Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 99 (419272)
09-01-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 9:32 PM


quoting Rr
Another typical failure of logic and understanding. That any organism could "make use" of a feature is no cause for such development -- there is no directed purpose to evolution
This is another typical two-step. See, when someone mentions that Coelacanth have changed very little, they say its evidence that nature does what works, even if it is not intentional. But you say that somehow doesn't apply in reverse. If avian somehow made great use of wings, and nature has even produced crude wings for gliding in some mammals, reptiles, and fish, then why didn't other species of the same Kingdom keep these traits as well?
Thus, you just invent ad hoc reasons that sound plausible as a way of justifying something that is clearly hypocritical and nonsensical.
All one can say is "blink". :rolleyes"
Sigh Nem, it is truly amazing. Here's a hint: The fishy thing HAD the traits selected for and maintained (though you are, yet again, wrong, the fishy thing has changed quite a bit). What you started off suggesting that something NOT present would appear BECAUSE it would be useful. They are very, muito, mucho different cases.
Shall we step back to square one:
Changes (new traits) arise from thing like mutations. These are NOT directed; they aren't influenced by what would work nicely. Selection then acts on them and if what has been produced is a bit useful it is kept. If the trait doesn't happen to pop up then it can not be selected for.
If you have questions on that try asking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 12:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 99 (419275)
09-01-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 9:32 PM


Re: Is it even possible for nem to be so wrong all the time?
I'm just throwing out ideas and theories in the same fashion as everyone else.
Is that what you think we do in the science threads? Just make up bullshit? Whatever we want, and act like it's true?
Jesus, NJ, that's not how it works at all. We go do the research, on sites like Google Scholar and PubMed - read the primary research - and then we come back and tell you what it says, as we understand it. Since some of us have degrees in this stuff, or others of us have gone to at least some school for it, some of us understand better than others.
But unless specifically stated you shouldn't really be encountering anything from our side that hasn't been substantiated by someone's scientific research.
To demonstrate evolution in some appreciable way, shouldn't you at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory?
NJ, any mutation can serve as the basis for subsequent mutations. Environment determines that.
If avian somehow made great use of wings, and nature has even produced crude wings for gliding in some mammals, reptiles, and fish, then why didn't other species of the same Kingdom keep these traits as well?
Mutations don't plan ahead. They happen at random. It's like asking someone who lost in the lottery why they didn't play the winning numbers instead.
It's a question that indicates that you don't quite understand what's going on.
Eventually they will reach a maximum capacity, and that number is far too little to account for the diversity of life here on here.
What maximum? How could there be a maximum? You can always add to the end of a DNA sequence; they're of arbitrary length. It's like saying there can only be a certain number of words - but that's clearly false. Even if you reach, say, every possible combination of 10 letters or less, you can start with the 11-letter words. And the 12-letter ones after that. And so on.
That couldn't possibly be enough to account for the diversity.
Why? Based on what? Just your "gut feeling?"
Do you understand why I don't take that as seriously as, say, a paper on bioinformatics? Or Yockey's work in Information Theory and Molecular Biology showing that all known functional sequences - across the world of living things - can be connected by single nucleotide changes through a network of minimally functional intermediates?
Or Denton:
quote:
"One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps." M. J. Denton, 1999
There's more than enough mutations - because living things have only covered a small fraction of all the diversity mutations could be capable of.
You have it completely backwards, NJ.
What evolutionist wouldn't want this kind of physical evidence? You'd probably soil yourself if such unambiguous evidence existed-- and I don't say that condescendingly.
Fuckin-a, NJ. We've got all that. We've had it for years, and we've been falling all over ourselves to show it to you.
Why do you think we're so convinced about evolution? But here's the funny thing, NJ - somebody gets it in their head that evolution can't mix with their religion, and all the evidence in the world just doesn't make any difference. It's like they don't even see it. They forget it as soon as its shown to them.
It'd be amazing if it wasn't so sad. We keep showing the creationists the evidence, and then next day, they're back like nothing ever happened. Can you understand our consternation? No, of course not, because you've got it too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 18 of 99 (419280)
09-01-2007 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 9:32 PM


