Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

WD40: ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

wd40 said here: ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna”.

Here is a fish that is considered closest to humans

lungfish
http://seapics.com/assets/pictures/104657-450-lungfish.jpg”

Lungfish are considered closest relative of tetrapods (humans are tetrapods). Thus it would be something like the lungfish that wd40 argues is more closely related to me than it is to a tuna.

Well, here is a tuna:
tuna
http://www.worldtunatrade.com/wp-content/gallery/gallery-2/tuna.jpg

And here is a human:
indian jones
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110107000310/jackyman225/images/e/e0/Indiana_jones_1.jpg

Do you think a lungfish is more closely related to a tuna or is a lungfish more closely related to a human? Well, wd40 says, ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna”.

How did wd40 arrive at this strange conclusion? See: Lungfish and humans – famous novel has almost 100% similarity to Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary.

🙂

Comments
Littlejohn, Notice how they are looking more and more like and eel, and they are reducing the complexity of their limb architect No. I don't notice this. But even if it were true, why are you ignoring all the vertebrates with more complex limbs?wd400
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PST
You're right Sal, I've seen the light. Who needs science when you can just look at pictures and just *feel* answers evade the evidence against your position.wd400
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PST
Well there isn't any evidence that says unguided evolution could produce either the sperm or the egg.Joe
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PST
#73 Littlejohn
Tetrapods came from the union of a sperm and and egg
Yes - but what creature generated the sperm and the egg?Mark Frank
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST
Someone might ask, "Sal, is there any evidence where you would claim common ancestry in some lineage?" YES! I gave examples here: https://uncommondescent.com/speciation/the-de-origination-of-species-by-means-of-reunion/scordova
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST
Do you think Tiiktalik is more closely related to Ichthyostega than it is to a tuna? If so you disagree with Sal on this point.
Phylogenetic fantasies are not facts, I provided facts and wd400 is substituting phylogenetic fantasies for facts. Facts: 1. the pictures above comparing tuna, lungfish and humans 2. lungfish have 100-133 giga base pairs humans have 3.5, at best we're talking 3.5% sequence similarity if we don't do the "dictionary trick" 3. if we do the "dictionary trick" even then we have to be selective of what we compared because when I took a common protein such as the cytochrome oxidase subunit 1, humans were no where to be found near lungfish! 4. we really don't understand developmental pathways all that well, if the supposed similarities in development are convergent in outcome but different in path that is a refutation of evolutionism Instead, appeals to phylogenetic fantasies of fragmentary fossils are made. Darwinists must appeal to the least accessible, most vague lines of evidence like Tiiktalik. Consider the mistakes paleontologists have made when they fabricated stories of supposed extinct fossils only to find out they totally misunderstood the tissues and anatomy of the fossils.
Consider also the living fossil known as the coelacanth. From 1839 (when fossil coelacanths were first discovered—Perkins, 2001) to 1938, evolutionists alleged that this fish was the missing link in the evolution of fish to amphibians (“Diver Finds...,” n.d.). Supposedly, coelacanths had existed “for nearly 400 million years” (“Diver Finds...”). Evolutionists firmly believed that “the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out—EL] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this” (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Science News declared that coelacanths “disappeared from the fossil record 75 million years ago” (Perkins, 2001, emp. added). In 1938, however, a living coelacanth was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar, and since that time more than 200 other specimens have been sighted or caught (see “Coelacanth,” n.d.). https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2294
Evolutionist have a stellar track record. NOT! The evolutionists are appealing to phylogenetic fantasies not facts. But if one counts fantasies as overwhelming evidence, then I suppose that's how they claim they have overwhelming evidence.scordova
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PST
MarkFrank #67 Tetrapods came from the union of a sperm and and egg. wd400 Lungfish are a great example of how limbs and animals evolve. Notice how they are looking more and more like and eel, and they are reducing the complexity of their limb architecture?littlejohn
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST
wd400: I think you forgot about the evolution of limbs, which is quite an achievement in a conversation about tetrapods!
yes, indeed! As well as development of a multi-chamber heart, pulmonary circulation, a lung, and the ciliated ectoderm of lungfish and amphibian larvae which all point to a clear evolutionary ancestral relationship between fish and tetrapods.franklin
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST
PeterJ, The sad part is they can't even account for the evolution of a fist with wrist bones from a population of fish with fish-fins.Joe
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PST
For example how can one test the claim that a population of fish evolved limbs robust enoiugh to support their body weight when they are out of water? Why don't evos take fish embryos, subject them to some targeted mutagenesis, select those that appear to heading towards that goal and then do it again until we get a fish with legs?Joe
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PST
