Fossil Shows Fish Evolving Surf-To-Turf

Skull, Shoulders And Pelvis Found Of Most Primitive 4-Legged Creature In History

(AP)  Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history, which should help them better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land.

The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Even though Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.

While an earlier discovery found a slightly older animal that was more fish than tetrapod, Ventastega is more tetrapod than fish. The fierce-looking creature probably swam through shallow brackish waters, measured about three or four feet long and ate other fish. It likely had stubby limbs with an unknown number of digits, scientists said.

"If you saw it from a distance, it would look like a small alligator, but if you look closer you would find a fin in the back," said lead author Per Ahlberg, a professor of evolutionary biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. "I imagine this is an animal that could haul itself over sand banks without any difficulty. Maybe it's poking around in semi-tidal creeks picking up fish that got stranded."

This all happened more than 100 million years before the first dinosaurs roamed Earth.

Scientists don't think four-legged creatures are directly evolved from Ventastega. It's more likely that in the family tree of tetrapods, Ventastega is an offshoot branch that eventually died off, not leading to the animals we now know, Ahlberg said.

"At the time there were a lot of creatures around of varying degrees of advancement," Ahlberg said. They all seem to have similar characteristics, so Ventastega's find is helpful for evolutionary biologists.

Ventastega is the most primitive of these transition animals, but there are older ones that are oddly more advanced, said Neil Shubin, professor of biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago, who was not part of the discovery team but helped find Tiktaalik, the fish that was one step earlier in evolution.

"It's sort of out of sequence in timing," Shubin said of Ventastega.

Ahlberg didn't find the legs or toes of Ventastega, but was able to deduce that it was four-limbed because key parts of its pelvis and its shoulders were found. From the shape of those structures, scientists were able to conclude that limbs, not fins were attached to Ventastega.

One question that scientists are trying to figure out is why fish started to develop what would later become legs.

Edward Daeschler, associate curator of vertebrate zoology at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, theorizes that the water was so shallow that critters like Ventastega had an evolutionary advantage by walking instead of swimming.

[ndg1979]

Here is another piece of our evolutionary puzzle. Although this will have no bearing on our current or future existence, it is nice to know where our past is. So, for all of those who wonder which version of evolution to believe, it is the one in which man evolved from a more primitive species.

Strange how the bible says that in the beginning, there was 6 days of creating creatures and man. There is never any mention of dinosaurs. Hhmmmmmm. Oh, now I know why - the bible was written by man (the first 5 books by Moses I understand) who at the time had no knowledge of ancient creatures. So for those who believe that the bible is the definitive word on our past, you need to realize something. The bible was written by early priests and scribes, and altered by the Catholic Church many times, to teach sometimes frightening lessons. Some of the stories are based partly on true events, while others are purely fictional.

Congrats on finding this slimey lizard. Hope his bones turn to crude soon to help the oil crisis.

[brianbwb-2009]

"(AP) Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth''s history,"

And it turned out to be a neocon.

[haoli25]

Bob Dole used to have one of those for a pet.

[gkc99]

It appears that the "Odyssey" is a more accurate account of the past than the "Bible" is.

[tootall10142]

my in laws ancestory has been found thet will be happy.if they dont like what you put in this boxs they turn off your publish button

[mycomment-2009]

Strange how the bible says that in the beginning, there was 6 days of creating creatures and man. There is never any mention of dinosaurs.
Posted by ndg1979 at 04:50 AM : Jun 26, 2008

Hello there....this isn''t a debate on the Bible but you noticed that there are some interesting things in it that are a little hard to explain. For instance: In Isiah it says: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth". How did Isiah know that the world was round? Job also says "He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work." How did Job know that every man had a unique fingerprint? Or have you ever read some of the Levitical laws of health and sanitation? Like washing under running water (doctors spead disease from one patient to another until this was discovered). Or how a child was to be circumcised on the 8th day of it''s life. We know now that the 8th day of a child''s life is when they begin to produce vitamin K which causes the blood to clot. There are hundreds of mysteries like this in the Bible. Even if you don''t believe in the Bible you have to admit these things are pretty amazing.

[ccdsswrkr08]

maxify55

You''re waisting the effort it takes to type hon. Religion is opinion, hence, hard to argue. Science is provable and reproducable fact. Those so enveloped in their religion that they refuse to see fact are entitled to their opinion and usually cannot be swayed. Waiste of effort.

