WASHINGTON, June 26, 2008
Fossil Shows Fish Evolving Surf-To-Turf
Skull, Shoulders And Pelvis Found Of Most Primitive 4-Legged Creature In History
-
This undated artist's rendering provided by Philip Renne shows a Ventastega. Scientists have found the fossil skull of the most primitive four-legged critter in Earth's history, a key point in the evolution from fish to animals that eventually walked on on land. (AP Photo/Philip Renne)
-
Fast Facts Latvia Learn about the people, economy and history.
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.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 149 CommentsThe term "what do I believe in" is a highly personal thing and you''re never going to get a satisfactory answer especially on a science board. It basically the age old question of what is nature of the universe and where do I fit in to the schema of things? This really is a question you should be asking your self.
Any way good luck your quest for answers.
"What does the term "believe in" mean?"
Nobody''s answered yet. Anybody here care to take a crack at it?
I guess we just have to find them the old-fashioned way, and add to the massive mountain of data supporting Evolution.
Hmm, I wonder why the Bible doesn''t mention extinction... since more species are extinct than remain.
Maybe because the Bible''s 100% a work of man, and we didn''t have Paleontology labs in Biblical times?
Could be...
_____________________________
There you go again, someone making logic sensible and sensible logic.
In fact many ancient civilizations wrote about dinosaurs/large reptile beasts.Posted by nopacifism4
I''m assuming your referring dragons. The dragon is a mythical creature that originate large in folklore not from any direct I witness account. Legends about dragons do not prove that man and Dinosaurs existed. Dinosaurs need not be living to inspire myth and legend. In China, fossil bones (of all kinds of creatures, not just dinosaurs) have long been called dragon bones. Note also that the physical description and supposed abilities of the creature vary immensely according the different cultures and the geographical regions in which it appears.
Some examples:
The Chinese dragon Depicted as a long, snake-like creature with four claws, Similar to Chinese dragons, with three claws instead of four. The Khmer dragon (or Neak) is depicted as cobra like. Philippine Dragon (Bakunawa) appears as a gigantic serpent that lives in the sea. Cham dragon (makara) is a mythical sea monster with the body of a serpent, the trunk of an elephant, and a head with the features of a lion. Scandinavian & Germanic dragons (Lindworms) are serpent-like dragons with either two or no legs. The Turkish dragon secretes flames from its tail. English dragons sometimes are depicted as dragons with lizard-like bodies, four legs and bat-like wings (there typically what we think of when we say dragon). Slavic dragons is similar to the conventional European dragon but with multiple heads.
What is off topic and how so? You spoke of evidence in it''''s relation to proof. Posted by shaggydo
The off topic reference was in regards to my own belief and it not really relevant to this discussion. I guess as far as evidence and it relation to proof is concern it%u2019s just a mater of syntax. I give much more credence to evidence that can be verified using scientific methodology. Does that help?
Amen. Faith means never having to explain the fine print. But, fwiw, the Hebrew word for "day" has several meanings.
I did not include Humans in that statement so don''''t attack me. But according to fossil records fish, reptiles, and other creatures did evolve and change over time on this planet.
Posted by acolton1
That''s because the UFOs dropped us off on Earth and have been studying us ever since. If we don''t manage to kill ourselves off, we will join the rest of the universe to live among the real beings of this galaxy.
What is off topic and how so? You spoke of evidence in it''s relation to proof.
Posted by actornaught
Remember, Singinrick doesn''t consider himself Christian. Evidently, he made up his own religion but he says he''s not religious, either. I guess that make him, what, confused?
Posted by nopacifism3 at 02:46 PM : Jun 26, 2008
LMAO!! It''s that MESSIANIC COMPLEX again! I''m only talking to s''ick rickmiessejr.
Funny how often he thinks he represents anybody but himself...
Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008
No they didnt. You need to read the article with both hands free, and not pulling your little engine that couldnt. Then you''ll be able to focus a little better.
Posted by nopacifism2 at 02:31 PM : Jun 26, 2008
This is where you start popping off and then have to change your nick, s''ick.
And what''s with the "no pacifism"? Not at all Christian of you...
THE TROUBLE IS THAT THE DATA THAT I HAVE READ ON THIS SUBJECT WAS DONE BY MEDICAL DOCTORS THAT HAD NO PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT THEY ARE GAY.
Posted by hbevis at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008
--------------
Get out of here and spout your garbage somewhere else.....Who give a $hit what gay people think....
I''''m don''''t follow your arguement. There is no truely solid physical evidence of ''''time'''' because it is a part of our concept of existance, but I believe it exists the same as I believe evolution exists. God can also be thought of as a concept of part of our existance. Because you have some evidence of evolution does not make it so.
This is off topic, I also have a strong belief in God and also believe in evolution. What I take issue with is trying to teach Creationism in a science class. If you want to teach it as science then it need to be supported by scientific evidence using scientific methodology. So far it doesn%u2019t meet the standard.
Save it God did not create everyting. God may have given the spark of life to this planet but things evolved on their own not with help from a greater power thats just stupid.
Wow when are all you Bible thumpin people believe the maybe some things did EVOLVE on this planet and it took millions of years for them to Evolve.
I did not include Humans in that statement so don''t attack me. But according to fossil records fish, reptiles, and other creatures did evolve and change over time on this planet.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 149 Comments