Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, July 10, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Flatfish Fossils Fill In Evolutionary Missing Link

by Science Daily

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144213.htm

Flatfish Fossils Fill In Evolutionary Missing Lin

ScienceDaily (July 10, 2008) — Hidden away in museums for more that 100 years, some recently rediscovered flatfish fossils have filled a puzzling gap in the story of evolution and answered a question that initially stumped even Charles Darwin.

Opponents of evolution have insisted that adult flatfishes, which have both eyes on one side of the head, could not have evolved gradually. A slightly asymmetrical skull offers no advantage. No such fish -- fossil or living -- had ever been discovered, until now.

All adult flatfishes--including the gastronomically familiar flounder, plaice, sole, turbot, and halibut--have asymmetrical skulls, with both eyes located on one side of the head. Because these fish lay on their sides at the ocean bottom, this arrangement enhances their vision, with both eyes constantly in play, peering up into the water.

This remarkable arrangement arises during the youth of every flatfish, where the symmetrical larva undergoes a metamorphosis to produce an asymmetrical juvenile. One eye 'migrates' up and over the top of the head before coming to rest in the adult position on the opposite side of the skull.

Opponents of evolution, however, insisted that this curious anatomy could not have evolved gradually through natural selection because there would be no apparent evolutionary advantage to a fish with a slightly asymmetrical skull but which retained eyes on opposite sides of the head. No fish--fossil or living--had ever been discovered with such an intermediate condition.

But in the 10 July 2008 issue of Nature, Matt Friedman, graduate student in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago and a member of the Department of Geology at the Field Museum, draws attention to several examples of such transitional forms that he uncovered in museum collections of underwater fossilized creatures from the Eocene epoch--about 50 million years ago.

"We owe this discovery, in part, to the European fondness for limestone," said Friedman. The fossils, which he found in museums in England, France, Italy, and Austria, came from limestone quarries in Northern Italy and underneath modern-day Paris.
Friedman examined multiple adult fossil remains of two primitive flatfishes, Amphistium and a new genus that he named Heteronectes.

"Amphistium has been known for quite some time," he said. "The first specimen was described more than 200 years ago, but its placement in the fish evolutionary tree has been uncertain ever since. Close examination of these fossils yield clues that they are indeed early flatfishes."

The most primitive flatfishes known, both Amphistium and Heteronectes have many characteristics that are no longer found in modern flatfish. But the one that caught Friedman's attention was the partial displacement of one eye, evident even in the first Amphistium fossil discovered over two centuries ago.

"Most remarkably," he said, "orbital migration, the movement of one eye from one side of the skull to the other during the larval stage, was present but incomplete in both of these primitive flatfishes." For both sets of fossils, the eye had begun the journey but had not crossed the midline from one side of the fish to the other.

"What we found was an intermediate stage between living flatfishes and the arrangement found in other fishes," he said. These two fossil fishes "indicate that the evolution of the profound cranial asymmetry of extant flatfishes was gradual in nature."
The Amphistium fossils were known and previously analyzed but not definitively linked to flatfish. Previous studies, relying on conventional techniques, did not detect the oddly shaped skull, but by performing CT scans on the fossils Friedman "unequivocally" demonstrated the cranial asymmetry.

Careful study of the Heteronectes chaneti fossil found that it represents a new genus. The genus name is derived from the Greek Heteros (different) and nectri (swimmer). The species, chaneti, honors Bruno Chanet, a pioneer in the study of fossil flatfish.
The two fossil sets "deliver the first clear picture of flatfish origins," said Friedman, "a hotly contested issue in debates on the mode and tempo of evolution."

Charles Darwin was baffled by what he referred to as the "remarkable peculiarity" of flatfish anatomy. "During early youth," he noted, the eyes "stand opposite to each other...Soon the eye proper to the lower side begins to glide slowly round the head to the upper side...The chief advantages thus gained seem to be protection from their enemies, and a facility for feeding on the ground."

Although the survival advantages of such asymmetry were clear, Darwin, when challenged, was unable to explain the mechanism of what appeared to be a rather sudden and radical change in morphology and suggested a Lamarckian adaptation in which the fish, through "muscular action," slowly pulled the down-side eye toward the upper side. The resulting distortion, he suggested, "would no doubt be increased through the principle of inheritance."

Darwin's explanation, which relied on the inheritance of acquired traits, preceded the discovery of genes, but geneticist Robert Goldschmidt, tackling the same flatfish issue in the 1930s, came up with a genetic explanation. He argued that such a sudden drastic change could be triggered by a single fortuitous mutation that triggered a deformity, which in some environments would prove beneficial--and then get passed on. He termed these sudden accidental evolutionary leaps "hopeful monsters," and made the mysterious origin of flatfishes the centerpiece of his argument.

Friedman's discovery eliminates the need for such optimistic accidents. It "refutes these claims of radical sudden change" he said, "and demonstrates that the assembly of the flatfish body plan occurred in a gradual, stepwise fashion."

The research was supported by grants from the Lerner-Grey Fund for Marine Research, the Hinds Fund, the Evolving Earth Fund, the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Comments 1 - 24 of 24 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #208244 by Grantaire of JC on July 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Hidden away for a hundred years? Someone needs to get museums to inventory their stock. What else is out there already discovered?

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

2. Comment #208246 by mordacious1 on July 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm

This is cool, although let me check "Ancestor's Tale". Seems like there is a chapter on this.

One gap filled in, two created.

[edit] No, just a small blurb there about flounders, definately not designed though, unless god was on a bender.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #208248 by crusader234 on July 10, 2008 at 6:54 pm

 avatarnothing like a little cranial asymmetry to prove a point....

Other Comments by crusader234

4. Comment #208252 by 8teist on July 10, 2008 at 7:01 pm

 avatarHmmmmmmm,flatfish, so nice fried in butter.

Other Comments by 8teist

5. Comment #208255 by Kubenzi on July 10, 2008 at 7:03 pm

 avatar< text size="13.7 billion">Pwned< /text>

Other Comments by Kubenzi

6. Comment #208294 by Broshiesq on July 10, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Let's hear it for the Univ. of Chicago! The Chicago Tribune (my paper, unfortunately) carried this story on the first page, of the Second section. What a disaster. Someone turns up transitional fossils and it doesn't even make the front page in the city where it happened. Sad.

Other Comments by Broshiesq

7. Comment #208295 by The Schuermannator on July 10, 2008 at 8:08 pm

 avatarFundies wouldn't care where their eyes are positioned because most of them have their head up their ass, anyways.

~Matt

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

8. Comment #208366 by flobear on July 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm

 avatar
...answered a question that initially stumped even Charles Darwin.
...A slightly asymmetrical skull offers no advantage.


Right, the fossil record shows that the change was gradual. But what was the reason? What's the answer to the question? How does a slightly asymmetrical skull offer an advantage?

Other Comments by flobear

9. Comment #208370 by Laurie Fraser on July 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm

 avatarWell, even a slight variation in eye position might offer an advantage for a bottom-feeding fish, and the rest is history.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

10. Comment #208448 by rod-the-farmer on July 11, 2008 at 12:31 am

 avatarI agree that museums need to take a closer/fresh look at their inventory of fossils, given that recent advances in technology may better explain what they have. I for one have wondered if the sole plaice a flatfish could survive was on the bottom. Binocular vision is stereoscopic, conferring an advantage when trying to avoid predators. I assume this is true even for fish. (Anyone tested for this ?) Staying close to a vertical wall would not be entirely safe, for fish with eyes on both sides of the midline, as some predators would be concealed within small caves, e.g. eels.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

11. Comment #208572 by Marcus Hill on July 11, 2008 at 3:34 am

On a purely speculative note...

Many fish are flat and swim oriented vertically. It's fairly easy to see how, if such fish were normally found near the bottom, it would be an evolutionary advantage to develop colouration similar to the bottom and a tendency to lie flat on the bottom when trying to avoid predators, and this is behaviour that has a clear gradual line to it. As the new finds demonstrate, some such fish started drifting the downward eye gradually around - it's possible such a gradual drift confers the advantage that when starting to move from a flat position, the fish whose eye has drifted a little will spot a predator it didn't see with its "up" eye alone faster than the fish whose eye has not drifted at all.

Other Comments by Marcus Hill

12. Comment #208630 by Dhamma on July 11, 2008 at 5:17 am

 avatarThese news are the really exciting ones.

Mordacious, what do you mean when you say more gaps are created when they find these fossils? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Other Comments by Dhamma

13. Comment #208648 by Isherwood on July 11, 2008 at 5:51 am

 avatarDhamma, the old joke is that fundies claim adding a peg to the fossil board creates two new gaps between it and it's nearest neighbors. This way, there will always be gaps, no matter how short or insignificant. It's desperation at it's lamest.

Other Comments by Isherwood

14. Comment #208659 by phasmagigas on July 11, 2008 at 6:05 am

 avatarDhamma

Mordacious, what do you mean when you say more gaps are created when they find these fossils? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


its an oft quoted creationist tactic (which may be a myth as its so damn silly, but then you know what creationists are like), a given intermediate fossil means that there are two 'gaps' eitherside of it, so a creationst says 'that doesnt help it just makes two gaps instead of one so makes the situation even worse for evolutionary theory'

yes, creationists are so fucking stupid its almost funny.

further on this article, the whole 'i cant see the advantage of a slightly twisted skull', typical argument from personal incredulity, typical creationists usually deficient on imagination, except for the fantasy kind. Actually an initial deformity of the skull in some ancestral fish could have given it an almost immediate 'looking up' vision (i assume to some degree binocular), think of human chest wall deformities like the two 'pectus' conditions, one pushes the sternum in and the other out, it can often be assymetric, im not sure how that is manifested/passed on genetically, is it an 'old' genetic inheritence or new each time? the point im making is that it seems a few extra cell divisions on a particular structure (in the pectus condition seems the bones in the sternum area grow too much and the extra dimension is incorporated by moving in or out) can result in a severe deformity, maybe in this case it was a good one and passed on.

speculations, but thats the fun of it, better than godidit, anybody can play that game, too easy.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

15. Comment #208696 by Dhamma on July 11, 2008 at 6:47 am

 avatarHaha.. Ok, thanks.

If that's so, it's truly obvious they really WANT to discredit the evolution no matter the evidence.

If I truly saw Yahweh, I'd be surprised if I didn't start believing in him, but for the creationists it appears evidence for the evolution becomes evidence for it's non-existence apparently.

Other Comments by Dhamma

16. Comment #208714 by evotruth on July 11, 2008 at 7:11 am

I have a video on youtube explaining the evolution of the flatfish. It starts off with Richard and then David Attenborough explains in more detail...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEec3I1RiI

Other Comments by evotruth

17. Comment #208729 by moderndaythomas on July 11, 2008 at 7:27 am

 avatar
"Most remarkably," he said, "orbital migration, the movement of one eye from one side of the skull to the other during the larval stage, was present but incomplete in both of these primitive flatfishes." For both sets of fossils, the eye had begun the journey but had not crossed the midline from one side of the fish to the other.


Another fine example of science yet again filling a hole that was once empty. Where will the fundamentals go next I wonder?
And as for the necessity, what about the need to avoid the pull and tug of tides and currents? A fish that has less of a profile would certainly be less under the influence of the tides.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

18. Comment #208734 by Border Collie on July 11, 2008 at 7:33 am

I really wish that the so-called opposing viewpoint of creationism would not even be addressed and or alluded to in articles such as this. It gives them, by default, credibility they don't deserve. Who cares what they think? Addressing the point of 'missing links' or transitional forms falls right into their hands. It wouldn't matter if scientists found every possible transitional form from the earliest fossils to now, the creationists wouldn't get it and they would still be wailing and gnashing their teeth over evo. Just do the science for the sake of science and forget about the creationists.

Other Comments by Border Collie

19. Comment #209170 by Sciros on July 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm

 avatarALL YOU EVOLINS IS STUPID THIS ONLY MEAN THERE IS NOW TO MISSING TRNASITIONAL FORMS NOT JUST ONE LIKE BEFORE!

Other Comments by Sciros

20. Comment #209185 by Mbee on July 11, 2008 at 7:41 pm

 avatarComment #208448 by rod-the-farmer
the sole plaice a flatfish could survive was on the bottom

Nice one Rod.

Other Comments by Mbee

21. Comment #209186 by 8teist on July 11, 2008 at 7:41 pm

 avatarBab,




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144213.htm

Other Comments by 8teist

22. Comment #209192 by mordacious1 on July 11, 2008 at 7:57 pm

evotruth

Thanks for the vid, must be an (erm, cough) older video.

I find the platypus the most interesting of organisms, how they've evolved, but flatfish are up there too.

Other Comments by mordacious1

23. Comment #209449 by moderndaythomas on July 12, 2008 at 9:17 am

 avatar
ALL YOU EVOLINS IS STUPID THIS ONLY MEAN THERE IS NOW TO MISSING TRNASITIONAL FORMS NOT JUST ONE LIKE BEFORE!


Sciros, what? You're joking, am I right?

edit: I'm laughing, so you must be.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

24. Comment #209603 by Angelic_Atheist on July 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm

It's surprising how many fossils are hidden away in the archives of museums and universities. It's incomprehensible to me.
Perhaps another look should be given to the drawers and boxes and piles of variously, mis-, and un- identified items.

;)

Other Comments by Angelic_Atheist
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: