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

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

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

Well there isn't any evidence that says unguided evolution could produce either the sperm or the egg. Joe

#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

Someone might ask, "Sal, is there any evidence where you would claim common ancestry in some lineage?" YES! I gave examples here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/speciation/the-de-origination-of-species-by-means-of-reunion/ scordova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#65 Littlejohn If you don't think tetrapods came from fish, where do you think they came from? Mark Frank

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

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 story littlejohn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 relationships wd400

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that trees help us understand characters on nodes, as well as tips. wd400

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

That's my point, really. It's not related to the discussion, so I'm not sure what you think blurting it out is going to do. And, BTW, tf you think in trees instead of linaeages then the fossil tracks are no problem for the origin of fishapods. wd400

In 24 I didn't say anything about any taxonomic position. I am just pointing out the facts- unguided evolution cannot account for fish, fishapods, nor tetrapods. It cannot account for humans either. And BTW, thanks to the tetrapod tracks found in Poland, the fossils now show a fish-> tetrapod-> fish-a-pod arrangement. Now THAT is a statement wrt the taxonomic position... Joe

24. What do you think you are adding to a conversation about the taxonomic position of the so called fishapods with that comment? wd400

wd400- I need specific examples in order to answer your question. Do you have any? Joe

Joe, I have a serious question. What do you think you are achieving by declaring someting like "[Evolution-supporter], your position can't account for [topic only distantly related to current discussion]" in every thread on UD? wd400

littlejohn, No, I meant viruses. Their mutation rates are so high they represent a good way of testing phylogeny at deeper levels than would be possible with other organisms. I have no idea what "organisational leaps" have to do with inferring phylogeny, perhaps you can tell me. It's not true that 40 lineages appear at once in the so called "cambrian explosion". We can infer some of the bifurcations that lead to the diversity of animals. For instance, the protostosome-deuterstome split is universally acknowledged. Similarrly, the splits that went on to create Ecdysozoa,Platyzoa and Lophotrochozoa within the protostomes are well supported. It's much harder to tell, say, crown arthropods from stem arthropods; but that's kind of how evolution works. Because evolution by branching is a gap-forming procees, the picture is necessarily messy at the branching points, and nice and clean at the tips. wd400

Yes Alan, I have observed that ticks like watermelon to their otherwise ultra-dry environment. Don't be jealous because I actually conduct experiments and you just spew your ignorant nonsense. Joe

Oops! On the ticks Alan Fox

I am imbued with reality, Alan.

Keep me posted onthe tiks and their liking for watermelon. I want photos! Alan Fox

I am imbued with reality, Alan. I know that you think fantasy and imagination = science, but you are wrong. Joe

Not overly imbued with curiosity, Joe, are you. :) Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

So presumably, had we the records we could keep going back to humans who were the parents of each preceding generation.

Presumably.

Earth’s solid crust did not form until 3.6 billion years or so ago, so no humans before that and no actual evidence of modern humans before 100,000 or so years ago.

I doubt we know when the crust formed. As I keep saying we have to know how the earth formed before we can say anything about its age.

So when and how does JoeG think the first humans turned up on Earth?

I don't know- and that is the answer everyone has to give- no one knows. And if someone tells you differently, they are lying. Heck your position can't even get us prokaryotes... Joe

...and humans give rise to humans. So presumably, had we the records we could keep going back to humans who were the parents of each preceding generation. But not (I hesitate to say) infinitely. Earth's solid crust did not form until 3.6 billion years or so ago, so no humans before that and no actual evidence of modern humans before 100,000 or so years ago. So when and how does JoeG think the first humans turned up on Earth? Alan Fox

Let me sleep on it- baby, baby, let me sleep on it. Let me sleep on it, I'll give you an answer in the moooorning... Joe

Have you never listened to Paradise by the Dashboardlight, a world famous song by Meatloaf? I could have added a smiley, but I thought you would recognize the line. Seqenenre

OT: Today on the Michael Medved Show, John West Will Discuss the Legacy of the Scopes Trial Evolution News & Views July 23, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/today_on_the_mi_5074751.html bornagain77

Mark:

You should really take this up with all your fellow IDists who do accept Common Descent – Michael Behe for instance.

It is still untestable, Mark.

1) Every new complex life form we have observed being born/created has been a slight modification of one or two parents. This process is understood in great detail.

