Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition
The New York Times ^ | April 5, 2006 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted on 04/05/2006 11:22:49 AM PDT by planetesimal

NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.

Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; fish; fossils; palaeontology; transitionalspecies
Also look here for the original work: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/edsumm/e060406-01.html
1 posted on 04/05/2006 11:22:51 AM PDT by planetesimal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: planetesimal
if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, ''you'd probably come up with something like this.''

He'd have to be a pretty Intelligent scientist to Design something like this.

just a joke

2 posted on 04/05/2006 11:27:12 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: planetesimal

Similar but not identical article on the same subject.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1609687/posts


4 posted on 04/05/2006 11:31:25 AM PDT by Daralundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

Ah, my search missed that, thanks.


5 posted on 04/05/2006 11:33:16 AM PDT by planetesimal (All is flux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Daralundy

And still no answer about whether it tasted like fish or chicken.


6 posted on 04/05/2006 11:33:23 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal
Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

Question, how did they know it if they had little evidence? Sounds more like speculation to me if you don't have the evidence.
7 posted on 04/05/2006 11:34:01 AM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal

When facts determined, watch for no retraction...(sic)


8 posted on 04/05/2006 11:35:05 AM PDT by foldspace (Tom Delay is NOT a criminal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight
Question, how did they know it if they had little evidence?

The article says they had little fossile evidence of the link to fish and land animals. I think they probably had other kinds of evidence, like genetics.

9 posted on 04/05/2006 11:37:30 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal

"The researchers have not yet dug up any remains from the hind end of the creature's body, so they don't know exactly what the hind fins and tail might have looked like."

Ok, if they haven't found any remains of the hind end, how do they know it had fins and a tail? Indeed, how do they really know that it was a fish? This will probably turn out to be an extinct species of crocodile, and the scientists will brush this under the rug along with Piltdown man and the rest of their circus sideshow attractions.


10 posted on 04/05/2006 11:44:57 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal
Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

I see how the process works. Result=opinion. Here all along we have been hearing the evos touting evidence=results. Let's see, "scientists have know" but "little evidence"= ? Can't convince me that all the hearsay we hear from scientists is true. That goes for this article also.

11 posted on 04/05/2006 11:46:11 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight
Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

They could deduce and extrapolate from other fossils that it must have happened, but with a gap in the fossil record right where it happened there was only so much they could determine about it. Now that the fossil has shown up, just as predicted, we can learn more about the specifics of how it. The Scientific Process FTW!
12 posted on 04/05/2006 11:46:22 AM PDT by Sofa King (A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

From the article:

Knowing that detail about the transition from fish to land-dweller, she said, ''might help us to unravel why it happened at all. Why did creatures come out of the water and get legs and walk away?''


I wonder why/how they worked that out too. I would like some wings so I don't have to drive to work. Could someone tell me how I can "get" some?


13 posted on 04/05/2006 11:47:38 AM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
When I was a kid, used to catch eels in streams that had tiny legs on their sides--totally useless. Were these land animal evolving towards water animals, or vice versa? Or something else? Also, don't modern day whales have bones in their bodies that used to be legs? Any biology majors out there?
14 posted on 04/05/2006 11:49:08 AM PDT by johnandrhonda (have you hugged your banjo today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight

Wait 5-6 billion years and it will happen automatically :)


15 posted on 04/05/2006 11:49:55 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
i>Wait 5-6 billion years and it will happen automatically :)

Thats not the answer I was looking for. They have a big road construction project going on this summer on my 50 mile commute to work. I have really decided I need to evolve in the next couple of weeks.
16 posted on 04/05/2006 11:53:16 AM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: 7evens

I read this article and I agree it is so funny. I love the part about how these fish just got some legs and walked away. Their faith is how they "know" this happened.


18 posted on 04/05/2006 12:29:12 PM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

The evidence for evolution is pretty circumstanial.