[displeased]

True Science only affirms our faith in God, it doesn''''t damage it. Evolution is a hypothetis, a philosophical assumption, not a fact.
Posted by nopacifism2

Your faith, and everybody else''s is also a hypothesis, not a fact.

[faith_in_w]

Satan placed those bones there so man would dig them up and lose faith in God. Dont believe this, it is a trick.

[mycomment-2009]

On the lighter side....

A lot of my ancestors swung from trees...it wasn''t because they were monkeys, it was because they were horse theives! :)

[extremophil]

Anyone who doesn''t think evolution is real....is inexcusably ignorant.

[walkshe]

Someday, humans will be extinct and some thing will find our bones and say "Oh look! This must have been one of those dead end branches of the evolutionary tree." Who cares. Oh...and the Bible is just a REALLY GOOD Story.

the "bib"le is an insult to intelligence, nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully one day we won''t read that romance sci-fi novel and actually think for ourselves. And this goes to prove that the Earth is waaaaaay older than 6000 years.

[observer2020]

Evolution is the way that man and woman came to be and all the other creatures of Earth. If you choose to believe that one all powerful being made man and woman, go ahead; but you are missing out on a lot of very interesting science. There are countless examples of evolution, but we can''t help it if some of the humans existing today just missed out on the intelligence gene...natural selection.

[faith_in_w]

Mycomment, my ancestors lived in the garden of Eden and wore fig leaves to hide their private parts.

uhh the words "man" and "woman" were around much longer than the "bib"le. it''s called history. ppl should read about it once in a while

it''s COMPLETE fiction

[faith_in_w]

Every decent American knows that God made man in his own image and all the plants, insects, animals, and fish. To utter anything else gives the terrorists hope.

here''s a book you may want to read; it''s called a dictionary and it shows the defintions of words and where they come from. Some ppl even read for useful knowledge.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/man
there''s your defintion and it doesn''t mention the "bib"le anywhere

god left us long ago. didn''t like our smell

[walkshe]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I for one, find that science is very interesting. And MY ancestors didn''t come from the garden of Eden...they crawled out of the slime and ooze, swung on trees, and when we''re all gone from this world because of our arrogance and self-importance, some other creature will take our place. Face it folks, we''re just one more rung in the ladder of evolution. Geez...maybe that''s what makes me so inferior to nopacifism2 (yeah, right)

[gmcnally2]

Seems like everyone here is arguing in circles, and no one is going to change anyone''s mind on this one, maybe just get in a few good jabs at the regular posters. The bigger question that this whole debate centers on is ''Does God exist?'' The how''s of creation/evolution will always be a mystery. The Bible says that God''s qualities are observable from looking at creation (Romans 1). So take it at it''s word and look around and ask yourself if you believe it was all an accident, and that matter itself existed for all of time from nowhere, and in your heart you believe you are nothing more than a chance collection of chemicals, and life is pointless once you die. Few people truly believe that. Sorry if you are one of them, to never know the love of God.

if god "created" the Earth then why are we as humans destroying it? wouldn''t that be destroying his "creation"? Why would he "create" something so vile as a stupid human? Vive La Evolution

uhhh i have a job and i have to work, so i don''t have ALL day trying to give you a meaning to a particlar word. I gave you a link. Read that. Or is the dictionary secular as well?

[chalres-2009]

faith_in_w, the only problem with this line of thinking is that the terrorists are religious fundamentalist that basically believe the same things that you do.

[mycomment-2009]

Whether you believe the Bible is true or not is a personal choice. However, we are all affected daily by its historical facts. The world is in turmoil right now due to the situation in the Middle East. I wonder how many people even know why? All you have to do is read the Old Testament. In Genesis, God told Abraham to leave his country of origin and travel to a land that he would give him. Abraham''s first son was to inherit the land from his father. God promised him a son born to his wife Sarah. Sarah had trouble conceiving and got discouraged and told Abraham to take a handmaid and have a son with her. He did and had a son (Ishmael) and Sarah got very jealous and made Hagar and Ishmael leave. She then had her own son (Isaac) and he became the heir of Abraham. Now as they say...for the rest of the story. Ishmael was the father of the Arab nation and Isaac became the father of the Jewish nation. They hate each other because they both claim to be the rightful heir of the holy land and they have been fighting for centuries.

[truthislife1]

I wonder how many people actually saw this animal? Were they there?

[chalres-2009]

nopacifism2, I don''t know if this is what you are getting at, but here is a beleived history of the written word.

Although spoken language is believed to have developed tens of thousands of years ago, the written word emerged much later, as hunter-gatherers developed more permanent agrarian societies.

Some 9,000 years ago, the Sumerians invented counting tokens. These simple stamps were inscribed with pictures that represented the objects to be itemized.

They could be impressed in clay to document a record of land, grain, or cattle ownership.

These pictographs became more stylized as scribes began drawing them with a wedge-shaped stylus made of reeds.

This script is now known as cuneiform, our first written language.

The next step occurred in Egypt, sometime toward the end of the fourth millennium B.C.

Unlike cuneiform, which depicted individual objects, hieroglyphics represented sounds.

This major advance, called a %u201Cone-sign, one-sound%u201D system of writing, is regarded as the first alphabet.

Language developed elsewhere, too.

Cultures with no apparent connection to the Near East -- in China, the Indus valley, and much later, the Olmecs and Mayans of Mesoamerica -- developed their own advanced alphabets.

Whether these arose independently or were influenced by existing languages is still a matter of fierce debate among scholars.

[displeased]

Man and woman came from the Bible first. A fact.
Posted by nopacifism2

How is that a fact? Where is your proof? Your bible is only a theory, like the rest of them.

[zykracosmos]

This is so entertaining. I knew this article would bring out all the Biblical Babblers of Supernaturalism.

[faith_in_w]

Displeased, God said so. Fact.

[observer2020]

We are all made up from the molecules from the Big Bang that has evolved into intelligent...at least most of us...beings. We are the universe trying to figure itself out. We have not evolved from nothing...the stuff for evolved intelligence has always been there...for most, that is...

[babooph]

I have heard the "Chritian", leaders speak -they must be related to monkeys.

[superdem]

It''s sickening that an article about a real creature that actually lived on this earth and which shows through it''s remains the proof of evolution evokes Christians to barf up their ignorant nonsense about creation and "God''s Love." The bible prophesizes nothing - it''s just that we haven''t changed from the barbarous murders of 2,000 years ago. They fought then, they fight now. No Justice, No Peace. With any luck, the epoch of human habitation will be over in a few thousand years, and Earth can continue becoming what it will be. We are proving to be of no consequence - mainly because religious paralysis and warfare renders us incapable of advancing. We fight like two dogs over a bone, all over movies that play in our minds which are NOT REAL.

[observer2020]

Displeased, God said so. Fact.

Posted by faith_in_w

Were you there? Did you actually hear that? Where''s the recording? Is it carved in stone? Because the written word has changed so much to conform people to the times at hand, written word is not worth the paper it has been printed on. Just go through all the reiterations of the bible...unless you burned them because a new edition was printed.

[rudy654-2009]

Displeased, God said so. Fact.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by faith_in_w at 09:45 AM

Prove it.

[checkthepast]

I believe I was created by a supreme being through intelligent design, others believe they evolved from a wad of primordial snot....sometimes I think we could both be right, perhaps that is where they came from.

[usbrit-2009]

The real shame about creationsits is that they teach their children this fairy story thus disallowing the child any real chance at being a scientist later in life. To believe in creation you have to disallow the entire sciences of geology, minerology, astronomy, palaentology, biology and zoology, as well as vast swathes of chemistry and physics. It is such a shame that all this is wiped out in your mind because of your irrational belief in a 4000 year old book.

BTW - the craziest notion I''ve heard yet about the bible being the source of the words man and woman. The old testament was written around 3 - 2,000 yrs BC by best estimates. The scholars were aware of the presence of males and females by this time and had words or signs for man and woman and used them in the story of Adam and Eve. The words man and woman per se are derived from the Anglo-Saxon language spoken in western Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. The first English translations of the bible date from around the 7th century, thus they would contain the trems man and woman.

[mosesnoses]

Yet another crucial fossil from Per Ahlberg et al. It confirms even further that the development of 4 legs preceded the move to terrestrial environments by vertebrates. Fantastic!

