Page 1 of 2

Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:39 pm
by neo-x
A spectacular new “missing link” fossil has been unearthed in China. The 419 million year old armoured fish, called Entelognathus, meaning “complete jaw” solves an age-old debate in science. For palaeontologists this fish is as big as finding the Higgs-Boson particle because of its immense significance to our understanding of early vertebrate evolution...
This fish now, is the earliest known species with a modern jaw. Guys we are likely seeing an early ancestor of vertebrates and of course humans.

Image

Image

Full stories here:

http://theconversation.com/extraordinar ... hina-18461
http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-fish ... aw-1.13823

You can read the first page ofthe original paper published in Nature here at redcube You would have to click on the magnification button a few times though for the script to be legible.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:07 pm
by Ivellious
You should note that, unfortunately, you need to be part of an accredited university or have a subscription to Nature to read the original article, sadly. But getting this published in Nature is a pretty huge deal. They don't let anything into that journal that isn't legitimately a big scientific discovery.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:47 am
by hughfarey
neo-x wrote:Guys we are likely seeing an early ancestor of vertebrates and of course humans.
Hardly. Vertebrates had been going for 100 million years before this fish turned up. But the principal point is well made.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:01 am
by RickD
Here's Reasons.org's answer to this fish. Fuz Rana actually makes the point that it forces the evolutionary paradigm to be rewritten.
http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -to-a-fish

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:02 am
by Thadeyus
It's interesting that the gentleman spends 15 of his 30 minutes discussing evolution, though.

Very much cheers to all.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 am
by RickD
Thadeyus wrote:It's interesting that the gentleman spends 15 of his 30 minutes discussing evolution, though.

Very much cheers to all.
:swhat:

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:41 pm
by Thadeyus
RickD wrote:
Thadeyus wrote:It's interesting that the gentleman spends 15 of his 30 minutes discussing evolution, though.

Very much cheers to all.
:swhat:
? Huh ? The first 15 minutes the guy is there explaining how everything fits as far as evolution is concerned. Frankly? I kind of gave up after listening for 20 minutes and not really hearing anything of/from the creation point of view.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:21 pm
by B. W.
Image

Looks like an uncle or that long lost cousin who got lost climbing that ol'tree --- so long agooo...

Sorry - couldn't resist... :mrgreen:

:pound:
-
-
-

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:10 pm
by RickD
Thadeyus wrote:
RickD wrote:
Thadeyus wrote:It's interesting that the gentleman spends 15 of his 30 minutes discussing evolution, though.

Very much cheers to all.
:swhat:
? Huh ? The first 15 minutes the guy is there explaining how everything fits as far as evolution is concerned. Frankly? I kind of gave up after listening for 20 minutes and not really hearing anything of/from the creation point of view.
You missed the point of the podcast then.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:27 pm
by Thadeyus
RickD wrote:
Thadeyus wrote:
RickD wrote: You missed the point of the podcast then.
Um..no. I was just expressing an opinion on the pod cast.

15-20 of waffling talk is not exactly a great way to make a point. ;)

Very much cheers to all.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:45 pm
by RickD
Thadeyus wrote:
RickD wrote:
Thadeyus wrote:
RickD wrote: You missed the point of the podcast then.
Um..no. I was just expressing an opinion on the pod cast.

15-20 of waffling talk is not exactly a great way to make a point. ;)

Very much cheers to all.
The point Fuz was making, was that this discovery goes against the most current evolutionary beliefs on the subject. Like I said, you missed the point.

Very much no cheers for you. ;)

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:23 pm
by Thadeyus
RickD wrote:The point Fuz was making, was that this discovery goes against the most current evolutionary beliefs on the subject. Like I said, you missed the point.

Very much no cheers for you. ;)
Um...really? Okay...that would maybe explain the 15 to 20 minutes doing pretty much nothing but waffling on about fossil placement within sedimentary layers, genealogy, nomenclature and pretty much a discussion about how said fossil actually fits into the way the science of evolution works.

Even than, out of the last ten or so minutes, not all of that is spent on the talker's own ideas on how the design etc does its 'Design' thing.

Again, lots of waffle and talk.

Wishing you and yours all the best.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:54 pm
by neo-x
RickD wrote:Here's Reasons.org's answer to this fish. Fuz Rana actually makes the point that it forces the evolutionary paradigm to be rewritten.
http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -to-a-fish
Rick, Fazal Rana, is a creation scientist, what do you think he will say on the subject?

His main points is:
1. This fish changes the evolutionary theory, upside down.

And then he goes off on trying to make a case from ID. But that right there is wrong. What this find changes is our perceived timline of when complex jaw bones appeared. National Geographic, Christian science monitor, live science and nature all commented on this that this changes how we thought modern jaw bones appeared in evolutionary timeline. This does not mean evolution needs to be re-written, that was blatant exaggeration and misleading for the layman.

Fuz dates a book from the seventies as proof that evolution theory CAN'T BE TRUSTED? If he is a scientist he should know that new discoveries change things. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE DOES. This is not dogma, nor religion which has to stay the same.

I was quite upset about how he used big words to essentially say that this proves evolution as understood, is backways. That was so dumb.

And he also focused on the wrong parts. What makes it historically important, is the fact that before this, all fossils we had uncovered showed that the extinct family of primitive armored fishes, the placoderms, had simple jaws, composed of a few large bones. But in the new fossil, there is a distinctive three-bone system still used by chewing vertebrates today: a lower jawbone called the dentary and two upper jaw bones called the premaxilla (holding the front teeth) and the maxilla (holding the canine and cheek teeth).

If you look the fish from the top, it looks like a simple placoderm, but from the side, it does not match the jaws from the previous placoderm fossils. Fuz rana really used this to reject evolution but what was really important is that current evolution estimates fish like creatures coming on land some 370 million years ago and it was thought that the complex-modern jaw structure was formed somewhat prior to that but later than placoderms; but the find of this fish changes that idea because it seems that the complex jaw had evolved in a fish which earlier had shown no signs of it. But this fish, it is the missing link. Because you have fish with simple jaws and then you have modern creatures on land and in water with complex jaws, but you don't have a missing fossil in the middle. This fish fills it. Its a fish but unlike fish of its times, it has modern jaw bones like we have today in vertebrates, esp humans. This changes our view of how face bones, cheek bones have evolved. Ultimately it will help piece together the transition from ocean life to terrestrial life as far as the modern jaw of vertebrates is concerned.

So this is what it changes, our understanding of how modern jaw bones appeared early in the evolutionary timeline than what was earlier estimated. The transition gap is still huge between jawless fish and jawed fish but its not what Fuz would have you believe.

Infact look at what scientists are saying, e.g Dr. Friedman who reviewed the original published paper in Nature said:
"This is an unexpected discovery that inverts schoolbook teaching on the evolution of bony skulls," Dr Friedman told the BBC.

"Up until now it had been thought that the anatomical peculiarities of bony fishes - the group that would eventually give rise to human beings - are specialisations that arose later in vertebrate evolutionary history in our own bony fish lineage."

"But now that narrative has been turned on its head."

Dr Friedman said that the fish's jaw was much more like that of a modern bony fish - which is why its discovery may offer a new perspective on the early evolution of these creatures.

"While this fossil does not tell us anything about the origin of jawed fishes from jawless ones, it does tell us about subsequent modifications to jaw structure that we thought were unique to bony fishes," Dr Friedman said.

It is thought that modern jawed vertebrates, such as sharks and bony fishes, emerged from a collection of jawed, armoured fishes known as placoderms.

Dr Friedman says that the fossil adds weight to the theory that many classic bony fish features were evolved "very deep in our family tree, before bony fish split from sharks".
And speaking of this, the idea that new evidence changes how we see things, is actually welcome. Its not a fault its a strength.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:04 pm
by ryanbouma
neo-x wrote: And then he goes off on trying to make a case from ID. But that right there is wrong. What this find changes is our perceived timline of when complex jaw bones appeared. National Geographic, Christian science monitor, live science and nature all commented on this that this changes how we thought modern jaw bones appeared in evolutionary timeline. This does not mean evolution needs to be re-written, that was blatant exaggeration and misleading for the layman.

Fuz dates a book from the seventies as proof that evolution theory CAN'T BE TRUSTED? If he is a scientist he should know that new discoveries change things. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE DOES. This is not dogma, nor religion which has to stay the same.

I was quite upset about how he used big words to essentially say that this proves evolution as understood, is backways. That was so dumb.
You and I heard it differently. He even said this discovery is not a reason to give up on the theory of evolution. His point was that if re-writes like this occur, then we should beware when an evolutionist claims certain elements of evolutionary science to be hard FACT. I receive this kind of mentallity by evolutionists often, that the theory is fact and entirely sorted out. Frankly, you've come off this way before. The truth is, evolution seems have needed re-writing much more often than it should, and this is just another example. Other areas of science go through refinement, but rarely require re-writes.

Re: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:47 pm
by neo-x
ryanbouma wrote:
neo-x wrote: And then he goes off on trying to make a case from ID. But that right there is wrong. What this find changes is our perceived timline of when complex jaw bones appeared. National Geographic, Christian science monitor, live science and nature all commented on this that this changes how we thought modern jaw bones appeared in evolutionary timeline. This does not mean evolution needs to be re-written, that was blatant exaggeration and misleading for the layman.

Fuz dates a book from the seventies as proof that evolution theory CAN'T BE TRUSTED? If he is a scientist he should know that new discoveries change things. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE DOES. This is not dogma, nor religion which has to stay the same.

I was quite upset about how he used big words to essentially say that this proves evolution as understood, is backways. That was so dumb.
You and I heard it differently. He even said this discovery is not a reason to give up on the theory of evolution. His point was that if re-writes like this occur, then we should beware when an evolutionist claims certain elements of evolutionary science to be hard FACT. I receive this kind of mentallity by evolutionists often, that the theory is fact and entirely sorted out. Frankly, you've come off this way before. The truth is, evolution seems have needed re-writing much more often than it should, and this is just another example. Other areas of science go through refinement, but rarely require re-writes.
The theory is not completely sorted out at all and no one is saying here that is the case. The variations occur where there is less or no evidence, eventually it will fill out the more we discover. Re-writes are a welcome addition. With every rewrite the theory of evolution has only grown stronger in the last 170 years. The base mechanisms are correct, that is a fact. That is the problem that anti-evolutionists couldn't prove otherwise and thus modern OEC was born and then became popular with people who accept science. The best anti-evolution groups have done, is to find technical points to avoid accepting evolution, ID, YEC etc, they have not been able to prove that evolution does not happen. Infact with each passing year the gaps closes more.

One thing that the church has lost its appeal to a young generation is because we come off completely absurd on the biological sciences front, a front which has seen tremendous advances, and with no help from the church. As long as science is being preached in churches, this kind of thing will continue.