Frogamander Fossil Found

[MC]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The discovery of a "frogamander," a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.

Modern amphibians -- frogs, salamanders and earthworm-like caecilians -- have been a bit slippery about divulging their evolutionary ancestry. Gaps in the fossil record showing the transformation of one form into another have led to a lot of scientific debate.

The fossil Gerobatrachus hottoni or elderly frog, described in the journal Nature, may help set the record straight.

"It's a missing link that falls right between where the fossil record of the extinct form and the fossil record for the modern form begins," said Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary, who led the study.

"It's a perfect little frogamander," he said.

Gerobatrachus has a mixture of frog and salamander features, with fused ankle bones as seen only in salamanders, a wide, frog-like skull, and a backbone that resembles a mix of the two.

The fossil suggests that modern amphibians may have come from two groups, with frogs and salamanders related to an ancient amphibian known as a temnospondyl, and worm-like caecilians more closely related to the lepospondyls, another group of ancient amphibians.

"Frogs and salamanders share a common ancestor that is fairly removed from the origin of caecilians," Anderson said.

Gerobatrachus hottoni was discovered in Texas in 1995 by a group from the Smithsonian Institution that included the late Nicholas Hotton, for whom the fossil is named.

Anderson's team painstakingly removed layers of rock to reveal the anatomy of the skeleton.

"The fossil itself is almost perfectly complete," Anderson said.

"It died on its back. Its legs and arms were curled up on its belly and it's that part that weathered away."

While scientific opinion moves slowly, Anderson thinks the find will confirm the prevailing opinion that frogs and salamanders share a more modern ancestor.

"I think they (scientists) will be very happy with this as a resolution," he said.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/sc_nm/fossil_frog_dc;_ylt=As3etUbXd8AdopHeUcRZCEOs0NUE

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

I heard quite a bit about these transitory fossils in a special I watched on Nova about a case that went to a supreme court justice over a school that was forcing their science classes to teach creationism alongside evolution. Apparently there are a number of these fossils, and though we don't have them all, nor fossils of every creature under the sun, I had never realized any of them existed at all until I learned about them being submitted for evidence in that case.

 

[wheres_]

Evolution: 1
Creationism: 0

 

[Deman]

Evolution: 1
Creationism: 0

I know what Sonic Boyster posted, but lets try to keep it from that again.

It's pretty badass that we've now found a transitive fossil linking a common ancestry between frogs and salamanders. It's a shame we have yet to find more fossils like this, linking common creatures of today with their pre-historic lineage.

 

[J-Dude]

Oi, why must you treat it like some kind of competition? This isn't good enough for me. And I'll even play devil's advocate here and pretend evolution was real. That still doesn't barr the notion of a hand guiding the process. The creation of a single cell organism coming together by accident is a trillion in a trillion in a trillion odds. Scientists themselves have described the process having naturally occurred as being "a miracle".

Wait, what was that? "Miracle?"

I know that's not good enough for you, and I really don't care. But it's good enough for me

 

[MC]

Oi, why must you treat it like some kind of competition? This isn't good enough for me. And I'll even play devil's advocate here and pretend evolution was real. That still doesn't barr the notion of a hand guiding the process. The creation of a single cell organism coming together by accident is a trillion in a trillion in a trillion odds. Scientists themselves have described the process having naturally occurred as being "a miracle".

Wait, what was that? "Miracle?"

I know that's not good enough for you, and I really don't care. But it's good enough for me

Before you get too excited:

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

Note: I didn't quote the article to turn this into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate.

 

[Damaera]

That is quite interesting.

 

[J-Dude]

Before you get too excited:


Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

Note: I didn't quote the article to turn this into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate.

Sure, I know it's not what they MEAN, but we all know the origin of the word "miracle" ^_^

 

[Hibiki]

I always wondered how we got from

to

 

[sub]

Hibiki, your post is pure spam.

Anyways, I'm glad that we've found more evidence to support the theory of evolution. I don't think we'll ever be able to prove that it's fact (or atleast, not anytime in the near future), but more evidence is always a good thing.

@JDude: The words original meaning is irrelevant. The only thing of value is what the word actually meant.

 

[MC]

Sure, I know it's not what they MEAN, but we all know the origin of the word "miracle" ^_^

It is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

 

[J-Dude]

@JDude: The words original meaning is irrelevant. The only thing of value is what the word actually meant.

Oh, don't be a wet blanket. No need for getting technical. Anyway, got nothing more to voice on this one.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Let's not turn this into a battle over semantics, and leave creationism to the courts. I didn't say whether or not I supported evolution or creationism in my post, nor did I post the outcome of that trial, I simply mentioned that it came up because of that argument. If there was no debate over evolution no one would be surprised to find a fossil that could serve as evidence of it. The debate is real, but it doesn't need to get carried out on this particular forum.

 

[Chakra-X]

Oh, don't be a wet blanket. No need for getting technical. Anyway, got nothing more to voice on this one.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

You are both wrong.

This is just another piece of the puzzle. Curious to what else is out there.The changing of species is a very perplexing subject, because while both evolutionists and creationists still differ on "how?", they both are still asking "why?".