Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

Fossil fish reveals origins of limbs

32 posts in this topic

A recently discovered prehistoric fish is believed to exhibit an early precursor to modern arms and legs.

The 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik roseae fossil was discovered by three palaeontologists in the Canadian Arctic and possesses skeletal features, including limb-like fins and large pelvic bones, that are remarkably similar to those found in modern land animals.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/260732/fossil-fish-reveals-origins-of-limbs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so now we were fishes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so now we were fishes..

IIRC it has been theorized that all life began in the sea - for a long time now...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, fish became monkeys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“What the fossil record tells us is how deeply we are connected to life on the rest of the planet. In this case, this tells us how closely we are related to fish.”

What do the religious faithful have to say now about how humans are "the chosen ones", the "special ones", that we were "made unique and different"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, fish became monkeys?

All life that exists and has ever existed on the Earth evolved from a common ancestor that were the very first single celled organisms on the planet billions of years ago.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, fish are our cousins. I struggle to make sense of either the religious or the scientific theories of how humanity developed, so please bear with me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do the religious faithful have to say now about how humans are "the chosen ones", the "special ones", that we were "made unique and different"?

So, no big thing: we just think better of toads, not less of ourselves. After all, in comparison to God, what's the difference between toads and us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, fish are our cousins. I struggle to make sense of either the religious or the scientific theories of how humanity developed, so please bear with me.

I recommend starting here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

Edited by Cherrypress
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, fish are our cousins. I struggle to make sense of either the religious or the scientific theories of how humanity developed, so please bear with me.

Fish have backbones, we have backbones, fish have eyes and mouths, which were the first animals to have mouths, eyes and organs. Later, other species developed lungs in order to breath from the air.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiktaalik is nothing new.... it was discovered years ago. Why this would be news-worthy is baffling to me, frankly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, fish became monkeys?

What, you never heard of monkfish?

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we developed from fish why can't we breathe under water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so now we were fishes..

All life came out of the sea, so no surprise here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we developed from fish why can't we breathe under water.

Because thats not very useful when you live on land. Adapting to your enviroment is the key to evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do the religious faithful have to say now about how humans are "the chosen ones", the "special ones", that we were "made unique and different"?

Maybe the phrase "pinnacle of creation" could be altered to read "pinnacle of evolution" for non-religious scientists. We humans are special in the sense that we are at the top of the evolutionary cycle. Yes, there are people who long to be "free as a bird," but I don't imagine many people actually want to BE a bird. Neither do I imagine there are apes who think to themselves, "If only I was a fish...," or dogs who think, "If only I was a cockroach....". The whole point of evolution is to make steady progress toward.....whatever. We humans are the end of the evolutionary road (up to this point), so yes, in that sense we are "special."

As long as I'm here, I'll ask the many posters who are more learned than I: So what was the point of moving to land? I mean, they were FISH: they lived quite well in water, they were very well adapted to the watery world; where did they get the idea that moving ashore was going to improve their lot? Honestly, didn't the first couple of fish that crawled onto land and began to die of dehydration in the hot sun call back to their schoolmates and warn them, "Turn back! It's a trap!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the phrase "pinnacle of creation" could be altered to read "pinnacle of evolution" for non-religious scientists. We humans are special in the sense that we are at the top of the evolutionary cycle. Yes, there are people who long to be "free as a bird," but I don't imagine many people actually want to BE a bird. Neither do I imagine there are apes who think to themselves, "If only I was a fish...," or dogs who think, "If only I was a cockroach....". The whole point of evolution is to make steady progress toward.....whatever. We humans are the end of the evolutionary road (up to this point), so yes, in that sense we are "special."

As long as I'm here, I'll ask the many posters who are more learned than I: So what was the point of moving to land? I mean, they were FISH: they lived quite well in water, they were very well adapted to the watery world; where did they get the idea that moving ashore was going to improve their lot? Honestly, didn't the first couple of fish that crawled onto land and began to die of dehydration in the hot sun call back to their schoolmates and warn them, "Turn back! It's a trap!"

In the beginning it was much safer to be on land - no predators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the beginning it was much safer to be on land - no predators.

Which brings me to my next point.

Contemporary discoveries in physics indicate we have a multi-dimensional and multi-universe existence. It's conceivable that the beginning of life was multi-evolutionary, with independent, un-alike organisms evolving separately. IMUO, the "one-celled organism - to- modern man" idea is an outdated concept. The various "branches" of the evolutionary tree are actually "trees" in and of themselves that evolved in similar ways because they were constrained to use the same biological building blocks.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a conservative Christian believer who believes that Science and Religion are the same thing. Although at the moment the two "beliefs" appear to be at odds, we are discovering they are compatible.

