Posts Tagged ‘tetrapod evolution’

Everybody with at least a junior-high education has heard of “survival of the fittest.” It is a common way of expressing Charles Darwin’s proposition of the importance of competitive advantage in the survival of a species. In a nutshell, the theory holds that the way plant and animal groups spread out over the eons was to evolve better survival traits & mechanisms, such that they out-survived and displaced their older and/or less “fit” competitors.

Now, however, some scientists are questioning that supposition. (And, I’m not referring to proponents of Intelligent Design or creationism of any sort.)

Lizard drawing by Darwin while on H.M.S. Beagle voyage

Lizard drawing by Darwin while on H.M.S. Beagle voyage

Palaeontologist Mike Benton and colleagues at the University of Bristol have completed a recent project, which they claim is “the first numerical study investigating the link between tetrapod taxonomic and ecological diversity on a global scale.” As Benton had concluded in a more limited analysis published in 1996, this new study (published in Biology Letters) indicates that competitive pressures were not the main reason for radiation of the species. Rather, it was “expansion into new ecospace.” The team’s comprehensive analysis of data from around the world, and spanning more than 400 million years, revealed multiple lines of evidence leading to their conclusion. What was missing was evidence that “survival of the fittest” played more than a minor role for the spread of tetrapods. [Btw, I wrote about the oldest tetrapods here and here.]

Sarda Sahney, a PhD student working with Benton et al., summed it up this way on her blog:

[T]he rich biodiversity we see on Earth today has grown out of expansion, not competition. Darwin cited competition among animals, coined ‘survival of the fittest’, as a driver of evolution in his book, On the Origin of Species; since then competition has been considered key to having grown Earth’s biodiversity. But while competition has been observed on a small scale, (eg. between species), there is little evidence of competition guiding large-scale shifts in biodiversity, such as the dominance of mammals and birds over reptiles and amphibians in today’s world. Our new research supports the idea that animals diversified by expanding into empty ecological roles rather than by direct competition with each other.”

Dare we question the Great OZ — er, I mean, Charles Darwin?

The write-up in the BBC News was surprisingly candid, with the tagline: “Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.” The writer begins:

[Darwin] imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived. But new research identifies the availability of ‘living space’, rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution. Findings question the old adage of ‘nature red in tooth and claw’…. [Instead,] really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals…. This concept challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.”

How did the Neo-Darwinian establishment react? Predictably. Steve Newton of the [Darwinist propaganda machine] National Center for Scientific Education (NCSE) wrote a piece called “Darwin Was Not Wrong–New Study Being Distorted”. The first target of his scorn was the BBC News report.

Science fares poorly in the media…. When scientific topics are reported, they are consistently misunderstood and spiced-up with such sensationalism that the original significance is contorted beyond all recognition. Such misreporting has happened again–this time involving Charles Darwin and evolution.”

And I agree wholeheartedly. It happens all the time, but the spin and/or sensationalism usually favors the Neo-Darwinian theory or conveniently omits the inconvenient questions raised by new evidence. The problem with Newton’s bringing it up in this case is that the person who wrote the article for BBC News is not your average columnist who was assigned the “science beat”. The piece was written by Howard Falcon-Lang, a professional scientist who has been widely published in peer-reviewed literature. Is someone like Falcon-Lang likely to sensationalize such a story? Or, did he just not understand it?

Charles Darwin statue at Natural History Museum

Charles Darwin statue at Natural History Museum

Newton goes on to say…

A press release for the paper noted that when examining large-scale changes in biodiversity, the data suggest: ‘Animals diversified by expanding into empty ecological roles rather than by direct competition with each other’. This paper does not argue that Darwin’s conception of small-scale competition within species is incorrect. It does not argue that new species arising out of accumulating changes is a flawed concept. It does not argue Darwin was wrong.”

Try again, Mr. Newton. As David Tyler of the Access Research Network (ARN) points out,

[The paper] sets out to identify factors relevant to biodiversification (the origin of species). It claims that competition between species, whether small-scale or large-scale, is not relevant to understanding the phenomenon. Darwin was not wrong to say that ‘small-scale competition within species’ is a real occurrence – but he was wrong to think this phenomenon helps explain the origin of species!”

Newton’s seemingly knee-jerk reaction is somewhat typical of the high-priests of Darwin, whenever their dogma is being questioned. Whether through carelessness or disingenuousness, they immediately try to a) misrepresent the findings; b) spin the conclusions to seemingly support Neo-Darwinism; c) confuse the layman with lots of extraneous numbers & technical language; and/or d) cast aspersions on the integrity and/or competence of the researchers and/or any reporters who dare to not tow the Neo-Darwinian line. While I haven’t seen Newton’s full response, there do seem to be elements of “a” & “d”, in this case.

Why is this? I mean, I understand that a new theory should be well-tested and studies need to be reviewed by independent parties before being fully accepted. But, why so quick to pooh-pooh a new idea and attack anyone who supports it? Could it be that they don’t like their sacred cow being examined too closely? They can’t allow even a hint of doubt about their sacred scripture?

Ironically, I’m not sure Benton et al.’s conclusions do any real damage, ultimately, to the current theory. Darwinism has survived such tweaking before — witness the “Neo” prefix now preferred. Frankly, the NCSE has much bigger problems, when it comes to defending their materialistic “faith”, than the relative significance of competitive pressures in the historical radiation of species.

The 2004 discovery (reported in 2006) of a well-preserved fossil creature dubbed Tiktaalik was hailed as the “missing link” that finally solidified the “fish to tetrapod” transition — a “snapshot” of “a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land”. Dated to 375-383 Mya, Tiktaalik was concluded to be an intermediary between the sarcopterygian fishes (i.e., Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys) and early tetrapods (i.e., Acanthostega and Ichthyostega). Or, as some call it, a “fishapod”. Some paleontologists have made highly controversial claims of evidence for a “wrist” and fingers, as well as muscular forefins. It had a spiracle, and evidence suggests lungs & gills and eventual development of a more robust ribcage. Along with certain intercranial structures, all these developments were believed to allow Tiktaalik to breathe and support itself on solid ground. Tiktaalik is also the first fish (or, something like it) known to have a “neck”, because it lacked the bony plates in the gill area which restrict head movement.

Some have argued that it is more appropriate to classify Tiktaalik as simply a fish, rather than part-fish/part-amphibian. Notably, its fin is completely finlike, showing no real evidence of transforming into a foot, which is precisely the key feature needed to justify calling it a “transitional form” from fish to tetrapod.  It is also an “inconvenience” that Tiktaalik had no precursors to fingers like Panderichthys did, despite the fact that Tiktaalik is supposed to be further along the evolutionary ladder. Although the Tiktaalik specimens are incredibly well-preserved, they shed little light on the evolution of the soft anatomy requisite for living on land. Furthermore, a true intermediate form would have needed to simultaneously be evolving many features & abilities just to survive its transition from water-dweller to land-dweller — e.g., new ways to keep from drying out on land, specialized structures for breathing oxygen, new methods of obtaining food and water, etc.

In 2008, Jennifer Clack, Per Ahlberg, et al. published their findings on Ventastega, another fossil discovery dating to 365 Mya. This basil tetrapod, which some factors suggest lived in a tidal sea, was “probably more aquatic than terrestrial,” yet “it was more tetrapod than fish….” They classified it as intermediate between the ‘elpistostegids’ (e.g., Panderichthys & Tiktaalik) and Devonian tetrapods (e.g., Acanthostega & Ichthyostega). As far as I can tell, though, they have no actual Ventastega fossils dating earlier than Acanthostega, so this transitional status is no more than “educated speculation”. Plus, it isn’t as “advanced” as some other tetrapods, so it seems to be out of place or anachronistic.

Now, here is what blew everything out of the water, so to speak. Recently, at an old quarry in southeastern Poland were found multiple sets of tracks of a tetrapod — actually, from multiple individuals of different sizes — in what looks to be an ancient marine shoreline. According to Per Ahlberg of Sweden’s Uppsala University, a member of the team that found the tracks, “[They are] fossil of footprints that give us the earliest record of how our very distant ancestors moved out of the water and moved on to the land and took their first steps.”

Tetrapod tracks

397 Mya Tetrapod tracks (borrowed from BBC News)

The footprints, some of which show distinct signs of digits and ankles, date much earlier than they “should”; specifically, they are quite solidly placed at 395-397 million years old. That is 12 million years or more before Tiktaalik, which rules out Tiktaalik as transitional between fish and the first tetrapod. In fact, this now pushes the earliest known tetrapod (though we don’t have an actual skeletal fossil to name, yet) back by at least 18 million years. Furthermore, these trackways “show that the first tetrapods thrived in the sea, trampling the mud of coral-reef lagoons; this is at odds with the long-held view that river deltas and lakes were the necessary environments for the transition from water to land during vertebrate evolution.”

What to make of all this? It is a reminder of a few things that we often need reminding of. First, the oldest known example of a thing is not always the oldest ever. This is just as true in paleontology as it is in other historical sciences, like archaeology. This is often true for the latest known examples, as well. Second, morphologically transitional forms are not always chronologically transitional, and vice versa. That is, Thing X may have features that look to be a mix of Thing A and Thing B, but dating methods sometimes show that Thing X cannot possibly have been a developmental intermediate between A and B. Thus, any theory that assumed such would be false. (Remember the case of the Archaeopteryx?) This is all the more reason to remember that such theories must be held with reserve, always provisional upon things like further physical specimens for evidence, better and more-refined technologies, and mathematical probabilities of events within known parameters. Also, beware of letting assumptions & biases get in the way of facts.

This brings me to my third observation, which is that, once again, the “proof” for neo-Darwinism isn’t nearly as solid as many of its proponents like to proclaim. Indeed, even before this current discovery, there were many competing ideas of how to best classify the various fishes, potential fishapods, and primitive amphibians, precisely because the different mosaics of “transitional” features found in different epochs make it far from clearcut. For example, was Panderichthys a fish or a fishapod? Was Acanthostega a fishapod or a true tetrapod? One’s opinion on matters like these determine where one thinks they should go in the “tree of life”, which, of course, is actually more of a bush. Indeed, many different models have been advanced and then abandoned over the years. The trackways in Poland just throw another wrench into the works.

With the above said, this latest find does NOT necessarily disprove evolutionary theory. It merely means that the EARLIEST tetrapods are older than previously thought AND that they are not quite where they were expected. Paleontologists must now look at Early Devonian (416-397 Mya) formations for even EARLIER transitions. They will also need to find EVEN EARLIER lobe-finned or other fishes as candidates for the tetrapods’ progenitors. (Perhaps Coelacanth will get another chance?) And what of Tiktaalik and the other creatures discussed above? It is still possible that they do represent a separate and unrelated, fish-to-tetrapod transition. But, one has to wonder if the Darwinian process can account for all the genetic & systemic changes needed to go from fully aquatic to land-dwelling, especially in the required timeframe of just a few million years.

Of course, this assumes that the fishes & fishapods actually transitioned into anything new. Perhaps they were stable forms in their own right, well-adapted (or, well-designed, if you prefer) for living in their particular environment. After all, they seem to have been fully-functional, lacking any unfinished, half-formed adaptations. They were not mere works-in-progress.

I’ll finish with this quote from Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature: “A fairly complete picture of tetrapod evolution, built up over the past twenty years, has been replaced by a blank canvas overnight…. It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian [stage of the Devonian Period], is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian [stage], then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

At the very least, the discovery in Poland represents somewhat of a paradigm shift. It should be fascinating to see what evidence future discoveries bring to this debate….

Once again, the evidence flies in the face of evolutionary (i.e., neo-Darwinian) theory. Or, does it?

A new discovery in Poland (see here or here) places the oldest tetrapod several million years earlier than the supposed transitional forms that biologists have been touting as proof of fish evolving into land animals. Naturally, this has caused quite a few excited ripples throughout the scientific community, with evolutionists in general insisting that the discovery isn’t really a problem and Darwin-skeptics pointing out that it really is a problem — possibly even a game-changer. But, everyone agrees that this is a significant find which could lead to further, revolutionary discoveries and advancement in knowledge of the era in question.

Before delving into the new find itself, let’s get a little background on the prevalent theory. First, a “tetrapod” is any four-limbed (but, not finned), usually terrestrial, animal with a spine — from salamanders to lizards to buzzards to Joe Sixpack. Evolutionary biology teaches that the first tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fish, out of brackish and/or fresh water,
in the Devonian Period, which spans 416 to 359.2 million years ago (Mya). Loooong before the dinosaurs ruled the Earth, obviously, since they’re, like, “advanced” tetrapods.

For quite awhile, evolutionary biologists believed that some of these lobe-finned fish started coming up on land to hunt for prey (like today’s mudskippers) or to search for water when their pond started drying up. Those who were able to stay out of the water for longer periods began adapting and eventually developed lungs, legs, etc. In the late 1980s, British paleontologist Jennifer A. Clack discovered the fossil of an Acanthostega, an early “transitional” tetrapod that turned out to be entirely aquatic, thereby forcing a shift in the consensus view of the “fish to tetrapod” transition. That is, it became apparent that the first tetrapods were not land-dwellers, so the reasons for the transition no longer fit. Some have gone with an “escape-from-predator” scenario as the selective pressure for moving to land. Others speculate the limbs were for “negotiating their way through underwater obstacles” and were later “co-opted for terrestrial use.”

The major “players” are/were as follows:

Coelacanth is probably the best-known of the prehistoric, lobe-finned fishes, primarily because several specimens have actually been found alive in modern times (latest in 1998). It first shows up in the fossil record at 410 Mya and until 1938 was believed to have gone extinct roughly 65 Mya. Some of the coelacanth’s unusual features include a three-lobed tailfin; pectoral, pelvic and anal fins on muscular stalks (or lobes) supported by bones; a special electroreceptive device (i.e., a rostral organ) in the front of the skull, thought to have aided with balance and/or in hunting prey. However, while the coelacanth was originally thought to be a “missing link”, it is now understood to not be part of the direct tetrapod lineage. Rather, it is their sister group, the Rhipidistians. These split into lungfishes and Tetrapodomorphs, both of whom are believed to have developed proto-lungs and proto-limbs — in the middle Devonian (397-385 Mya) and late Devonian (385-359 Mya) epochs, respectively.

Lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods

Lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods (borrowed from Wikipedia)

Often featured in textbooks as a “missing link” dating to about 385 Mya, Eusthenopteron was actually a primitive lobe-finned fish. But, it shared certain features with tetrapods — e.g., certain skull rooting bone patterns, internal nostrils, labyrinthodont teeth, a two-part cranium hinged at mid-length along an intracranial joint, and similar patterns of its fin endoskeleton (i.e., there are bones reminiscent of arms & legs). On the other hand, Eusthenopteron appears to have lacked a clear larval stage and metamorphosis, unlike later tetrapods.

Panderichthys, which lived around 380-385 Mya, had a large head like a tetrapod’s and is considered to have many features that demonstrated an early transitional phase between the lobe-finned fish and primitive tetrapods. For example, “its pectoral girdle shows derived characteristics while its pelvic girdle retains ancestral ones,” so it could at least prop itself up on its muscular forelimbs. Research reported on in 2008 discussed a fanlike array of fingerlike extensions “tucked beneath the fin’s skin and bony scales and rays.” Notably, it also had a spiracle (kind of like a whale’s blowhole), which is held by some to have eventually evolved into the stirrup bone of the human middle ear.

Acanthostega dates to about 365 Mya. It was salamander-like in appearance, with four legs & feet and eight webbed digits on the end of each, but it had no wrists (ankles?) to support itself out of the water. It had primitive lungs, but its short ribs could not yet support its chest cavity on land. Its gills were more like a fish’s than like a modern amphibian’s. Research on Acanthostega‘s skull indicates that it took part in “terrestrial-style” feeding (i.e., it bit down on its prey, rather than suction-feeding like most fish). It is the fusions in the creature’s pelvic girdle, a development that allowed it to bear more weight than its ancestors, that is most significant in tetrapod evolution. But, because it still couldn’t survive on land, the legs must have evolved for some reason other than walking.

Known Ichthyostega fossils range from 367-362.5 Mya. It appears to have had a more fish-like skull than its contemporary Acanthostega but likely relied more on its lungs for breathing than its gills. Its more robust girdle, more supportive ribs, and stronger vertebrae would seem to make it more suited for living on land than Acanthostega. It had seven digits on each hind limb (unknown for forelimbs) and fin rays on its tail. While the adult Ichthyostega was able to pull itself onto land and possibly sun itself for awhile, its hind limbs were apparently too weak to allow for much terrestrial locomotion. It had to return to the water to cool down, feed, and reproduce. [Note: Recent studies published in 2009 on the pattern of muscle attachment processes on limb bones suggest Ichthyostega was earlier in the evolutionary chain than Acanthostega. Yet, the latter was entirely aquatic….]

Other candidates for earliest tetrapod are the Elginerpeton and Obruchevichthys, both of which are known by only a few fossil bones (just a jawbone for the latter) dating to around 375 Mya.

That’s where things stood for many years….

Continued at Those Dang Tetrapod Tracks (Part 2).