The African Lungfish Has Scientists Rethinking Hundreds Of Millions Of Years Of Evolutionary History, page 1

The African Lungfish Has Scientists Rethinking Hundreds Of Millions Of Years Of Evolutionary History, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 14-12-2011 @ 07:20 PM by Connector

Not sure if this the correct form, but it seems to fit.

The African Lungfish Has Scientists Rethinking Hundreds Of Millions Of Years Of Evolutionary History. A Big Game Changer? | titianmind

titianmind

A fish that uses its fins to walk across the floor is causing scientists to rethink the evolution of walking on land, according to a new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers at the University of Chicago observed an African lungfish using its pelvic fins “as hind legs to propel itself along the bottom of the tank,” reports Victoria Gill and Jason Palmer at BBC News.

This could mean that our ability to walk developed underwater—before creatures grew toes or limbs necessary to move on land—essentially rewriting hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history.

I find this theory very interesting and if proved true, will definitely shake up the evolutionary map. It makes sense in the fact, that walking under / in shallow water would be easier for small weak limbs to adjust/evolve more easily to land gravity. I wonder if any of the ocean mammals, that show atavistic pelvises, will inter-play in this line of study on the other end of the spectrum.

Thoughts?

edit on 14-12-2011 by Connector because: pics

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 07:43 PM by MidnightBlue2565

This is the very interesting, I remember hearing about bottom dwelling fish that use their fins to move through the sand. This is a great find, its information like this that is deminishing the large gaps in our evolutionary history. It wont be long until we have both the past and present completely mapped out, and then we can look towards the future with newfound hope and understanding!

Good post, Thank You!

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 07:45 PM by ThrowCatsAtCacti

We already know of fish like this, one species is a popular pet the Axolotl.
I dont think this would change any parts of evolution because every animal goes down a different evolutionary path which means anything was possible for our development.

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 07:49 PM by Connector

reply to post by MidnightBlue2565

Thank you! I love finding and sharing new info about ideas like this

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 07:53 PM by Connector

Originally posted by ThrowCatsAtCacti
We already know of fish like this, one species is a popular pet the Axolotl.
I dont think this would change any parts of evolution because every animal goes down a different evolutionary path which means anything was possible for our development.

The difference being, this fish is using is back fins / pelvis...most other observations were of fish using their front fins pulling, rather then pushing. Regardless.....it will be interesting to see if this study yields any new ideas, theories. And true, the more we know, the clearer the picture becomes, even if it doesn't relate directly to man.

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 08:25 PM by lonegurkha

reply to post by ThrowCatsAtCacti

The Axolotl is an amphibian. It simpliy lives underwater.
Like the mudpuppie and others.

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 08:53 PM by Astyanax

I posted a link to this BBC article in a very old thread, started by our good friend madnessinmysoul and sporadically curated by me, entitled What transitional form will we have this week?. However, it’s good to see it get a discussion of its own.

Your thread title is technically correct, but this discovery is not exactly revolutionary, except for that small group of biologists studying the origins of ambulatory motion; it indicates that walking may have evolved in water rather than on land. This is highly plausible, and since lungfish lack swim bladders to control their buoyancy (their ‘lungs’ are modified swim bladders that have lost their origin function), it would probably be an energy-saving advantage to be able to move from place to place without having to expend motion in generating dynamic lift through the water.

Of course, some creationist is bound to post here saying it shows that scientists are all confused about the sequence of evolution don’t know what they’re talking about.

edit on 14/12/11 by Astyanax because: of adaptation.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 05:40 PM by edmc^2

reply to post by Astyanax

Yep--- "scientists are all confused about the sequence of evolution don’t know what they’re talking about."

Evolutionist say evolution is forward looking. So why did the African Lungfish went back to the water after a long "sabbatical"??

hmmm? I guess it wants to devolve.

Or is it - it's just the nature of the species - designed to be a "lungfish".

man - why this is a mystery to evolutionists and needs rethinking boggles the mind.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 05:45 PM by Lawgiver

reply to post by MidnightBlue2565

so, its true. the human race is full of bottom dwellers. doesn't surprise me at all.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 09:51 PM by Tony4211

reply to post by edmc^2

Evolutionist say evolution is forward looking. So why did the African Lungfish went back to the water after a long "sabbatical"??

Just because they go back to the water, doesn't mean they are deevolving... One that's not even a phenomena in Evolution. Two, it would be the exact opposite of what you would think "deevolution" would be. They are surviving and is, believe it or not a LARGE part of evolution.

Or is it - it's just the nature of the species - designed to be a "lungfish".

No... how? The nature of the species? haha That is the laziest, cope-out answer I have ever heard. No wonder people like you don't research the stuff. You are content with your own rubbish. God did it. Phew... work done.

man - why this is a mystery to evolutionists and needs rethinking boggles the mind.

Saying this implies you have proven intelligent design or any other thing that opposes Evolution to be true. I am sure a couple of people on here are itching to hear how you did this.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 09:53 PM by Ixtab

Did they find out it is only 6,000 years old?

LOL

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 10:02 PM by Tony4211

reply to post by Astyanax

Yep--- "scientists are all confused about the sequence of evolution don’t know what they’re talking about."

Like clock work. haha

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 11:42 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by Astyanax

Yep--- "scientists are all confused about the sequence of evolution don’t know what they’re talking about."

Like clock work. haha

Glad to be of service - that was a joke my friend and you took it so seriously...

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 11:48 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by edmc^2

Evolutionist say evolution is forward looking. So why did the African Lungfish went back to the water after a long "sabbatical"??

Just because they go back to the water, doesn't mean they are deevolving... One that's not even a phenomena in Evolution. Two, it would be the exact opposite of what you would think "deevolution" would be. They are surviving and is, believe it or not a LARGE part of evolution.

Or is it - it's just the nature of the species - designed to be a "lungfish".

No... how? The nature of the species? haha That is the laziest, cope-out answer I have ever heard. No wonder people like you don't research the stuff. You are content with your own rubbish. God did it. Phew... work done.

man - why this is a mystery to evolutionists and needs rethinking boggles the mind.

Saying this implies you have proven intelligent design or any other thing that opposes Evolution to be true. I am sure a couple of people on here are itching to hear how you did this.