As for the bible-literalism wackos - you are better off just to ignore them, they have nothing meaningful to add to any scholarly scientific discussion because they are most definitely not scientists. It''s amazing how they feel somehow empowered to hold forth on fields they know little or nothing about. It''s like going in and arguing with a cardiac surgeon about medicine when their only credentials are those of a garbage man. They just reinforce proof of the arcane nature of their obsolete beliefs and their intellectual bankruptcy.

[observer2020]

If my dog dies and I dig up it''''s remains in 50 years does this prove "evolution?"
posted by nopacifism2

No, that was natural selection.

[checkthepast]

"To believe in creation you have to disallow the entire sciences of geology, minerology, astronomy, palaentology, biology and zoology, as well as vast swathes of chemistry and physics."
Posted by USBrit

Sorry Brit, I can''t by into that being that I believe in creation and believe that the Creator gave us the sciences of geology, minerology, astronomy, palaentology, biology and zoology, as well as ALL of chemistry and physics.

[usbrit-2009]

Re the coelocanth. Fossilized versions of the fish dating from as long ago as 400 million years had been known for a good few years before the live ones were discovered. The reason for the disconnect in discovery of the so-called fossil fish is two fold. 1) Today it only lives in deep water aound the island of Mauritius - (it was much more widespread in the warmer ancient oceans) 2) Mauritius itself was only discovered in the 15th century and was uninhabited by humans at the time. This combination of rarity and location meant that it is only relatively recently (1930''s) that a live one was actually found. No disproof of evolution there.

[ofbyfor1]

prehistoric Definition

pre7his7toric (pr%u0113%u2032his ttr%u2032ik)

adjective

of the period before RECORDED history

Learn to use a dictionary.

[usbrit-2009]

Again that wasn''''t the point. The point was the evolutionary "scientists" had deemed it "prehistoric" and that it went "extinct" 65 million years ago. The dicovery of a live one in 1938 totally debunked their silly theories.

You just refuse to admit this.

Posted by nopacifism2

No, it just means that ceolocanths had been hanging out round Mauritius for millions of years and no-one had found one.

[docpeter-2009]

I am assuming the following is acurate: RE: Posted by nopacifism2 "Man and woman came from the Bible first. A fact."

WRONG!

You are wrong. I believe that if you read your Bible Genesis 1:20-27 you will find that God first created the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air a "day" before he created humans.

The "fact" that man came before the animals is the misconception of many biblical believers and their teachers who have not really read The Bible for themselves, but rather, choose to regurgitate what others have "taught" them about what is in The Bible.

Read The Bible, please. Read whether you are a Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist.

There are many spiritual teachings in there that benefit all humanbeings. There are many things that My Lord and Saviou, Jesus Christs, talks about that many Christians are missing even today.

[checkthepast]

"Re the coelocanth.....much more widespread in the warmer ancient oceans....."

Must be our modern Global Cooling that killed most of the off...

;)

[usbrit-2009]

Sorry Brit, I can''''t by into that being that I believe in creation and believe that the Creator gave us the sciences of geology, minerology, astronomy, palaentology, biology and zoology, as well as ALL of chemistry and physics.

Posted by checkthepast

Why would he do that in a way that can be so easily (in your opinion) misunderstood by vast numbers of the finest minds ever produced by human kind to show that life evolved (and the universe is 13.6 billion years old, not 6000) rather than being created by him? Seems like a lot of trouble for God to go through just to pull a fast one on the human race.

[ofbyfor1]

Not a modern dictionary.

Your problem is you think humans have all the answers. But only God does. Not humans.

Posted by nopacifism2 at 10:15 AM : Jun 26, 2008

And I was pointing out to you that to call something ''historic'' and denying the appropriate use of the word ''prehistoric'' shows that you have an appallingly shallow intellect.

[checkthepast]

"Why would he do that in a way that can be so easily (in your opinion) misunderstood by vast numbers of the finest minds ever produced by human kind"

Brit,
Please don''t voice ''my opinion''..where do you get the idea that I was talking about what was in ''my opinion to be "vast numbers of the finest minds ever produced by human kind". You have a right to your opinion as well as anyone just please don''t make statements and attempt to qualify them as someone elses opinion.
Thanks

[usbrit-2009]

Must be our modern Global Cooling that killed most of the off...

;)
Posted by checkthepast

You pass the test - I wondered who''d pick up on that. Yes, the oceans were warmer for times, and colder at times and vastly different shapes (due to continental drift) over their billions years of existence.