Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Channelling our inner fish, with Neil Shubin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Discovery of new Tiktaalik roseae fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs
Tiktaalik/University of Chicago, Neil Shubin

With Nautilus and Neil Shubin:

Shubin and his team learned from Tiktaalik fossils that the big fish with the flat head had a shoulder, elbow, and wrist composed of the same bones in a human’s upper arm, forearm, and wrist. Tiktaalik used those bones to navigate shallow streams and ponds “and even to flop around on the mudflats along the banks.” Here was the creature from the lagoon that revealed how animals evolved from fish to us.

Interesting presentation.

But Tiktaalik wasn’t the first land-dwelling tetrapod. Trackways have been found from 20 million years earlier:

Tetrapod paleontologist Jenny Clack said their discovery “blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak.” It is perhaps of interest that some fish, even today, routinely spend time out of the water, using primitive lung apparatus and walking on fins, but there is no particular reason to believe that they are on their way to becoming full time tetrapods or land dwellers.

Evolution should mean ancestry, and ancestry doesn’t just mean having body parts analogous to earlier ones. It should mean that we are direct descendants, not just that we make use of the same general idea.

Tiktaalik may well have died out leaving no descendants. We could be descendants of an as-yet-unfound creature that used these body parts quite differently from Tiktaalik.

Such distinctions are likely lost of people who believe vaguely in “evolution” and like to hear inspiring talks about it.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Tiktaalik (Attenborough team’s rendering):