Mark Frank and wd400, If you think that tetrapods evolved from fish then it is up to YOU to provide some way of scientifically testing that claim. However you cannot and so you have to lash out at those who don't accept unscientific claims. So either have at it or stuff it.Joe
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST
Littlejohn, I think you forgot about the evolution of limbs, which is quite an achievement in a conversation about tetrapods! PeterJ, Do you think Tiiktalik is more closely related to Ichthyostega than it is to a tuna? If so you disagree with Sal on this point.wd400
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PST
#65 Littlejohn If you don't think tetrapods came from fish, where do you think they came from?Mark Frank
July 26, 2013
July
07
Jul
26
26
2013
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PST
WD400, Fish with wrist bones, is still very much a fish. As Littlejohn has pointed out above, I think there are far greater changes that need to be considered. And of course we have no evidence that such changes even took place. Also, there are many Tetrapods with both 'lungs and gills' today, as I'm sure you are well aware. Take the Salamnder for instance. An amphibian of varying degrees of size, and some of which bare a striking resemblance to Ichthyostega. I was looking at this very subject some time ago, putting together a powerpoint presntation, and I came across this rather amusing piece linked with the Smithsonian National Zoo. Below is a link to the site, and a rather amusing snippit. "Amphibians have been on the earth for 360 million years, long before the first dinosaurs. They are descended from fish and gave rise to reptiles, thus representing the transition of life from water to land. Salamanders diverged (became different from) other amphibians about 200 million years ago." http://salamanderscience.com/salamander-faqs/ It's a very long time (360 my) to undergo very little 'evolution', don't you think?PeterJ
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PST
wd400 Phylogeny is about ALL of evolutionary history, so it is much more comprehensive than you allow for when focusing primarily on sister groups. At the base of the hypothetical 'Tree', lies the mystical IDA and LUCA. Should we change IDA to IDS's and LUCA to LUCS's? Etc. etc. Also, I suggest you google "regressive evolution", because the fact is, Viruses are no different than any other lineage insofar as bauplan evolution goes. For example, probably every vertebrate ever known, consists of a central axis (head on one end and tail on the other), with no more than 2 pair of appendages, and all variations modify or reduce this basic bauplan form (metaphorically, a six pointed star descending ultimately to a extremely derived limbless snake architecture). That appears to be the irrefutable general pattern demonstrated by the fossil record, and we can measure the rearrangements and elimination of skeletal elements from the general vertebrate bauplan throughout all the lineages over deep time. Now, think about what is required to get a tetrapod from a fish (more than 100 novel and differentiated skeletal elements). The mutation rate and selectivity to generate such physiology, engineering, and ecology is, to say the least, off the map. Pointing to a handful of enigmatic semi-terrestrial fish is very weak evidence in the face of the overwhelming overall pattern; and, to say the least, perhaps another once upon a time storylittlejohn
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PST
Peter, Sounds reasonable, where do you reckon a fish with wrist bones, or a tetrapod with gills leaves Sal's idiosyncratic ideas about relationships among these groups?wd400
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PST
WD400, My opinion is this: Tiktaalik is a 'fish'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik "Tiktaalik provides insights on the features of the extinct closest relatives of the tetrapods. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, the "fins" of Tiktaalik have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers. The homology of distal elements is uncertain; there have been suggestions that they are homologous to digits, although this is incompatible with the digital arch developmental model because digits are supposed to be postaxial structures, and only three of the (reconstructed) eight rays of Tiktaalik are post-axial" And Ichthyostega is a tetrapod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega "It was a labyrinthodont, one of the first tetrapods in the fossil record. Ichthyostega possessed lungs and limbs that helped it navigate through shallow water in swamps. Though undoubtedly of amphibian build and habit, it is not considered a true member of the group in the narrow sense, as the first true amphibians appeared in the Carboniferous period. Until finds of other early tetrapods and closely related fishes in the late 20th century, Ichthyostega stood alone as the transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods, combining a fishlike tail and gills with an amphibian skull and limbs." Does that help?PeterJ
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PST
Though, Sal, I'd still like to hear what Tiiktalik, ichthyostega and chums were. Fish? Tetrapods? Where does that bright-white line that seperates the two lie? And why is it harder to tell when we look at fossils than we we look at living creatures?wd400
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PST
Littlejhon. Phylogeny tells us about sister relationships. We can infer things about ancestors as a result, but we can't produce ancestor-descendant series using phylogenetic methods. That's just now what they are for. Your second statement is illogical. That viruses are reduced life-forms only tells us that reductive (not regressive) evolution is possible, not that it is the only way to evolve.wd400
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PST
