



Obviously fraud does not constitute a legitimate attempt at completing the record. Your example is poor.

Beta69
2006-04-06, 01:37
Hyro: It's important to note the difference between accepted, questioned and not accepted "missing links*" So we can differentiate between fossils science accepted and quacks who just got their name in the paper. For example, Nebraska man, was never an accepted fossil. Piltdown man was never truly accepted either, although some thought of it higher than others. There are a number of valid missing link fossils.

Obviously if we included every quack claim out there we should be scared to believe anything anyone says, ever.

This is an important find though, if real.

*Missing link in quotes since although the news likes to use it a lot, most scientists understand there will never be a silver bullet fossil.

Rust
2006-04-06, 01:43
Exactly. "Published in the mainstream media" does not equal an accepted find.

Archaeoraptor wasn't published in any peer-reviewed journals (to my knowledge); hell, even 'Science' (the magazine) refused to publish articles about it being real because they found it fishy.

Beta69
2006-04-06, 01:45
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

P.S. As far as Archaeoraptor goes, you do know that it ends up vindicating the scientific method, don't you?

Although I agree, I also agree a bit with Hyro. Before I fully trust the find I would like to see it go through the scientific method and be scrutinized. I don't know how far it's gone, sometimes the news media jumps on things prematurely.

(one of the reasons so many new medical studies contradict the old ones, the media sometimes reports preliminary findings as science fact or doesn't give the study details).

Rust
2006-04-06, 01:48
Oh, I agree. Archaeoraptor serves as a great example as to why we shouldn't jump to any conclusions until the proper research/study is done. I was replying to what seemed to be his point: that science got it wrong. That's just plain false in the case of Archaeoraptor. Archaeoraptor, as an example, just ends up vindicating the scientific method both because it was never accepted by the scientific community, and because they managed to expose it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-06-2006).]

hyroglyphx
2006-04-06, 02:11
quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Originally posted by Rust:

P.S. As far as Archaeoraptor goes, you do know that it ends up vindicating the scientific method, don't you?

Although I agree, I also agree a bit with Hyro. Before I fully trust the find I would like to see it go through the scientific method and be scrutinized. I don't know how far it's gone, sometimes the news media jumps on things prematurely.

(one of the reasons so many new medical studies contradict the old ones, the media sometimes reports preliminary findings as science fact or doesn't give the study details).



Its my understanding that most of the world's leading evolutionists flamed National Geographic because it made them look bad by virtue of association, even though they had nothing to do with it. NG should know better. They are, or were, too reptuable a scientific journal to be jumping to conclusions so hastily.... Guess they learned their lesson.

Kudos to Rust for posting a scientific source.

Aeon
2006-04-06, 15:43
I think it is neat when they find such ancient things, like these fossils. The tell stories of a world long before us.