Yup, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes; fish give rise to fish and humans give rise to humans. Nothing even suggests universal common descent from what we observe.

2) There are no credible reports of life forms being created any other way and no known mechanism for this to happen.

There are no credible reports of living organisms arising via blind and undirected chemical proceses.

3) Astronomy and geology tells us that conditions in the early life of the earth were such that only the simplest of life forms could have survived (There are no fossils of eukaryotes more than about 2 billion years ago.)

Survived but not arrived.

4) Complex life can be arranged into a heirarchy so for example all mammals share certain features (warm blood, hair, milk) among mammals all primates share certain other features and so on. Molecular evidence confirms this hierarchy in the vast majority of cases.

Common design explains the similarities. No one knows what makes an organism what it is and that means your claim is untestable. Joe

wd400 #20- I assume you mean bacteria, not viruses? Studies indicate that bacteria dispose of genetic elements they are not using, so how does modeling bacterial evolution explain the organizational leaps supposedly gained within metazoa? The fossil record reflects an invisible metazoan trunk, that splits (leaps) into as many as 30 or 40 distinct branches more or less simultaneously, about 0.5 BYa. The 2-dimensional bifurcating pattern I always find modeled in the literature, appears to be a misrepresentation of the direct evidence from the fossil record. Can you explain that? littlejohn

OR is bornagain77

Well 'boy', since I clearly don't think material processes created 'Eve', why don't you put two and two together and figure it out. Are is being hard headed natural for you 'boy'? bornagain77

BA77 (25/27) What's it gonna be boy, yes or no? Seqenenre

Joe #26

IOW Mark is not telling the truth as there isn’t any evidence for common descent- it has to be assumed because it cannot be tested!

You should really take this up with all your fellow IDists who do accept Common Descent - Michael Behe for instance. However, it is quite easy to test. First define exactly what we mean by Common Descent. I define it as all of complex life (Eukaryotes) is descended by gradual modification from a few simpler organisms. i.e. it is open as to how simpler organisms developed and there is scope for more than one beginning to life but only a few such beginnings a very long time ago. What is the evidence: 1) Every new complex life form we have observed being born/created has been a slight modification of one or two parents. This process is understood in great detail. 2) There are no credible reports of life forms being created any other way and no known mechanism for this to happen. 3) Astronomy and geology tells us that conditions in the early life of the earth were such that only the simplest of life forms could have survived (There are no fossils of eukaryotes more than about 2 billion years ago.) So either complex life was descended from those simple life forms or it came into being by a process quite unlike anything ever observed or even conceived. 4) Complex life can be arranged into a heirarchy so for example all mammals share certain features (warm blood, hair, milk) among mammals all primates share certain other features and so on. Molecular evidence confirms this hierarchy in the vast majority of cases. 5) The fossil record while inevitably patchy shows many instances of intermediate fossils between a common ancestor and current diverse species. And so on .... Common Descent would be disproved by: 1) Observing a complex species come into existence without an ancestor. 2) The rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. As it so well established it would need several such observations before it was overturned but so far we have none. Mark Frank

I think this following recent study is of particular interest to the 'Eve' question Seqenenre: Genetic Entropy in Human Genome is found to be 'recent': Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm related notes: "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos bornagain77

Mark Frank:

My only “assumption” is common descent – whether that descent be designed or not. I am pretty sure William Dembski, Michael Behe, gpuccio, vj torley and many others that believe in ID share the same “assumption”. I put “assumption” in quotes because the evidence for common descent is absolutely overwhelming (just think about the alternative implies).

And yet there isn't any way to test the premise. IOW Mark is not telling the truth as there isn't any evidence for common descent- it has to be assumed because it cannot be tested! Joe

Seqenenre, you ask:

"So, ‘Eve’ did not have a mother?"

