Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 3:50 AM
42 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4950
51
5253
...
59Next
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 751 of 871 (694956)
03-31-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by mindspawn
03-25-2013 4:47 PM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
mindspawn writes:

They already harbor latent reservoirs. This isn't evolution, its latent. Their conclusion is not consistent with their own wording. Genomes already hold the ability to adapt, the adaptation is not proof of evolution of the genome, its proof that the GENOTYPE has the latent ability to express itself in differing PHENOTYPES.

"Latent" in this context means "potential" (look it up!). The genome has the potential to adapt by mutation (in this case, duplication leading to amplification) causing a new phenotype. That is evolution.

Remember, I showed you this paper along with others (like the adaptation to warmth by duplication one) to show you that duplications can be advantageous on arrival as well as neutral and detrimental. You already know that point mutations can change the protein product of coding genes in ways that are advantageous or neutral. So, you have an answer to your question, which was how can evolution increase the number of protein coding genes from 1000 to 20,000. Combine the processes. Add a gene by duplication, then, like other genes, it is subject to change by point mutations. Voil. You've got a new coding gene.

mindspawn writes:

(how would evolution ever produce LATENT abilities in the gentoype .... natural selection - WOW that's funny)

Why would the advantageous potential (latent) ability of self-replicators to adapt being favoured by nature over the hypothetical lack of that ability be "funny"? Static self-replicators would perish in an ever changing environment, so the survival advantage of strains that replicate with variation would be better described as " obvious" rather than "funny".

mindspawn writes:

I appreciate the fact that you are the first to emphasize the AMPLIFICATION that occurred in that particular example. No-one else has mentioned this, not even RAZD in our private discussion. I believe the amplification adds more to the evoltuionists argument than the initial duplication and activation.

You'd have noticed that there are about thirty amplifications of the new gene in the Antarctic fish paper which is mentioned in the subtitle above if you'd read it carefully. There are variations by point mutation between these, as well. They are, from memory, 97% to 99% identical. Read the paper carefully, and you will see that they have analyzed a historical sequence of events which happened entirely by common types of mutation that can be observed in the lab. There's a duplication, which enables one copy to mutate away from the primary function and form the anti-freeze protein, then further duplications of the new gene.

mindspawn writes:

Yet I honestly feel you have not addressed the possibility that these duplications are merely copying what was already in nature. When the number of duplications goes beyond anything already found in nature, you would have a point.

How can a new copy already be there? And why can't the new copy mutate to produce novelty in the phenotype just as other genes do?

If you read and understand the various papers I've shown you, you should be able to see very clearly that novel protein coding genes can be produced by well established processes. Duplication, then point mutation on one or both of the copies.

mindspawn writes:

Its only logical that if the E.coli used to be aerobic and have amplification in its citrate transporting region then it would have de-selected its useless amplification once the aerobic promoter was disabled in an anaerobic environment.

It's not just a question of selection. Do you not understand that experiments like the adaption to warmth one and the Lenski experiment start from one original organism. The cultures derived from this are initially clones. The original genome is known, so that the researchers can identify what has arrived by mutation. So, novel features in the genotype and phenotype can be observed to arrive in the lab.

We have to compare it to its original state which was aerobic, as can be concluded by the fact that it does have an existing aerobic promoter in the rnk gene. Natural selection could never create a promoter for oxic conditions if it was never active in oxic conditions. that makes no sense under evolutionary conclusions, so logically under both creationism and evolution, E.Coli used to be active in oxic conditions. And therefore could have deselected amplifications once becoming anaerobic. The fact that nature can now duplicate itself back to an optimum when aerobic selection pressure is nor re-applied, does not mean it can surpass that optimum.

Be careful. On the basis of known adaptations, you'll find yourself having to argue that a whole variety of modern pesticides were being used in the garden of Eden, and that Adam and Eve were wearing nylon and treating themselves with a range of antibiotics while also using modern anti-malarial drugs. I think you might have a few theological problems with all that, as well as the obvious historical ones.

Remember, the Lenski adaptation required enabling mutations + the creation of a new regulatory gene by a duplication as well as the amplifications.

mindspawn writes:

I haven't got time to delve into these links in this post, but have maintained the links so that I can address them in the next post, but they do look like good challenging studies. (please quote this comment in your next post so I don't forget)
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/2/525.full
http://www.plosgenetics.org/...0.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000243

As requested.

mindspawn writes:

I wasn't trying to make you laugh, but I've had a few good laughs here on this site, so it's cool if you get a few as well Remember both the Baramin view, and evolution would support short term nested hierarchies with approximately 99.5 percent or more genetic similarity between two species (eg like the mammoth/elephant or the tiger/lion or the human/Neanderthal).

I think you'll find that the young earth Baramin view will require extremely high levels of mutation to account for the differences within elephants. Deceptively, Asian elephants and the mammoth are closer to each other than they are to African elephants. What'll happen if the genomes are fully sequenced, and you find that the quantity of difference between African and Asian elephants is far too great for them to have come from a bottleneck 4,500 years ago? It certainly will be.

Based on the genomes of two mammoths and some African elephants, the current estimates of the difference between the mammoths (+ Asian elephants) and the Africans is about half that of the differences between humans and chimps. Tens of millions.

mindspawn writes:

Now when I see the elephant and the hyrax put into a hierarchy together, it speaks to me of evolutionary assumptions. There are some phenotype and genotype similarities between the two, just as the human shares DNA sequences with coral. This does not prove a hierarchy, it once again proves that sets of features can sometimes be best in a combination.

Does it? Why? But forget the hyrax. What I'm saying is that you'll require lots of elephant and mammoth pairs on the Ark (plus all the food they need for a year) in order to account for their current diversity. Remember your claim that it's impossible to get 120 million differences on the genome between humans and chimps in 5 to 7 million years? Well, you certainly won't get the differences between African and Asian/mammoth elephants (~60 million) from a tiny bottleneck 4,500 years ago, will you? These are different species with generation times like ours.

For example, give the elephants 100 mutations per generation going to fixation along each lineage going back 180 generations back to your 4,500 yr old Ark. The fixed difference between any two groups separated by 360 generations should be about 36,000, not 60,000,000! The two mammoth I mentioned were from different groups, and they differ from each other by millions of point mutations as well. Then, in extant elephants, there are different breeds and sub-species within Africans and Asians, with some experts arguing for more that one species in Africa.

Are you beginning to understand how your young earth model is easily falsified by genetics alone, without even talking about archaeology, paleontology, geology and cosmology?

Its neither here nor there, you would need a trail of transitional fossils from the original giant hyrax, showing transitions to an elephant that would add more weight to your nested hierarchy. To a creationist it looks like a number of completely separate baramins (hyrax is too different to an elephant) and some short term devolution/evolution from baramins (elephant/mammoth). ie the long-term "nested hierarchys" do not in any manner favor evolution over recent baramins.

How do you decide what's "too different" to be related? Surely the limit should be set by the quantity of genetic differences possible in your time scale. That's so little that you'll not only have to separate the common chimps from the bonobos and us from Neanderthal, you'll have to separate Africans from Australian aborigines and have them separately created in different Edens.

mindspawn writes:

The fact that both share a few features, shows that fitness is sometimes maximised in groupings of features.

Does it? How?

mindspawn writes:

Attempts to show that feature groupings are not maximised, but are the less perfect result of a natural evolutionary path from a common ancestor, have not been convincing.

To whom? Experts in the relevant fields?

mindspawn writes:

So if a few of these eight humans had higher copy numbers, and a few had lower copy numbers, the high copy numbers had no advantage in the meat eating society just after the flood. It is only recently that the ones with high copy numbers would be favored. I was just pointing out that a modern return to alleles that favor vegetarianism does not contradict the biblical theory, rather it affirms the biblical notion of a pre-flood vegetarian society followed by a post-flood meat eating society. An observation of copy number increases is no proof of evolution, its just proof that humans with high copy numbers are currently favored with modern diets. Anything else is jumping to conclusions, and those sort of jumps are unscientific.

You're forgetting your original point. The claim that duplication is always disadvantageous. If a duplication of AMY 1 occurs in one of your grandchildren, how can it be anything other than neutral or advantageous (depending on the kid's future diet)? I brought up the AMY1 gene along with the lab examples in bacteria and wild examples in the malarial parasite in order to demonstrate that your claim was clearly false.

mindspawn writes:

bluegenes writes:

Amplification has been observed to add to fitness. You may not realise it, but you're defeating your own arguments against an evolutionary scenario. If humans are perfectly healthy with high copy numbers of AMY1, there is nothing to stop them having evolved by duplication from one original.

I entirely agree that there would have been copy number variation and high copy numbers present in the population 6,500 years ago (and before).

Did you know that there are some genes with hundreds of copies in some individuals, and copy number can vary by more than 100 between individuals? And, moving from CNV to SNPs, did you know that there are some genes with more than 1000 alleles at the same loci, and at least one that is known to have more than 2000? That's interesting when you consider that your original population could only have 4 between them.

Just because I'm a creationist, does not mean I deny all mutations. SNPs are single nucleotide polymorphisms. ie they involve just one little change to a gene. These are pretty common each human has about 30 point mutations per generation. This is a conservative estimate, the estimates do vary. So about 1 in 700 genes are affected in each offspring (21000 coding genes/30). So for every 700 people born, you should average one new allele at each locus. For every 70 million people born, you should get 100000 new alleles at each locus. For every 7 billion people born you should get 10 000 000 new alleles at each locus . I dare say, the figure 2000 is possibly just a reflection of the lack of genome sequencing done across the entire human population, it should logically be WAY higher than 2000 per locus.

Protein coding genes only comprise ~1% of the genome. So, you're out by two orders of magnitude. At your mutation rate and with your calculations, one in 70,000 of the population would mutate on a particular coding gene. Then, if you understand population genetics and assume all the mutations to be close to neutral, only a tiny minority of the modern population would have variants in point mutations from the original 4 alleles of Adam and Eve, although there would be lots of these variants (any neutral mutation that occurred would remain in one in 70,000 of the total population with average drift luck). So, we have a prediction from your model. What we should see in the present population is the overwhelming majority with the 4 original alleles. Take a random sample of 100 people from around the world, and there won't be much variation, if any at all, from the original 4.

Would you like that prediction to be tested?

In addition, you have another prediction about the Y chromosome of Noah, which all men should have, without having much more than 60 point mutations difference from the original, and therefore not much more than 120 differences between any two individuals (from pedigree studies of Y-chromosome mutation rates like the one I showed you).

Would you like that prediction to be tested?

mindspawn writes:

I haven't got time tonight for the rest of your post, but thanks for your challenging post.

You're welcome. And thanks for the image of the Ark with a sizeable herd of genetically variable elephants on it, a big enough job for 8 zookeepers on its own!

It's actually the research papers that are challenging to your beliefs, not my posts.

Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Edited by bluegenes, : missing word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by mindspawn, posted 03-25-2013 4:47 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by mindspawn, posted 04-23-2013 5:10 AM bluegenes has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 752 of 871 (695212)
04-03-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 742 by Granny Magda
03-18-2013 3:00 AM


Okay. But let's be clear, we're never going to get DNA from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old and where most of the original organic material has been replaced. That seems like an unreasonable burden of proof

Well that's not true, but let's put that to one side for now.

I didn't ask you for examples of things that aren't evidence for evolution, I asked you what evidence for evolution you would accept. On the basis of your answer here, it would seem that nothing would be sufficient. Is that the case? After all, it seems pointless to harp on about a lack of bat fossils, when you wouldn't accept them as evidence even if they were put in front of you.

So again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What criteria would it have to fulfil?

To be blunt, there is nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil. Its impossible to prove, because phenotypes are not always a reflection of DNA similarity. But even so, if evolution is true there should be many cases of what appears to look like transitionary fossils, to support the theory of evolution. There are not enough of these dated sequences to make a good case for evolution, as opposed to the known fact that there was huge diversity, and now there is less diversity.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 742 by Granny Magda, posted 03-18-2013 3:00 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by Taq, posted 04-03-2013 6:21 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 758 by Granny Magda, posted 04-04-2013 11:11 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 753 of 871 (695219)
04-03-2013 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by mindspawn
04-03-2013 5:22 PM


To be blunt, there is nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil.

Baloney. It is a fact that fossils have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Transitional fossils are a fact.

There are not enough of these dated sequences to make a good case for evolution, as opposed to the known fact that there was huge diversity, and now there is less diversity.

Every single transitional fossil we have is consistent with evolution. That is some serious evidence in favor of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by mindspawn, posted 04-03-2013 5:22 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 9:20 AM Taq has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 754 of 871 (695270)
04-04-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 753 by Taq
04-03-2013 6:21 PM


Baloney. It is a fact that fossils have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Transitional fossils are a fact.

Oh really? Even today we see completely differing genotypes having near identical phenotypes. This is known in evolutionary circles as "convergent evolution". Due to DNA analysis we are sure they are from completely different nested hierarchies. Due to the fact that we do not have DNA analysis for so-called transitional fossils means we can never be sure if they are a transition or not. Even from an evolutionist's perspective, there are no two fossils that exist that we can be sure of, due to convergent evolution re-creating similar phenotypes from completely different species.

Your point is baloney, transitional fossils are guess work. But even so, there are so few fossils that even look transitional so that even the guesswork lacks enough quantity to be taken seriously. i would like to see some more guessed sequences of similar looking fossil sequences so that evolution at least looks like it makes some sense.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Taq, posted 04-03-2013 6:21 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 759 by Taq, posted 04-04-2013 11:11 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 761 by Granny Magda, posted 04-04-2013 11:21 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 755 of 871 (695272)
04-04-2013 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 749 by Admin
03-25-2013 5:40 PM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
Much of the genome isn't in coding genes. I don't know the proportion off the top of my head.

Fair enough. But my main point stands, the high numbers of observed alleles are consistent with mutation rates and do not in any manner contradict a 6500 year period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by Admin, posted 03-25-2013 5:40 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by Admin, posted 04-04-2013 9:46 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 756 of 871 (695275)
04-04-2013 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 755 by mindspawn
04-04-2013 9:29 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
mindspawn writes:

Fair enough. But my main point stands, the high numbers of observed alleles are consistent with mutation rates and do not in any manner contradict a 6500 year period.

Okay, this time I looked it up. If you look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Noncoding DNA you'll see that 98% of the human genome is noncoding, i.e., lies outside of genes. So when you said this in Message 748:

-mindspawn in Message 748 writes:

Each human has about 30 point mutations per generation. This is a conservative estimate, the estimates do vary. So about 1 in 700 genes are affected in each offspring (21000 coding genes/30).

If you redo your math but this time include the 98% noncoding figure you'll find that on average only 1 gene out of 35,000 is affected. Since the genome actually has only 21,000 genes that means that on average only one gene experiences a mutation, and in only a little over half of offspring.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 9:29 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 10:01 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 757 of 871 (695277)
04-04-2013 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 756 by Admin
04-04-2013 9:46 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
If you redo your math but this time include the 98% noncoding figure you'll find that on average only 1 gene out of 35,000 is affected. Since the genome actually has only 21,000 genes that means that on average only one gene experiences a mutation, and in only a little over half of offspring.

This is true. Which means that a little over half the world's population has a unique gene compared to their parents. That's about 4 billion unique genes, but only about 21000 gene locations exist. Whichever way you work it out, there's millions of new alleles being created each generation due to our huge populations, and so to find a few thousand at one locus is not surprising in the least, and does not contradict the "ark" view of 8 survivors , and mutations since then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by Admin, posted 04-04-2013 9:46 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by Taq, posted 04-04-2013 11:16 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 758 of 871 (695289)
04-04-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 752 by mindspawn
04-03-2013 5:22 PM


To be blunt, there is nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil.

Nice to know that you're keeping an open mind.

Its impossible to prove, because phenotypes are not always a reflection of DNA similarity.

a) That is false.

b) Fossils do not contain DNA. Whatever definition we give for a transitional fossil, it has nothing to do with DNA or the lack of it. Criticising fossils for a lack of DNA is like criticising the Gospels for not having photo's of Jesus.

c) Even if I were to show you two species that share DNA, would you accept this as evidence for evolution? No you would not. It is deeply dishonest of you to harp at me for a lack of DNA evidence, when you routinely dismiss the DNA evidence that does exist.

But even so, if evolution is true there should be many cases of what appears to look like transitionary fossils, to support the theory of evolution.

Yes there should. If evolution is true, then there should be lots of them. We are agreed on that.

There are not enough of these dated sequences to make a good case for evolution,

Really? How do you know? You just said that it was completely impossible both in practise and in principle to tell whether a fossil is transitional or not. So how can you say whether there are too few? If you want to take the rather obstinate position that we cannot know any transitional fossil as what it is, then the only logical position for you to take is one of total agnosticism. Yet you say silly things like this;

mindspawn writes:

{Bats} are mammals with wings with no known transitionary fossils.

mindspawn writes:

No claimed transitional fossils have been found for the bat

How do you know whether transitional fossils exist or not if it's impossible to tell a transitional fossil?

How about this nonsense;

mindspawn writes:

Its not very difficult to imagine what a transition would look like if evolution was true,

Isn't it? In your latest reply you claim that it's impossible. Make your damn mind up.

mindspawn writes:

I'm not saying the lack of one transitional form puts doubt on evolution, its the lack of MOST transitional forms, and the doubtful nature of many more so-called transitions that puts doubt on evolution.

Huh? But you just said that it's impossible to recognise a transitional fossil, so how can you say whether there is a lack or not?

Your habit of making shit up as you go along has led you into a contradiction; either there is a way to recognise transitional fossils and they turn out to be lacking or there is no way to recognise transitional fossils and you have no idea how many there are.

You don't get to have it both ways, so which is it?

But even after all of this, I notice that you have still not answered my question. You have told me that there is "nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil". Well that's not really what I'm asking for. No-one claims to be able to prove that a fossil fits into a particular transition or not; science doesn't work on "proof". I asked you what a genuine transitional fossil would look like, what characteristics it would have. You refuse to answer. A less charitable poster than I might suspect that haven't actually given the matter the slightest thought, or that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. But I'm not mean like that, so I'll ask again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What characteristics would it have to fulfil for us to begin to recognise it as transitional?

Seriously mindspawn, if you are unable to answer that simple question, you have no business commenting on the subject of the fossil record. Answer the question, or stop making claims about things you can't even define.
Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by mindspawn, posted 04-03-2013 5:22 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 771 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 4:40 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 759 of 871 (695290)
04-04-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by mindspawn
04-04-2013 9:20 AM


Oh really?

Yes, really. H. erectus has a mixture of features from modern humans and basal apes. The platypus has a mixture of features from reptiles and placental mammals. Archaeopteryx has a mixture of features from modern birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Tiktaalik roseae has a mixture of features between lobed finned fish and terrestrial vertebrates. Transitional fossils and species are a fact.

Even today we see completely differing genotypes having near identical phenotypes. This is known in evolutionary circles as "convergent evolution".

That doesn't change the fact that they are transitional.

Due to the fact that we do not have DNA analysis for so-called transitional fossils means we can never be sure if they are a transition or not.

The transitional nature of fossils is based on their morphology, not their DNA. We can determine if they are transitional by their morphology alone since that is all that is needed. Again, transitional means that the fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. THAT'S IT!!! Transitional and ancestral are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

But even so, there are so few fossils that even look transitional so that even the guesswork lacks enough quantity to be taken seriously.

Ignoring the evidence does not help your case.

Name a single fossil that does not fit into the nested hierarchy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 9:20 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 760 of 871 (695291)
04-04-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 757 by mindspawn
04-04-2013 10:01 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
This is true. Which means that a little over half the world's population has a unique gene compared to their parents. That's about 4 billion unique genes, but only about 21000 gene locations exist. Whichever way you work it out, there's millions of new alleles being created each generation due to our huge populations, and so to find a few thousand at one locus is not surprising in the least, and does not contradict the "ark" view of 8 survivors , and mutations since then.

Convergence times for both the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA are well beyond the 6,000 year mark. Human variation in these two parts of the genome already falsify a 6,000 year old Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 10:01 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 3:57 PM Taq has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 761 of 871 (695292)
04-04-2013 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by mindspawn
04-04-2013 9:20 AM


Even today we see completely differing genotypes having near identical phenotypes.

No we do not.

Disagree? Show me an example.

Due to the fact that we do not have DNA analysis for so-called transitional fossils means we can never be sure if they are a transition or not.

I gotta say, it's comments like the above that make me wonder if you truly understand what scientific evidence is and how it works, 'cause baby, that ain't it.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 9:20 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 6:31 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 762 of 871 (695305)
04-04-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 738 by Granny Magda
03-17-2013 2:31 PM


Bat fossil
but at least its something better than the complete lack for example of transitionary bat fossils


Earliest bat fossil reveals transition to flight.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by Granny Magda, posted 03-17-2013 2:31 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 2:40 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 763 of 871 (695317)
04-04-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by JonF
04-04-2013 1:33 PM


Re: Bat fossil
Isn't that the Mexican freetail bat?

http://digimorph.org/...Tadarida_brasiliensis_mexicana/whole

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by JonF, posted 04-04-2013 1:33 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by Granny Magda, posted 04-04-2013 2:48 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 764 of 871 (695320)
04-04-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by mindspawn
04-04-2013 2:40 PM


Re: Bat fossil
There's a link right there in the message. Or just google "transitional", "bat" and "fossil" and click the first link.

Isn't that the Mexican freetail bat?

What? No!

Did you read the article?

quote:
The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws.

You're not exactly giving the impression of having done extensive research here...

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 2:40 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 2:52 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 766 by mindspawn, posted 04-04-2013 3:25 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 765 of 871 (695321)
04-04-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 764 by Granny Magda
04-04-2013 2:48 PM


Re: Bat fossil
There's a link right there in the message. Or just google "transitional", "bat" and "fossil" and click the first link.
You're not exactly giving the impression of having done extensive research here...

Thanks, I should have noticed that link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Granny Magda, posted 04-04-2013 2:48 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
4950
51
5253
...
59Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019