Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fetus' Feet Show Fish, Reptile Vestiges
Discovery News ^ | May 18, 2006 | Jennifer Viegas

Posted on 05/20/2006 6:02:56 PM PDT by Al Simmons

Fetus' Feet Show Fish, Reptile Vestiges By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

May 18, 2006 — The feet of human embryos taking shape in the womb reveal links to prehistoric fish and reptiles, a new study finds.

Human feet may not look reptilian once babies emerge from the womb, but during development the appendages appear similar to prehistoric fish and reptiles. The finding supports the theory that mammalian feet evolved from ancient mammal-like reptiles that, in turn, evolved from fish.

It also suggests that evolution -- whether that of a species over time or the developmental course of a single organism -- follows distinct patterns.

In this case, the evolution of mammalian feet from fish fins to four-legged reptiles to four-limbed mammals to human feet appears to roughly mirror what happens to a maturing human embryo.

"Undoubtedly there are clear parallels between the mammal-like reptilian foot and the human foot," said Albert Isidro, an anthropologist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain and lead author of the study, which appeared in the journal The Foot.

Isidro and colleague Teresa Vazquez made the determination after analyzing fossils of a number of mammal-like reptiles that lived from 75 to 360 million years ago. The scientists also studied fossils of osteolepiform fish, which appear to be half fish and half reptilian. These fish lived 400 million years ago and had lungs, nostrils and four fins located where limbs would later be found in four-footed reptiles and mammals.

In 33-day-old human embryos, the scientists observed "the outline of a lower extremity in the form of a fin, similar to that seen in osteolepiform fishes." As the embryo continued to develop, the researchers focused their attention on two foot bones: the calcaneous, or heel bone, and the talus, which sits between the heel and the lower leg.

At 54 days of gestation, these two bones sit next to each other as they did within the reptile herbivore Bauria cynops, which lived around 260 million years ago. This ancient reptile had flat, crushing teeth and mammalian features.

At eight and a half weeks of gestation, the researchers found the two embryonic foot bones resemble those seen in the Diademodon vegetarian dinosaur, which lived around 230 million years ago.

"We can tell that the embryo is half way between the reptiles and the mammals (at this stage)," Isidro told Discovery News.

The two foot bones continue to develop until, at nine weeks, they resemble that of placental mammals as they emerged 80 million years ago.

This development of feet in the human embryo mirrors how the foot evolved over millions of years beginning with fish and ending with early mammals, according to the scientists.

Supporting the fish/foot link was the discovery last month of a new species, Tiktaalik roseae, which lived 375 million years ago. It had fish fins and scales, but also limb parts found in four-legged animals.

"Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animals both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said Neil Shubin, professor and chairman of organismal biology at the University of Chicago and co-author of a related paper in the journal Nature.

H. Richard Lane, director of sedimentary geology and paleobiology at the National Science Foundation, said, "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil ‘Rosetta Stones’ for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone: fish to land-roaming tetrapods (four limbed animals)."

--


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; dinosaurs; evolution; guesstheresnogod; homology; istillthinkgoddoodit; pavlovian; prenataldevelopment; werejustanimalsohno
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-203 next last
To: tongue-tied
sorry...in my post "bird" should be replaced by "fish". And still....so what? We could actually replace human embryo with marsupial offspring fecal matter...and yet the science seems to be junk.

I never claimed to be smart...so some science/biology guy explain the significance to me, please?
21 posted on 05/20/2006 6:18:05 PM PDT by tongue-tied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Williams

"The part of the article that is idiotic, and I guess the basis of the "new study," is the attempt to compare fetal development to specific prehistoric fossils. There is no need and no ability to make such a specific comparison."

Thanks. I strongly suspected this. But is the whole premise of the article correct? I'm in my 50s and I remember that when I was a kid this was believed---but I thought it was disproved---but these correlations were found to be coincidental.


22 posted on 05/20/2006 6:18:05 PM PDT by strategofr (H-mentor:"pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"Hillary's Secret War,Poe,p.198)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny...this concept has been
pretty well ruled out, due to poor research and faked
drawing by Ernest Haeckel in the late 1800's or early
1900's...most embryology textbooks do not say that
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" anymore.
Interesting idea...if a developing human fetus(baby) was
fossilized, would the discoverer(s) think that they had found a half-fish, half human, or 1/4 fish, 1/4 reptile, 1/4
lower reptile, 1/4 human?
Another question would be, is this pattern seen in all
organisms?...for instance, does a bird go through
it's development looking like a reptile, or a dinosaur?
Does a horse look like a protohippus in development?
Does a fish go through a jellyfish embryological phase?


23 posted on 05/20/2006 6:18:28 PM PDT by Getready
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

When I was a baby I looked like Winston Churchill.

I neither grew up to become Winston Churchill nor did I have any of his genes.


24 posted on 05/20/2006 6:19:00 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

What BS. The appendages of a growing fetus prove nothing except the fact that babies toes and hands need to grow the fetus doesnt come fully formed from the egg stage.

Neither does a chicken. Crack a fertilised chicken egg and you dont see a rooster with its wattles.

Who thinks up this BS?


25 posted on 05/20/2006 6:19:30 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

===> Placemarker <===
26 posted on 05/20/2006 6:19:39 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

"There were famous illustrations in all the school biology textbooks for many years, showing this kind of fetal development. Most of us probably used one of those textbooks when we were children. They have long been proven to be complete lies."

Thanks. That's what I thought.


27 posted on 05/20/2006 6:20:05 PM PDT by strategofr (H-mentor:"pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"Hillary's Secret War,Poe,p.198)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats

I just knew I evolved from a trombone!


28 posted on 05/20/2006 6:20:55 PM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Those interested in the subject might try their hand at figuring out what species these are.


29 posted on 05/20/2006 6:21:15 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

This is something that Darwin himself noticed. It's one of the more interesting tidbits that I learned in Biology 101.


30 posted on 05/20/2006 6:21:28 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Ontogenic recapitulation is an old theory which has been thoroughly discredited. Of course, that doesn't mean that evolutionary "scientists" are actually going to stop using such a useful fairy tale.


31 posted on 05/20/2006 6:21:57 PM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
This nonsense was exposed for the lie it is a long time ago.

By whom?

32 posted on 05/20/2006 6:22:21 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (Illegal Aliens will take down the Democrats and Republicans and give rise to a new American party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Actually, if you look at a human embryo the head is huge and the body spindly. This is obvious proof that we evolved from space aliens. What other possible explanation could there be? Fish heads aren't huge. Reptilian heads aren't huge. No, it is an obvious connection to large headed, saucer eyed, aliens.
33 posted on 05/20/2006 6:22:24 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

LOL. "Republican Party Reptile" is a great book and a must read. PJ O'Rouke at his best.


34 posted on 05/20/2006 6:22:35 PM PDT by Maynerd (Defeat Bush's "Leave no Mexican Behind" immigration "reform")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

LOL...okay. For some reason I posted to this thread. I needed a tagline?


35 posted on 05/20/2006 6:23:29 PM PDT by tongue-tied (Democrats matter like baby kangaroo poop. Not at all, unless they are in your pouch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
HAECKEL WAS A FRAUD! </sarcasm>

Seriously...

Ontogeny (embryonic development) does not recapture phylogeny (evolution), and thus Haeckel was wrong to say so, and of course, he was wrong to alter these drawings...

However, like anatomy, ontogeny does follow a remarkable progression when you move from species to species in the evolutionary chain.

First, the more similar two species are, and the closer they are in evolutionary history, the more similar their respective ontogeny will be. In most cases, the development of the embryos will be very similar till they diverge at some point in the process.

Second, the more similar two species are, the further to the extent that they can be crossbred:
  1. Will voluntarily mate and produce fertile offspring;
  2. Will produce fertile offspring, but will not usually voluntarily mate;
  3. Will produce infertile offspring;
  4. Can copulate but pregnancy will result in spotaneous abortion;
  5. Fertilization cannot happen at all.

Haeckel was saying that at some point a baby will turn into a reptile, then a bird, and so on. That, of course, is wrong. But, it is also true that ontogeny has remarkable "leftovers" and insights into our evolutionary history, and this article is one example.
36 posted on 05/20/2006 6:23:59 PM PDT by Seamoth (Hemocyanin, chlorophyll, and hemoglobin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
<"Who thinks up this BS?"

Panicking darwinist mind control freaks, alarmed at the fact that more and more people are seeing through the evo-bunk.

37 posted on 05/20/2006 6:25:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Yeah, and when I was a kid, my brothers said I looked like a toad! This means about as much................


38 posted on 05/20/2006 6:27:18 PM PDT by proudmilitarymrs (It's not immigration, it's an invasion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Let me guess, they are all animals that have heads, bodies, and appendages.

Care to look at 5 day old tree sprouts and guess species?


39 posted on 05/20/2006 6:27:53 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The scientists also studied fossils of osteolepiform fish, which appear to be half fish and half reptilian.

They mean half fish and half amphibian, of course.

40 posted on 05/20/2006 6:27:54 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-203 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson