This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Before the lobe finned fish started their move onto the land, what life was there already on land?
I presume there were some plants. Did any insects or worms and suchlike make it onto land before the lobe-finned fish descendants made it?
I presume there were some plants. Did any insects or worms and suchlike make it onto land before the lobe-finned fish descendants made it?
In reply to lowersharpnose: yes and they all carried bibles and worshipped Richard Dawkins who was, during that epoch, a very religious do-gooder.
In reply to felt:
Thanks. That is a paper about early life, cyanobacteria, microbial life and whatnot - I am after a more recent picture really.
Did plants and insects colonise land before vertebrates?
Thanks. That is a paper about early life, cyanobacteria, microbial life and whatnot - I am after a more recent picture really.
Did plants and insects colonise land before vertebrates?
In reply to lowersharpnose: I would think plants would have come first. I could imagine slimes and seaweeds floating and at the edge of the Seas slowly spreading and evolving to being Land based, and these being one of the impetus that tempted the lobe fish or whatever on to land, like a sheep looking over a fence into a better field.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
IIRC plants and insects Colonised the Land considerably before fishes began the evolution to amphibians
IIRC plants and insects Colonised the Land considerably before fishes began the evolution to amphibians
It might be possible for evolution by natural selection to explain finches beaks but don't you think it's a step to far for a fish to grow legs?
In reply to Philip:
Why? The bone structure is Clearly in place in fishes. Can be seen in fish Species Like coelecanth. Lungfish show Amphibian breathing evolution.
Why? The bone structure is Clearly in place in fishes. Can be seen in fish Species Like coelecanth. Lungfish show Amphibian breathing evolution.
In reply to Philip:
Picture a pool next to a body of water which are separated by a raised bank. Fish in the main body of water have been jumping this bank until it becomes too large to make it, so now the fish are decking onto land a short distance away from the pool. A fish with slightly stronger fins can wiggle/slide/pull itself that short distance quicker than one with weaker fins - this offers it the tiniest statistical advantage of survival over its rival. Over a million or more lives, this advantage begins to tell and the strong-finned trait is passed on more than the weaker-finned. Extrapolating, surely you can see how this goes from here?
Picture a pool next to a body of water which are separated by a raised bank. Fish in the main body of water have been jumping this bank until it becomes too large to make it, so now the fish are decking onto land a short distance away from the pool. A fish with slightly stronger fins can wiggle/slide/pull itself that short distance quicker than one with weaker fins - this offers it the tiniest statistical advantage of survival over its rival. Over a million or more lives, this advantage begins to tell and the strong-finned trait is passed on more than the weaker-finned. Extrapolating, surely you can see how this goes from here?
In reply to Philip: Oh dear. So a magic sky fairy said 'I know what, I'll invent legs.' Yep, that makes a lot more sense.
Please, do some reading about how natural selection works, the timescales and sheer numbers of generations involved and then you can come back and explain to the class why you still think it's wrong.
Please, do some reading about how natural selection works, the timescales and sheer numbers of generations involved and then you can come back and explain to the class why you still think it's wrong.
In reply to Philip:
but don't you think it's a step to far for a fish to grow legs?
absolutely. Totally outrageous. Oh, wait....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
but don't you think it's a step to far for a fish to grow legs?
absolutely. Totally outrageous. Oh, wait....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I think you can forget jumping and consider very shallow water habitats. Being able to use your lobe fins for mobility by pulling and pushing on the mud at the bottom is going to be useful. Then it is a sequence of shorter shorter steps to move into shallower and shallower water until there is no water at all.
I think you can forget jumping and consider very shallow water habitats. Being able to use your lobe fins for mobility by pulling and pushing on the mud at the bottom is going to be useful. Then it is a sequence of shorter shorter steps to move into shallower and shallower water until there is no water at all.
In reply to Choss:
That is what seems reasonable to me too. The TV progs and books I have read seem to concentrate on the fish-->land move and make no mention of what was on the land before. That's what I want to know about.
That is what seems reasonable to me too. The TV progs and books I have read seem to concentrate on the fish-->land move and make no mention of what was on the land before. That's what I want to know about.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Slightly off topic but I thought this was interesting when I heard about it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
Slightly off topic but I thought this was interesting when I heard about it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Interesting question that gets ignored in most books I've read too. This is a useful snippet of info (from http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104land.html ):
The first terrestrial animals were various types of arthropods (bugs, broadly defined): the ancestors of millipedes and centipedes, the earliest arachnids, and the ancestors of insects were established on land in the Silurian Period. These ate the early plants, and each other.
(Other groups, such as earthworms, other worms, snails, and so on colonized during this time.)
The ancestors of the dinosaurs (and us!) during this time were still entirely aquatic.
Interesting question that gets ignored in most books I've read too. This is a useful snippet of info (from http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104land.html ):
The first terrestrial animals were various types of arthropods (bugs, broadly defined): the ancestors of millipedes and centipedes, the earliest arachnids, and the ancestors of insects were established on land in the Silurian Period. These ate the early plants, and each other.
(Other groups, such as earthworms, other worms, snails, and so on colonized during this time.)
The ancestors of the dinosaurs (and us!) during this time were still entirely aquatic.
In reply to lowersharpnose: h...
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Yes, probably a range of Arthropods rather than insects.
In the Silurian period, there were small plants evolved from algae, and organisms tend to be quick to exploit a new niche.
Lobed fins leading to legs may initially have been vital not to get out of water onto land, but get from a dessicating pool back into water. They are associated with a warmer period in Earth's history.
Yes, probably a range of Arthropods rather than insects.
In the Silurian period, there were small plants evolved from algae, and organisms tend to be quick to exploit a new niche.
Lobed fins leading to legs may initially have been vital not to get out of water onto land, but get from a dessicating pool back into water. They are associated with a warmer period in Earth's history.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Wow, what a pretentious little tw*t you are.
I have done some reading, not a lot, biological sciences aren't my thing. Are you saying you exclusively believe in natural selection as the only mechanism for evolution?
> (In reply to Philip) Oh dear. So a magic sky fairy said 'I know what, I'll invent legs.' Yep, that makes a lot more sense.
>
> Please, do some reading about how natural selection works, the timescales and sheer numbers of generations involved and then you can come back and explain to the class why you still think it's wrong.
>
> Please, do some reading about how natural selection works, the timescales and sheer numbers of generations involved and then you can come back and explain to the class why you still think it's wrong.
Wow, what a pretentious little tw*t you are.
I have done some reading, not a lot, biological sciences aren't my thing. Are you saying you exclusively believe in natural selection as the only mechanism for evolution?
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
This is exactly the scenario I find difficult to imagine. The other equally hard one is evolution of macro organisms from micro.
It is the difficulty of working with very large and very small numbers. The probability of the specific genetic variation occurring is so small, but the timescale and therefore the number of occurrences is so high. There needs to be sufficient time for evolution to happen, otherwise you would get extinction, but if there is sufficient time then is there really that great an environmental driving force.
> (In reply to Philip)
>
> Picture a pool next to a body of water which are separated by a raised bank. Fish in the main body of water have been jumping this bank until it becomes too large to make it, so now the fish are decking onto land a short distance away from the pool. A fish with slightly stronger fins can wiggle/slide/pull itself that short distance quicker than one with weaker fins - this offers it the tiniest statistical advantage of survival over its rival. Over a million or more lives, this advantage begins to tell and the strong-finned trait is passed on more than the weaker-finned. Extrapolating, surely you can see how this goes from here?
>
> Picture a pool next to a body of water which are separated by a raised bank. Fish in the main body of water have been jumping this bank until it becomes too large to make it, so now the fish are decking onto land a short distance away from the pool. A fish with slightly stronger fins can wiggle/slide/pull itself that short distance quicker than one with weaker fins - this offers it the tiniest statistical advantage of survival over its rival. Over a million or more lives, this advantage begins to tell and the strong-finned trait is passed on more than the weaker-finned. Extrapolating, surely you can see how this goes from here?
This is exactly the scenario I find difficult to imagine. The other equally hard one is evolution of macro organisms from micro.
It is the difficulty of working with very large and very small numbers. The probability of the specific genetic variation occurring is so small, but the timescale and therefore the number of occurrences is so high. There needs to be sufficient time for evolution to happen, otherwise you would get extinction, but if there is sufficient time then is there really that great an environmental driving force.
