Chapter+01

Place your questions and answers for Chapter 1 here.

A: The tricks of designing a successful fossil expedition are to find rocks that are of the right age, right type (which is sedimentary), and well exposed. One location in the United States that would be the Quirrh Basin in Utah because it has sedimentary rock, is well exposed in many places and without much civilization, and depending on what fossils are being searched for, it could have the right age of rock. Another location in the United States would be Sheep Mountains in Nevada because it also has sedimentary rock, is well exposed, and could again have the right age of rock depending on the type of fossil. (J. terHorst)
 * Q: Based on the tricks to designing a successful fossil expedition, which two locations in the United States would make the best sites for new expeditions? (A. Nolan)**

A: Although age, type, and exposure of rock is pertinent to the success of a fossil expedition, accessibility can be an inhibiting factor. For example, the Arctic in which Shubin and his team spent time exploring were very old, were sedentary, was exposed, and also very unknown. All of these factors aligned to create a potentially successful expedition, but the harsh conditions regarding temperature, light, and weather created obstacles for Shubin’s team. Taking this into account as well as the stated factors, a potentially viable place for a new trip in the United States would be in a state with a desert like climate, like Texas. There are specific parts of Texas, like Glen Rose, that have dedicated expedition areas due to their perfect type, age, exposure, and yet are still safe and accessible to all. (M. Blanchard)

A: Land-living animals have several advantageous features including detached necks and of course limbs not fins. Having a detached neck allows land-living animals to move their heads without moving the rest of their body. Making it easier to eat/find nutrients and detect predators in order to pass on their genetic material. Like the neck/head, limbs help land-living animals move around their environment easier in order to find food and flee from predators. (C. Nikolai). A: Land living animals are able to breathe due to the presence of a pulmonary system, allowing them to live without a constant supply of water. Fish, on the other hand, must physically remove the oxygen from the water around them with their gills, so they are unable get oxygen to their bloodstream without a habitat of water. The ability to breathe outside of water was also advantageous during when organisms were just beginning to leave the water because they could escape water-based predators to survive and reproduce. (T. Russell)
 * Q: Consider the differences between fish and land-living animals. How are the features of land-living animals advantageous? (T. Gebhart)**

A: If my friend were to show me a fossil preserved in basalt rock, I would tell him to double check to make sure that is indeed the type of rock, and if it was tell him that it isn't a fossil, because Basalt rock is a type of igneous rock, and that type of rock cannot preserve fossils, as they are forged by lava, which would melt the fossils contents: it isn't possible to have an animal fossilized in Basalt rock. However, like most things in science, it could be disproved. He could of found a type of animal that has never been found before and it could of had a mechanism that allowed it to preserve itself and later on become fossilized. However, that is nearly impossible, so I would think that he is playing a joke on me.(C. King)
 * Q: If your friend were to show you a fossil preserved in basalt rock, what would that make you think about the fossil? (J. Speelman)**

A: The trait of having a neck evolved following the //Tiktaalik// because as water organisms took over from water to land, they had to be able to adapt to their surroundings and environment, and then genetically evolve so that they could survive in their new habitats. By evolving the trait of a neck, other organisms now on land were able to be more flexible, and not have to move their heads, in order to move their other body parts. This gave these organisms a significant advantage when hunting for food, or escaping predators. (H. Schwarz)
 * Q: According to Neil Shubin, "all fish prior to //Tiktaalik// have a set of bones that attach the skull to the shoulder, so that every time the animal bent its body, it also bent its head (26)." He then goes on to say that //Tiktaalik// is different in that its head is completely free from the shoulders, allowing it to move on its own. Considering how hard it would be as a human to live with our necks directly attached to our shoulders, why do you think this trait of having a neck evolved? (L. Bercz)**

A: The significance of a true "neck" that Shubin is looking for is a neck that bend in all direction and doesn't need to move with the body so the organism can move one direction and look another. This physicality is crucial in the question of evolution because if you look at most fish they do not have a true neck, which ever way there head is facing is the way the organism is moving and the was the rest of the body is facing; though if you look at terrestrial animals they have true neck allowing them to move there neck in all directions and move ways there body is not. //Tiktaalik// having a true neck shows that it was a transition from aquatic life to terrestrial life. (C. Hurst)
 * Q:What is the significance of a true "neck" the fossils Neils is looking for? Why is this such a crucial physicality that answers a big question of evolution?(C.King)**

A: When asked to think of a fish, most of us would picture one with eyes on the side of its head. //Tiktaalic//'s ancestors likely fit that description. However, being in a highly competitive mudflat/marshy environment, being able to see potential predators and prey above and below the water is crucial. The individuals whose eyes naturally varied to a higher position on the head were better fit for their environment because it allowed easier sight above water without exposing too much of the head. Thus, natural selection's course produced a //Tiktaalic// with eyes at the top of its head rather than the side. (P Oakes)
 * Q: Based on the finding of //Tiktaalik,// Shubin emphasizes the presence of a neck feature that would allow the early land-living animals to move their head free of their shoulders. However, Shubin merely touches on the presence of a flathead with the eyes on top. How would the evolvement of the eyes moving to the top of an animal's head aid in survival and overall fitness especially considering these animals are new to land? (O. Heltman)**

A: This way of categorizing organisms can be misleading because an animal's physical traits aren't only based off of genetics, but environmental factors as well. Animals such as dogs vary so widely that comparing a chihuahua to a Saint Bernard might lead someone to believe that they aren't related at all, but once you study their genetics you realize that they are genetically very similar. Though using physical characteristics as a way to determine an evolutionary path, it doesn't tell everything about an organism's history and genetics. One animal may look very similar to another, such as mice and rats, that look similar but are very genetically different. (I. Perler)
 * Q: One of the major topics in this chapter is the idea of grouping organisms based on their shared characteristics, the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. It is possible to continue this process, getting more and more specific, until only a single type of organism is contained within the 'groupings'. The process of sorting organisms like this called 'phylogenetics'- grouping organisms based on their genetic history. However, unlike with Shubin's explanation, phylogenetics relies on more than just physical characteristics. Using an example, explain why basing evolutionary history on only physical traits could lead to misleading or incorrect assumptions about the relatedness of organisms (M. Purdon).**

A: Ellesmere Island. Other fields that have gained knowledge by taking advantage of Ellesmere island are glaciology (which is the study of glaciers and their effects) because Ellesmere Island has many glaciers. Ellesmere Island also has a diverse range of insects, which makes it a good location for entomologists. Most relevant to this book, however, is the important of Ellesmere Island to paleontologists. Without Ellesmere, the discovery of //tiktaalik// would never had occurred or would have been long delayed. (N. Sarkar)
 * Q: Shubin relishes in the memory of the first time he saw one of our "inner fish" near the beginning of the first chapter; at what location did this discovery take place? Besides the paleontological discoveries in the book, what other scientific fields have been greatly benefitted due to the resources and environment of this location and how? (N. Braun)**

A: They should go to the Arctic Desert in Greenland. Within Greenland, they would find sedimentary rocks, which are the types of rocks where fossils are best preserved. This is also a geographic location where many animals, including fish, were likely to live due to the abundant amount of water around and within Greenland. These soft waterways would have been gentle on the formation of fossils so that any that are found should be in pretty good condition. You would definitely not want to go to Hawaii because there is no fish, that we know of, that can survive in lava. Secondly, if any type of fish did live within the lava or near it, there would be no way that the fossils would survive the intense heat that is produced. In general, they should avoid all places where igneous or metamorphic rocks are formed. (L. Bentley)
 * Q. Let's say your paleontologist friend wanted to go searching for tropical fish fossils and has a ticket to both Hawaii to search the base of a volcano, or Greenland to search in an Arctic desert... which place would you choose to find the most fossils and why? (E. Olson)**

A: The point Shubin is trying to make is that all organisms are connected. Smaller groups of animals are the basis for larger groups and so on and so forth. This is also the same for genetics and traits. Traits from one organism develop and evolve into a new "layer" if you will and continue to grow and change, which is essentially the process of evolution. The oldest doll would be the one in the very center, all the way inside because as a new layer develops, it would grow around the original one. It would grow outward and become bigger and bigger because that would allow for infinite growth. (R. Heis)
 * Q. In this chapter, Shubin compares the organization of living things to a set of Russian nesting doll. What point is he trying to make clear? Once again using the Russian nesting doll analogy, if Russian dolls aged the same way rock layers do, would the oldest doll be all the one all the way on the inside or would it be the outermost doll? (C. Sanders)**

A: A few characteristics that where seen in //Tikaalik// were that is had a flat skull with eyes on the top of its head and it had a head that isn't directly atached to the shoulder. These were advantagous for organisms to move from the ocean to land because the eye on top of the skull allowed for //Tiktaalik// to see and interact with things going on up above the surface of the water. This allowed it to become of of the first organisms to break free from just living in an underwater domain, and start to fill a nich in a less competitive area (aka land). Then there is the fact that the head wasn't directly attached to the rest of the body. This is promoted organisms to move from the ocean to land because it allows them to to get a larger range of view, allowing movement with the body that doesn't affect the movement of the head and vis versa. This quality is more advantageous to land organisms because it means that they can look around with out moving their whole bodies, where as sea organisms need move their head with their bodies to help propel them through the water. (E. Bach)
 * Q. What characteristics seen in //Tiktaalik// bridged the gab between fish and land-living animals? How were these characteristics advantageous in organisms move from ocean to land and promote their survival? (M. McKinney)**

A: Due to the shifting and moving of earths crust, older layers of rock are able to be found on top of the younger layers of rock. It is important for paleontologists to identify the accurate age of the layer of rock that the fossil was in so they know when it became fossilized and how old it is. It is evidence that shows that over time species will change (A. Schmidt) A: The reason younger layers of rock can end up under older layers is because Earths crust can shift sense they sit on plates. when a shift occurs one plate will collide with another leading to mixing of layers. When a paleontologist finds a fossil in a layer of rock it can mean that however old the rock is, that is how old the fossil will be. If the paleontologist continues to dig in this layer they can find more species that lived relatively around the same time period. In regards to evolution, if a fossil is found in one layer of rock and another is found in a layer above. It should mean they do not go together because they are from two different time periods. which gives a long amount of time, so therefore looking at fossils in the highest layer of rock should physically look different because if evolution is correct, overtime the organism could have physically changed in some way. (T. McDaniel)
 * Q. Shubin mentioned in the chapter that often younger layers of rock are found on top of older layers of rock, however some times older layers are found on top of younger ones. What causes this? Say a paleontologist find a fossil in a layer of rock. Why is it important for paleontologist to identify the accurate age of the layer of rock that said fossil was found in, in regards to evolution? (E. Bach)**