In the early 2000s, Tiktaalik was discovered; it could have been the first tetrapod on land. It is the “missing link” between fish and early tetrapods. Anyone interested in paleontology or paleobiology should read some of Dr. Jenny Clack’s work on tetrapods; she, unfortunately, passed away a few years ago, but her work is groundbreaking for the work of vertebrate biology.
Panderichthys is also interesting because it shows the bridge from basal lobe finned fish to tiktaalik even if it didn’t evolve into tiktaalik it still shows the progression that it’s relatives had towards life on land which i think is really cool
Structural rigidity, a blood cell factory and a calcium reservoir, skeletal systems are the foundation of vertebrates. I wonder how an insect based higher intelligence life form would appear and function
Insects with Earth-like limitations? Hivemind is my guess. I doubt that individuals with Earth insect characteristics could reach sapience. Even absent the size limits (e.g. in a high oxygen atmosphere) there's problems. Open circulatory systems probably wont cut it to run advanced individual brains...
Give it time...if it's advantageous to our species, it will develop...of course, that'll be eons in the future & we'll never have it, but that's life...
Fun fact: early tetrapods *did* have three eyes(Although the third was mostly just a natural calendar, it can still see), and lizards have them too. It’s called a “parietal eye”
Depends on how we decide to define "success", really. If the ability to manipulate local matter to its extremes, then maybe yes. If the survival period is to be taken into account, then we surely have a long long way to go, lol. I wonder what actually matters to the system most...
@@SpencerjonesBoxing That really depends. We might be large and hold a lot of power, but there are creatures who have not evolved for over 400 million years and are still flourishing to this day. They are so perfect that they could adapt to any changes over all those years without needing to change themselves. Surely they would be more successful than us, no?
@@_________________142 yeah that’s what I thought like a 🐊 for example ,doesn’t need to change because it’s very effective . I just wonder what the success is , period of time survived or what’s accomplished in a period of time
There is a good doc on Jenny Clack who did alot of work on Acanthostega and Ichthyostega in this playlist. Per Ahlberg (in this video was her doctoral students) ru-vid.com/group/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd
I know why they went from water to land. Waiting for insects to fall into the water to get their protein was tedious. It would be much easier to catch them on the reeds by the water's edge where they go to lay their larvae in the water.
its depressing... milloins of years of struggle and now im here in a time with no posibillitys to continue this line because of modern standarts. the onlycthing i can do to thank evolution for my existence taken away...
I cringe whenever someone says something like, "The first creature to walk on land." There were probably intermediates that predate this guy who walked on land. Intermediates who left no fossils and we'll never know about.
Don't omit the 'creature' part! That clearly has connotations of a created thing, and _that_ alludes to religious bs. As for 'first', just as 'blue whale is the largest animal of all time' _may_ be intended to mean 'that we know of', so it is with 'first', though not always.
My guess is that the land around the waters had abundant non-vertebral animals like insects and worms for the first amphibians to grow fat upon. Maybe some even snacked on the plants themselves.
Ichthyostega did not know what thirst was, he must have learned by force of evolution, because feeling his whole body dry was already too late, he must have felt it in his mouth
BTW this is a slightly inaccurate documentary because they said that that amphibian was the first creature to walk on land however euripterids (sea scorpions) were the first creatures to crawl onto land and actually breath air on land.
I mean that's obviously the first thing that ever happens when something big with life occurs. The first cell ever actually roared so loudly that it vibrated into 2 cells and making cell division possible.
I doubt those amphibians developed complex enough respiratory systems to roar, if I am correct in order to roar animals have to use some complex vocal chords which early tetrapodamorphs did not have.
The episode is good, but the script is severely Lamarckian in verb usage: "developed X in order to Y". WE know that this was not how things worked, yet the language suggests fish developed a feature in order to realize its use. No, no, no...!
BFDT -- Thanks for bringing attention to the usage of phrases. They do matter. Even though the people using them in a scientific documentary as this mean well and know how it really works, the problem is with people not well informed and just listening to the words used.
@@AmitDebnath09 Lamarck's view of evolution is a giraffe that grew a longer neck because trees became longer, like developing X in order to do Y. But Darwin said (and I salute him) the long neck was a mutated change in DNA which caused them to grew longer necks, and they passed this gene on, while the shorter necks died. It's always DNA that changes first, if it doesn't species just simply die off. So these species didn't develop X to do Y. Some of them just got X and could use them for Y which helped them, they passed on their genes, while the others didn't, and tada: Evolution!
I notice that a great deal of people who aren't open to the idea of evolution, or are ignorant of it, become acceptant once this distinction is made clear. Once explained clearly and honestly, we see evolutionary processes are very common in every-day life - like animal and plant breeding. I do understand now why many anti-evolutionist are unconvinced by the theory, because it's explained poorly, that evolution is somehow a conscious thing and not physiological efficiency-based mutations over a long period of time. It's simply that million "random" mutations appear in every species all the time, some beneficial and some not. The least adaptable "mutants" die or cease to reproduce in somesuch way, while the beneficiaries continue through the gene pool. Like throwing things at a wall to "see" what sticks, blindly.
Brendan Mc Kee No, he's focusing on a certain ecosystem, like today there is tropical forests, at that time there also was. The same applies to hot deserts, cold deserts, temperate lands. Maybe the concentration of each was a bit different on each era, but there was definitely a bit of all.
@@Lingist081 As I thought; you don't understand what your ignorant comments imply. 1. "Because vertebrae is outdated" - Nonsense, vertebrae is a term in anatomy, the plural of vertebra. It doesn't refer to taxonomic groups. 2. Back to your original tripe regarding taxonomy. "Should use the term chordate not vertebrate" - Vertebrate is still a valid term in biology, just as chordate is. - One is NOT synonymous with the other! Not all chordates are vertebrates! This point alone makes your suggestion a flawed, ignorant mess.
What? That is more Lemarkian, you dont will mutation. Every adaptation level dies out, but the lines that adapt from it survive for a while to create more altered decendent lines until they die off. No particular level of modification dies off. Evolution is not a "stairway to heaven", a line can modify degenerativly to be simplified and still survive or it can die off. Evolution is essentially "modification with shared ancestry". Shit, Koalas have evolved to be retarded lol and have a nich diet with terrible digestion and constant contraction of chlamydia. Be cautious of Lemarkian evolution and "Social Darwinism" they are unfounded psuedo science usually touted to promote bullshit psuedo science "survival of the fittest" philosophies used for bigotry and opression. ru-vid.com/group/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW
So how do the innate inarticulate cells "decide" what to experiment next, and then still, how do they go about accomplishing it? They're not intelligent as we know, and these fish definitely didn't make a conscious effort in their evolution. Leads me to believe there could possibly be a type of consciousness attached to nature itself that everything is unknowingly enveloped and living in.
@@tylerdavis8834 The cells don't decide anything. Mutations happen all the time due to solar radiation, chemical interference, viruses, and replication errors. If the mutation is positive or neutral, it will be passed down. If the mutation is negative, it will lead to less reproductive success, and eventually (usually) be extinguished.
@@tylerdavis8834 They don't. It's led by random changes, and if it gives an advantage, it stays. That's why some animals like the horseshoe crab have survived for hundreds of millions of years.
The evolution of organs was the most mindblowing thing. They kinda skipped a lot of steps though, also this freshwater habitat thingy, never heard about it.. probably not internationally confirmed I suppose?
Simple, insects (and arachnids, also) are terrestrial arthropods which evolved from aquatic arthropods (crustaceans) which predated the emergence of vertebrates in the form of fish -- they had the advantage over the earliest vertebrates re. land adaptation because the latter were still proto-fish (or even more-primitive) and, therefore, needed more time to evolve, adapt to, and ultimately transcend, barriers in nature (fresh water environments vs. the saltier oceans, and dry land beyond that) which challenged their physiologies and the systems which sustained them. Those first ancient terrestrial arthropods had solved those problems long before the first amphibious vertebrates ventured onto dry land long-term.
they had very primitive lungs (nothing like ours,but still lungs) and their armor protected them from the incedibily hot sun,that meant the could spend much more time on land than any other animal at the time
but unlike the fish,they didn't have any memory,so they either followed the fish there during mating season (the fish's mating grounds were small pools of water separated from the sea,this meant they would be safe during the process),or they just got there by chance
Should be called the evolution of tetrapods. Its missing too many early steps (i.e. sea squirts, hagfish, etc) to say this is about vertebrate evolution.
