Paleo-Breakthrough (Seal Evolution) from an Arctic Fossil

[WEARENOTSIMPLE]

life came back and forward from water to land and then back for many times. body changes fast in evolution but the evolution of mind is slow and profound. evolution of mind will show u the real history of life. (important: mind is not intelligence of calculations. mind is the core of the brain. it gives " i, me and myself" to animals.)

[WEARENOTSIMPLE]

I'm not a scientist in fact I am a truck driver. I was fishing one day in the middle of the a bay. A seal came to investigate us. I looked into his eyes and he looked back at me. I saw a dog in him. I end up having a connection with him and hand fed him at the end (wrong). Then I came to this conclusion: " The environment changes the shape of the body faster than the change of the mind". I pictured what would the ancestor of both dog and seal looked like. It look just like this picture 1:23

[helliop]

Rybczynski is a dead ringer for Mona Lisa

[RespectMyHate]

If I start flapping my arms like a bird 24/7 365 days a year. in 1 million years will my grandkids will have wings?

[Tazy50]

@RespectMyHate nope, just stronger arms

[oppozed1]

@RespectMyHate You don't understand it at all, behaviour does not drive evolution environment does.

Random mutations which are either beneficial in the environment or not. If beneficial and in fact an improvement on the existing animal giving the animal with the random mutation a better chance to survive and breed than that mutation will be passed on to it's offspring.

With this better survival chance the offspring then produce even more offspring and so on till there are many like it.

[omiteru]

Science is part of an adventure of discovery and a part an investigate of circumstances. These are the reasons that I find science fascinating.

[CrixMakin]

I'm a layman, not a scientist, but I find pinniped and cetacean evolution completely fascinating. It's awesome to see how creatures could evolve from sea creatures, to land creatures, and back to sea creatures (albeit mammalian ones).

[momentofsciencetx]

You gotta love how people like 777tone888 keep moving the goal posts around. Damn that pesky evidence.

[scoutie111]

Congratulations! And I had no idea that seals were a land to marine transition. Fascinating!

[majorvoltage]

Great video and a fascinating Canadian discovery!

As is often the case when basal forms of modern animal groups are discovered, this seems to have stirred the bible nuts into a rage lol.

[777tone888]

even if you found a fossil of a kind of animal that was maybe giving birth at the time, which in fact proves a very fast burial, there is still not one case were the baby was anything but the same kind of animal. Any slight changes in its appearance would not prove macro evolution in the sense of differential features are found in hair color or eye color, taller shorter everyday people. Nothing giving a fact of a changing to some kind of new thing. Thanks for your comment. God Bless.

[VirgilFoxMusic]

777tone888: Please try to understand. Evolution theory does NOT EVER expect to find an animal that gave birth to a different kind of animal. Please! You don't understand how evolution works. You really must try to understand it before you argue with it. You are creating your own version of evolution to argue with. Of course you will be right when you are arguing against your own misunderstood theory of evolution which is NOT what evolution is at all. Please try. You'll thank yourself if you do.

[VirgilFoxMusic]

777tone888: I see you're in to Kent Hovind. Be warned, Kent's version of evolution theory is NOT what evolution actually is. He has made up his own version. Think of this: If I was to make up my own version of Christianity and argue with you about it, you would be quick to point out that I was arguing about something that is not Christianity at all, right? Of course you would, and rightly so. You can't learn about evolution from  KH just as you can't learn about Christ from me. Fair point?

[TheFifthApes]

No "kind" of animal will ever give birth to any other completely different "kind" of animal. Your comment only shows your complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.

And, please define "Kind".

[777tone888]

theres no way telling if that thing had any babyies at all. its just look like another kind of animal. you cant say that thing lived millions of years ago. the only way you can see that being a transitional form is in the imagination. Its there and its dead.

[magick205]

"thing had any babyies at all" Now this is a new tactic that I've seen in only a few settings. And just as easily responed to: As a large mammal, of course you would only find one. This is a new region and deposit being examined. However, the argument is null as we have been able to find whole communities of organisms fossilized, as well as finding pregnant females of various species. It's a nice try, but not even close to reality.

