|
|
Post by justjohn on Apr 6, 2006 4:27:54 GMT -7
Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution
Alok Jha, science correspondent
Thursday April 6, 2006
The Guardian
Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.
Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.
As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history, and Tiktaalik is an important link in the story."
|
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Apr 6, 2006 21:06:44 GMT -7
Why did the direction of evolution favor development on land? Why not stay in the water?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 7, 2006 21:22:08 GMT -7
Why did the direction of evolution favor development on land? Why not stay in the water? I wish I knew but I believe I prefer that way. The life on the eath seems to be more free, we can look at the blue sky! From the water it may be more difficult, although we may have other benefits. For instance the fact that the water covers 3/4 of the earth so we would have more room to grow  |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 7, 2006 21:23:46 GMT -7
I wonder whether the problem that there is do much difficulty to find the missing link does not lay in the fact that these forms were more or less temporary, so they did not last too long, a bit similar to mutants
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Apr 7, 2006 23:16:52 GMT -7
Why did the direction of evolution favor development on land? Why not stay in the water? Should we automatically assume that evolution favored development on land? Is that to be assumed because of the number of land creatures or because of us humans and our "superior" technology? It could be readily postulated that sea life has more to offer than land life. After all, was it whales and dolphins that returned to the sea after trying the land? Thinking that life is superior because of our "intelligence" is another presumption.. Again, we have hardly plumbed the intelligence of some sea mamals ... but then, we get to define intelligence, so we have the advantage - from our persopective! It would be quite a shock to go to heaven and be greeted by an angel in the shape of a dolphin telling us "yes, The Lord made us in His image, but then things started to go wrong once we reached land, so The Chosen were sent back to the sea, and those on land were left to continue with their False Branche of Evolution." Kai Just having some fun with the ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by leslie on Apr 8, 2006 2:16:45 GMT -7
I wonder whether the problem that there is do much difficulty to find the missing link does not lay in the fact that these forms were more or less temporary, so they did not last too long, a bit similar to mutants Jaga I like your use of the word 'temporary' and the implications of this. The primaeval sea was not as stable in its contents and activity as the sea at the present time (even it is in a state of change all the time). But in this turbulent change era it is easy to understand the changes in the creatures (accidental?) that took place. Even the very first unicell was created by a change, probably caused by the electrical storms that swathed the Earth at that time, and a violent change was then necessary to develop the unicell into a multicelullar organism or creatures, from which all other creatures developed, eventually (as an automatic response) to seek their livelihood on dry land. Leslie |
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Apr 8, 2006 13:06:39 GMT -7
Will human evolution proceed toward adaptation to worlds in Outer Space? Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Apr 10, 2006 21:09:01 GMT -7
Will human evolution proceed toward adaptation to worlds in Outer Space? Carl I think so. We alrady have more than our fair share of spaced-out people! ;D Kai |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 11, 2006 9:05:50 GMT -7
But in this turbulent change era it is easy to understand the changes in the creatures (accidental?) that took place. Even the very first unicell was created by a change, probably caused by the electrical storms that swathed the Earth at that time, and a violent change was then necessary to develop the unicell into a multicelullar organism or creatures, from which all other creatures developed, eventually (as an automatic response) to seek their livelihood on dry land. Leslie Leslie, I am not sure that the changes were always turbulent in that time. It took several millions of years for unicell organizm to evolve to multi-cell. But you are right, these organisms that had featured of two different systems could be created in the times of change, one more reason that they were more temporary |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Apr 11, 2006 9:06:58 GMT -7
I think so. We alrady have more than our fair share of spaced-out people! ;D Kai We would have to be able not to use oxygen for much more than 5 minutes and be resistant into vacuum or high pressure |
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Apr 11, 2006 12:19:57 GMT -7
Jaga & Kai, the next stage in human evolution may include an oxygen potentiator in vivo, be able to adjust the distances between the molecules of their body to withstand diverse pressures, and communicate by mental telepathy. Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Apr 11, 2006 12:30:38 GMT -7
Jaga & Kai, the next stage in human evolution may include an oxygen potentiator in vivo, be able to adjust the distances between the molecules of their body to withstand diverse pressures, and communicate by mental telepathy. Carl Oh, you mean a mom? |
|
|
|
Post by sciwriter on Apr 11, 2006 21:46:30 GMT -7
Hollister, good point (LOL)! Carl
|
|