In reply to Philip:
Genuine question : what other mechanisms are there?
(prior to selected breeding of individuals by humans ie dogs, pigeons etc?)
A good book (especially for UKC) is Climbing Mount Improbable.
By Richard Dawkins.
Genuine question : what other mechanisms are there?
(prior to selected breeding of individuals by humans ie dogs, pigeons etc?)
A good book (especially for UKC) is Climbing Mount Improbable.
By Richard Dawkins.
In reply to BMrider:
I read that at school. I prefer Steve Jones, he did a very good update to On the origin of species. I've met them both at lectures given to the science society when I was at uni.
On the mechanism question - there are others, a lot of wrapped up as natural selection whether they are caused by predators or reproduction.
There may be nothing wrong with the mechanism, it may be the starting point. Either way round the simple explanations are simple - I would not be convinced I could explain evolution to a open-minded creationist in anywhere near the convincing way I could anything else from science based on the popular explanations.
Granted, most science is too complex for most people, and when I see the answers to maths/physics/chemistry questions on here there are some appalling misunderstandings but at least the concepts can usually be explained.
In addition to that. I love a good troll too
> (In reply to Philip)
> Genuine question : what other mechanisms are there?
> (prior to selected breeding of individuals by humans ie dogs, pigeons etc?)
>
> A good book (especially for UKC) is Climbing Mount Improbable.
> By Richard Dawkins.
> Genuine question : what other mechanisms are there?
> (prior to selected breeding of individuals by humans ie dogs, pigeons etc?)
>
> A good book (especially for UKC) is Climbing Mount Improbable.
> By Richard Dawkins.
I read that at school. I prefer Steve Jones, he did a very good update to On the origin of species. I've met them both at lectures given to the science society when I was at uni.
On the mechanism question - there are others, a lot of wrapped up as natural selection whether they are caused by predators or reproduction.
There may be nothing wrong with the mechanism, it may be the starting point. Either way round the simple explanations are simple - I would not be convinced I could explain evolution to a open-minded creationist in anywhere near the convincing way I could anything else from science based on the popular explanations.
Granted, most science is too complex for most people, and when I see the answers to maths/physics/chemistry questions on here there are some appalling misunderstandings but at least the concepts can usually be explained.
In addition to that. I love a good troll too
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Fossil evidence of vascular land plants from the mid Silurian period onwards I think (about 430 million years ago), before that evidence of spores, algae etc on land. Armoured jawless fish in the seas at this point, and possibly some very primitive insects on land (still debatable that last one).
By mid Devonian period (about 400 mya) plant life on land rapidly diversified, lots of fern like plants, etc. Early air breathing fish appear about the same time.
Fossil evidence of vascular land plants from the mid Silurian period onwards I think (about 430 million years ago), before that evidence of spores, algae etc on land. Armoured jawless fish in the seas at this point, and possibly some very primitive insects on land (still debatable that last one).
By mid Devonian period (about 400 mya) plant life on land rapidly diversified, lots of fern like plants, etc. Early air breathing fish appear about the same time.
In reply to John H Bull:
That's fantastic, ignore my post! (based on 15 year old stuff I vaguely remembered from uni)
> (In reply to lowersharpnose) http://www.academia.edu/2590672
That's fantastic, ignore my post! (based on 15 year old stuff I vaguely remembered from uni)
In reply to Philip:
Genetic mutations happen all the time. Its just that most mutations don't get subjected to the environmental conditions which cause those mutations to be favored (or not favored since it works both ways).
Therefore a propensity to grow protuberances which help propulsion on land would have been present in some fish DNA long before the selective pressure to use it came along.
(warning - this is what I recall from a popular science book - its not my area)
Genetic mutations happen all the time. Its just that most mutations don't get subjected to the environmental conditions which cause those mutations to be favored (or not favored since it works both ways).
Therefore a propensity to grow protuberances which help propulsion on land would have been present in some fish DNA long before the selective pressure to use it came along.
(warning - this is what I recall from a popular science book - its not my area)
In reply to Philip: 'open-minded creationist'. An interesting concept. When you find one please let the world know, because they will be a rarity indeed. Any creationist I've ever met, however pleasant and fluffy, has pretty quickly put up a wall and not allow further discussion. The commonest 'sophisticated' argument I've heard is that evolution requires geological time, for which there's no 'proof'. Except there is.
'On the mechanism question - there are others, a lot of wrapped up as natural selection whether they are caused by predators or reproduction.'
Are you saying that an organism that out breeds another similar one because of a slight mutation, or an organism that is wiped out because others have slight variations that make them less attractive to predators, aren't part of natural selection?
'On the mechanism question - there are others, a lot of wrapped up as natural selection whether they are caused by predators or reproduction.'
Are you saying that an organism that out breeds another similar one because of a slight mutation, or an organism that is wiped out because others have slight variations that make them less attractive to predators, aren't part of natural selection?
In reply to Philip:
There is also genetic drift.
Not really. There are about 30 new mutations in each of us. So in a population of a billion individuals there would be 30 billion new mutations each generation. Further, you rarely need a "specific" genetic mutation, often there are loads of ways of achieving an effect (because most aspects of the body are the product of the interaction of lots of different genes).
What's the problem? Many a micro adds up to a macro.
That's because human imagination is tuned to things that occur *within* typical lifetimes, because that is the job our brain is doing, enabling one individual to prosper over its lifetime. Thus we would not expect human intuition to be all that reliable about what happens over 10 million generations.
> Are you saying you exclusively believe in natural selection as the only mechanism for evolution?
There is also genetic drift.
> The probability of the specific genetic variation occurring is so small ...
Not really. There are about 30 new mutations in each of us. So in a population of a billion individuals there would be 30 billion new mutations each generation. Further, you rarely need a "specific" genetic mutation, often there are loads of ways of achieving an effect (because most aspects of the body are the product of the interaction of lots of different genes).
> The other equally hard one is evolution of macro organisms from micro.
What's the problem? Many a micro adds up to a macro.
> This is exactly the scenario I find difficult to imagine.
That's because human imagination is tuned to things that occur *within* typical lifetimes, because that is the job our brain is doing, enabling one individual to prosper over its lifetime. Thus we would not expect human intuition to be all that reliable about what happens over 10 million generations.
In reply to Phil79:
a little too fantastic- i'll stick to the fossil record for now..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogenetics#Limitations
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/387.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_Chert
> That's fantastic, ignore my post!
a little too fantastic- i'll stick to the fossil record for now..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogenetics#Limitations
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/387.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_Chert
In reply to Coel Hellier:
or even one generation in your case (wrt GMOs)
> Thus we would not expect human intuition to be all that reliable about what happens over 10 million generations.
or even one generation in your case (wrt GMOs)
In reply to Philip:
Forget Darwin and natural selection. evolution is accepted fact. Its mechanisms we have yet to understand.
Think in terms of phyletic gradualism, slow Environmental adaptation of species, and punctuated equilibrium, rapid Accidental mutation, Maybe over 1 generation, Which Proves ecologically Advantageous for a species.
Forget Darwin and natural selection. evolution is accepted fact. Its mechanisms we have yet to understand.
Think in terms of phyletic gradualism, slow Environmental adaptation of species, and punctuated equilibrium, rapid Accidental mutation, Maybe over 1 generation, Which Proves ecologically Advantageous for a species.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth#Colonization_of_land
> Before the lobe finned fish started their move onto the land, what life was there already on land?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth#Colonization_of_land
In reply to Choss: in short, tectonics and comets..
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Yes.
CB
> (In reply to felt)
>
> Did plants and insects colonise land before vertebrates?
>
> Did plants and insects colonise land before vertebrates?
Yes.
CB
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Surprised no one has mentioned this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bkpg1/broadcasts/2013/10
David Attenborough's Rise of Animals: Triumph of the Vertebrates
Looks like the first part is still on Iplayer and does a great job or mapping how we came to be - Evolution of the Shoulder, Hip, Waterproof skin, Warm blooded, ears, nose, eyes - Great stuff!!
Surprised no one has mentioned this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bkpg1/broadcasts/2013/10
David Attenborough's Rise of Animals: Triumph of the Vertebrates
Looks like the first part is still on Iplayer and does a great job or mapping how we came to be - Evolution of the Shoulder, Hip, Waterproof skin, Warm blooded, ears, nose, eyes - Great stuff!!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...