THE EVOLUTION OF AMPHIBIANS

Amphibians are a unique kingdom of animal which evolved from fish. However their
evolution is very controversial amongst religious groups, in particular Creationists, or ‗Intelligent
Design‘ theorists. In this essay the general features of amphibians and the main theory of amphibian
evolution will be explained. Also, Creationists‘ attack on evolution and the Evolutionists‘ defence
will be outlined and discussed.

Amphibians can be identified by certain physical features, most of which are mutations of
features which they inherited from their fish ancestors. Most of the mutations that occurred were
favourable as they enabled a new kingdom of animals to evolve with the characteristics that enabled
them to search further for food and safety. However, inevitably, some of the mutations were not so
favourable – for example, the amphibian lung.
The features of amphibians are quite
 Figure A1 –
Fish (left) and similar to that of fishes. The amphibian heart
Amphibian
(right) consists of two atriums (left and right) and one
respiratory
systems. ventricle. However, oxygenated and
(Essenfeld,
1994, p.580) deoxygenated blood mixes in the ventricle,
making the amphibian respiratory system quite
inefficient (see Figure A1). So, to compensate,
they absorb oxygen through their skin and the
walls of their mouths, as well as through their
lungs. However, the way they breathe through
their skin works in much the same way as gills,

 Figure A2
so they have to keep themselves moist (and thus don‘t venture too far
– Caecilian from water).
(Essenfeld,
1994, p. 575) Some species of amphibian include frogs, caecilians, geckos,
newts, salamanders and axolotls. There are more than 3,500 species of
frogs, 360 species of salamanders and 170 species of caecilians (The
 Figure A3 American Naturalist, 1992, p.105). Caecilians are worm-like
– Albino
axolotl amphibians that still have fish-like scales, much like their fish
(Essenfeld,
1994, p.585) ancestors (see Figure 2), however, do not have limbs like the early
amphibians. They have evolved to move along and under the ground
in an earthworm-like fashion.

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 Amphibians also have a unique breeding habit. The larvae hatch in water, and once they
become adolescents, lose their gills and start breathing with their amphibian lungs. This allows them
to become terrestrial to search for food and shelter. Once they have matured, amphibians only return
to water to breed. They court in the water and the female lays eggs onto water plants‘ branches (the
eggs are stuck fast by a sticky mucous). However, an exception to this rule is the axolotl, or Mexican
Walking Fish (see Figure 3), which remains in its larvae stage its whole life. It lives in water and
breathes through gills and surfaces occasionally to take a gulp of air into its lungs. Axolotls have
four legs, but they are not strong enough to move the axolotls‘ body weight efficiently on land, so it
generally resides in water.

Some fish have an air bladder, which helps to keep the fish upright in water, but is not used
for absorbing oxygen into the blood. There is scientific evidence to suggest that by genetic mutation,
many capillaries and cilia began to form in this air bladder, just like a primitive lung. This allowed
these fish to stay for longer periods of time on land. Therefore, in times of drought, these lunged fish
had a higher survival rate as they were able to relocate themselves to another nearby aquatic
environment. This process is called natural selection.

 Figure B1 – Cladogram of the  Figure B2 - Cladogram of the

evolution of separate animal kingdoms gradual changes from fish to
from fish. (Essenfeld, 1994, p.555) amphibians. (Tiktaalik rosae)

Some fish already had muscular, fleshy fins (lobe-finned fish), which when combined with
the air bladder to lung mutation, enabled them to travel further on land. The fishes that used their
weight-bearing fins to propel themselves on the land were able to survive and multiply and evolve
their fins into limbs. As their limbs became more able to support their body weight on land, and their
lungs were capable of absorbing efficient levels of oxygen while terrestrial, they were able to spend
more time on land, and thus became the first amphibians (see figures B1, B2 and B3).
In figure B2, the individual external physical changes in the transitional stages of evolution
between fish as amphibians can be seen. Initially, some fish evolved lobe fins from spiny fins,
evolved lungs from airbladders, and then changed the shape of their heads to suit surfacing for air.

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 Then as they moved out of the water, their eyes moved to the top of their heads and their lobe fins
metamorphosed into weight-baring limbs (see figure B3).
Scientists occasionally discover great deposits of transitional species‘ fossils concentrated in
one particular area. This suggests that certain species in a certain era and location had to evolve to
suit their changing environment, and so they evolved through the transitional stages and became new
species. Technically, all species are ‗transitional‘ because they are all constantly changing. Some
animals change quickly enough to adapt to changing environments, while others can‘t evolve fast
enough, so they can‘t survive, and thus die.
Scientists can even study how amphibians‘ environments
 Figure B3
changed thus causing them to evolve, by looking at physical – Strong
changes in their jaw and teeth structure and arrangement for how appendages
enabled early
and what they ate. They can study their leg structure and skeleton amphibians
to support
for how they walked. their own
weight on
The fossil in Figure B4 shows the hind limb of an land.
(Essenfeld,
Ichthyostega – one of the earliest amphibians. In 2004, three 1994, p.573)
American palaeontologists, Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler and
Farish Jenkins, came across a group of Tikataalik roseae fossils.
Tikataalik roseae is a ‗transition species‘ between primitive fish
and the earliest amphibians, which lived in the Devonian period.
Jenny Clack (another palaeontologist who specialises in fish
evolution) said, ―the fossil combines features of fish and tetrapods
such that it fits perfectly between the two…this is another gap
closed that a deity no longer needs to fill.‖ (Perlman, 2006).

 Figure B4 -
Fossil of a hind There are always some people who can‘t, or
limb of an
Ichthyostega won‘t, believe that evolution is a fact, despite the
(Ichthyostega
and the Origins extensive amount of scientific research and evidence
of Land
Vertebrates). that provides logical explanations. Creationists support
the biblical theory that an intelligent being designed
and created every species of plant and animal that ever
lived on Earth. They attack Darwin‘s theories and
claim that scientists have never found ‗transitional species‘. Scientists have gained much evidence
since Darwin made his claims, and can now say that his theories are ‗old‘ and flawed. Also,
scientists have found many fossils of ‗transitional species‘. However, the most likely reason why
there are not as many as the creationists seem to expect, is that if a mutation occurred that didn‘t help
or even handicapped a species, it simply wouldn‘t have survived, and been either bred out or further

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 evolved into something more useful to the species. Therefore there wouldn‘t be very many
‗transitional species‘‘ fossils to find.
Creation theory states that, the Earth and everything on it (including plants, animals and
humans) was created by God, some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. It also states that there is no such
thing as evolution. Therefore, they believe that God made the fishes and amphibians discretely, and
that amphibians could not have evolved from fish. It is a wonder how such a statement can be made
and supported by so many people,
 Figure D1 - when there is so much evidence to the
2001 Gallup 2001 Gallup Poll Results - Creation vs. Evolution
Poll conducted contrary.
in America
(Shermer, Evolution A 2001 Gallup poll, showed
2002, p.25)
that 45 percent of Americans who
Belief

Blended (God
helped evolution) responded believe that ―God created
humans pretty much in their present
Creation
form at one time within the last 10,000
0 10 20 30 40 50
years or so‖; 37 percent believe that
Percentage of people with correspoding belief
―human beings developed over
millions of years from lass advanced forms of life, but God guided this process‖; and a mere 12
percent stand by the scientific theory of evolution, that ―human beings have developed of millions of
years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.‖ Only 34 percent of
people who responded to the poll said that they considered themselves to be ―very informed‖ about
evolution (Shermer, 2002, p.25).
Scientific American (a scientific journal) published an article entitled 15 Answers to
Creationist Nonsense in July, 2002, that lists some common questions asked by creationists, to push
their theory of creationism and discredit evolution science. Often these questions can be asked of
creationism also, and one could expect a just as nonsense answer. One particular question outlined in
the article says, ―if humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?‖. John Rennie,
the author of the article, compares this Creationist argument with the question, ―if children
descended from adults, why are there still adults?‖. (Rennie, 2002, p.62-69)
Another argument made by creationists is that nobody has ever seen a new species evolve
(Rennie, 2002, p.66). This is tantamount to saying that nobody has seen God. However, there are
species of animals today that have evolved from their ancestors that were physically similar, that
scientists have collected fossils of. When they are carbon dated, and it can be noticed that the
different specimens with similar characteristics have been evolving for millions of years. The carbon
dating results show that these specimens are evenly spaced along the timeline of evolution, so they
did evolve according to changes in their environments, and weren‘t simply ‗created‘ by ‗intelligent
design‘ and placed on the Earth as discrete species at one point in time and have not evolved since.

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 Evolution can be seen all around us. It is slow, of course, but each species is constantly
changing. Evolution can even be controlled. For example, if axolotls were bred in a small tank with
many other axolotls, and only a minimal amount of food was supplied, the smallest and fastest
axolotls would survive to mate. These small and fast traits would then be passed down to their
offspring and so on. Eventually generally the population of axolotls in the tank would be
characteristically small and fast and would continue to evolve into a smaller and faster species.
Eventually this evolution would plateau because there would no longer be a need to be even smaller
and faster. If one denies natural selection, they are denying genetics.
Creationists even push for ―intelligent design‖ to be taught in schools as well as, or in place
of evolution. So far they have achieved this in several states in America, but each attempt was short
lived – the courts soon overturned the decision to teach school children theory over fact. Everybody
has the right to learn facts that have substantial supporting evidence, rather than be forced to believe
and follow claims made by a book written thousands of years ago – the bible – with no evidence to
support its claims. It is convenient that the bible states that one should not question the doings of the
almighty God (Exodus 17:1-3). Another point of creationism outlined in 15 Answers to Creationist
Nonsense is, ―Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable of falsifiable. It makes claims about
events that were not observed nor can be re-created.‖ Can this same statement not be applied to
Creationism? Evolution can not be re-created immediately in a laboratory, but there are many fossils
that provide the ―missing links‖ in the timeline of evolution. Nobody has contacted God and asked
him to demonstrate ―intelligent design‖ in the modern day.
Yet another question often posed by creationists is, ―Evolution cannot explain how life first
appeared on Earth.‖ (Rennie, 2003, pp.62-69) This can be challenged by asking the question, ―if God
made the universe, who made God?‖ which outlines yet another flaw of Creationism belief. What is
God? What is God made of? How can one say that God made the universe if such a concept is
incomprehensible? At least evolution ‗theory‘ can explain where the first forms of life came from. In
the moment following the ‗big bang‘, sub-atomic particles became attracted to each other to form
atoms, to form molecules and compounds, to form cells and chemicals such as chloroform which the
earliest prokaryotic cells used to absorb light from the sun to create the energy needed to multiply
and multiply until the unicellular organisms became multicellular and so on.
Referring to the earlier mentioned discovery of the Tiktaalik roseae fossils, Chairman of
aquatic biology at California Academy of Sciences, John McCosker says, ―these fish fill in the gaps
in the fossil record that marks the transition of life from water to land, and the discoveries provide
additional evidence that disputes the often heard and unfounded criticism made by creationists that
adequate evidence doesn‘t exist to support these proposed ancestries…the only thing better than this
would be to catch a live one‖ (Perlman, 2006)

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 ―Creation science‖ is an oxymoron. Science encompasses hypothesising, testing and
questioning. Creationism involves taking the bible‘s word for what it says about creation theory, and
not questioning at all. Creationists sometimes use the assertion that evolution scientists often argue
and question their findings, so even scientists don‘t agree with their own theory of evolution.
Scientists do not question evolution, they question within evolution – they question how evolution
has been happening, in what ways, why it happens, how fast it happens, and what it affects. It is
curious to observe that only non-creationists question creationism, however. They accept what is
stated in the bible – the only source they have – and close their minds to the possibility of change
and evolution over time that began before the bible even says time began.
Just the fact that creationists have to twist the words of scientists and manipulate evidence to
support their creation theory, suggests that they are having a great deal of trouble finding their own
supporting evidence. Evolution science, however, had its own evidence, so scientists don‘t need to
attack creation theory to prove evolution‘s validity.

Creationists believe that God made the fishes and the amphibians as completely separate and
individual species which He ‗intelligently designed‘. Of course, there is an extensive amount of
research and evidence to support the contrary, evolution ‗theory‘. It is one thing to be close minded
to the evidence that today‘s scientists and technology can provide, but it is another to deny school
children of opportunity to learn about fact (evolution) as well as theory (creationism) so that they can
make up their own mind eventually. Unfortunately not enough people are educated about evolution
and simply go with what they‘ve grown up with – the stories of Adam and Eve and the six days in
which God created the Earth and the universe. Churches are able to use scare tactics to control what
people ‗choose‘ to believe in, but scientists can only hope that there are enough free thinkers out
there who look at the evidence and make a logical conclusion for themselves and realise that
evolution is not a theory, but a fact.

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 Bibliography:

(1999) The American Naturalist, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AN/journal/available.html (21/5/07)

Since its inception in 1867, The American Naturalist has maintained its position as one of the world's
most renowned, peer-reviewed publications in ecology, evolution, and population and integrative
biology research. While addressing topics in community and ecosystem dynamics, evolution of
mating systems, organismal adaptation, and genetic aspects of evolution, American Naturalist
emphasizes sophisticated methodologies and innovative theoretical syntheses—all in an effort to
advance the knowledge of organic evolution and other broad biological principles.

Eusthenopteron, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron (23/5/07)

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its
articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has
grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites on the Internet. Because Wikipedia is an
ongoing work to which in principle anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference
source in some very important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and
balanced, while newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content,
or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid
misinformation which has been recently added and not yet removed. However, unlike a paper
reference source, Wikipedia can be constantly updated, with articles on topical events being created
or updated within minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias.

Tiktaalik rosae, http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/04/tiktaalik-rosae.html (23/5/07)

Musings on natural history by a partially-qualified graduate student.

Perlman, D. (2006) Oldest evidence yet of fish moving to land, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/06/MNGCGI4CAD1.DTL (23/5/07)
Northen California‘s largest newspaper posts several articles on its website.

(2006) Ichthyostega and the Origins of Land Vertebrates,

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/category/vertebrates/amphibians/ (23/5/07)
An archaeologist‘s blog on which he/she posts extensively researched facts and archaeological
concepts. Several pictures of fossils and cladograms of the evolution of amphibians from fish are also
placed throughout his/her entries. The reliability is questionable, however the information illustrated
in his/her cladograms is frequently supported by information with supporting evidence in several
other sources used in this essay.

Essenfeld, B.E.; Gontang, C.R.: Moore, R. (1994) Biology, Addiaon-Weasley Publishing Company, Inc.,
United States of America.
Biology is a very comprehensive 950-page text book for high school biology students. It covers topics
ranging from different animal kingdoms and anatomy to cell biology and genetics, containing
excellent pictures, diagrams and illustrations. It is a genuine and reliable source of scientific facts up
to date of 1994 and was moderated before publishing by several academic authorities.

(2007) ―How Fins Became Fingers‖, Scientific American, May 2007.

Clack, J.A. (2005) ―Getting A Leg Up On Land‖, Scientific American, issue. December 2005, pp.100-107.
Doyle, R. (2002) ―Down with Evolution!‖, Scientific American, issue. March 2002, pp.20.
Dunham, W (2007) ―Primitive Fish had Genetic Wiring for Limbs‖, Scientific American, May 2007.
Rennie, J. (2002) ―15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense‖, Scientific American, issue. July 2002, pp.62-69.
Rennie, J. (2006) ―Just Another Lousy Week for Creationism‖, Scientific American, April 2007.
Shermer, M. (2002) ―The Gradual Illumination of the Mind‖, Scientific American, issue. February 2002, pp. 25.
Dr. Michael Shermer writes for several magazines and scientific journals, including Skeptic and
Scientific American. He‘s given lectures at numerous university across the United States of America
and has written many books of his own. Shermer writes controversial satire articles that correspond

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc

 with religious material he comes across in the media. His work is very much opinionated and makes
one question their personal point of view pertaining to numerous different topics, relating back to
science, psychology and philosophy. A credible source of data and opinions from the scientific
community in general in relation to evolution versus creationism.

(2003) Evolution, http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm, (16/5/07)

(2003) Carbon-14, http://www.creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm, (16/5/07)

D:\My Documents\2007\2007sdon\Science\Biology\The Evolution of Amphibians.doc