[gracemelodia]

The "reemergence" of the Coelcanth (as Latimeria, its modern form) since the last decades is a good reminder of how much we can be reading into the fossil records. These lobe-finned fish, once thought to be a intermediate form between fish and land animal, turn out to be just another group of fascinating fish. These "living fossils" do not disprove evolution, but serve as a good reminder that beliefs do cloud our judgment, even if it's a belief in a scientific theory.

[thomascoward]

So, are you not a creationist? If so, do you have an explanation for the evidence that is usually advanced in support of evolutionary theory? Or, is your position that we don't know or can't reasonably explain the current state of the biosphere from the currently available evidence?

[gracemelodia]

Arguing from a rare fossil find to a theory of evolving species is a big leap of faith. A mutation that brought an anatomical change must be accompanied by corresponding physiological changes before a creature could survive, mature, reproduce, in order that that one change may be passed to the next generation. This is the ultimate the right changes at the right time, a mind-boggling theory that involves tremendous fortune at every level, in every species.

[gracemelodia]

Not trying to disappoint you thomascoward, but if you read through all my comments, you'll notice that not once have I positioned my as a creationist - all the reference to "creation", "Christian", "organized religion" were brought up by individuals I have been discussing with. With training in pharmacology and history, I'm just suggesting that we should treat news like this seal revolution "breakthrough" with much care and skepticism, like discerning readers of science should.

[gracemelodia]

What's ironic is that while we do not allow the general lack of fossil evidence to disprove evolution, we on the other hand expect any tiny iffy materials that may support an evolution claim be quickly endorsed, displayed in museums and included in textbooks. (To intelligentfalling as well), why should thousands of fossils that show no evolutionary trend be simply dismissed as insignificant in the debate, when a handful of exceptions be given all the weight and focus?

[thomascoward]

At the risk of repeating myself, please give me some examples of how the fossil record (or any other evidence) supports your theory of creationism. You are very good at making grand sweeping statements, but have yet to actually back up your statements with reference to actual observations.

[LeoWolfComedy]

Gracemelodia. When you make a conscious choice to start from a basis of ignorance, there is no where to go.

It brings to mind a saying about teaching a pig to sing.

[gracemelodia]

It's the belief that "evolution must be right" that made this scientific theory so unscientific, because basically evolutionists left no criteria for it to be proven wrong, ever. Darwin himself was frank that a lack of transitional fossils (historical records) would speak most against his theory (a historical speculation of the origin of all species), yet when only scanty fossil "evidence" turned up after 150 years of search, we just say "it happened so fast that few fossils were formed"...

[gracemelodia]

It's funny that you mentioned the example of gravity LeoWolfComedy. It was exactly the rejection of Newton's Law of gravity at the turn of the last century that launched an age of great discoveries in Physics. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, he was up against an universally accepted and much applicable theory, yet he stood by the scientific evidence (not common sentiment) and opened the way for time space, light theory, quantum theory ...

[intelligentfalling]

Great find, terrible name. pulujllulupu...uuuuuuuuullluu.­..puuuuuu...

[LeoWolfComedy]

Excellent find!

Reading the comments below, I am saddened at how brutally people desire to hang on to ignorance and superstition. That has been the hallmark of organized religion for 100's of years, so I guess expecting it to change isn't very likely.

---Leo Wolf

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day.

Give a man religion, he will starve to death while praying for a fish.

[gracemelodia]

Think about it: a single fossil can "rewrite the evolutionary story of seals" and suggest "a different centre of pinniped evolution from that of the prevailing theory"? Only in evolutionary science can so little evidence give rise to such a big claim. I can't say how true the 3D animation corresponds to what was really there, but such a claim quite certainly will ensure the researchers years of funding. So the evolutionary jackpot awaits the next winner ...

[DerivedApe]

"Think about it: a single fossil can "rewrite the evolutionary story of seals"

Perhaps you should read the actual scientific paper rather than getting your info from title of some popular science news article.

[gracemelodia]

It may be so Joerexia, but the same hope has been recited over a century, and the "missing links" remain missing. I believe the stubbornness and irrationality adhered to defending a theory is problematic. Einstein used the General Theory of Relativity to predict the bending of light and was open to people like Eddington to prove it right or wrong experimentally. But no such possibility is tolerated with evolution nowadays, anyone suggests otherwise (like me) are quickly brushed aside.

[LeoWolfComedy]

Your comparison is very inaccurate.

Gravity is a base theory, you may do experiments on the rate of fall, wind resistance, etc. But that does not negate gravity.

Our understanding of evolution has been modified 1000's of times based on new evidence. But that doesn't change the fact that the base theory has been proven beyond any doubt.

If you question effects of wind resistance on rate of fall you will get a discussion.

If you espouse that gravity is fake, you get brushed aside.

[curriefiona]

An exciting discovery and excellent 3D animation. Kudos to everyone who contributed to studying and describing this new species and bringing it to the attention of the world.

[Politicimo]

Read about this on Pharyngula. Fascinating! And this is the line of work I'm hoping to get into some day.

[gracemelodia]

I'm sure many scientists who see evolution as the key to unravel the mystery of life find it ridiculous to be challenged by religious people who apparently hold equally hard-to-defend beliefs, but I don't think they should get too comfortable hiding behind the "science vs religion" rhetoric.

When one gets excited by a possible "missing link", let's not forget the thousands of evidence thrown away just because they don't fit the "theory".

[thomascoward]

I'm intrigued. Scientists throw fossils away? Who had done this and when?

[weberly2]

i would assume he means 'put on the back shelf', and for example most fossils show stasis. animals who are found in exactly the same state at the time of their supposed development. the majority don't fit the evolutionary model. in my opinion though, the variation that is actually possible takes place in a short time, but as scientists have found out over and over with artificial selection, they always hit a wall that happens to fall somewhere well before speciation, and often get reversals.

[magick205]

Read "Lucy" by Don Johansen. He describes an event where a number of mammal fossils were simply dumped in to the local stream because they were not properly cataloged. Evidence with out context is simply anecdote. As a very amatuer collector I was appalled, but in the scheme of what they were trying to learn and most importantly, verfiy, it was the best choice at hand.

[gracemelodia]

Thanks weberly2. Yes thomascoward, I used "thrown away" as a figure of speech, meaning "being dismissed as evidence against evolution". Evolution has become an "infallible" theory because only favorable evidence are deemed important and the vast majority of fossils that suggest otherwise are simply dismissed or considered irrelevant. There is little to celebrate if we consider how few fossil evidence for evolution are collected after close to 150 years of deliberate search.

[thomascoward]

The fossil record is consistent with evolution, and not with creation ex nihilo. Fossils show many series of lineages demonstarting evolution, such as horses, the transition from reptilian jaw bones to mamalian ear bones, the recently discovered series of fossil proto-whales, etc. These are all predicted by evolution. Creationism would predict completely discontinuous fossils, with no series of related forms, as in the famous "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian."

[intelligentfalling]

what evidence is thrown out? Do you have an example? Did scientists stumble upon a crocoduck or a griffon?

[gracemelodia]

Thanks for your reply sigmet61, but it is equally amazing how you have to bring in the fact that I am a Christian and about the creation theory in your response, even though I have made no mention of them in my original comment at all.

The fact is, I also have a MSc in Pharmacology and a MA in history, both from UBC, so I'm just trying to share a little using my scientific and historical background here. It was my pharmacology professor who taught me about blindness and randomness, not my pastor

[cornbreadjunkie]

Creation isn't a theory in any sense of the word. Creation is a story.

[DerivedApe]

Your studies on Pharmacology and History are very little help when it comes to Paleontology and fossil record. Get a degree on geology and Paleontology and then I might actually hear your "scientific oppinions".

If you think this newest find is all we got to unravel evolutionary history of pinnipeds you are sorely mistaken.

[gracemelodia]

You found 50,000 fossils that lived on land, and 50,000 fossils that lived in the sea, then you found 1 fossil that seemed to suggest a cross-over, and you quickly declared a victory for evolution ... unfortunately many scientists are looking for "evidence" rather than discovering them, and forgot all about blindness and randomness that are crucial to scientific discovery.

[sigmet61]

greacemelodia.... with all due respect, the new fossil is one more link in the theory of evolution...

Christians like yourself will never be happy with any discovery. I understand there are many missing links in the theory of evolution but at least, many links have been found.

I am always amazed that one would believe creation theory when there is not even one little piece of evidence..

Good Day

[Politicimo]

You didn't even watch the video. This fossil was found completely by accident.

[Joerexia]

You have to remember that decent fossils are hard to find in the first place. Be patient, much of the rest of the fossil record will be filled in time.