Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution

[cal04]

Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.
Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.

As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power. Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history, and Tiktaalik is an important link in the story."

Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language Inuktikuk - shows that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water. The animal lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals (known as tetrapods), as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish.

The scientists who discovered it say the animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head, and a body that grew up to 2.75 metres (9ft) long. "It's very important for a number of reasons, one of which is simply the fact that it's so well-preserved and complete," said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University and author of an accompanying article in Nature. Scientists have previously been able to trace the transition of fish into limbed animals only crudely over the millions of years they anticipate the process took place. They suspected that an animal which bridged the gap between fish and land-based tetrapods must have existed - but, until now, there had been scant evidence of one.

more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html

[benburch]

1. You fail to undertand the ID people.

No fossil ever disproves them, because they will claim that there are still links missing before it and after it in the chain of descent.

In other words, they are dishonest.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. "There are now TWO gaps in the evolutionary record!"

That is what the ID people will say.

"Until you can fill those gaps, you have nothing but an unproven theory. Teach the controversy!"

:rofl:

[Occulus]

44. Ask them if pi is precise.

3.14, to fifty digits, isn't precise. Nor is it to 100 digits, or one thousand; pi can always be more precise- and in the same way, for some of the same conceptual reasons, that an 'evolutionary gap' always exists. That there is a 'gap' is meaningless, because the gap can always be filled further.

Intellectual canard. They ask the impossible.

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. Yup, Xeno's dilemma

Which is funny, because the ID folk would never admit to stealing ideas from pagan philosophers.

[drm604]

59. But... But...

If you fill those two gaps then there'll be FOUR gaps!

[TechBear_Seattle]

68. Thus demonstrating the Third Law of Fanatics

The more evidence you provide that proves their position totally wrong, the more they dig in and insist that they are the only ones who have it right.

[Olney Blue]

2. Well, well, well.... what will the fundies think?

[PublicWrath]

7. Many of them are still on the " Adam: Bellybutton or Not?" debate. n/t

[HereSince1628]

3. Yeah, that's why the discovery team said "It is a link and it was missing

but then so are another thousand that still haven't been found," or words to that effect.

[okasha]

4. The Darwin fish lives!

Or, uh, lived, anyway. :)

[EST]

5. I'm envious.

Archaeology has always held immense attraction for me--unrequieted love, as it were.

[tocqueville]

12. this is paleontology .... nt

[EST]

25. Thanks, I see I didn't finish my thought.

Meant to add that paleontology runs a very close second. Either a senior moment on my part or I can blame my disconnect on two days of sleeplessness arising from the meds I have to take to keep my body functioning--or maybe just a recessive republican gene kicked in.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Here's a picture of the handsome beast.

[zeemike]

8. I have often wondered and wanted to ask

Why this is such an important thing to some people. that is that evolution be proved a fact when it is probably imposable and most likely not at all accurate.
Why could it not be that evolution is just as wrong as creationism in saying where we came form?
My feeling ( not uninformed )is that it is. And that there is another mechanism at work that we just can't see yet because we have not yet scratched the surface of biology and the sciences necessary to understand it.
Is all of this an act of faith, with little difference between the creationist and evolutionist?

[Crunchy Frog]

9. What evidence do you have that evolution is "probably impossible",

and how would you explain the massive amounts of fossil and other evidence?

For the record, it's not important to me to "prove" evolution, any more than it is to prove that the Earth is round. I'm very interested in learning about, and gaining a greater understanding of, one of the most fascination natural processes in existence. I do think it's important to stop people from teaching religious dogma as science, in science classes, but that's a separate issue.

[zeemike]

10. I am against the teaching of ANY dogma in schools

Schools should be free from all kinds of dogma.
But it is the enormous amount of fossil evidence that leads me to believe that the basic theory is wrong. With so much evidence available it should produce clear evidence to support the theory and it does not.
And then there is the fact that Humans can trace there ancestors back to one woman and All the animals have different species and we do not.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Are you opposed to the teaching of the Central Dogma

of molecular biology in schools? If you don't know what that is, try googling "central dogma".

[zeemike]

14. Well that is interesting

But not at all what I was talking about I am sure you know.
The dogmas of religion as well as atheism are not that different and have no place in schools.

[Imperialism Inc.]

15. Why are you confusing the theory of evolution with atheism? NT

[zeemike]

18. Evolution is to atheism as creationism is to religion.

They both need an explanation of how this all came to be.
And it would be too much to say that both are wrong but that both have not enough information to come to the conclusion that they have reached.

[Imperialism Inc.]

20. No.

Evolution is a logical conclusion reached by the study of biological data. It has nothing to do with atheism. It is quite easy to think up a god who creates laws of the universe in such a way that life will eventually evolve. Science cannot take on that question because there is no way to prove it false, since any and all data can be taken as confirmation of an omnipotent being.

It would be entirely wrong to say that biology does not have enough information to come to the conclusion it has reached. There is simply massive amounts of data from several fields of study that all point to the same conclusion. That is generally a very strong indication that one has the correct answer. When the conclusions drawn from independent data converge. If you followed my link you would see that those fields of study include paleontology and cladistics (essentially recording and classifying the characteristics of animals), comparative embryology, molecular biology, and some of the strongest data comes from modern genetics.

Your assertions are simply incorrect. I suspect that you really don't have enough information to reach any conclusion on the subject. I base this on the fact that a previous post seemed to indicate that you thought fossils were the only source of information that leads to common decent. You also seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of fossils. A common question of those who haven't done much research in to the subject.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
...
Question:
If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?
Answer:
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.

There are links in the FAQ answer and, if you follow them, you will find that we actually have several very excellent series of "transitional" fossils.

I would again suggest if you are interested in the study to spend some time reading the link I gave and the talkorigins.org site in general.

[zeemike]

27. a logical conclusion reached by the study of biological data

Led the people not so long ago to the necessity to bleed the body with leaches too. So what are you saying that we now have all the information about how things in this universe work and can know what you seem to know?
I think the difference is that I KNOW I don't have enough information to answer such heady questions as to how life or the universe were created or even if they were created, and both of the other sides think they do.
All I do know for sure is that there are so many seriously unanswered questions that have no logical or easy answers that we are not to the point where we can believe ether theory with anything other than faith.
And the other side could just as easily ask you to read the bible to educate yourself to there point as you have done with your link. But of course in your mind the link is truth and the bible is not, so you will not waste your time educating yourself on that now will you?
Do you get my point or am I just speaking into the wind? I am saying that both sides should stop trying to convert the other and start actually having a discourse with an open mind instead of this attempt to convert the other to a thing that does not make much difference in the world.

[Crunchy Frog]

41. I'm just speaking into the wind.

I'm wondering if this debate that you've started on this thread belongs more in the Religion/Theology forum than in the science forum. You keep bringing the Bible, and "atheism" up in a discussion to which they are completely irrelevant. Please find any scientific discipline at all other than possibly Middle Eastern archaeology where the Bible is considered relevant. This is a SCIENCE forum, not a theology forum.

As for the other content of your post, I would be very interested in learning something about the biological data and the studies and conclusions drawn from it, that led people to believe in the necessity of bleeding with leaches. Could you share some of the information you've gathered from investigating that fascination period in the history of medical thought? Thank you.

[zeemike]

43. My point will be

That Science can never be completed until there is an understanding of spirituality, because despite the resistance of some there is a spiritual realm which science has yet to discover.
There is only evidence of it but it has so far been difficult for the scientist to grasp largely because the Faith one must have in things like evolution that holds them back.
You demonstrated it here when the mention of religion or bible shuts you down.
Science to be true to it's own principles, must not be afraid of religion or mysticism And run away form arguments just because there faith wont let them.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. You're just talking nonsense in that post.

