Showing a Bit of Backbone

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Thursday October 23, 2003 @07:45AM from the spinal-tap dept.

yevrah writes "Palaeontologists in South Australia have found the earliest occurance of a fossil displaying primitive vertebrate. Described as something like a tadpole that probably wriggled through the bottom of the ocean this little critter is a likely missing link between invertebrates and fish."

18 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Scientists not quite right... by pmz · 2003-10-23 07:54 · Score: 2, Funny

something like a tadpole that probably wriggled through the bottom of the ocean this little critter is a likely missing link

Actually, it is an example of early spammers and a divergence from the evolutionary timeline leading up to humans.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
vertebrae? by jguevin · 2003-10-23 07:56 · Score: 0, Troll

I didn't RTFA, but I think that's the word you wanted.
1. Re:vertebrae? by jguevin · 2003-10-23 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I forgot to turn my little spelling correction into a joke so I wouldn't be modded down.
2. Re:vertebrae? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  F! U! Troll!!
  
  Quick make some more posts for the dumbass to mod down and run out of points.
Re:fp? by pmz · 2003-10-23 07:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Nope!

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Why do we keep searching? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 08:10 · Score: 0

Yes, that Onion book has answers to everything!
Re:Why do we keep searching? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 08:23 · Score: 0

Hah! Funnily enough, I have the Onion book Ad Nauseum (vol 14) right next to me.
Welcome to GNU GVideo GProfessor! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 08:54 · Score: 0

"Don't fumble through boring man pages. Try my product!" - Richard M. Stallman, GNU Founder and CEO

GNU GVideo GProfessor is the leader in computer learning. We have taught over 5 million people, and we can teach you GNU/Linux, GNU/Emacs, GNU/gcc, and more! GNU GVideo GProfessor was founded in 1983 to provide consumers with training on software for their personal computers. Since that time, millions have successfully used and learned from GNU GVideo GProfessor's fool-proof "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" teaching method. The first lesson, GNU/Emacs 1.0, was available only on video tape. Over the years, GNU GVideo GProfessor has produced hundreds of titles on video, CD-ROM, and online. GNU GVideo GProfessor is the fastest, easiest way to learn computers. We guarantee it!

It's FAST! You'll be up and running in an hour! Don't waste time sifting through man pages, commuting to classes or seminars. Just pop in the CD-ROM and you're learning!

It's EASY! It's as simple as 1-2-3! GNU GVideo GProfessor's straightforward "What-You -See-Is-What-You-Do" approach makes learning as easy as watching TV!

It's CONVENIENT! We're ready to teach you day and night! With your busy schedule, you don't have time to waste at classes or seminars. Don't fumble through boring man pages. Whatever your schedule, we're ready when you are!

It's COMPLETE! These aren't short teaser lessons. Each 60-minute lesson takes you from installing the software to more advanced skills. And they're not just for beginners! We'll surprise you with the knowledge you'll gain!

Why Am I Making This Incredible Offer? I'm so confident that once you try my exceptional " What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" learning method, you'll turn to us for all your computer learning needs.

* How it works!

The bonus gift and ANY TWO of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10 day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $69.95. Or simply contact our customer care number at rtfm@gnu.org if you decide to return any one of the lessons, and you will be charged nothing more!

Every day hundreds of people just like you learn with GNU GVideo GProfessor this same fast and easy way. If you decide to keep all three lessons, every five weeks you will continue learning by automatically receiving other GNU GVideo GProfessor subjects you have an interest in, billed on the same exact terms as your first shipment. Or simply call and cancel. Everything is up to you! But most important, you are never under any obligation to purchase a subject that you don't keep. Best of all, the bonus gift, and your choice of any two of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours to keep FREE!

d
Commentator really gets it wrong by woolie · 2003-10-23 09:10 · Score: 2, Informative

"You look at this blob on the ground and say, 'There goes our ancestor,' " he said. -- writes Penelope Debelle.

She ought to read Stephen Jay Gould's work before writing about science. Her statement, in fact, is very much wrong. The common supposition that there is a steady march from simple forms to more complex ones is well debunked by Gould. There is plenty of evidence that the same morphology has been developed by several species. Some survive. Others are pruned. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that this creature is an ancestor of modern chordates.
1. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  This is going to be the first and last time I'm going to say this... but moderate the parent the FUCK up!
  
  If there's only one author you want to read about somewhat more modern theories on evolution than the old Darwin-style stuff (being that the model he proposed didn't quite provide a satisfactory level of correlation between theory and human behaviour), in my opinion, it'd be Gould. Of course, reading just one author about anything is just plain stupid, but there you go...
2. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Certainly, there's no steady march. And, yes, it is probably not directly in our ancestral line. However, given what is known about genetic consanguinity among vertebrates, it is likely to be a fairly close relative of our direct ancestral species, since it seems that backbones only arose in one ancestral line.
3. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by henrygb · 2003-10-23 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Along its back runs a stiffening rod, the critical differentiation between multicellular blobs and what ultimately became man. -- Penelope Debelle.
  It is difficult to believe this is serious. Most invertebrates are more than "blobs" and many have "stiffening" even if they do not have backbones.
4. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by lookingup · 2003-10-23 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  See Gould's book "Wonderful Life" for an informative and entertaining account of his theories on convergent evolution and the misconception that evolution is continually working to increase complexity. Much of what Gould presents is probably true, but not all of his evidence and theories are completely accepted. While there are plenty of examples of convergent evolution, it's reasonable to assume that certain new traits, such as the ability to use chlorophyll for photosynthesis or sexual differentiation, gave the lucky organism such an advantage that it quickly evolved and spread to fill new and existing niches. In cases such as these, it's likely that the watershed evolutionary event happened only once, and all organisms that exhibit that trait are descendents of that first species. Whether a primitive proto-backbone gave such an advantage is really hard to tell, given the scant fossil records available. Sig: not found
5. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by penguin7of9 · 2003-10-24 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  "You look at this blob on the ground and say, 'There goes our ancestor,' " he said. -- writes Penelope Debelle.
  
  She ought to read Stephen Jay Gould's work before writing about science. Her statement, in fact, is very much wrong. The common supposition that there is a steady march from simple forms to more complex ones is well debunked by Gould.
  
  She was quoting someone else.
  
  And what do you think is wrong with that statement anyway? We have a complex body plan and we have evolutionary ancestors. It is perfectly alright to consider a 500 million year fossil our ancestor. And it is even perfectly alright to look at some animal today and think of it as being very similar to our ancestor because, for one reason or another, some animals living today are close in many ways to some of our ancestors.
  
  And, no, I don't think every science writer needs to have read Gould. In fact, I think science writers are far to enamored with Gould, attracted more by his writing style than the substance of his writing.
Fitting... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-23 10:27 · Score: 0

That this was posted by a spineless piece of shit.