Sal. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports m claim. The tree you posted in your earlier post has lungfish closer to tetrapods than tuna. The coelacanths genome confirmed this relationship. Homologies including the bones of the lobe-fin confirm this. The truth of my statement is an utterly uncontroversial finding of modern science. I'm sorry that you can't accept that finding, but I'm not going to waste anymore time on you, as you are very obviously a lost cause.wd400
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PST
wd400 If the tree of life is not about ancestor-descendant relationships, what is it about? Surely you jest? lol? You cited experiments with Viruses as a way to help determine the history of life. Viruses are perhaps the most reduced form of life on the planet. Do you hold the premise that evolution is therefore regressive, at least at the bauplan (frame) level of organization?littlejohn
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PST
I refuted your claim Rejected. To refute something you have to make an argument, not just parade your personal incredulity at an utterly uncontroversial finding.
Not my personal incredulity, the data refute it. You claimed: "some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna" You haven't even tried to defend such silliness. The UD readers see the photos above, they see a sample protein sequence, they see that lungfish have 100 giga base pairs or so and the human and 3.5, and you still argue, "some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna" You might of course, appeal to a dead organism where we don't have good morphological or molecular data -- the more fragmentary the fossil, the easier it is to argue for similarity using imagination. I was referring to living fish obviously, or are you referring to fish that don't exist today or maybe not even in the fossil record? I made an argument, you aren't even defending your claim very much are you? Why is that? I posted photos of a lungfish and human, you've got a tough job to stand by your statement especially if we're talking living examples, you could of course pretend we weren't really talking about living species. :-)scordova
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PST
I think you might want to read up on phylogeny. It's not simply about "similarity" (that's phenetics) and it's certainly not about discovering ancestor-descendant relationshipswd400
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PST
Is not the LCA of protostomes and deuterstomes a ghost, or hypothetical lineage, or can you reference the discovery of an animal that has been purposed as such? Also, how would you know if there is truly and ancestor-descendant relationship between one group and another using phylogenetic methods? IOW, how can degree of similarity or difference be a trustworthy measure of evolutionary relationships?littlejohn
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PST
You must infer organizational leaps to infer phylogeny when ghost lineages are involved, do you not? No. And I don't know what ghost lineages have to do with it. It may be true that cladistic methods may one day be useful for determining relationships within Phyla, but will likely never be useful for determining the relationships between phyla Cladistic methods have already established many between-phylum relationships (all the groups in my earler comment, for instance). Simulations may be appear objective in principle, but not likely objective in practice. I suspect that with enough expertise, we could probably program a computer simulation to support any foregone conclusion. I don't what this means. You simulate sequences under different histories, and see how phylogentic methods recover the true history. You can't lean on the scale and try to support a particular tree, but that's not what the simulation studies are for.wd400
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST
wd-400 @44 You must infer organizational leaps to infer phylogeny when ghost lineages are involved, do you not? (light sensitive cells to complex eyes, for example) It may be true that cladistic methods may one day be useful for determining relationships within Phyla, but will likely never be useful for determining the relationships between Phyla, especially deep time relationships involving extinct phyla and presumed ghost lineages, which are purely speculative. Simulations may be appear objective in principle, but not likely objective in practice. I suspect that with enough expertise, we could probably program a computer simulation to support any foregone conclusion. The point is, universal acknowledgement in the scientific community is meaningless without the physical evidence in hand to confirm the conclusions drawn. A case in point would be that RM x NS is the major driver of evolution; and, now more than ever, that conclusion does not appear to be valid whatsoever. Also, it is well established by the fossil record that representatives of nearly every major branch (Phylum) of animals first appeared around 500 MYa, and the lack of evidence for the few that do not appear at that time is likely due to collection error. More than that, it is not possible to establish which came first, if any, and please keep in mind that assumptions are not evidence.littlejohn
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST
Linneaus built his tree based on a common design. All evos did was steal his idea and use common ancestor to replace the archetype.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PST
wd400, not to put a damper on your love fest of all things Darwinian but I noticed you have now said that viruses offer solid proof that Darwinism is true. But viruses, just like living organisms and microbial cells, are found to be very limited in the amount of variation they can tolerate:
Ryan Lucas Kitner, Ph.D. 2006. - Bird Flu Excerpt: influenza viruses do possess a certain degree of variability; however, the amount of genetic information which a virus can carry is vastly limited, and so are the changes which can be made to its genome before it can no longer function. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/has-it-evolved