If avian somehow made great use of wings, and nature has even produced crude wings for gliding in some mammals, reptiles, and fish, then why didn't other species of the same Kingdom keep these traits as well?
What? What other species? Keep what traits?
RAZD writes:
Furthermore there are flying quadra and bipedal animals, or does your universe of delusion exclude bats and birds (to say nothing of flying fish, snakes, frogs, etc)?
NJ writes:
No kidding, which is why my question was asking why all of the proceeding species didn't retain these traits.
Bats still have wings. "Flying" fish still have "wings". "Flying" squirrels still have "wings".
What do you mean "retain"?
Eventually they will reach a maximum capacity...
What? Mutations will reach a "maximum capacity"? Where on earth did you get this idea? Link please.
If a typical gene has approximately 1000 base pairs, how many substitutions of a single base pair for another are there that will cause a change in an amino acid? Even the staunchest of evolutionists concede that generally less than one mutation in a thousand is beneficial, so that about two of these substitutions will be beneficial. That couldn't possibly be enough to account for the diversity.
Where, praytell, did you get the idea that one SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) = one change in protein function? Most mutations are neutral. You know that. I know you know that.
talkorigins writes:
Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
talkorigins writes:
When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
If you are truly interested in SNPs and protein function, here is SIFT, "a program that predicts whether an amino acid substitution affects protein function so that users can prioritize substitutions for further study".
One more thing. SNPs are not the only way to affect protein function.
Science 21 November 2003: Vol. 302. no. 5649, pp. 1401 - 1404 writes:
After all, there are many ways to generate multiple functions from individual genes, such as tissue-specific gene regulation, alternative splicing, and RNA editing.
Edited by molbiogirl, : added a couple of quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 99 (419289)
09-01-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 9:32 PM


Re: Is it even possible for nem to be so wrong all the time?
And you, RAZD, in particular, used to deal with me kindly. That all changed when you flew off the handle with the Deism thread.
You mean when you called me insane? The one where you made a lot of unfounded personal assertions based on your delusions that were (are) unrelated to reality? THAT one? The one where you still have not answered the basic questions left for you because you are unable to think things through (while others could)? THAT one? Here's a clue:
Message 256
future nem writes:
I made a mistake
I was wrong to say the things I said
I'm sorry
YOU have unfinished business to attend to.
The Hopeful Monster theory was propagated by Dr. Richard Goldshmidt, an evolutionist, not a creationist.
So? Does that make it any more likely? Any more logical based on what we know NOW versus what was known when he proposed it? Any more reason to take it seriously now than it was then (it wasn't after all)?
As for the mutations, there must have been a large number of qualifying mutations, in long sequences, if they were to have been necessary to be fixed in a population.
These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to represent something beneficial-- at least in theory.
Why? Just saying this does not make it so or give any reason for it being so.
I gave you an example of the development of a feature and related it to flying squirrels and bats: did you have trouble understanding the process? Each stage has a net benefit and only requires minor modification: no major change or long accumulation of change necessary to reach a beneficial result. Your assumption is wrong.
But, the horizontal gene transfer from one species to another is not information newly introduced, right?
What in the world are you babbling about now nem?
Or are you proposing something we should see if ID were involved but not possible with evolution? Any evidence for this kind of development in any fossil you care to document?
How then would such a small allele frequency be fixed? It must have been a considerable mutation, seems to me.
Well you would be wrong again, nem. Not the first or last time. All it takes is a net relative benefit for an allele to increase within a population. This has already been discussed above.
To demonstrate evolution in some appreciable way, shouldn't you at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory? What demonstrable evidence exists in the annals of the evolutionary theory to support this?
Seeing as we have examples of speciation and documented changes in the frequency of alleles in populations from generation to generation there are so many examples that it boggles the mind that anyone who has been here discussing this as long as you have should remain clueless to it.
This is another typical two-step. See, when someone mentions that Coelacanth have changed very little, they say its evidence that nature does what works, even if it is not intentional. But you say that somehow doesn't apply in reverse. If avian somehow made great use of wings, and nature has even produced crude wings for gliding in some mammals, reptiles, and fish, then why didn't other species of the same Kingdom keep these traits as well?
No kidding, which is why my question was asking why all of the proceeding species didn't retain these traits.
Got im himmel you are dense. Keep WHAT traits? The ones that evolved into gliding surfaces and that are retained in all the descendant gliding species? What are you expecting to see nem? Spell it out.
Obviously you don't know. No one does. But I trust that you are seeing that you can't just make grand assumptions only to come to no actual conclusion.
No, obviously YOU are incapable of seeing it, but this doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else (there goes your false logic again). Nor does this incapability of yours inhibit nature in any way from what it can and cannot do.
I have made the argument before, and I see it as insoluble from an evolutionary standpoint, but I echo again.
Even with large populations and millions of years to back its play, there are not enough possible mutations to propel evolution. Think about it. Eventually they will reach a maximum capacity, and that number is far too little to account for the diversity of life here on here.
If a typical gene has approximately 1000 base pairs, how many substitutions of a single base pair for another are there that will cause a change in an amino acid? Even the staunchest of evolutionists concede that generally less than one mutation in a thousand is beneficial, so that about two of these substitutions will be beneficial. That couldn't possibly be enough to account for the diversity.
And your logic has been demonstrated to be faulty with large holes in it due to your particular blindness to reality.
The obvious solution to your petty quandry is that the DNA differences between all existing and past known organisms amounts to enough "change" to demonstrate evolution. There are enough different patterns to account for every single individual organism that ever lived: think about that nem -- every single organism that ever lived had a unique genetic pattern, this easily accounts for all the diversity we see in the world and the fossil record, and it still leaves room for more.
The obvious conclusion is that your "math" and logic are bogus, faulty, wrong, inadequate, silly and pathetically ignorant. Demonstrated to be so by the more than adequate evidence of reality all around you -- all you need to do is ground-truth your conclusions against reality ... AGAIN.
Because this would end the controversy.
In other words you do not have any logical reason for claiming that "... there should be transitional evidence of such gradations. So much so that laboratories, universities, and natural history museums would be littered with just such creatures in a timely, ordered sequence ..." at all and that all this is amounts to bald assertion and an argument from incredulity based on your continued failure\inability to think things through logically.
In other words you have set up a straw man for what you think we should see, in order to delude yourself that evolution is not possible, instead of looking at what is really predicted by the theory.
If you can't substantiate your claim you should withdraw it, as that would be the honest thing to do.
... and I don't say that condescendingly.
Hard to be condescending from such a level of ignorance and lack of understanding nem. Trying to be condescending when you are so wrong just ends up being pathetic.
Here's a suggestion: start with the precept that you don't know what you are talking about.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 99 (419293)
09-01-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Forever
09-01-2007 12:40 PM


back to the topic ...
A Body Part is any part of an organism, such as liver, lungs, stomach, leg, finger, etc.
Just a note: most of these items are soft tissue, parts that don't fossilize except under extraordinary conditions, so tracking them in the fossil record is extremely difficult.
As an example we have the evolution of the mammal ear bones from the reptile jaw and ear bones -- they migrate and change size over the course of millions of years and many many species in small steps, ...
... but I would also say that the feature of the mammal ear that really differentiates it functionally from the reptile ear is the soft tissue, muscle and cartilaginous structure on the outside of the head that is so effective at augmenting hearing in mammals.
The bones would be modification or "duplication of body parts" but the external ear is a "new" structure.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Forever, posted 09-01-2007 12:40 PM Forever has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 99 (419298)
09-01-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 9:32 PM


Re: Is it even possible for nem to be so wrong all the time?
Because this would end the controversy. What evolutionist wouldn't want this kind of physical evidence? You'd probably soil yourself if such unambiguous evidence existed-- and I don't say that condescendingly. I think if you were to make such a discovery, it would be as grand as discovering the Arc of the Covenant would be to an archaeologist.
And you know perfectly well that we do demonstrate, again and again, the fossil records of intermediate forms.
And we know this too, because we have demonstrated it again and again.
And you know that we know this, and we know that you know this ... and ...
To put it another way: you are lying, and you know that you are lying, and we know that you are lying, and we know that you know that you are lying, and you know that we know that you know that you know that you are lying, and we know that you are lying ...
So what's the point? You can't hope to deceive anyone, because we all know that you're lying. So what's the point in doing it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 99 (419508)
09-03-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jazzns
09-01-2007 3:29 PM


Re: Is it even possible?
quote:
But from the perspective of the design inference, we have to consider that in order for such an extravagance to develop, first there must have been some mutation which nature never intended. A proto-wing or a proto-fin, or what have you, would first have to have been so crude so as to actually impede and inhibit the organisms survival-- so much so that it would hardly make sense that it ever gets from point A to point B, let alone point A to point Z.
One time ago, didn't we already dismissing this embarrassing notion you have of "stump-like appendages"?
No, not at all. In fact, you neglected to actually answer the question. Obviously if avian descended from therapods, the wing must have developed slowly- lest you believe in a hopeful monster.
None of these questions can be answered beyond pure speculation because there is zero evidence of any such transition to begin with. At most, they look at bones from therapods, to modern birds, and to Archaeopteryx, and come up with some version of events that makes sense to them.
Surely, though, you understand that numerous successive gradations must taken place. Where are the remains? Why don't we have any fossils of any creatures in the midst of transition? Why are they all fully formed?