Comments
Piotr:
Oh, you don’t. I’m not surprised.
Why am I not surprised that you can't explain it. IOW you need genetic evidence to be sure.
You must be joking.
No, I am not joking. That genetic evidence is the only way to test the claim that Tiktaalik is a transitional form.
First, we’ll never have direct “genetic evidence” for fossils older that a million years or so.
That isn't what I mean. See comment 2. But thanks for proving your position is untestable and therefor not science.
Secondly, when presented with genetic evidence for relationships between extant species (such a humans, chimps, mice, etc.), you feel free to ignore or deny its obvious implications.
The obvious implication is a common design. That evidence does not relate to the transformations required.
I can only shrug and give up all hope of having a meaningful discussion with science denialists.
You don't seem to know what science is.Joe
June 30, 2014
June
06
Jun
30
30
2014
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PST
I don’t even know what that means.
Oh, you don't. I'm not surprised.
IOW you need genetic evidence to be sure.
You must be joking. First, we'll never have direct "genetic evidence" for fossils older that a million years or so. So what? Do you want this limitation to be a science stopper? Oh, well, of course you do. But researchers do their detective work with the help of whatever evidence they can have, even if it's less direct. Secondly, when presented with genetic evidence for relationships between extant species (such a humans, chimps, mice, etc.), you feel free to ignore or deny its obvious implications. I have little doubt that, if we had Tiktaalik's DNA, you'd do the same. I can only shrug and give up all hope of having a meaningful discussion with science denialists.Piotr
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST
Science isn't about proof. And tracks are evidence for a track-maker. Tetrapod tracks = a tetrapod. Without supporting genetic evidence there isn't any way to test the claim that Tiktaalik was a transitional form.Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST
Who has argued against it. Nobody has said that the tracks are not tetrapods, only that you need fossils before it can be proven. And nobody has ever said that peer review is not without its flaws. But, in general, if a paper is submitted, and supported with adequate logic and evidence (or experimentation) it will be accepted even if the reviewers disagree with the subject or conclusions. But if the paper is presented with poorly presented assumptions, or poorly designed experiments, it will not. .Acartia_bogart
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PST
Acartia_bogart- Evos always use peer-review as if it is the final word, yet here we have evos arguing against it.Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PST
Joe said: "Peer-review says the tracks were tetrapods. Until some other peer-reviewed paper comes along to refute that, it stands. Too bad for you." UD has published numerous opinions criticizing the peer review process (but only when the articles in question run counter to the ID faith), yet here is Joe supporting the peer review process. Cherry picking and quote mining at its best.Acartia_bogart
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PST
Piotr:
Peer-review is a person and tracks are animals, according to Joe.
I don't even know what that means. And if we should use caution wrt tracks then the same holds for fossils. Ya see there really isn't any way of telling how the fossils arrived at the strata they were found. Also without supporting genetic evidence for the alleged transitions there isn't any evidence for it at all. IOW you need genetic evidence to be sure.Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST
Joe:
Peer-review says the tracks were tetrapods.
Peer-review is a person and tracks are animals, according to Joe. I'm not saying that the animals that left the tracks can't have been tetrapods; only that it's hard to be sure on the basis of the tracks alone.
Science doesn’t care about any alleged consensus and Jenny Clack is an expert in this area. Even Shubin followed her leads.
But she [Jennifer Clack] also cautioned against drawing conclusions exclusively on small marks left by animals on the bottom of a muddy surface hundreds of millions of years ago. She said it would be critical to see fossil evidence of the creature that made the footprints before coming to any definitive conclusion on exactly how, when and where vertebrates came to colonize the earth's surface. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6945194/Four-legged-animals-walked-on-earth-18-million-years-earlier-than-previously-thought.html It seems Professor Clack says the same thing I did a moment ago. We need fossils to be sure.Piotr
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST
Evolve:
No, there’s no consensus tetrapods existed when those tracks were made
Science doesn't care about any alleged consensus and Jenny Clack is an expert in this area. Even Shubin followed her leads. And there isn't any evidence that Tiktaalik evolved from finned fish- laugh all you want you have nothing. And no, Tiktaalik wasn't a finned fish. I take it Piotr has never been fishing nor seen a fish...Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PST
Peer-review says the tracks were tetrapods. Until some other peer-reviewed paper comes along to refute that, it stands. Too bad for you. And until you have some genetic evidence to support the alleged transition, Tiktaalik will only look like a transitional form. IOW there is no way to test the claim that Tiktaalik was a transitional form.Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST
Joe:
Evolve- tetrapod tracks are made by tetrapods. And yes, scientists are sure they are tetrapod tracks.
By no means. The alleged digit marks are dubious. Until there are some bones to match the tracks, we can only say they look like something made by tetrapods. I would say the animals moved in shallow water, half-swimming, rather than walking on dry land (there are to tail or belly impressions).
And no one said the tracks invalidate Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik just wasn’t what Shubin was looking for. Tiktaalik looks like a transitional form but that is about it. There isn’t any evidence that it evolved from a finned fish.
But Tiktaalik itself was a finned fish. Its fins had wrist-like bones and joints, but no digits -- just rays. And Tiktaalik wasn't terrestrial. Again, "transitional" doesn't mean "directly ancestral". Most taxa in the history of life have been evolutionary dead ends. The family tree has lots of side branches and Tiktaalik was one of them. Close to the branch that leads to us, but no more than that.Piotr
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PST
///scientists are sure they are tetrapod tracks./// No, there's no consensus tetrapods existed when those tracks were made. For that, fossils have to turn up. The earliest fossil evidence for tetrapods is the 365 million year old Acanthostega, which comes after Tiktaalik. ///There isn’t any evidence that it evolved from a finned fish./// Haha! Tiktaalik IS INDEED a lobe-finned fish that swam and behaved like a fish, but also had futuristic features that would later be inherited by tetrapods. Specimens like Eusthenopteron precede Tiktaalik by about 10 million years and have more ancestral features. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no denying hard facts.Evolve
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PST
Evolve- tetrapod tracks are made by tetrapods. And yes, scientists are sure they are tetrapod tracks. And no one said the tracks invalidate Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik just wasn't what Shubin was looking for. Tiktaalik looks like a transitional form but that is about it. There isn't any evidence that it evolved from a finned fish.Joe
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST
///But Tiktaalik wasn’t the first land-dwelling tetrapod. Trackways have been found from 20 million years earlier/// Poor thinking, as always! For one, tracks are not the same thing as fossils. Unless tetrapod fossils turn up from the same age, one can't be sure those were tetrapod tracks. Now, even if those were tetrapod tracks, that doesn't invalidate Tiktaalik in any manner. Because ancestors don't give way to descendents in a linear fashion; both can coexist side-by-side for a long time. For eg: Your grandparents often live for several years alongside you! That doesn't mean you didn't come from them! Tiktaalik unambiguously shows transitional features between fish and tetrapods like ourselves. It's a terrific example of evolution in action. Kudos to real science!Evolve
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PST
The error in this is indeed presuming like traits equals common descent. Common design easily accounts for biology looking alike. God didn't create everything independently but quickly from a basic plan with some tweeking. There is no biological scientific evidence for this fish bits to be evidence for our bits origins. its just a line of reasoning after looking at like traits in different biology. its just guessing and predicting simple results in biology. Finally its all based on geology deposition and so is unrelated to biological investigation since the deposition being close together would ruin everything.Robert Byers
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PST
Joe, you still don't get it do you. Fish are devolved from robust-limbed critters.Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PST
Shubin should get to work using targeted mutagenesis on fish embryos, generation after generation, to see if he can get a fish with robust limbs like Tiktaalik had.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST
Ok, that's fine, but now, describe how the development process for this tiktaalik became the development process for the tetrapod, and so on. Describe cellular and molecular (biochemical) developmental processes, not pop scifi movie scripts. Centrosomes segregation timing, mitotic intrinsic asymmetric stem cell division spindle apparatus checkpoints mechanisms for cell fate determination, and the whole enchilada, so one can go from tiktaalik developmental process to tetrapod developmental process, and then whatever comes next. So far what apparently they know is that a minor deviation from the way those processes are supposed to work, and we get cancer, which is not exactly what one would call progressive evolution, at least not in my book. So let's turn off the nice looking video clips and get to work on the real issues. Show me the money. Where is the beef? You may ask the 3rd. way folks for assistance ;-)Dionisio
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST

Leave a Reply