As well, in another kink in your Darwinian delusions of grandeur wd400, I recall that Dr. Behe also did an in depth study on the HIV virus (along with malaria) in 'The Edge Of Evolution' to see if he could catch evolution in the act of actually evolving any functional complexity whatsoever and this is what he found:
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
Of interest to all this is that Dr. Behe had overlooked one protein-protein binding site of functional complexity that had been gained by the HIV virus when he had written his book and atheists were quick to jump all over that one protein-protein binding site in gain of functional complexity. And in the following site Michael Behe defends the one 'overlooked' protein/protein binding site generated by the HIV virus, that Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave had found, by pointing out it is well within the 2 binding site limit he set in "The Edge Of Evolution" on this following site:
Response to Ian Musgrave's "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe," Part 4 "Yes, one overlooked protein-protein interaction developed, leading to a leaky cell membrane --- not something to crow about after 10^20 replications and a greatly enhanced mutation rate." http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/11/response-to-ian-musgraves-open-letter-to-dr-michael-behe-part-5/
In fact wd400, I followed this debate between Michael Behe, Abbie Smith, and Ian Musgrave, very closely and it turns out the trivial gain of just one protein-protein binding site being generated for the non-living HIV virus, that the evolutionists were 'crowing' about, came at a staggering loss of complexity for the living host it invaded (People) with just that one trivial gain of a 'leaky cell membrane' in binding site complexity. Thus the 'evolution' of the virus clearly stayed within the principle of Genetic Entropy since far more functional complexity was lost by the living human cells it invaded than was ever gained by the non-living HIV virus. A non-living virus which depends on those human cells to replicate in the first place. Moreover, while learning that HIV is a 'mutational powerhouse' which greatly outclasses the 'mutational firepower' of the entire spectrum of higher life-forms combined for millions of years, and about the devastating effect HIV has on humans with just that one trivial binding site being generated, I realized that if evolution were actually the truth about how life came to be on Earth then the only 'life' that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind, pitiless, evolution rules and only the 'fittest' are allowed to survive. The logic of all this is nicely summed up here:
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction ever be realistically 'selected' for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded (or eaten) as so much excess baggage since it would slow down successful reproduction. But instead of eating us, time after time these different types of microbial life are found to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their ability to successfully reproduce,,, Though most people think of viruses as being very harmful to humans, the fact is that the Bacteriophage (Bacteria Eater) virus is actually a very beneficial virus to man.
(Bacteriophage) Viruses in the gut protect from infection - 20 May 2013 Excerpt: Barr and his colleagues,, show that animal mucus — whether from humans, fish or corals — is loaded with bacteria-killing viruses called phages. These protect their hosts from infection by destroying incoming bacteria. In return, the phages are exposed to a steady torrent of microbes in which to reproduce. “It’s a unique form of symbiosis, between animals and viruses,” says Rotem Sorek, a microbial geneticist ,, “It’s groundbreaking,” adds Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist ,, “The idea that phage can be viewed as part of the innate immune system is original and exciting. http://www.nature.com/news/viruses-in-the-gut-protect-from-infection-1.13023
As well bacteria, instead of eating us, are 'selflessly' helping us to eat (among many other things):
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm
As well wd400, the virus is far more complex than many people have ever imagined, as this following video clearly points out:
Virus - Assembly Of A Nano-Machine - video comment: The first thought I had when I saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. And please remember this level of complexity exists in a world that is far too small to be seen with the naked eye. This excellent video gives a small glimpse at the intricate, and humbling, complexity that goes into crafting the "simple" non-living bacteriophage virus. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122
wd400, if you really want to convince UD readers that Darwinism is not full of hot air, I suggest you go into the lab, mix some chemicals, and make a bacteriophage 'lunar landing' machine pop out! You would definitely gain my respect if you had any such example as that!bornagain77
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST
I understand that trees help us understand characters on nodes, as well as tips.wd400
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PST
wd400, we are discussing alleged evolutionary relationships and your position cannot account for any of the organisms in the discussion. I can see why you would want to just forget all of that and prattle on anyway, but I am here to remind you of the facts regardless of what you want to say. And you can think trees but I am referring to TIME. There isn't anything about a tree that can change the FACT that tetrapod tracks were found earlier in TIME than was Tiktaalik. Your position requires fish-a-pods to appear earlier in TIME than tetrapods appear. Or don't you understand that?Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply