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

Skip to comments.

Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much
Science Daily.com ^ | October 26, 2006 | University of Chicago Medical Center

Posted on 10/26/2006 11:28:10 AM PDT by aculeus

Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today's lampreys as "living fossils" since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years.

Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today's lampreys as "living fossils" since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years. The scientists describe the new find in the article, "A lamprey from the Devonian of South Africa," to be published in the Oct. 26, 2006, issue of Nature. (Image courtesy of University of Chicago Medical Center) Chicago's Michael Coates, PhD, joined Witwatersrand's Bruce Rubidge, PhD, and graduate student and lead author Rob Gess to describe the new find in the article, "A lamprey from the Devonian of South Africa" to be published in the Oct. 26, 2006, issue of Nature.

"Apart from being the oldest fossil lamprey yet discovered, this fossil shows that lampreys have been parasitic for at least 360 million years," said Rubidge, director of the Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research.

Lampreys are long, eel-like parasites that attach themselves to and feed on other fish. Of the 46,000 known species of vertebrates, lampreys and hagfish are the only surviving jawless vertebrates. Lampreys are the most "primitive" of the vertebrates, meaning that they are the least changed from the first vertebrates. Besides lacking jaws, lampreys have no paired pectoral and pelvic fins, and no scales.

"This fossil changes how we look at lampreys today," said Coates, associate professor of organismal biology and anatomy. "They're very ancient, very primitive animals, yet with highly specialized feeding habits."

It reveals that the anatomical evolution of lampreys is more conservative than scientists thought, Coates added. Although they've gotten slightly longer, they specialized early and successfully and thus appeared to have stayed much the same for the past 360 million years.

"This discovery is a monument to the dedication and passion of [Gess], who has spent many months patiently excavating and unearthing the elusive secrets from the prehistoric past," Rubidge said.

Gess found the new specimen, Priscomyzon riniensis, 18 months ago in an ancient estuary in Grahamstown, South Africa. Preserved showing the underside, the fossil measures less than 2 inches long and reveals a set of 14 teeth surrounding the mouth that is proportionately larger than its descendents today.

"The most striking feature of Priscomyzon is its large oral disc, edged with a soft outer lip, supported by an annular cartilage, and surrounding a circular mouth," the authors wrote. "This is the first clear evidence of a Palaeozoic lamprey with an oral disc."

According to the scientists, this find greatly adds to what was a severely limited lamprey fossil record and, for the first time, places the origin of modern lamprey morphology deep within the Palaeozoic period. It adds essential new detail to the emerging and changing picture of early vertebrate evolution.

Until now, the lamprey fossil record included only those that show a side view but reveal little of the gill basket and feeding apparatus. However, earlier this year, Nature reported on a freshwater lamprey fossil found in the Jehol biota of China (Inner Mongolia) from the Early Cretaceous period (about 125 million years ago).

The newly discovered South African fossil shows that these anatomically specialized fish are "holdovers" from ancient marine ecosystems, Coates said. Obviously exceptional survivors, these animals predate the advent of modern fish and have survived at least four major extinction events.

"There are few representatives of these early branches in vertebrate evolution that are still around today," Coates said, which is why so much scientific attention has been paid to lampreys. Although highly specialized in their own right, these primitive animals are used as surrogate ancestors for comparative research on living jawed vertebrates.

"It gives us a calibration point," Coates said. "We study lampreys because, in many respects, they're so primitive. They never had jaws, they never had [true] teeth, they never had fins, they never had limbs. Lampreys provide a glimpse of conditions early in vertebrate evolutionary history."

Because lampreys do not have bone or any substantial cartilage, they are extremely rare as fossils. This fossil not only reveals a nearly complete soft tissue impression, but it also pushes back their fossil record another 35 million years.

"These are pretty insubstantial animals," Coates said. "Lacking a boney skeleton, they rot down, leaving no hard parts, like a skull or ribs. So if a fossil site is discovered that yields impressions of the delicate remains of these animals, then this site needs to be explored thoroughly for other examples of exceptional preservation."

The scientists will continue to sort through much of the indeterminate material that is emerging from the ongoing dig.

Nearly 50 species of lampreys are found today in temperate rivers and coastal seas. Some species live in fresh water for their entire lives, but most are anadromous, hatching in fresh water, migrating to the ocean to grow and mature, and migrating back to fresh water to spawn and reproduce.

When adult lampreys return to fresh water, they stop feeding during winter and spawn the following spring. Eggs hatch after approximately three weeks and become blind larvae, called ammocoetes. After four to seven years, the ammocoetes metamorphose into juvenile lampreys called macropthalmia, which migrate out to the ocean and become parasitic adult lampreys, living just a year or two and growing up to 2 feet long.

Abundant in the Northeast United States, lampreys have a sucker-like mouth with a ring of cartilage that supports the rim of the mouth. It fastens on to a living fish with its teeth, rasps at the host's soft tissues with its piston-like tongue, produces strands of mucus to trap the food and feeds on the body fluids. A fish attacked by lampreys may be severely injured or even killed.

Copyright © 1995-2006 ScienceDaily LLC


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: DoctorMichael; taxesareforever
"First: They represent the evolutionary link between the Invertebrate and Vertebrate Phyla since they have a primitive (cartilage) backbone. Second: A further common ancestor went on to become the sharks and rays, which eventually evolved into fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, man."

And, once again, I ask, where is the evidentiary links which support the contention that different species of animals "evolved" from completely different earlier species of animals? The Zoology course I took in college certainly didn't provide such evidence, and noone on any of the threads from FR has either. The most that biologists have been able to say is that they "think" that is what happended, not "we know that is what happened".

51 posted on 10/26/2006 2:10:33 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HeadOn
I've seen in this thread the one common theme I've seen from all evolutionists - no matter what the fossil record shows, it supports evolution.

That's because the actual fossil records reflects a tree of life that has in fact evolved. Every physics experiment we do likewise supports the conservation of momentum, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

If there were events in the real world that violated evolution--say, a creature that was half mammal, half fish, or fossils occurring out of order in well-dated strata--then the theory evolution would conflict with the evidence. We don't see that in the real fossil record, however.

52 posted on 10/26/2006 2:11:43 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HeadOn
Ok, I'll warn you now so you can call me names ahead of time - I'm going to post and run, because I can't strand my son at school. Here's my comment: I've seen in this thread the one common theme I've seen from all evolutionists - no matter what the fossil record shows, it supports evolution.

First of all, I'm not going to call you names. I find the pride and the name-calling more prevalent among the creationists, so I'll leave that to them.

Second, I would like to refine your comment slightly to reflect that state of things more accurately:

You said, "no matter what the fossil record shows, it supports evolution." That's probably how it appears to someone who is dead-set against evolution as a theory. A more accurate version of your statement would be, "short of divine intervention, the only thing that could explain the wide variety that we see in the fossil record would be a process based in evolution. However, since the fossil record is sketchy, we must continue to refine this theory as new data emerges." It's an exciting pursuit, because every once in a while it does get thrown a curve, and it forces the theorists to refine their suppositions and sometimes change them. The pursuit is for a cohesive theory that will account for the variety, and to do that, we must constantly start with the premise that evolution is involved, or else all we have left is divine intervention. Who knows? Maybe God was behind all of it. It's the mechanism that's fascinating.

53 posted on 10/26/2006 2:18:10 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living insult to islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

I was hoping you'd elaborate on your thoughts. I shouldn't have expected as much.


54 posted on 10/26/2006 2:21:16 PM PDT by Boxen (Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

Most people would have seen that my thoughts were very clear.


55 posted on 10/26/2006 2:24:50 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

I hate lampreys. I hate lampreys (and I hate who posted those pictures.)

I hated lampreys from the first time I accidentally saw one in my high school biology book and screamed in class.

Hell is full of lampreys (and leftists. Or maybe I'm just being redundant about parasitic creatures with no backbones.)


56 posted on 10/26/2006 2:29:24 PM PDT by Simplemines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Evolution needs to get its stories straight. Constantly revising is not an answer."

This isn't a revision. It's known, for example, that modern sharks have also remained largely unchanged for many millions of years.


57 posted on 10/26/2006 2:32:44 PM PDT by Bones75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Can you spell:

Coelacanth

58 posted on 10/26/2006 2:32:52 PM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

"Only a few of an organisms genes specify its shape."

I'd have to just take your word on that, but I suspect it would be in a "this is science's best guess at this point" kind of declaration.

"Most of the genes control the detailed composition of proteins. There could have been wholesale changes at the cellular level, but you'd never know it from the fossil record."

But does this really amount to a hill of beans, when other creatures have changes radically, and wholesale, as one would assume they should. It would make more sense to me, in an evolutionary sense, if the lamprey were extinct or changed significantly. Would it not to you?

Just curious.


59 posted on 10/26/2006 2:38:41 PM PDT by mutley ("I read the Koran, and didn't find anything of value in it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

This makes the lampray very much more in tune with Earth's long term environment than any other vertebrates species. That, in Darwinian terms means they are the "fittest". All the others were "less fit" ~ that is, they were evolutionary failures!


60 posted on 10/26/2006 2:38:57 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
P"Yes, but since the world was created 5,000 years ago, you would not expect that it's evolved much."

Actuaally 6004 years just last Tuesday at 9:00 AM

Or so I'm told...:)

61 posted on 10/26/2006 2:41:52 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Simplemines
Do not click here if you have a mortal fear of lampreys.
62 posted on 10/26/2006 2:42:47 PM PDT by Boxen (Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Most people would have seen that my thoughts were very clear."

Uhhh, no

63 posted on 10/26/2006 2:46:07 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

"Only a few of an organisms genes specify its shape. Most of the genes control the detailed composition of proteins. There could have been wholesale changes at the cellular level, but you'd never know it from the fossil record."

I don't disagree with that. I seem to tread a road less traveled in this type of thread. To me, there are aspects of the TOE that are undeniable if being intellectually honest with one's self, but there are other aspects, that I think are indeed suspicious.

"The only really surprising result from this discovery is that an ecological niche has remained so stable for 360,000,000 years."

That is shocking to me. And I have to try and surmise, that there is something wrong with this picture.


64 posted on 10/26/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by mutley ("I read the Koran, and didn't find anything of value in it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Then you must not be included in "most".


65 posted on 10/26/2006 3:00:04 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

You failed to explain the logical leap you made from a lamprey, acted on by almost no outside pressure to adapt and evolve, to a human, probably the species subject to the most stresses and outside forces to adapt and evolve.


66 posted on 10/26/2006 3:04:11 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
we must continue to refine this theory as new data emerges.

yea..never admit its a hypothesis..

"A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. " A theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation"

67 posted on 10/26/2006 3:07:27 PM PDT by xhrist ("You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. " - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

"almost no outside pressure to adapt and evolve"

THAT...is one HUGE assumption! And spanning 360,000,000 years! Am I to just take your word on that? LOL


68 posted on 10/26/2006 3:13:06 PM PDT by mutley ("I read the Koran, and didn't find anything of value in it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I thought all vertebrates by definition had back bones.

No. Not necessarily bones. They all have a vertebral column, which is not necessarily (and isn't) bony in the most primitive vertebrates.

The largest subgroup within the vertebrates is the craniata, which are animals with a skull. The lamprey is the most primitive of the craniates, with the least developed (and cartiliginous rather than bony) vetrebral column. The only more primitive vertebrate is the hagfish, which (IIRC) is the only living vertebrate that is NOT also a member of craniata. It has cartiliginous plates in it's head, like the lamprey, but unlike the lamprey it lacks a true braincase.

Back to the vertebral column, here's a diagram and discussion I found at The Tree of Life:

Characteristics

The Vertebrata have all the characteristics of the Craniata but share, in addition, a number of unique characteristics which do not occur in hagfishes (Hyperotreti). These characteristics are:
69 posted on 10/26/2006 3:18:20 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mutley
"Am I to just take your word on that? LOL"

Yes.

It's a well adapted, parasite that feeds on blood. As long as there are other creatures with blood (and no hands with which to remove it), the lamprey will eat. Any population of lampreys that were acted on by significant forces may well have evolved into something else but the basic design of the lamprey and it's niche is well protected. So long as creatures with blood live in the sea.

70 posted on 10/26/2006 3:22:59 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
In contrast to the pitifully few lampray species, mosquitos, also blood suckers, have proliferated as few other animals ever have.

They are everywhere!

