Human Ears Developed From Fish Gills

[Madame Butterfly 0]

Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

By Bjorn Carey

LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 19 January 2006

12:21 am ET

 

 

 

Your ability to hear relies on a structure that got its start as a gill opening in fish, a new study reveals.

 

Humans and other land animals have special bones in their ears that are crucial to hearing. Ancient fish used similar structures to breathe underwater.

 

Scientists had thought the evolutionary change occurred after animals had established themselves on land, but a new look at an old fossil suggests ear development was set into motion before any creatures crawled out of the water.

 

undefined

 

Researchers examined the ear bones of a close cousin of the first land animals, a 370-million-year-old fossil fish called Panderichthys. They compared these structures to those of another lobe-finned fish and to an early land animal and determined that Panderichthys displays a transitional form.

 

In the other fish, Eusthenopteron, a small bone called the hyomandibula developed a kink and obstructed the gill opening, called a spiracle.

 

However, in early land animals such as the tetrapod Acanthostega, this bone has receded, creating a larger cavity in what is now part of the middle ear in humans and other animals.

 

undefined

 

The new examination of the Panderichthys fossil provides scientists with a critical "missing link" between fish gill openings and ears.

 

"In Panderichthys, it is much more like in tetrapods where there is no longer such a 'kink' and the spiracle has widened and opened up," study co-author Martin Brazeau of Uppsala University in Sweden told LiveScience. "[The hyomandibula] is quite a bit shorter, but still fairly rod-like like in Eusthenopteron. It's like a combination of fish and tetrapods."

 

However, it's unclear if early tetrapods used these structures to hear. Panderichthys most likely used their spiracles for ventilation of either water or air. Early tetrapods probably passed air through the opening. Scientists would need preserved soft tissue to say for sure.

 

"That's the question that we're starting to investigate, whether early tetrapods used it for some ventilation function as well," Brazeau said. Whether it was for the exhalation of water or air, it's not really clear. We can infer that it's quite expanded and improved from fish."

 

This research is detailed in the Jan. 19 issue of the journal Nature.

[Kor37 9]

No wonder I keep picking fish flakes out of my ears..........................................................

[APW 0]

A fish....a monkey....an amphibian.

Man, don't scientist ever get tired of evolving us from critters?

[sea trooper 0]

Actually, we were fish who evolved into amphibians who evolved into reptiles who evolved into mammals. Discovery Channel rocks!

[Chataeya 0]

Kor37, That is funny!

And APW!

:blink: I wonder the samething.....Will they ever stop?

[Beware of BAKKE 0]

::scratches butt:: Hey! I'm not evolved from a monkey... ::stairs:: ok... .. but I still say I'm evolved from a dragon!

[APW 0]

Actually, we were fish who evolved into amphibians who evolved into reptiles who evolved into mammals. Discovery Channel rocks!

 

 

Discovery Channel? You sure you weren't watching Comedy Central?

:blink:

 

It's staggers me that fish into amphibian into lizard into monkey into man makes sense to some....

but creation by a superior being doesn't.

 

But I'm not here to start a Jihad.

Peace!

[Odie 0]

Somehow and somewhere fish and humans have the same DNA that formed the gills and ears. After all if we come from the same creator won't there be similar DNA?

[sea trooper 0]

Actually, we were fish who evolved into amphibians who evolved into reptiles who evolved into mammals. Discovery Channel rocks!

 

 

Discovery Channel? You sure you weren't watching Comedy Central?

 

It's staggers me that fish into amphibian into lizard into monkey into man makes sense to some....

but creation by a superior being doesn't.

You don't see how some people don't believe in something as believable as Santa Claus but believe in physical, scientifically proved evidence? But I don't mean to offend...

 

And lizards did evolve into apes but there's millions of years of evolution and many creatures in between to think about. It would take alot to explain but amphibians evolved into reptiles, later on there was the first mammal which was still part reptile. Over time they separated and evolution goes on.

[stoned_vulcan 0]

Well, Barclay turned into a spider, so somehow that doesn't suprise me.

[APW 0]

Actually, we were fish who evolved into amphibians who evolved into reptiles who evolved into mammals. Discovery Channel rocks!

 

 

Discovery Channel? You sure you weren't watching Comedy Central?

:lol:

 

It's staggers me that fish into amphibian into lizard into monkey into man makes sense to some....

but creation by a superior being doesn't.

You don't see how some people don't believe in something as believable as Santa Claus but believe in physical, scientifically proved evidence? But I don't mean to offend...

 

And lizards did evolve into apes but there's millions of years of evolution and many creatures in between to think about. It would take alot to explain but amphibians evolved into reptiles, later on there was the first mammal which was still part reptile. Over time they separated and evolution goes on.

 

 

Nah.

Sorry. I can believe in a lot of things. Bigfoot. The Chupacabra. Ghosts. Maybe even E.T.'s cruising around the bayou, looking for Bubba to probe.....but not this.

But that's just me. You can believe what you want.

I would like to find a lizard-monkey-fish-man though. It'd make me a billionaire over night.

[fooligan 0]

Gosh.....what if god did the big bang gazillions of yrs ago & made it ta look like 6000 yr ago cause at that time the goobers lived on a flat plant...

[fooligan 0]

oops...ment that ta be planet.....but then again could the earth be a plant?

[ARMS 0]

Gosh.....what if god did the big bang gazillions of yrs ago & made it ta look like 6000 yr ago cause at that time the goobers lived on a flat plant...

What?

 

 

 

Denial of evolution doesn't make it any less of a fact, it is observable in smaller animals, but is hard for some to accept as the Human lifespan makes evolution difficult to notice.

[APW 0]

Denial of Christian creation doesn't make it any less of a fact. God's presence is observable everywhere you look, but because of the limitations of man it is difficult for some to accept as fact a supreme creator they cannot scientifically quantify with their stone knives and bearskins (to use a Spockism to describe modern technology).

 

There are 3 BIG problems with evolution:

 

(1) There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

 

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

 

(2) No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers. Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!

 

(3) There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

 

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

 

But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

 

Evolution is as much a religion as Christianity and should be held to the same standards. As the evolutionist insists Christianity's creation account is "myth", then they must also regard their creation account as myth.

Edited April 27, 2006 by APW

[fooligan 0]

Hi Arm...you say what....I believe in Unity of all things....God & Evolution. Bottom line I really won't know till I die....My beliefs make me feel good now...I feel as Ghandi did...In Buddist temple I am Buddist....Catholic chrurch Catholic...etc. etc......I acept all and judge none.... beauty of humanity is difference.....I walk the path of simplicity..