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 09-01-2007 3:29 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2007 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2007 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 33 by Jazzns, posted 09-03-2007 3:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 84 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 99 (419522)
09-03-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 11:23 AM


Re: Is it even possible?
NJ - find a bird near you, and count the number of limbs it has.
2 legs, 2 wings, right? No arms?
Did you ever wonder why that is? The wings are the arms.
Wings didn't begin as little stumps growing out of the body. They began as arms. The transitional stages between wing and arm is an arm with feathers, and then a skinnier arm with the feathers, and then an arm with no claws and elongated fingers, and then specialized feathers, etc.
None of these questions can be answered beyond pure speculation because there is zero evidence of any such transition to begin with.
But that's just nonsense. We have examples of the transitions all the way through. You've even been shown them. But here you are again, forgetting completely that you've even seen them, because you have the crazy idea that it's against your religion.
Surely, though, you understand that numerous successive gradations must taken place. Where are the remains?
In museums. You should go sometime.
Why are they all fully formed?
Why wouldn't a transition be fully formed? Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "fully formed." Archeopterix is a fully-formed archeopterix. In no sense is it a fully-formed modern bird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 11:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by BattleAxeDime, posted 09-22-2007 11:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 99 (419527)
09-03-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 11:23 AM


Re: Is it even possible?
What is a protowing nem? What do YOU think it is?
None of these questions can be answered beyond pure speculation because there is zero evidence of any such transition to begin with. At most, they look at bones from therapods, to modern birds, and to Archaeopteryx, and come up with some version of events that makes sense to them.
Speculation PLUS evidence is not just pure speculation, and YOU know it. Of course denial has to deal not only with the speculation, but with the evidence - evidence that increases every day.
See definition of proto feathers ? for some of the readily available information on protofeathers.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 11:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 99 (419529)
09-03-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
09-01-2007 9:46 PM


Re: quoting Rr
The fishy thing HAD the traits selected for and maintained (though you are, yet again, wrong, the fishy thing has changed quite a bit). What you started off suggesting that something NOT present would appear BECAUSE it would be useful.
No, it isn't. Why do you think they call it a "living fossil"? And even supposing it is, it still wouldn't detract from the initial argument. Prior to their rediscovery, it was believed that Coelacanth were one of the first aquatic creatures that experimented with walking. The claim (just by looking at its lobbed fins) was that it was essentially a walking fish. But as we unambiguously know now, that's a complete fabrication spawned from little more than guesswork.
So even supposing the modern Coelacanth is vastly different from the fossilized ones, we know that assertions about their "walking" is a total fabrication. If the Coelacanth were never rediscovered, this kind of imaginative "fact" would have gone on unchecked and you'd be none the wiser.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 09-01-2007 9:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2007 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2007 12:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 09-03-2007 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 1:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 09-03-2007 3:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 09-10-2007 12:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 99 (419533)
09-03-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 12:21 PM


Re: quoting Rr
If the Coelacanth were never rediscovered, this kind of imaginative "fact" would have gone on unchecked and you'd be none the wiser.
...and?
NJ, there's all kinds of stuff we wouldn't know if the evidence for it had never existed. So what? Are you saying that if, in an alternate universe we might not know something, we can't know it in this one?
How the hell does that make any sense? Honestly, the things you say sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 12:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 1:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 99 (419541)
09-03-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 12:21 PM


some coelacanth facts
No, it isn't. Why do you think they call it a "living fossil"?
The popular press calls it a "living fossil" because they are generally ignorant of the differences between the fossil species (many) and the living species (2).
DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time
quote:
The living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae,and Latimeria menadoensis are possibly the sole remaining representatives of a once widespread family of Sarcopterygian (fleshy-finned) coelacanth fishes (more than 120 species are known from fossils)all but one of which disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago.
The coelacanth appears to be a cousin of Eusthenopteron, the fish once credited with growing legs and coming ashore-360 million years ago. Today, scientists prefer to cite the tongue-twisting fossil candidates: icthyostega, panderichthys, acanthotega, and the newly discovered Tiktaalik roseae (2004), as the ancestor(s) of all tetrapods-amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, including ourselves.
While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way. Live bearing, for example, would seem to be a modern feature.
BTW - living coelacanths are in a different genus from prehistoric ones.
Prior to their rediscovery, it was believed that Coelacanth were one of the first aquatic creatures that experimented with walking. The claim (just by looking at its lobbed fins) was that it was essentially a walking fish. But as we unambiguously know now, that's a complete fabrication spawned from little more than guesswork.
Yet curiously, in actual science (as opposed to nem-land), we still look to the coelacanth for evidence of the way walking limbs evolved:
-
quote:
A 400 million-year-old fossilized coelacanth fin is providing insight into how fins evolved into limbs for walking on land because the arrangement of bones within the fin match the patterns found in living ray-finned fishes, not present-day coelacanths.
In other words the pattern in more modern coelacanths has evolved from the ray-finned fish pattern, and this evolved pattern is reflected in other transitionals along the way to tetrapods (like tiktaalik).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/07/070731152131.htm
quote:
“This ends intense debate about the primitive pattern for lobed fins, which involves the ancestry of all limbs, including our own,” said author Michael Coates, Ph.D., associate professor of organismal biology and anatomy at Chicago.
Gosh, looks like coelacanths are still part of our walking history nem. They amply demonstrate intermediate forms between ray-finned fish and tetrapods.
Prior to their rediscovery, it was believed that Coelacanth were one of the first aquatic creatures that experimented with walking.
And we still don't know if shallow water species of coelacanth exhibited any behavior associated with bottom walking. All we know is that the modern deep sea species don't. Thus adaptation for bottom walking is not ruled out.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 12:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 99 (419542)
09-03-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 12:21 PM


Re: quoting Rr
Prior to their rediscovery, it was believed that Coelacanth were one of the first aquatic creatures that experimented with walking.
And when you look at the claims you find they have merit. Coelacanths were part of the lobed finned fish group which were supposed to have used their fins for ground locomotion. We have the benefit of 70 years of science and discovery since then, and we are reasonably sure that Coelacanths didn't do this, but the fossil Coelacanths were closely related to other similar fish that did.
But as we unambiguously know now, that's a complete fabrication spawned from little more than guesswork.
We do not know this - even ambiguously. It wasn't a complete fabrication, it was based on evidence.
If the Coelacanth were never rediscovered, this kind of imaginative "fact" would have gone on unchecked and you'd be none the wiser.
Possibly, or possibly not. Nowadays we rarely state that a certain fossil was a direct ancestor of an extant species, if ever. The claim would have ultimately been, "Devonian fish, like the Coelacanth, could have used their lobe fins in a fashion we'd expect from the ancestors of modern tetrapods".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 12:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 29 of 99 (419543)
09-03-2007 12:54 PM


Quoting Rr
NO! You are NOT quoting Rr. Please try to use decent subtitles.
Thanks in advance.

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 30 of 99 (419544)
09-03-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 9:32 PM


an invitation

Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness.
- James Thurber
NJ:
What evolutionist wouldn't want this kind of physical evidence? You'd probably soil yourself if such unambiguous evidence existed
If anyone soiled themselves, NJ, they did it back in the 1870s when it first came to light. Now, this kind of thing doesn't even count as a novelty.
I think if you were to make such a discovery, it would be as grand as discovering the Arc of the Covenant would be to an archaeologist.
This is sad, NJ. You have no idea.
You really have missed every memo since the 1870s.
Do yourself a favour. Take that museum trip Crash recommended.
Try to pay attention when you go. Leave the prejudice and the horror stories you've been fed in the parking lot for one afternoon. Forget the generations of bitter feelings that have warped and twisted so many American religious communities since the Scopes trial. Let that fight rest with the people who fought it, NJ. It's not yours.
Just give the earth explorers the benefit of the doubt. For once. They have something they want to show you.
It's not some nefarious plot by a worldwide conspiracy of atheists to make you lose your faith in Jesus your Saviour. And neither is it just someone else's made-up 'ad hoc explanation' duelling yours.
It's love, really. Love of life, love of nature, love of learning. These people love it enough that they make it their life's work. And all they ask is that you let them share it with you.
Things like that should be shared, NJ.
We live on a fascinating planet. Some exciting things have happened here. Things worth knowing.
For yourself, NJ, please: let them show you some of it.
____

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024