Admit it, the lampray is the perfect animal ~ untouched by the forces of Natural Selection ~ beyond mere statistics.

71 posted on 10/26/2006 3:29:15 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

"So long as creatures with blood live in the sea."

I'm sorry, but you should have said, so long as creatures exist with skin, or scales, or something else, have existed which the lamprey's blood sucking equipment can access, have lived in the sea. Any type of statement like this which proposes to cover 360,000,000 years of evolution, is quite suspicious to me.


72 posted on 10/26/2006 3:31:39 PM PDT by mutley ("I read the Koran, and didn't find anything of value in it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

exactly, although it's more like 6000.


73 posted on 10/26/2006 3:34:00 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
You failed to explain the logical leap you made from a lamprey, acted on by almost no outside pressure to adapt and evolve, to a human,

Ah, did you read my post correctly? I don't believe in evolution so why would I even suggest that there was a "leap from lamprey to humans"?

74 posted on 10/26/2006 3:46:48 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
You failed to explain the logical leap you made from a lamprey, acted on by almost no outside pressure to adapt and evolve, to a human, probably the species subject to the most stresses and outside forces to adapt and evolve.

If I may speculate, I believe that the failure is a direct result of there being absolutely no logical basis for taxesareforever's claim.
75 posted on 10/26/2006 3:48:38 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me


Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today's lampreys as "living fossils" since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years
Another one of those remarkably well-preseved specimens. You'd think they'd run out of amazement when so many are found remarkably well-preserved.
"This fossil changes how we look at lampreys today," said Coates, associate professor of organismal biology and anatomy. "They're very ancient, very primitive animals, yet with highly specialized feeding habits."
So they were complex from "primitive" times. Hm. A primitive, highly-specialized critter.
It reveals that the anatomical evolution of lampreys is more conservative than scientists thought, Coates added. Although they've gotten slightly longer, they specialized early and successfully and thus appeared to have stayed much the same for the past 360 million years.
Wow. Stayed much the same. I guess parasites don't have any reason to economize their habits or evolve to suit their needs. They've achieved evolutionary perfection.

This is what? The fourth or fifth living fossil found this year? From the records, it looks as if we've been finding roughly one a month.

French Scientists Find 'Living Fossil' (May 2006)

Retired FSU professor captures a 'living fossil' on video (June 2006)

"Living fossil" discovered in SW China (July 2006)

New mouse find is 'living fossil' (October 2006)

See also Wikipedia's List of Living Fossils
76 posted on 10/26/2006 4:09:57 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Ew. Pucker up.


77 posted on 10/26/2006 4:11:29 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

'Genesis = Science Textbook' ping.


78 posted on 10/26/2006 4:15:38 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

So the eel hasn't changed in 360 million years but apes turned into men. Boy, evolution sure is fickle. Or else its all bull crap.


79 posted on 10/26/2006 4:26:32 PM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
In contrast to the pitifully few lampray species, mosquitos, also blood suckers, have proliferated as few other animals ever have.

It appears by the most common classification schemes there are about 40 species of lamprey distributed among 9 or 10 genera and 3 subfamilies, lampreys themselves collectively constituting a family. This makes lampreys about as diverse as horses (that is including horses, zebras, donkeys, asses, etc). I wouldn't call that "pitifully few" species.

Yes, there are far more species of mosquitoes. But then, as you probably already know, insects in general are far, far, far more diverse in numbers of species than animals, and the distinction would be just about as striking in the case of any comparable analogy between animal and insect.

lampray is the perfect animal ~ untouched by the forces of Natural Selection ~ beyond mere statistics

I'm no expert on the critters, but at least at first blush I don't think I'd call all of the variation in living lamprey species "mere statistics". I think the differences in adaptation between living life-long in fresh water, versus a life cycle transitioning from fresh water to the ocean and back to fresh water, and even among the sea going lampreys some that are merely coastal versus others that appear to range across vast distances, and a range of (adult) feeding habits from pure parasite to pure predator, are at least a little bit "beyond mere statistics".

80 posted on 10/26/2006 4:28:22 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
So the eel hasn't changed in 360 million years

Although eels are superficially similar to lampreys, in fact they are an entirely different creatures. In fact, as ray-finned fishes, eels are no more closely related to a jawless fish like the lamprey than is any other jawed animal (including humans).

81 posted on 10/26/2006 4:37:17 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Still, the current versions look remarkably like the earliest versions ~ and the implications are astounding.

This is the PERFECT ANIMAL ~

82 posted on 10/26/2006 4:43:49 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

In fact you are correct, however, everyone, I mean everyone that I know of in N. Calif. calls them eels, and always have. So take "eel" out of my statement and insert "lamprey" if it makes you feel better.


83 posted on 10/26/2006 4:44:28 PM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: freedomlover
Correction: Bill Clinton would hit on it.
84 posted on 10/26/2006 4:48:54 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Evolution needs to get its stories straight. Constantly revising is not an answer."

Creation Safari said it best....

"Evolution produces fast predators and prey, except when it produces slow ones. It leads to bigger individuals, except when it prefers smaller ones. It generates colorful birds and dull ones, birds that can fly faster and farther, and birds that lose flight altogether. It makes tasty fruit to attract animals and poisonous fruit to repel them. Males are explained to be both smart or dumb by evolutionary theory; females are choosy but really driven by their hormones. Altruism is really disguised selfishness, but selfishness leads to the overall good. Through evolution emerge showy patterns and camouflage, opacity and transparency, attraction and repulsion, loudness and quietness, high body mass and low density, change and stasis, group behavior and solitude, and opposite strategies for survival. Since evolutionary theory is jack of all trades, it is master of none. Some would not even honor such a slippery concept with the rank of jack. Joker, maybe. "

85 posted on 10/26/2006 5:20:33 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Hello, gargantuan straw man. Haven't I seen you somewhere before? Like, every single other crevo thread?


86 posted on 10/26/2006 5:23:45 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk

I am curious. Do you have an argument of substance to offer?


87 posted on 10/26/2006 5:25:49 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Yowzers...no wonder they didn't change...who'd want to mess with something like that!


88 posted on 10/26/2006 6:33:36 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

What's so successful if it seems a dead end? Some evolution.


89 posted on 10/26/2006 7:01:56 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
What's so successful if it seems a dead end? Some evolution.

Lampreys succesfully pass on their genes to future generations. That's the definition of an evolutionary success. The fact that they've had to evolve so little over so long is a sign of how succesfully they've been able to fit their niche.

90 posted on 10/26/2006 7:05:51 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Coelecanth still King of All Living Fossils in my book.


91 posted on 10/26/2006 7:06:08 PM PDT by Ruddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Well wow. If I had known that I wouldn't have made my comments. NOT!!!

Just trying to politely correct some misconceptions that seem to be rampant around here.

Hope this helps.

92 posted on 10/26/2006 7:06:53 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Like I said: An evolutionary dead end.


93 posted on 10/26/2006 7:14:38 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: blam; SunkenCiv

ping


94 posted on 10/26/2006 7:19:30 PM PDT by Ciexyz (Satisfied owner of a 2007 Toyota Corolla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

They specialized early and managed to survive. Impressive!


95 posted on 10/26/2006 7:21:21 PM PDT by Ciexyz (Satisfied owner of a 2007 Toyota Corolla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Like I said: An evolutionary dead end.

That is not an accurate assesment. An evolutionary "dead end" would be a papulation that is unable to reproduce in sustainable numbers within their environment. As lampreys are still extant, they are clearly not a 'dead end'.
96 posted on 10/26/2006 7:22:39 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
An evolutionary dead end.

No, an evolutionary "dead end" is an extinction. There are 40 extant species of lampreys in 9 genera, common in temperate zones in most parts of the world.

97 posted on 10/26/2006 7:22:52 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
.........The Zoology course I took in college college certainly didn't provide........

You were cheated!

I'd ask for my money back.

98 posted on 10/26/2006 8:02:31 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz

Amazing that so many other "creatures" have failed to do the same. Oh, no, wait, there are other "creatures" which have shown little to no "evolution" over geologic periods of time.


99 posted on 10/26/2006 8:45:09 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

No, I was edumacated, unlike so many others on these threads. Plus, I'm able to use the intelligence God gave me to figure out what to pay attention to and what to discount.


100 posted on 10/26/2006 8:46:29 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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