Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 6th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Fossil may be 'missing link' from sea to land



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 June 2008
A REMARKABLE fossil find might be the missing link that shows how our ancestors climbed out of the primordial swamps to live on land.
The well-preserved remains, unearthed from 370-million-year-old rocks in Latvia, has features in between those of fish and land animals.

The skull shape is that of an early tetrapod – four-legged vertebrates that mostly lived on land – but the rest of Ventastega curonica was clearly more suited to water.

The remains comprise a skull, braincase, shoulder girdle and partial pelvis, complete enough to allow a partial reconstruction and create a picture of what an animal from this crucial period looked like.

The process that transformed fins into limbs is poorly understood, despite being a key transition in evolution. Before tetrapods, vertebrates were confined to water.

It has long been accepted that all land animals with backbones – including humans – are descended from one small group of fish that left the water about 365 million years ago.

Professor Per Ahlberg, a palaeontologist, said of the find:

"The gap in our understanding of the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapod is beginning to close."







The full article contains 197 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 June 2008 10:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Scullion,

Canada 26/06/2008 01:37:32
If they ever saw me in a pool they'd have to reconsider if we evolved from water dwelling creatures.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 26/06/2008 02:34:08
And some of us, mainly politicians, are still in the process of climbing out of the primordial swamps.
3

hertscot,

26/06/2008 09:47:55
Some of the pond life in our local estate haven't evolved as far as this fossil!
4

Boy Wonder,

26/06/2008 09:53:59
I refer you all to study Charles linskaill. A fish out of water if ever there was one! :D
5

Neil,

Glasgow 26/06/2008 11:27:08
Now this one is important.
The fact is that for nearly 90% of the time we have had animal life on Earth it was confined to the seas so that first step was clearly a big one.
6

GlenB,

26/06/2008 11:50:29
When someone can explain and demonstrate how life appeared from nonlife in the "primordial ocean" I might possibly concede that evolution could remotely be a plausable explanation of this apparent observation.

So far no one has been able to provide using current knowledge an adequate model of how this is chemically or physically possible.
7

Neil,

Glasgow 26/06/2008 13:38:35
"Might possibly concede" suggests to me that even if absolute proof were provided the odds are you wouldn't.

We have enough of the warming alarmists around who have such an attitude to contrary evidence that there seems little point in starting to try & persuade another group not susceptible to evidence.
8

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 26/06/2008 14:02:37
#6 GlenB

Why does the validity of evolution as a theory of species development depend on knowing how life originated in the first place? We know life exists, and we have evidence that living species have changed over time. Evolution as a theory doesn't depend on any particular mechanism for the origin of life, and neither should any other theory of species diversity.

But in case any of the following take your fancy, some possible causes of the origin of life on Earth:

1. Visiting aliens left some living organisms behind.
2. Organic primeval soup theory.
3. Self-replicating inorganic crystal theory (as proposed by Glasgow scientist Graham Cairns Smith)
4. An unbelievably improbable chance combination of chemicals, temperature, pressure, physical movement, combustion, and electrical discharge. So improbable that it will almost certainly never occur again or be discovered by normal scientific enquiry.
5. It was created by a supernatural being. (Similar to 1 in some ways.)
9

Scullion,

Canada 26/06/2008 14:07:54
#1 and #6 look up "coacervates" if you didn't create them yourself in high school biology. Now imagine the enormity of time and chance working on these same inorganic items.
I urge you to read Darwin's "Origin of Species". If it doesn't convince you, you are unconvincable.
By the way #6, your first idea for origin of life on earth just leads to the question, how did life on other planets begin?
10

hertscot,

26/06/2008 15:13:14
GlenB you make a good point:
"So far no one has been able to provide using current knowledge an adequate model of how this is chemically or physically possible."

The most important words you use are "So far.."

As in, Scientists don't know how life started YET.
11

Caratacus,

West Britain 27/06/2008 15:22:31
#6 GlenB
Well, what happened was that God, on a whim, decided to create life, the Universe and Free Will. That's why we're here.
I don't know who created God though! It was probably his mum!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.