Nobody ever saw one species evolve into another before their eyes.

Nor, for that matter, have most people seen an atom.

But the circumstantial evidence for both is overwhelming.


19 posted on 04/05/2006 1:01:02 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Is there anyone out there who has studied the "walking catfish" that exists today?


20 posted on 04/05/2006 1:06:53 PM PDT by TheOldSchool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheOldSchool

Probably.

Plug in Clarias batrachus into an search engine.

But the walking catfish and this critter have very little in common osteologically.

What the article here does not present is the detailed osteological analysis which has been done on fish of this nature. later primitive amphibians and primitive reptiles
and primitive and modern mammals.

The fossil evidence indicates that if they didn't follow a progressive evolution along the lines we suspect, more or less, the Almighty has decided to play quite a joke on us for no apparent reasons.


21 posted on 04/05/2006 1:32:54 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Wow, evolution threads really bring out the ID folks.

I actually think it's a little endearing when people mention "circumstantial" evidence when they have NO idea what the term actually means. To illustrate, if there's no "direct evidence" of a murder (such as an eyewitness), is it o.k. to convict based on circumstantial evidence such as blood stains on the defendant's clothing, the presence of his fingerprints on a gun or knife, and presence of DNA samples from the defendant on the victim? Sounds sort of convincing to me, but then again, I know what the term "circumstantial" means...

By the way, I assume everyone has "direct" evidence of God's existence to back up this intelligent design hackery. By that, I mean, you have a LIVING person willing to testify that they met/saw/heard from God Almighty Himself. Someone whose believability/sanity we can judge for ourselves. Otherwise, it seems sort of silly to denigrate "circumstantial" evidence when the only evidence you have for your own theory is circumstantial.

(By the way, I believe in God, have FAITH in Him, and fear Him enough not to ascribe an asinine theory like intelligent design to Him.)


22 posted on 04/05/2006 1:57:07 PM PDT by TastyManatees (http://www.tastymanatees.com- R.I.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

I'm not quite sure what intelligent design means.

I believe in God and I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince any jury on earth (except perhaps a Muslim one) that evolution is a fact.

Belief in God and the Bible, and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.


23 posted on 04/05/2006 2:01:49 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal

Artist's conception from MSN version of article.

24 posted on 04/05/2006 4:16:14 PM PDT by labette (Sell your soul to the Devil and he'll throw in the blinders at no additional charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4902784.stm

Good story, I am not sure if this is a related story and easily could have had it's own thread;

Excerpt:

"The first time we saw it, we were amazed - it was really spectacular
Sam Van Wassenbergh, University of Antwerp
Scientists have described a fish that can hunt and catch its prey on land.
The eel catfish, Channallabes apus , is found in the muddy swamps of the tropics of western Africa.

The 30-40cm-long (12-16in) fish is able to propel itself out of the water and bend its head downwards to capture insects in its jaws.

The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from sea to land millions of years ago.

Beetle eater

With a small head and a long, flexible body, C. apus has an eel-like appearance.

The fish's diet provided the scientists with the first clue to its remarkable behaviour - it mainly eats beetles which are found on land.


After an expedition to study the fish in its swampy habitat in Gabon, Africa, the team brought some of the animals back to Belgium for further research.
They placed the fish in a specially designed aquarium with both wet and muddy areas, mimicking C. apus's natural environment.

"We pointed high-speed video cameras towards the place where we had left the prey and waited until the fish was hungry enough to leave the water and catch it," explained Sam Van Wassenbergh, an author on the Nature paper and a biologist from the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

"The first time we saw it, we were amazed - it was really spectacular."

The fish captures its prey by propelling itself onto the shore, raising the front part of its body and bending its head downwards over the insect.


Usually, the fish uses suction to feed underwater; but because air is much less dense than water, the fish needs to employ a new strategy to catch its food."


25 posted on 04/13/2006 9:26:10 PM PDT by roadrunner96
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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