{The "U" stands for Uneducated. I'm a science dilettante.}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recommend starting here...

http://en.wikipedia....history_of_life

Thank you, CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contemporary discoveries in physics indicate we have a multi-dimensional and multi-universe existence.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that contemporary physics is such a mess (the Standard Model and General Relativity both provide frameworks to explain everything - and the frameworks have nothing in common!) that the best they can do is babble and punt. :P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which brings me to my next point.

Contemporary discoveries in physics indicate we have a multi-dimensional and multi-universe existence. It's conceivable that the beginning of life was multi-evolutionary, with independent, un-alike organisms evolving separately.

Not impossible, but eventually other types of animal life died out.

The existing phyla were only a few of various phyla that existed in the Cambrian. Animals from extinct phyla are known from the Cambrian seas. There's no way to tell today if every type from then was actually descended from the same progenitor.

On the other hand, there's no reason to think they weren't, either.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the phrase "pinnacle of creation" could be altered to read "pinnacle of evolution" for non-religious scientists. We humans are special in the sense that we are at the top of the evolutionary cycle. Yes, there are people who long to be "free as a bird," but I don't imagine many people actually want to BE a bird. Neither do I imagine there are apes who think to themselves, "If only I was a fish...," or dogs who think, "If only I was a cockroach....".

I wouldn't be too sure. The dog we had when I was a kid seemed to want to be some smelly thing in the ground whenever we gave her a bath... :-)

The whole point of evolution is to make steady progress toward.....whatever. We humans are the end of the evolutionary road (up to this point), so yes, in that sense we are "special."

I'd respectfully suggest that using the word "point" in relation to evolution is,er, missing the point (sorry). It's better to think of evolution as simply a process with no ultimate objective. It isn't a thing which can express desire or intent.

As long as I'm here, I'll ask the many posters who are more learned than I: So what was the point of moving to land? I mean, they were FISH: they lived quite well in water, they were very well adapted to the watery world; where did they get the idea that moving ashore was going to improve their lot? Honestly, didn't the first couple of fish that crawled onto land and began to die of dehydration in the hot sun call back to their schoolmates and warn them, "Turn back! It's a trap!"

The first animals which moved to land may well not have had a say in the matter - there was no point to it as such. Those animals which succeeded in surviving out of the water are likely to have already been suited to surviving out of the water AND ALSO to have been in the situation where they had to survive out of the water. The pre-adaptation is likely to have been an ability to store oxygen, which would be favoured among fish living in, for example, shallow seas with a low oxygen content.

The process of moving to land is also one which would have taken millions of years (and thus millions of generations). The earliest land-dwellers would simply have spent small periods of time out of the water and remained on mud flats. It would have taken millions of years for their descendents to evolve more efficient lungs, and all the other paraphernalia which make living out of water that much easier. Consider, after all, that even hundreds of millions of years down the track, most amphibians still need to return to water to lay their eggs. Evolution generally (though not always) works at a very slow pace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd respectfully suggest that using the word "point" in relation to evolution is,er, missing the point (sorry). It's better to think of evolution as simply a process with no ultimate objective. It isn't a thing which can express desire or intent.

Evolution generally (though not always) works at a very slow pace.

I agree with you that evolution works at a very slow pace, though your use of the verb "work" suggests purpose. Perhaps you meant to say "[operates] at a very slow pace"?

Just so you know where you know I'm coming from: I believe that our "Intelligent Designer" may very well have used the process of evolution to "form mankind from the dust of the earth". I also believe He "brought forth each according to its kind". You mentioned mud flats, and I mentioned separate evolutionary trees. Sea creatures were evolved in the sea, and land creatures were evolved on land when the storm-tossed waves of the ocean deposited the building blocks of life onto land. Each "kind" of creature was evolved separately using similar building blocks. In that scenario, there is no conflict between Science and Religion; Science and Religion intersect at those points.

I realize my use of the phrase "were evolved" sounds awkward. I don't think of evolution as a process (noun), but as a verb; we were "evolved by" an Intelligent Designer.

Edited by simplybill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early stages in development in humans the fetus has gills to help it survive in the womb. Then they develop lungs when it is close to birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.