
419-million-year-old fish fossil resolves 'missing link' in evolution - pg
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/fossil-discovery-links-gap-in-evolutionary-knowledge-of-fish/4981652
======
brudgers
Richard Dawkins' _The Ancestors Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life_ is an
accessible account of evolutionary biology and goes to great lengths to
disabuse even a sloppy reader of the popular [pre-genetic sequencing] notions
of "missing links."

Evolution suggests that creatures in similar environments are somewhat likely
to develop similar adaptations without one species being the ancestor of the
other. From a scientific standpoint the claim that modern fish are descendents
of the extinct Placoderms is neither falsifiable nor for practical purposes
verifiable - DNA simply does not survive that long.

Sparrows and bats have a common ancestor but it is improbable that it had
wings.

Or to put it another way, the rationalist's notion of a missing link as
expounded in the headline is as dependent upon the logic of the Great Chain of
Being as that of an Ussherian creationist - their disagreement is large, but
mainly resides in what constitutes the relevant details of a teleological
account and the criteria for acceptance is the plausibility of the account to
the individual and the intellectual communities to which they belong.

~~~
the_watcher
>>Sparrows and bats have a common ancestor but it is improbable that it had
wings.

Isn't this a required truth of evolution (not necessarily these animals, but
the concept) - that humans and centipedes (or sharks, or dogs, or pigeons, or
mushrooms, etc.) all have a common ancestor if you could trace evolution with
perfect accuracy back to the beginning of time? Sparrows and bats, being birds
and mammals, respectively, would likely have a common ancestor with less in
common between the two than sparrows and pigeons or bats and ferrets, correct?

I'm no expert in evolutionary science beyond the basics, so correct me if I am
wrong. I read your comment to suggest that evolution does not require any sort
of "missing link," which I don't know enough to talk about.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Isn't this a required truth of evolution (not necessarily these animals, but
> the concept) - that humans and centipedes (or sharks, or dogs, or pigeons,
> or mushrooms, etc.) all have a common ancestor if you could trace evolution
> with perfect accuracy back to the beginning of time?

No, its not a "required truth of evolution". Evolution works just fine if you
have life arising independently in multiple places.

Universal common descent was among the hypotheses Darwin proposed in _The
Origin of Species_ , but its certainly been challenged many times without the
basics of evolution being challenged; I think it is part of the current
scientific consensus based on the available evidence, but its not at all
_necessary_ to evolution.

~~~
the_watcher
Thanks, that makes sense to me, but it has never been presented to me like
that. It's similar to spoken languages evolution, then, correct? In that many
languages developed very similar basic rules independently? I don't have a lot
of experience beyond high school evolution lessons (which present the common
ancestor as a necessary piece of the puzzle), but I took some nature of
language classes in college and found that very interesting.

------
alan_cx
This is way, way out of my knowledge, but...

Is the term "Missing link" actually useful? Seems to me that what we keep
doing is create more "missing links" with each discovery in the chain. We are
sort of filling in gaps created each time we, er, find more missing links. In
a 1000 years, we'll still be finding missing links until the whole thing is
perfectly mapped out, if that is possible.

~~~
xophe
Also out of my knowledge, but the hypothesized tree of evolution contains only
distinct species AFAIK. A true missing link would be an intermediate stage,
like catching the first fish with legs as it adapts to land. Fish with wings
aren't interesting because they are an (extant) species in their own right.

It's like catching someone on a layover -- you're very clearly in the middle
of two stable (but distinct) spots. But you don't spend much time there --
which is why it's been so tough to find.

~~~
InclinedPlane
There is no difference between "distinct" or "transitional" species. All
species are transitional, that's the way evolution works. Some species are
more long lived than others due to being well fit to their ecological niche
but every species has the potential to evolve to other species even so.

~~~
planckscnst
One might consider as "transitional" those species that exist between stages
of punctuated equilibrium (if you consider punctuated equilibrium valid).

------
onion2k
An armoured fish? Like... a fish tank?

Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the placoderm.

~~~
millerm
Thanks for the chuckle. :-)

------
redact207
419-million-year-old fish resolves 'missing link' in evolution. Two new
missing links now created. (creationist logic)

------
easytiger
> A team of scientists, including an Australian,

Crikey, an Australian scientist. Whatever next

~~~
nwh
We do this thing quite a lot actually. Most news articles that are positive
will try to have some tie in with Australia to make it relevant to the
readers. Maybe the bolts used to tie together the worlds highest balloon ride
are made by an Australian company; they literally get as tenuous as that at
times.

------
joshuahedlund
> the fossil's jaw looks a lot like those of modern fish... She says this
> shows the Placoderm to be the ancestors of modern fish.

Admittedly skeptical layman here... but is that really enough evidence to draw
that conclusion with that much certainty? Or is there more unreported context?

~~~
sigzero
No, not really. Since it isn't observational it is best guess.

------
papa_bear
Does it make the earliest known organism that had a jaw, or are there
instances of jaws evolving independently in other lineages (other than
insects)?

~~~
mcguire
I believe jawed fishes are just the ancestors of vertebrates (with jaws).
Everybody else is on their own, chewing-wise.

------
JonFish85
No matter how many "missing links" are found, the die-hard fundamentalists
will find a way to ask for more. I've grown up in that environment. There are
discrete jumps in fossils; unless you can find a complete lineage from "a rock
to a walking-talking human", no True Christian will even waver for a minute.

On top of that, I hate the term "missing link" because it immediately means
that science is catering to these fundamentalists. It's another fossil, it
fills in some previously extrapolated part of the graph. Great! But let's not
play on religious turf, because there's no way to win there.

~~~
JRobertson
Your bias is showing through quite heavily, that may contribute as much to
your lack of winning on "religious turf" as your arguments do. Yes, there are
plenty of the believers that draw a hard line, but by stereotyping you
potentially alienate other believers that would otherwise gladly contribute to
the discussion.

There are many Christians that believe in evolution. There are many that
believe in creation and many that believe in a hybrid of the two.

I consider myself a "True Christian", and yet I am not a die-hard
fundamentalists. I believe that Someone got this whole party started, but I
don't believe there are enough facts to establish exactly how much they
interacted with this thing we call earth, life, and the universe.

If there is a God, then he would have to know all the science, even the
science we don't know, sort of like the ultimate hacker. So he sets up his lab
(the universe) aligns all the conditions and drops his sample into the petri
dish (earth). I believe that much. The question is, how much did he have to
interact with the petri dish after that? Did he have to add food? or zap
things with lasers? Did he have to move the dish to a different light source
at some point? If creation was setting up the lab and getting things started
did he not still create this world?

Note: I don't think we're all just one big science experiment. But if God is
all knowing (which is fairly universally accepted among the religious) then he
would know science. But at the same time, are our scientists not working
towards artificial life? Cold fusion? The physics behind orbits and the like?
If we had all the resources and technology we needed would we not have
scientists that would want to "move a planet" and try to start life?

Either way, now you have two people, one non religious, and one believer who
have a common scientific understanding to start from: The theory of evolution
is completely possible and we can work together to test, re-test, prove and
improve the theory until it becomes fact or is disproved.

TLDR; Your stereo types and blanket dismissive statements can do as much to
hinder the science you're trying to promote as the firm line that many of your
opponents draw on this topic. You'll meet more success looking for and arguing
to a common ground and then building from there.

~~~
splawn
IMO, your point about common ground is lost when you misuse the word "theory",
which sadly (because I agree with what I think you were trying to say), gives
his point more strength.

edit: oops, forgot to show you what i mean, read the first sentence of this.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

~~~
JRobertson
I don't think I misused the word theory. I meant it as "not 100% fact". Even a
scientific theory is not a fact.

"If only one fossil was to be found in the strata where it did not belong it
would automatically disprove evolution theory--there would be no saving it. If
a dog was found in the Cambrian period or a bird anytime before reptiles it
would disprove the theory."[1]

Since we do not yet have the technology to map all layers of the earths strata
to the point where we could find all existing fossils it still remains in the
realm of possibility that a fossil is found in the wrong strata and the whole
theory falls down. There are other falsifiable points to the Scientific Theory
as well. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be a scientific theory it would just
be a belief based theory. So far it has not been falsified, but it still
falsifiable.

Maybe my word use was a little off, but I believe my intent remains intact.
Anyone who says evolution is a fact is doing so on faith and doesn't
understand or accept that their are still falsifiable points left that could
happen. Yes, it's well past theory and into Scientific theory, but it's still
a theory.

[1]-[http://freethinkerperspective.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-
darwin...](http://freethinkerperspective.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-darwins-
evolution-theory-falsifiable.html)

~~~
splawn
I generally don't see pro-science people making the argument that evolution is
an unfalsifiable 100% fact. I agree with you that such arguments are within
the domain of faith. Perhaps I am not being imaginative enough, but I can't
think of an example of anything closer to an objective "100% fact" than a
general scientific theory that survives over a hundred years of scientific
scrutiny.

------
sjwright
Aha, but they haven't found any fossils that bridge the missing link between
this new Placoderm and the ones we already knew about. If evolution were true,
we'd have found those fossils as well! All science can do is continually and
conclusively prove that science doesn't have all the answers.

My holy book has the correct answers, I know because the book tells me it
does. Therefore it trumps science.

Sadly, there will be millions of people who will think exactly this.

~~~
bigfoot13442
The last thing I want to do is start a flame war, but I don't see anyone on
here criticizing you for putting your faith in science. I would like to have
thought that the Hacker News community would be above unwarranted comments
such as this.

~~~
sjwright
Short of actually taking the first two paragraphs literally, I don't think you
could have misunderstood the point of my post more.

And no, I don't put _faith_ in science. Faith means belief without evidence. I
_accept_ science. I _acknowledge_ that scientists are human, and that humans
can be fallible, corrupt, egotistical and plain old stupid. And I _admire_ the
Scientific Method for doing an excellent job of counteracting most of our
human failings.

~~~
stephen_g
Faith does not mean belief without evidence, it is more belief in something
not seen. That does not imply a lack of evidence.

For example, you have faith in the efficacy of a pharmaceutical product based
on the fact that you trust the peer reviewers of the reports of its clinical
trials, and the reputation of the journals those reports are published in.

Without faith you could not accept any scientific conclusion unless you had
directly observed the experiments they were based on. Neither could you
believe anything on the news or any historical event you hadn't observed.

~~~
sjwright
> Without faith you could not accept any scientific conclusion

Nonsense. I don't need faith to assign various claims varying degrees of trust
and confidence.

~~~
stephen_g
Perhaps we're just arguing semantics, but I think that is a large part of
exactly what faith is!

Or perhaps you just dislike the term because it's often used in a religious
context?

~~~
sjwright
You might be arguing semantics, but I'm not. I see a gulf of difference
between _any_ definition of "faith" and how I derive confidence in science.

No definition of faith I'm aware of relates to confidence based on weight of
evidence, or balance of probabilities.

To use your example of pharmaceutical efficacy, I take a pill with the
expectation that it will elicit results comparable to its stated claim. I
_hope_ that it works. I'm _happy_ if it does work. But my worldview won't be
shattered if it doesn't.

------
contingencies
This was discovered in Yunnan, the southwesternmost province of China that is
already well known for its fossil record, both in terms of early ocean life
and humans. Just last year they discovered what appears to be an entirely new
species of hominid[1]. I lived in Yunnan for 5 years and really fell in love
with the place, which is surrounded by Tibet, Burma, Laos and Vietnam and is
China's most biologically, climatically, culturally, historically and
linguistically diverse province. Despite a near total lack of credentials, I'm
currently writing a long form history of Yunnan for a general audience from
prehistory through near-present in English, as a fun long term side project.
I'm also an Australian. Australians have been involved in many other studies
in the area, such as historical water level studies of the region's
impressively large alpine lakes. Kew Gardens in London also collaborate with
the province on a shared long term global seed bank project.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Deer_Cave_people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Deer_Cave_people)

------
leokun
Today on HN: posts about missing links in evolution and rants about global
warming reports.

Wonderful.

~~~
jlgreco
It is unfortunate that biology news has the capacity to cause such a
shitstorm. Imagine if this sort of thing happened every time there was a new
article about NASA discovering some new property of Saturn or something.

I guess we should be thankful that most religious have _only_ chosen biology
as a good place for a last stand in defense of a "God of the Gaps". Science
discussion would be far shittier if they did this to every biology _and_
chemistry discussion...

~~~
npsimons
Arguably, the religious _have_ chosen to pick on other sciences. Climate
science, for instance. Hence, the GP's comment.

~~~
jlgreco
Maybe, is that really a religion thing though?

~~~
nitrogen
Sadly, yes. I've heard of some who believe that nothing man can do can
possibly damage or destroy Earth before it's time for Armageddon, because man
is unimaginably weaker than Earth's creator. Or, who believe that Earth was
made for man, and thus will always have enough resources and never become
inhospitable.

------
Jugurtha
It looks like a 'shurtle': The product of breeding a shark with a turtle.

I can see the ad campaign right there: "Darwin's Whiskey, one night stands
before it was cool". Or "Influencing evolution since way back". (With a
picture of a shark and a turtle the morning after, with a "What have I done"
expression).

~~~
celias
Look for Shurtlenado on the Syfy network this fall

------
snowwrestler
It resolves a missing link in the history of life, not evolution. The latter
term is often used to mean the former, but I think that's a bad idea. It's
confusing to people without a good understanding of the distinction.

Evolution, the scientific theory of how life changes over time, does not
depend on the fossil record for its validity. It's trivially easy to study
with living animals; thousands of undergraduates do it every semester with
fruit flies.

------
twox
Is your religion compatible with evolution? I'm curious to know what makes
intelligent developers believe in the religion.

~~~
bigfoot13442
I'll assume your question was not meant to sound condescending (because I
don't think it was).

Christianity, in its purest form, is not compatible with evolution.
Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God and
therefore is complete truth. The Bible says the world and everything in it was
created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution. That being said,
there are lots of denominations of Christianity that have accepted evolution
by "reading between the lines" of the creation story and assuming things that
are not there. Catholicism, for example has made an official statement (by the
Pope) that there are no incompatibilities between the two.

But, your question and the statement that follows are not related. I am not a
Christian because I don't believe in evolution. The converse is also true; the
reason I don't believe in evolution is not because I am a Christian. I am a
Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this
life. I am a Christian because having hope that someday everything that has
happened here on Earth will someday be worth it is what makes me get out of
bed in the morning. I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this
is all there is. IMO it would be a miserable and mundane existence if there
was no purpose to life.

(And yes, I do consider myself an intelligent developer)

~~~
mb_72
"I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to
this life."

Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then? They also offer
something that will make you feel comfortable with your belief; Christianity
is nothing special or unique regard to some existence beyond your current
life.

"I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is."

I couldn't disagree more. This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is
awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now -
it's all we have. The fascination with a _possible_ after- or next-life is a
dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations.

~~~
bigfoot13442
"Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then?"

Maybe I stated it a little too simply, but I think you got my point.

"This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as
we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The
fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists
many people's actions and motivations."

I agree with you mostly. Life is precious. And the thought of "after-life"
does drive some people to do some terrible things. But the same can be said
for some people who believe they have nothing to live for. The "religious
fanatic" argument only really works with religious fanatics and the
unfortunate part is that they are usually the only ones that make the news.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are left shaking our heads and hanging them in shame
because of the senseless things that are done "in the name of < insert
religious figure head here >".

But this has gone way off the topic of the article. The fish still looks cool
and, as someone else put it, like a turtle fish. I wouldn't want to get into a
fight with it.

~~~
Roboprog
turtle _shark_ :-)

But yeah, I agree with you: even if I'm not an authoritarian/fundamentalist, I
still believe in the core of the Christ story.

------
_of
The actual paper:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12617.html)

------
jcmoscon
All you guys are developers and you know how hard it is to develop a computer
system. Our body has multiple systems running in perfect harmony. And all the
animals has it too. The solar system with all the massive planets spinning
with an unbelievable precision that we can calculate where a planet will be in
10.000 years from now. And they are travelling around the universe and you
think now body is in charge? Somebody very very intelligent designed all this.
And most of you hope that God does not exists because He left commandments
that we not follow and He will judge each and everyone of us and because of
that men hate God.

~~~
dragonwriter
> All you guys are developers and you know how hard it is to develop a
> computer system

As some interested in both computer science and the science of evolution, one
of things I know is that it has been demonstrated that computational systems
that may be hard to deliberately design for have been demonstrated to be
producable by processes fairly directly analogous to biological evolution, so
long as they happen to be what is useful in the environment inhabited by
digital organisms. [1]

[1] For a place to start, see
[http://avida.devosoft.org/about/](http://avida.devosoft.org/about/)

~~~
jlgreco
To add to what you are saying, one of the the interesting perspectives that
computer science taught me early on was an appreciation for the emergence of
complex behavior from simple rules. Cellular automaton are fascinating to
learn about, particularly if you are having trouble grappling with the fact
that not all complexity is born from equivalent or greater complexity.

------
narfquat
Does that look like a turtle shark to anyone else?

Awesome.

~~~
cclogg
_Makes a prediction that there 'll be a movie soon involving a group of
partiers on vacation who get slowly gobbled up by this fish_

(It'll be in 3D too)

~~~
anonymous
You were thrilled by SHARKNADO.

Now get ready.

To experience a new terror.

Coming from 419 million years ago,

it rises one last time to swallow you whole!

It's the ANCIENSHARK!!!!!111eleven

Yes, I know it's not a shark, but really - who would go to see the ancient
not-shark fish that just sits there with a dumb look on its face?

In the end they cook it and eat it. Then the sequel is that the people who ate
the ancient fish start evolving into Neanderthals (sharkderthals?) IN 3D

------
username42
how many times have we resolved the missing link ? Damn ! I should shut up, I
will lose all my karma.

~~~
tetha
It's probably like software development.

"We fixed that bug, yay!"

"But now theres 5 bugs instead of one, what the hell?!"

"Well those are _different_ bugs. Do you want them fixed, too?"

"AAAAAaah."

~~~
praptak

        99 bugs in our code, 99 bugs in our code.
        Look one up, mark it as fixed.
        103 bugs in our code, 103 bugs in our code...

~~~
lifeisstillgood
wonderful - can we call it the infinite bugs song?

------
taybin
Now there are two missing links.

------
styluss
Stop me if you think you've heard this one before

