Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Showing a Bit of Backbone

Posted by michael on 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."

6 of 18 comments (clear)

  1. Scientists not quite right... by pmz · · 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
  2. Re:vertebrae? by jguevin · · Score: 1

    I guess I forgot to turn my little spelling correction into a joke so I wouldn't be modded down.

  3. Commentator really gets it wrong by woolie · · 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 henrygb · · 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.

    2. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by lookingup · · 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

    3. Re:Commentator really gets it wrong by penguin7of9 · · 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.