Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:17 AM
337 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1851
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 121 of 175 (824408)
11-28-2017 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dredge
11-28-2017 3:17 AM


Again, I love it when people quote-mine Gould. I can do the same.

Dredge writes:

You have barked up the wrong tree twice in this one post. Your first Gould quote has nothing to do with my Gould quote. Your second Gould quote refers to Yung Erfers - I is not a Yung Erfer, but an Old Erfer. (Yung Erfers hate my beliefs in an old earth and a previous creation and some or them might even want to kill me to death ... or at least torture me for several days.)
In short, your attempt to out-Gould-quote me, while admirable, has failed.

Nope. Let's repeat those quotes again.
Gould writes:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

My bold.
From Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
Gould writes:

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.

My bold.
From "The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dredge, posted 11-28-2017 3:17 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 122 of 175 (824409)
11-28-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dredge
11-26-2017 6:37 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
They have to arrive at a nested hierarchies otherwise evolution falls to pieces ...

And yet, curiously, every attempt comes up with the same basic nested hierarchy pattern, starting with Linnaeus, who was before Darwin and who had never heard of nested hierarchies ... and continuing to this day, when DNA analysis keeps coming up with the same basic nested hierarchy patterns as those derived from fossils morphology.

If it is just made up, why do they keep getting the same results?

... otherwise evolution falls to pieces ...

Except that we see it all around us every day. That evidence still needs to be explained ... in a testable manner.

... and that would be like losing one's religion or getting kicked out of the cult.

And yet it is the scientist dream to upset the apple cart.

They have to ...

Says the one in deep denial of the world realities

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:37 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 11-28-2017 8:21 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 128 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2017 3:48 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1851
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 123 of 175 (824411)
11-28-2017 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
11-28-2017 7:51 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
Yes. Upsettig the apple cart is my dream. That would increase my current salary of around USD 36 000 a year to millions of USD every year. And those prizes and interviews on Fox. Worth millions. Would love that.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2017 7:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2017 8:52 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 124 of 175 (824412)
11-28-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Pressie
11-28-2017 8:21 AM


scientist dream
Yes. Upsettig the apple cart is my dream. That would increase my current salary of around USD 36 000 a year to millions of USD every year. And those prizes and interviews on Fox. Worth millions. Would love that.

Failing that you could always fly a homemade rocket to prove the earth is flat.

People will be falling all over each other to donate to your enterprise.

LOL

Edited by RAZD, : link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 11-28-2017 8:21 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 125 of 175 (824420)
11-28-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dredge
11-28-2017 3:24 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
Dredge writes:

What I mean is, wings are not "modified forelimbs" anymore than Tooth fairies are modified butterflies.


Look at a bat's wing and a human hand.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dredge, posted 11-28-2017 3:24 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2017 11:43 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 126 of 175 (824422)
11-28-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
11-28-2017 11:09 AM


homologies
Look at a bat's wing and a human hand.

and then a chicken wing ... look at the joints and the long bones ... one then two then many is typical of tetrapods.

Note that the phalanges are fused (eg modified) but still identifiable.

Here are all three from shoulder to finger tips

You can see differences in proportions of lengths -- that's some of the modifications.

The similarities between these limbs are called homologies:

quote:
In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales and the forelegs of dogs and horses are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure. Evolutionary biology explains homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Homology was explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, but had been observed before this, from Aristotle onwards, and it was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in 1555. The term was applied to biology by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843.

The principle of homology: The biological relationships (shown
by colours) of the bones in the forelimbs of vertebrates were
used by Charles Darwin as an argument in favor of evolution.
By Волков Владислав Петрович - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

In developmental biology, organs that developed in the embryo in the same manner and from similar origins, such as from matching primordia in successive segments of the same animal, are serially homologous. Examples include the legs of a centipede, the maxillary palp and labial palp of an insect, and the spinous processes of successive vertebrae in a vertebral column. Male and female reproductive organs are homologous if they develop from the same embryonic tissue, as do the ovaries and testicles of mammals including humans.

Sequence homology between protein or DNA sequences is similarly defined in terms of shared ancestry. Two segments of DNA can have shared ancestry because of either a speciation event (orthologs) or a duplication event (paralogs). Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity. Significant similarity is strong evidence that two sequences are related by divergent evolution from a common ancestor. Alignments of multiple sequences are used to discover the homologous regions.


And there we have another teachable moment, brought to you by Dredge.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 11-28-2017 11:09 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 127 of 175 (824433)
11-28-2017 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dredge
11-28-2017 3:24 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
What I mean is, wings are not "modified forelimbs" anymore than Tooth fairies are modified butterflies.

And yet avian wings are forelimbs (insect wings are something quite different). Evolution works mostly by modifying something that's already there. The others have already shown you that avian wings are indeed modified forelimbs.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but tooth fairies do not exist. Neither do flying pigs. And please do not force me to inform you about Santa Claus.

And do you realise that in order for a lizard to fly, ...

Whatever do lizards have to do with flying? Nobody thinks that birds evolved from lizards! Except for you and one other creationist. Where did you get that idea from? What is your source? It would help me for my research.

And yet again, please, please, please learn something! You keep insisting on arguing from blithering abysmal ignorance. You can never win any argument that way. All you will succeed in doing is to make yourself and your god look stupid and ridiculous.

Break that vicious cycle you've locked yourself into. Learn something!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dredge, posted 11-28-2017 3:24 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2017 12:10 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 128 of 175 (824434)
11-28-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
11-28-2017 7:51 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
Looks like time again to tell my tale about Michael Denton, which I last did in Message 3 of Creationists STILL Think that Evolution is a Ladder. As you will recall, Denton was an MD in Australia who became the darling of creationists because of his anti-evolution book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. The feedback his book got taught him how ignorant he had been about evolution -- out of curiosity, is such ignorance a national trait?

Well, here it is again:

quote:
However, you did make the same mistake as Michael Denton did in misinterpreting the findings. Since proteins continue to change over generational time, we cannot realistically expect comparison of modern proteins to yield the progression of changes from species to species; modern terrestrial vertebrates did NOT descend from modern lampreys, but rather they and modern lampreys descended from a common ancestor. Rather, what we would expect from evolutionary theory would be that the more time that has passed since the two species shared a common ancestor, the greater the differences would be between their proteins and when comparing a member of one such group of species against the members of the second group, we should expect the latter to all have the same degree of difference from the former (unless natural selection had come into play, of course; "molecular clocks" rely on the accumulation of neutral mutations -- see my bullfrog.html file for more on this). Therefore, we would expect to find that humans and apes would be more similar to each other since they shared a more recent common ancestor. We would also expect all felines to be more similar to each other for the same reason. And we would expect the lamprey to be about equally different from terrestrial vertebrates since the terrestrial vertebrates share the same common ancestor with the lamprey just before it split off from that line.

And what does the evidence show? Precisely what we would expect and precisely what would make sense. Your findings are indeed supportive of what evolutionary theory would lead us to expect.

Indeed, when Denton went through this exercise himself, he sought to discredit the standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent by using these degrees of difference to construct Venn diagrams and assigning the various species considered into their place in that diagram according to their degrees of difference. However, it turns out that his Venn diagrams quite naturally produce the very same standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent that Denton had tried to discredit.

Let me explain (something that would be impossible on the phone, since it involves graphical aids).

It seems that Denton made the typical creationist mistake of using "Ladder of Life" thinking (which, BTW, is Lamarckian, not Darwinian) -- i.e. assuming that all modern "primitive" organisms are identical to the earliest copies and that neither they nor their proteins have evolved since that group first appeared in the fossil record. Then he proceeds to compare the proteins of various groups of species looking for a linear progression and complaining when he does not find it.

For example, on page 284 of his book, Denton compares hemoglobin sequences of the lamprey and five other species (carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human) and fails to find the linear progression of [cyclostome --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal] that HE expects. The same thing happens when he makes the comparison based on cytochrome c.

But based on the cytochrome c data, he also constructs a Venn diagram which divides the species into classes and subclasses -- a set of nested areas which are not supposed to be a phylogenetic tree. I have copied that diagram here from page 286 (rendered in text graphics -- if your e-mail viewer uses a proportional font, then it will probably garbles this up; change the font to a monospace font, like Courier New):

________________________________
/ \ ___________________
| Jawed Vertebrates | / \
| | | Jawless |
| (Bony Fish) | | Vertebrates |
| (Cartilaginous Fish) | | |
| ____________________________ | | |
| / \ | | |
| | Terrestrial Vertebrates | | | (Cyclostomes -- |
| | | | | e.g. Lampreys) |
| | (Amphibia) | | \___________________/
| | ________________________ | |
| | / \ | |
| | | Amniota | | |
| | | | | |
| | | (Reptiles) | | |
| | | | | |
| | | (Mammals) | | |
| | | | | |
| | \________________________/ | |
| \____________________________/ |
\________________________________/
Not surprisingly, this does indeed yield a phylogenetic tree as follows:

Cyclostomes Bony Fish Cart. Fish Amphibia Reptiles Mammals
----------- --------- ---------- -------- -------- -------
\ \ / \ \ /
\ \ / \ \ /
\ \ / \ \ /
\ \/ \ \/
\ \ \ /
\ \ \ / Amniota
\ \ \ /
\ \ \ /
\ \ \ /
\ \ \/
\ \ /
Jawless \ \ / Terrestrial Vert.
Vertebrates \ \________________/
\ /
\ / Jawed Vertebrates
\ /
\_________/

Vertebrates

Furthermore, on page 287 Denton applies the same technique to primates:

________________________________
/ \ ___________________
| Gibbon | / \
| | | Monkeys |
| ____________________________ | | |
| / _________ ___________ \ | | |
| | / \ / \ | | \___________________/
| | | | | | | |
| | | Apes | | Man | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | \_________/ \___________/ | |
| \____________________________/ |
\________________________________/

From which we get the following phylogenetic tree:

Monkeys Gibbon Apes Man
------- ------ ---- ---
\ \ \ /
\ \ \ /
\ \ \ /
\ \ \/
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \/
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/

Very interesting. Both trees fit the evolutionary view to a "T".

Of course, the linear view, the "Ladder of Life," is both wrong and unwarranted. Why should we expect ALL change to stop for the "more primitive" forms? The more correct way to view the data, the way in which biologists actually view it, is as I have told you already and as Denton finally describes it on page 294:

"The only way to explain this [pattern of protein differences] in
evolutionary terms is to propose that since all the different lines
of a group diverged each particular protein, such as haemoglobin or
cytochrome C, has continued to evolve in each of the lines at its own
characteristic uniform rate."

Scientists have known that all along. Even Darwin said the same thing, that the longer it has been since two organisms shared a common ancestor, the greater would be the differences between them. Furthermore, this is what we find in "green" fossils, fossil leafs which have not petrified and which still contain their proteins and DNA: while the form (morphology) of the fossil leaves was virtually indistinguishable from modern leaves, their biochemistry was very different and those differences are very orderly and allow scientists to construct phylogenetic trees.

Also on page 294, Denton plots a phylogenetic tree based on cytochrome sequence differences and for which the numbers fit very well. But now that Denton has finally stumbled onto a correct explanation, he spends the rest of the chapter trying to explain it away. For example, he discounts the possibility that the proteins could have continued to change because he cannot think of a mechanism that would direct those changes, even though he does mention, and discount out of hand, the "molecular clock" idea of the accumulation of neutral mutations. My problem is the opposite of Denton's; I cannot think of a mechanism outside of natural selection that would freeze a protein's sequence, which would not happen in the case of neutral mutations (ie, by definition a neutral mutation would not change the expression of that gene, thus giving natural selection nothing with which to distinguish the mutated gene from the unmutated gene).


Like watching a dog chase its own tail and actually catch it (whereupon he just stands there, tail in mouth, not knowing what to do), it can be fun to watch an opponent to an interpretation arrive at that interpretation entirely on his own and then try to explain it away like Denton did. We witnessed the same thing when Faith was using the "feline kind" to argue against macroevolution and instead she proved it on her own, but then frantically started redefining all of creation to make it go away. Though the case of Michael Denton does demonstrate how the branching tree interpretation fits the data so well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2017 7:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1358
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(5)
Message 129 of 175 (824436)
11-28-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by dwise1
10-26-2017 10:02 PM


In nested hierarchies, the species branching off into their own clades become increasingly reproductively isolated. At first it's because they're geographically isolated from each other or that they have become sexually isolated such that they don't recognize each other as potential mates. The potential for hybrids is there early after the branching off, but eventually they become too different genetically so that they are physically unable to produce offspring. At that point, you simply cannot have clades merging into each other.

This is a rather idealised view of how life works - in many ways it's much more similar to language that you are implying here.

Hybridisation is not just a possibility early after the branching off (though of course you may be using 'early' different to how I would). Populations of animals have a tendency to anastomose - they split off from one another and become distinct due to geographic isolation, but upon being brought back into contact readily hybridise. This happens among populations whose shared ancestry is believed to be very distant; and which are often classified as different genera or even families (the most absurd example a quick internet search could turn up was between echinoderms classed in different orders; with estimated divergences in the Triassic or even Permian!).

These hybrids aren't necessarily odd dead ends, either - there's evidence of consistent gene flow from baboons into geladas, for example, despite the fact that these populations remain distinct (reminiscent of loanwords in language).

To complicate the tree thing further, reproductive isolation is not something that evolves consistently. There's no guarantee that two seperated populations will develop any genetic incompatibility over a specified time span, which can lead to an odd situation known from some ostariophysan fish. Population A splits from population B. Population B splits into B1 and B2. B1 then evolves some genetic incompatibility with the others so they cannot produce fertile hybrids. B2, then, can still freely interbreed with A should they come back into contact, but not with the more closely related B2.

This is all just animals, but of course with other organisms the tree picture is even fuzzier. Plants can hybridise across far greater distances in some circumstances - humans have exploited this a lot in making cultivars. And plants themselves, of course, contain the descendants of at least two distinct endosymbiotic bacteria within their cells - some of whose DNA has been incorporated into the plant genome. It gets even more complicated in other eukaryotes, who have endosymbiotic eukaryotes, which have themselves endosymbiotic eukaryotes. I'm not sure I explained that well, but what I mean is that there's a eukaryotic algae, which is incorporated within another organism, which is itself incorporated within another organism. This means that the parent of all this endosymbiosis gradually winds up incorporated the DNA of 5 different organisms in its genome.

Except that's not all! This tertiary symbiote also has all sorts of other DNA incorporated by endoviruses, some of which have themselves carried DNA from still other organisms. Transfer of genes among bacteria is common, and is what prompted the infamous and misleading 'Darwin was wrong' cover on New Scientist. I remember reading the suggestion somewhere that distinctive layers in bacterial mats, traditionally classified as different taxonomic groups, were in reality the result of persistent gene transfer between bacteria in close contact; which natural selection sorting the most appropriate genes into the different layers. Don't know if this was just idle speculation or not, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by dwise1, posted 10-26-2017 10:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 130 of 175 (824444)
11-29-2017 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by dwise1
11-28-2017 3:33 PM


More nested hierarchies
Whatever do lizards have to do with flying? Nobody thinks that birds evolved from lizards! ...

However there is a gliding lizard, but the wings are not homologous with bird wings or with tetrapod limbs nor even with insect wings, but with non-gliding lizard ribs:

quote:
Draco is a genus of agamid lizards that are also known as flying lizards, flying dragons or gliding lizards. These lizards can move by gliding; their ribs and their connecting membrane may be extended to create "wings" (patagia), the hindlimbs are flattened and wing-like in cross-section, and a flap on the neck (the gular flag) serve as a horizontal stabilizers. Draco are arboreal insectivores.

Male Draco spilonotus extending the gular flag
(throat flap) and patagia ("wings") in Sulawesi,
By A.S.Kono - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

While not capable of powered flight they often obtain lift in the course of their gliding flights. Glides as long as 60 m (200 ft) have been recorded, over which the animal loses only 10 m (33 ft) in height, which is quite some distance, considering that one of these lizards is only around 20 cm (7.9 in) in total length (tail included).[1] They are found in S. Asia and are fairly common in forests, areca gardens, teak plantations and shrub jungle.


Here the ribs are modified to form the gliding surfaces. Their small size makes the task easier. There are also gliding frogs that use webbing in their feet. They were documented by Wallace:

quote:
Wallace's Flying Frog or the Abah River flying frog (Rhacophorus nigropalmatus) is a moss frog found at least from the Malay Peninsula into western Indonesia, and is present in Borneo and Sumatra. It is named for the biologist, Alfred R. Wallace, who collected the first specimen to be formally identified.

Illustration from Wallace's, The Malay Archipelago

R. dennysii, R. maximus and Polypedates feae were once contained within Wallace's flying frog as subspecies. Similar frogs also occur in Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and southern China; these may be R. nigropalmatus or an undescribed, closely related species.[1]


Showing once again that modification over generations of existing elements can develop significantly different structures with new abilities, but those features will be homologous with ancestral species and sister species with less derived versions, and their development and diversification will still show nested hierarchies.

Break that vicious cycle you've locked yourself into. Learn something!

Another teachable moment, brought to you by Dredge.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2017 3:33 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2017 12:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 131 of 175 (824447)
11-29-2017 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by RAZD
11-29-2017 12:10 AM


Re: More nested hierarchies, homologies and analogies
Then there are flying fish:

quote:
Flying Fish

The Exocoetidae is a family of marine fish in the order Beloniformes class Actinopterygii. Fish of this family are known as flying fish. About 64 species are grouped in seven to nine genera. Flying fish can make powerful, self-propelled leaps out of water into air, where their long, wing-like fins enable gliding flight for considerable distances above the water's surface. This uncommon ability is a natural defence mechanism to evade predators.

Sailfin flying-fish
Parexocoetus brachypterus (1)
Flying fish taking off (2)

The oldest known fossil of a flying or gliding fish, Potanichthys xingyiensis, dates back to the Middle Triassic, 235242 million years ago. However, this fossil is not related to modern flying fish, which evolved independently about 66 million years ago.[1][2]

(1)By David Starr Jordan and Barton Warren Evermann - Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, Vol. XXIII, for 1903. Part I. P. 574, Plate III. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1010391
(2) http://www.moc.noaa.gov/mt/las/photos2.htm


Here the fins are modified into gliding surfaces, and the 64 species amazingly fall into another nested hierarchy.

These wings are not homologous with the bats, birds, gliding lizards, gliding snakes, flying squirrels, sugar gliders, or frogs, but with the front fins on non-flying fish.

quote:
Homologies and analogies

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature so the presence of four limbs is a homology.

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

Bird and bat wings are analogous that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they have both experienced natural selection that shaped them to play a key role in flight. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.


There are those pesky nested hierarchies again.

And that's another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2017 12:10 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 11-29-2017 6:55 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 132 of 175 (824454)
11-29-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by RAZD
11-29-2017 12:40 AM


Re: More nested hierarchies, homologies and analogies
And in fact there is also a genus of Flying Snakes.

Even squirrels can fly.

Yet all of the examples still fit neatly into the nested hierarchy using every technology we have ever developed.

There is much Dredge could learn if Dredge were willing to learn.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2017 12:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Pressie, posted 11-29-2017 8:22 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1851
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 133 of 175 (824458)
11-29-2017 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
11-29-2017 6:55 AM


Re: More nested hierarchies, homologies and analogies
I don't think that Dredge is willing to learn about anything not coming from his/her favourite Holy Books.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 11-29-2017 6:55 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 676
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 134 of 175 (824531)
11-30-2017 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
11-28-2017 4:47 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
Tangle writes:

And your point is what?


My point is, not only was Nebraska Man fabricated on the basis of one tooth, that tooth was very weathered and thus hard to identify. Junk science built on junk evidence, in other words.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 11-28-2017 4:47 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Tangle, posted 11-30-2017 4:33 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Pressie, posted 11-30-2017 7:44 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 11:13 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 135 of 175 (824532)
11-30-2017 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dredge
11-30-2017 4:24 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
Dredge writes:

My point is, not only was Nebraska Man fabricated on the basis of one tooth, that tooth was very weathered and thus hard to identify. Junk science built on junk evidence, in other words.

And this find was regarded as unsafe at the time and formally rejected by scientists 5 years later after further research at the site.

Somehow you think that this 100 year old example of an over-the-top media reaction to a debunked find is evidence against evolution? Is this what you're saying? Are you this puddled?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dredge, posted 11-30-2017 4:24 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017