The mere mention of religion or the Bible does not shut me down. I read and post regularly on the Religion/Theology forum. I have nothing against religion or spirituality, I just don't see how they're relevant to the discussion of a 375 million year old fossil fish.

If you feel that spirituality is an important issue for science to deal with, why don't you start a seperate thread on that. It may very well be locked by the moderators, because they may see it as being inappropriate for this forum. A really good place to discuss the relevance of spirituality and religion to science would be in the Religion/Theology forum.

[zeemike]

63. Thanks for your suggestions

But this is not an agenda on my part because I have participated in many Religious and none religious forms in the past and in reality have said all that I wanted to say, and sometimes had to repeat it.
I jumped in here because to tell the truth i was feeling depressed about the way things are going politically, and how the democrats are so easily divide by things like this.
On the other side the the Rethugs that are atheist do not hate or flame the Fundies but support them even if the laugh under there breath at the notions they have. And in that unity lies there strength and they know it
The Democrats need to know that the religious among them are not the stupid ones and if not support them at least not insult them at some intersection like this.

[Occulus]

45. Okay, new rule:

Thou shalt not refer to thine own religion when debating the scientific theories of creation of life.

Can you do it? No. Therefore, it's not science and should never be taught as such.

Oh, and doctors still use both leeches and maggots in modern medicine. Yes, even today. They're oddly theraputic, as it happens, and lead to more rapid healing.

And those ARE logical conclusions reached by the study of biological data. I hereby submit you don't know WTF you're talking about and are only here to advance your creationist agenda.

Flame away.

[Imperialism Inc.]

48. The WTF theory, much like evolution,

is the only logical conclusion.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. Is that why the Papacy has endorsed evolutionary theory

and rejected creationism? Those guys in the Vatican are just a bunch of atheists, aren't they?

I second the reccomendation that you go here: http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html to genuinely inform yourself about this issue.

[zeemike]

24. I have no idea what the papacy thinks

Does that mean that the scientist that believe in creationism have a point?

[Crunchy Frog]

33. I was undermining your attempt to equate

belief in evolution with atheism. If you can find me some atheists who believe in creationism, you'll have a counterarguement.

[zeemike]

36. i thought it was about whether evolution was viable

The number of people converted to a theory is not proof that the theory is correct.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. No, I wasn't arguing that, since I haven't seen you make

any cogent argument concerning the viability of evolutionary theory. You have made quite a number of posts equating "belief" in evolution with atheism, so that was the point that I was arguing against.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I agree.

What does any of this have to do with atheism?

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. I would just recommend learning about the subject

since you obviously don't know a lot about it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now of course that is just a summary but even with just that a characterization of "act of faith" is absurd.

Common decent is one the most well established theories of modern science. In fact, by sheer volume of data it is probably tops.

[zeemike]

17. Well I did not just fall off the turnip truck yesterday

And I have had a life long interest in science although I admit biology is my week point, and at one time bought into the theory of evolution.
But that is my point...tons of data and ono link to show that evolution actually happened.
Now that is so much different than say the theory of electron flow where it cannot actually be proven but in every way works and so need not be proven to be useful.
The theory of evolution if it were ever proved would have no practical use in any case.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. May I suggest www.evcforum.net ?

You mind find a few of your missing links there...

[Imperialism Inc.]

21. You can't be serious.

What is the saying about being in a hole? Stop digging! lol

Evolution is already used daily in the field of medicine to name just one.

[zeemike]

23. Evolution or selective breeding?

There is a difference.

[Imperialism Inc.]

26. Evolution.

The knowledge is used to plan drug treatments. Doctors, because of the knowledge of evolution, will give one set of drugs for a while and then switch them because resistance builds up. AIDS is one example of a disease treated this way but not the only one.

Medical researchers can watch cancer cells evolve in a very short time. E.g. a patient with cancer is give na drug. The drug acts on the cancer cells giving some improvement. Within a year or two the cancer cells will evolve new metabolic pathways to "digest" or "pumps" to get the drug out of the cell. That the genetic make up before and after is different is clear from looking at the genes.

It is not, will one day, after it is proven. First of all , nothing in science is ever proven in a final way. It is always open to new data. That you clearly don't understand this concept by talking about "if evolution is proven" really puts the lie to you saying you have studied science. That said, there are degrees of certainty. E.g. Newton's laws of motion will likely (99.999099% likely) remain viable. Evolution is already at that level . If you aren't aware of why then get aware. I really can't help you any further. I believe Dawkins is quite accurate when he says: You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.

You seem quite sane so it only leaves uneducated (on this subject). So, I give up. You obviously don't really know much about the subject. We have all offered you resources to improve your knowledge. Use them to learn, don't use them and keep your incorrect ideas. Doesn't really matter to me as long as you don't try to push creationism in to my child's science classroom.

[zeemike]

28. That is not evolution but selective breeding

If it were evolution they would turn the cancer cells into something else.
Selective breeding has been around for thousands of years but it has yet to turn a dog into a cat.
But don't trouble yourself with my lack of faith on this subject, because I don't worry much about the lack of faith that you have in the existence of a spiritual realm. With your lack of knowledge and experience on spiritual things you could not possibly understand. And I detect no willingness to even think about it on your part.
I believe (yes as an act of faith) that we will all know the truth some day and it will set us free from the necessity of banging against each other over things that do not matter.

[PublicWrath]

30. Do you believe that evolution and belief in a spiritual realm are

irreconcilable?

[zeemike]

35. Not at all

And in fact it (the spiritual realm) must be understood before we can come to any unified theory that works.

[trotsky]

58. The spiritual realm can be understood

once it can be detected.

Up to this very moment, no evidence for a spiritual realm has ever been found.

Do you have some?

[zeemike]

61. Yes I do

But it is not transferable to you.
But there is hints to it's existence and some day it will be detected and understood.

[trotsky]

65. Okey dokey.

But there is hints to it's existence and some day it will be detected and understood.

The same might be said regarding your sanity.

[WindRavenX]

31. wrong

You said: f it were evolution they would turn the cancer cells into something else.

Individuals do not evolve-- only populations. Evolution is nothing more than the selection of certain alleles of specific genes. In a lab I worked at, I had a population of E.coli that contained both non-susceptible bacteria to penicillin and susceptible bacteria. I placed the colony on a plate containing penicillin. By doing this, I caused only bacteria with the gene that incurred resistance to the antibiotic would be able to reproduce; take this principal over hundreds of thousands and millions of years, a given population would have a very high allele frequency for the resistance to penicillin. Individuals do not evolve though-- only the populations.

[zeemike]

34. Well that is interesting

But that is a single cell. now we are talking a bout very complex structures when we talk about say a fish.
The single cells that make up scales must change to something else and so must many different cells and it would have to be quite quickly. It is a whole different thing.

[WindRavenX]

39. no it's not a SINGLE cell

It's the whole entire population. And it's not different-- this principle is the same for every population of organisms on earth.

[zeemike]

42. An entire population of single celled animals

As opposed to an animal that has billions of different cells that must all be changed in there population to make a different animal.

[trotsky]

50. You really need to stop.

You have no knowledge of the very basics necessary to understand evolution.

You do realize that even the most complex multicellular organism starts as just ONE cell, right?

And that all the billions of different cells in such an organism all have the SAME DNA?

I find it hilarious and very telling that the people who criticize evolution the most are the ones who understand it the least.

[zeemike]

56. Yes I understand all of that

So just let me ask a question of you to see how much you know?
In that single cell egg there are half the cromazones and the sperm makes up the other half and life begins, Tell me how...The cell divides and makes a copy of itself tell me how that is done. are all the chemicals to make the chain there in the cell itself or does it import that material or make it? If it is make in the cell by what process does that happen. Does that cell have a brain or a mini computer that is programed to make all that happen?
And that is just the beguing we need to go much deeper than that to really get at it.
To put a point on it again...We don;t know nearly enough to reach any conclusion about things of this universe, and to accept any of them as absolute truth is an act of faith.

[trotsky]

57. LOL

Step away from the keyboard, dude.

If you could spell chromosome, I'd take you seriously.

I think you accidentally wandered into the Science forum. You might want to head over to one of the religious forums where you'd feel more comfortable.

[WindRavenX]

60. cromasomes?

I think I just died a little inside. :cry:

[zeemike]

64. Well;l if it helps I can misspell other words too

But my answer is the same as to Crotchety Frog so I will just paste it here;

But this is not an agenda on my part because I have participated in many Religious and none religious forms in the past and in reality have said all that I wanted to say, and sometimes had to repeat it.
I jumped in here because to tell the truth i was feeling depressed about the way things are going politically, and how the democrats are so easily divide by things like this.
On the other side the the Rethugs that are atheist do not hate or flame the Fundies but support them even if the laugh under there breath at the notions they have. And in that unity lies there strength and they know it
The Democrats need to know that the religious among them are not the stupid ones and if not support them at least not insult them at some intersection like this.

[trotsky]

67. Oh, the Repuke atheists & fundies have it out just as much as we do.

I've seen more than a few vicious flamewars when snooping around at FR.

The Democrats need to know that the religious among them are not the stupid ones

I know that. Most non-believing Democrats know that. The stupid ones are the ones who refuse to learn about scientific theories before they bash them and promote religious creationism.

[zeemike]

69. Just look at the first 4 or 5 post on this thread

Who is bashing who? I got in because it was not about the lung fish.

[trotsky]

70. You were specifically admiring the Republicans for not bickering.

But I pointed out to you that they do indeed bicker.

And "Intelligent Design" is something that should be ridiculed, no matter who's offering it up.

[zeemike]

71. Perhaps they do

But they don't ridicule the fundies to make them seem like they do not belong to the party, and want to vote with us.
Do you have a complete list of all the things you feel should be ridiculed so that we might know what to think about and what to avoid?
Like perhaps "Worlds in Collision" or "The memory of water" L am sure the list of the forbidden is long in your mind.
See how easy it is to lash out, and how hard it is to come together when thoughts and ideas can be valued or devalued so easily? Someone secure in there belief system can not be bothered by such ideas that contradict them.
So it doesn't bother if you insult me, but it does bother you.

[zeemike]

62. Well at least you did not say that I need to BE stopped

And generally it could be true that the ones the criticize the most understand the least, but the opposite could be true if the theory being criticized is flawed,

[EST]

29. Not to pile on, but we know, to a very precise degree,

the details and characteristics of electron flow. Contrary to common "knowledge" we now have recording devices wherein we line up electrons, one at a time, adjust their orientation and spin, and read that spin as zeroes or ones and plug the whole thing into your computer. This is aging technology, at this point.
The field of spintronics has even produced a method whereby we can take a piece of material, put a hole in it, run a carefully controlled current through it and control which electrons flow around which side of the hole, how many, how fast, and by a cross flow (two controlled electron paths, at right angles to each other, if we wish) use it as a memory or logic device.
We know one hell of a lot about current flow, and by its being recreatable and provable, it becomes science, not an article of faith.
Point two, a theory of evolution is actually quite useful, but I can't quite figure out just what a creationist hypothesis might be useful for, although it could be an interesting study.

[zeemike]

37. Yes and that is why electron theory is so useful

But it is still considered a theory because we really do not have enough knowledge to say just what an electron or any other particle really is. And when you get into the details of Atomic theory it gets almost metaphysical (like if you compressed all of the mater of the sun into a ball the size of a grapefruit would it still have distance between the particles?)
But I do not see the usefulness of ether, and i think just because so much time is spent on trying to prove one or the other without sufficient knowledge it just distracts us and divides us more.

[Odin2005]

47. WTF? that evolution occurs is OBVIOUS to anyone...

...who knows anything about molecular biology, population genetics, and paleontology. Evolution MUST occur because it is an emergent property of a system that exists in a changing enviroment and has an replication system that has occasional errors (that is, mutations and selection pressure).

[Meldread]

55. Evolution is easily proven. It is not a theory it is a fact.

So many people get hung up on the word "theory" when they really don't understand what it means in a scientific context at all. They see the word "theory" and automatically believe it means it is a guess. That is not true. The word theory in science takes on many meanings, all of which depend on context, but in the case of Evolution it takes on the meaning of something that is constantly expanding and growing as time goes on. It means that while we understand HOW it works, we may not understand EVERYTHING about it. For example, tomorrow new knowledge could come forth that shows animals making their way onto land MUCH earlier than we thought. It does not disprove evolution, it only modifies our understanding of it.

We KNOW evolution exists, not out of belief, not out of faith, but because the process of Evolution can be observed. Look at how bacteria are evolving to become immune to penicillin. Look at domesticated animals. Humans created them through the process of evolution, even before we fully understood evolution or what we were doing. We simply saw desirable traits in such animals and bred them with other animals with similar or the same traits. We did the same with our food. Grain and Wheat were all weeds at one point in time, weeds that we cultivated and improved through the process of evolution. Take this same basic process and expand it over millions of years and you will see how evolution has modified our world.

Evolution is responsible for every living thing on this planet, from the tiniest microbe to us, to trees, to the fish in the water. All living things, in all their diversity, are a product of a single process and that process is known as Evolution. No sooner could you deny the theory of Gravity than you could deny the theory of Evolution. While we may not understand everything there is to know about gravity we cannot deny its presence and its existence, and the same is easily said for evolution. It is simply a fact.

[Occulus]

72. He's repeatedly called your second paragraph "selective breeding"

Totally missing the fact that, yes indeed, that is a cause of evolution in the very line you're selectively breeding.

He's unaware that one cannot do anything but facilitate evolution when one breeds selectively, which only sharply underscores his fundamental lack of understanding of evolution itself.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

32. A few fortunates had the presence of mind to walk back into the

water.... bully for them.

[Johonny]

49. Well I'm convinced

Zeemike doesn't know what he's talking about. On the other hand he appears to have put a lot of thought into it. I suggest he try to understand the difference between Science and Religion. There are many such books written on the subject both from the science side and the religious side. I was taught physics in college by a Franciscan friar who would be amazed to find out he was an atheist for believing in evolution.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. I'm wondering if this particular find

is being seen as threatening by a certain group of people. We may begin seeing them really come out of the woodwork over this. I kind of would hate seeing the Science forum turn into a subsidiary of the Religion/Theology forum. I long for the day when people stop seeing scientific discoveries as threats to their religious beliefs.

[zeemike]

54. Like wise as well

I look forward to the time when religious belief does not threaten scientific discovery.

But if you want a pure science forum scrubbed of any heresy you are welcome to it and I am gone.

[trotsky]

66. Religious belief threatens scientific discovery?

Holy mackerel, you couldn't have that any more backwards.

[zeemike]

53. he was an atheist for believing in evolution.

I never said that nor did I imply it in anything I said.
But did it ever occur to you that you might not know what I am talking about? that is some times the case when you jump to one before you understand what is said. And you are correct to say I have put a lot of thought to it, because science and spirituality has always been my interests For the last 30 years and I have no conflicts by holding them both to the same esteem as a serious study. And I see truth coming from both science and spirituality and one will need to understand both in order to figure things out.
But just because I see thing differently from you don't think for a moment that I am your enemy in the political world or elsewhere.There is no need to flame each other.