Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oldest Known Arm Bone - Land/Sea Link
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 20 (101618)
04-21-2004 5:27 PM


Just tossing this one out there:
How land-living animals evolved from fish has long been a scientific puzzle. An important part of the mystery is the transformation of the fins of fish into the arms and legs of our ancestors. Paleontologists Neil Shubin and Michael Coates from the University of Chicago, and Ted Daeschler from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia found a 365-million-year-old fossil that sheds light on this transformation.
In the April 2, 2004, issue of Science, the scientists describe this bone, a humerus from the Late Devonian Period found in Pennsylvania. It’s the earliest of its kind from any limbed animal. This specimen bridges the gap between the fins of fish and the limbs of amphibians.
More in link.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2004 10:31 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 20 (101801)
04-22-2004 4:48 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 20 (101817)
04-22-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
04-21-2004 5:27 PM


It would be so nice if the paper from Science were online.....
The lineup they show of humeri from five or six critters in the Devonian fish-tetrapod series is just amazing. Even the little holes that this new bone had have analogues in Acanthostega (or someone similar - my copy is at home.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2004 5:27 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 20 (101825)
04-22-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
04-22-2004 10:31 AM


it is on-line if you have full sign-in authority. the free service available lets you read the abstracts of recent papers.
the cover was:
Good picture of the bone and location information, the "paw" may be a little imaginative. Any Idea how this compares to structure in lungfish?
Introduction to the Dipnoi

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2004 10:31 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Gary, posted 04-22-2004 11:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (102043)
04-22-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
04-22-2004 11:06 AM


I found a website with drawings of an Austrailian lungfish and the skeletal structure of its fin. Click on the links entitled "The Axial Skeleton" and "The Appendicular Skeleton":
http://home.inreach.com/cliff_lundberg/appskel.html
It looks to me like the lungfish fin is totally different from the humerus of this fossil amphibian, but I don't think they are very closely related. You could also compare it to amphibian humeri, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 1:24 AM Gary has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 20 (102085)
04-23-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gary
04-22-2004 11:23 PM


thanks. I don't think they are closely related either, just that the lungfish can use their fins as rudimentary limbs. If I were going to propose a "paw" to go with the arm bone it would be more like the end of the lungfish fin:
{Rescaled photo (changed UBB code to HTML) to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2004]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gary, posted 04-22-2004 11:23 PM Gary has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (103045)
04-27-2004 10:33 AM


Just a quick bump, to see if we have any creationist response to this.
Anybody?

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jt, posted 04-27-2004 2:22 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 8 of 20 (103096)
04-27-2004 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
04-27-2004 10:33 AM


Hey everybody,
This is my first post, and I don't really know how things work yet, so if I do anything stupid or annoying, I'll be happy if you slap me upside the head about it (just not too hard )
Anyway, back on subject, how do lungfish benefit from their fins being like they are? Do they use them as limbs, like for digging and stuff, or do they use them exclusively as fins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-27-2004 10:33 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2004 3:16 PM jt has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 20 (103117)
04-27-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jt
04-27-2004 2:22 PM


I believe lungfish can lift thier heads from muddy banks by using their fins, some better than others. I remember seeing old tv footage of some in africa, but I may be confusing them with
mudskippers (click):
Lungfish have crude lungs that allow them to breath the air.
Also see http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/fish.htm
There are several fish that climb out of water for various purposes. These should be compared to the bone in question to see if there are limilarities.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jt, posted 04-27-2004 2:22 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jt, posted 04-28-2004 10:39 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 11 by jt, posted 04-28-2004 10:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 10 of 20 (103553)
04-28-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
04-27-2004 3:16 PM


The structure of the foot of a primitive tetrapod is vastly different than the structure of a lungfish fin.
First, the fin. The tip of a lungfish fin has 8 bones laid out in a simple geometrical pattern. There are no more than 5 joints, and the joints cannot be individually controlled. The rest of the fin is made up of a backbone-like segmented chain of about 12-14 bones. This backbone allows the fin to be flexible, which is useful for swimming. Two long, narrow bones come off of each bone segment to give the fin shape. The spine of the fin is flexible, and can bend along its entire length. The small bones coming off the fin do not have flexible joints, though. The fin is minimally controllable, only the main set of joints can be moved, and they are moved as a group. These fins are not connected to the skeletal structure, only to soft tissue. This prevents the fish from using the fins to support itself on land; at most the fish could drag itself, but not lift itself off the ground.
The primitive tetrapod foot has at least 29 bones (35 for the one on the left) laid out in an asymmetrical pattern. There are over 30 joints in each foot below (33 and 34). Each digit of the foot needs at least a ligament for it to be functional. Every joint in the digits has a severely restricted range of motion; they can only bend in one direction. The other joints in the foot have a greater range of motion, but are still restricted in some way; they cannot bend in all directions. The foot has at least 5 sets of joints that could be controlled individually, without affecting the entire appendage. The foot is attached to the skeletal structure, and is capable of supporting the weight of the animal.
When the two are compared side-by-side:













 
Lungfish Fin Tip-----
Tetrapod Foot
Bones:
8
29-35
Joints:
5
33-34
Joint range of movement:
free or none
highly restricted
Controlability
rough
fine
Structural support:
none
strong
All the stuff above does not prove that the lungfish did not evolve into the first amphibians. However, it does show that lungfish would have to have quite substantial skeletal changes to become amphibians. Lungfish are nowhere near being a conclusive link between fish and amphibians. Had amphibians evolved from fish, it likely would have been through the lungfish. But there would be links. If there was a sequence of similar lungfish that had fins become attached to the skeleton, then develop fibula, tibula, and tibia, then develop ankle bones and multi-segmented proto-digits, that would be worth consideration. That would not even be all the way to an amphibian, but it would be worth considering as evidence. In the chain between the fishes and the amphibians, the lungfish would provide merely a starting point, but any chain between the starting point and the ending point is completely absent.
There is no evidence for the evolution of amphibians from lungfish, only speculation.
P.S. can an administrator fix all the blank space in here? thanks
(added in edit)changed images to ImageShack.Thanks Gary! (/added in edit)
I tried hun, two of your images aren't available to link img to, damned geocities sites , can't fix all the space above table...percy will have to let me in on the secret - The Queen
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-28-2004]
[This message has been edited by JT, 04-29-2004]
[This message has been edited by JT, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2004 3:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2004 3:35 PM jt has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2004 12:34 AM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 11 of 20 (103554)
04-28-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
04-27-2004 3:16 PM


deleted duplicate post - The Queen
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2004 3:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 10:55 PM jt has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 20 (103558)
04-28-2004 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jt
04-28-2004 10:39 PM


thanks. lots of good work there (although can't see two of your pictures).
Looks like convergent evolution to me. I knew from cladistic tree that lungfish were off the tetrapod lineage, my point was only that an early foot would look more like a fin than a foot. I have also tracked my old source back and it was mudskippers and not lungfish I saw ... and that's a hoarse of a different cholera.
They say as you get old that memory is the second thing to go
(and I can't remember what the first was ...)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jt, posted 04-28-2004 10:39 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jt, posted 04-28-2004 11:27 PM RAZD has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 13 of 20 (103573)
04-28-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
04-28-2004 10:55 PM


Thanks for the compliment.
I guess I'll go research mud-skippers...
P.S. The Queen...
Thanks for getting rid of some of the whitespace. My computer displays the pictures, I have no clue what that's about. Thanks for adding the links, I'll start doing that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 10:55 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 14 of 20 (103582)
04-28-2004 11:48 PM


Of course, too, guys, we need to keep in mind that the modern lungfish has had the same 360 million years to diverge from some lobe-finned ancestor that frogs and people also have. Jennifer Clack's Gaining Ground has a couple of cladograms that have lungfish more distant from tetrapods than coelacanths - but she goes on to say it's really not at all settled. She also has some pictures of skulls of modern lungfish, and they are very unlike Devonian ancestral lungfish, which aren't much like Devonian "tetrapodomorphs."
Confusing stuff, says I.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jt, posted 04-29-2004 12:22 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 15 of 20 (103597)
04-29-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
04-28-2004 11:48 PM


Coragyps,
Is the fin structure of those "Devonian ancestral lungfish" different enough from modern lungfish to make a difference to my argument? Could you post some pictures or links?
thanks
(added in edit) By the way, this picture, which is what I based my argument off of, is of the supposed evolution of amphibians from fish, so the fish fin in the image is of the "ancestral" fish. My argument still stands. Also, which I didn't say earlier (because of a brain fart), this is the standard view of where amphibians came from, so most of what what I was saying applies to the evolution of amphibians in general, independent of the starting species
(/added in edit)
[This message has been edited by JT, 04-28-2004]
[This message has been edited by JT, 04-28-2004]
[This message has been edited by JT, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 04-28-2004 11:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Gary, posted 04-29-2004 2:27 AM jt has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024