Well Seqenenre, I guess a much more appropriate question to ask would be to ask you personally 'do you personally believe in 'mind''? You see Seqenenre as far as science itself is concerned we need to know where did the information come from to make 'Eve', as well as all other lifeforms on earth, since we know for a fact that material processes are grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel functional information (Abel, Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Gitt), but we find that material processes are instead exceedingly excellent at degrading information (Sanford, Behe, Spetner, Bergman),, A Darwinist, who refuses to believe he has a mind, would insist that material processes can do what nobody has ever seen them do whereas a ID proponent would insist that mind is required to explain the origination of information. And as far as empirical evidence itself goes the ID proponent has, by far, the stronger case. If you disagree that that is the case, then please produce an example of functional information arising by purely material processes. Notes: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag Evolutionary Informatics http://www.evoinfo.org/index/ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Mutations and Darwinism - Dr Jerry Bergman - June 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfgiAWBluxE etc.. etc.. bornagain77

Earth to wd400- your position cannot account for fish, fishapods nor tetrapods. Joe

BA77 (15) So, 'Eve' did not have a mother? Seqenenre

The 12:40 minute mark of 'The Dictionary of Life' is where Dr. Nelson describes the breaking point for Darwinian scenarios from the genetic evidence: bornagain77

littlejohn, The genetic relationships of bacteria are in severe discordance with Darwinian expectations: Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008 Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered. http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zJaetK9gvCo#t=760s The essential genome of a bacterium - 2011 Figure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202797/pdf/msb201158.pdf bornagain77

You can experiment by growing viruses, split ingthem up into separated populations then recovering the "population" histories by studier their genes. You can also simulate the process of molecular evolution, and see how different phylogenetic methods perform under different evolutionary scenarios. wd400

What sort of experiment confirms the best (most precise) estimator of phylogenies? Simulations? littlejohn

Experiments and simulation studies. wd400

wd400 How do you know which method is the best estimator of phylogenetic relationships? littlejohn

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. Now, tell me about those fishapods. Where's the line between fish and tetrapod? wd400

Seqenenre, I have seen estimates for the first anatomically modern human fossil ranging from 50-60,000 years ago to as far back as 200,000 years. But the 200,000 year date is far from uncontroversial. I believe Dr. Rana goes over some of the controversy surrounding dating from genetic evidence here:

Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic Evidence For Adam and Eve Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

Thus Seqenenre I can't tell you for sure how far back in years you can go to 'Eve'. And although I don't know all the details as to how dating of the earliest human fossils is arrived at, what I do know is that, as with the rest of the fossil record which consistently demonstrates abrupt appearance of a species and then overall stasis, the appearance of anatomically modern humans in the fossil record was also abrupt and distinct:

"A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) http://sciencereasonfaith.com/pay-no-attention-to-that-data-behind-the-curtain/

Last year Casey Luskin did an in depth literature search and study on the human fossil record for the book 'Science and Human Origins' and found that it is generally agreed among many leading experts on the fossil record that homo sapiens appeared abruptly in the fossil record:

Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/mcbride_misstat063931.html

Drs. Axe and Gauger also contributed to the book 'Science and Human Origins' and found that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of Random Variation and Natural Selection is grossly insufficient to explain the origination of humans since it would require many millions of years just to explain the fixation of one coordinated mutation. Moreover, it has recently been found that the genetic difference between humans is far greater than what Darwinists have misled us to believe:

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome

As well, it was recently found that the genomic regions subject to change within human and chimp genomes are not the regions evolutionary reasoning predicted:

Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. * - May 31, 2013 Excerpt: A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.,, These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels! More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not! Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome. Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different(70% indentity).5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely. http://www.icr.org/article/7526/

Of course Seqenenre, none of this can get you to a firm date as to when the mother of all humans, 'Eve', first lived on earth, but, at least for me, it gives me severe pause as to the '4 billion years ago my mother was pond scum' story that Mark Frank would prefer for others to believe. bornagain77

The tree you included in you more recent post shows the morphological characters that place lung fish as closer relatives to tetrapods than, among other ray-finned fish, tuna.

So what! The difference between tuna and lungfish is small compared to lungfish and humans, unless you want to still argue lungfish are closer to humans than lungfish are to tuna. I refuted your claim on the morphological and molecular level. Your problem: 1. if fish aren't that close to humans, what business do we have saying fish are ancestors of humans 2. if you say fish are really close to humans you have to face the fact they aren't as shown in the pictures above and the molecular data. You have no defensible case. Just a veneer of credibility fabricated through illegitmate methods like the "dictionary trick". scordova

Sal, you're embarrassing yourself now. The tree you included in you more recent post shows the morphological characters that place lung fish as closer relatives to tetrapods than, among other ray-finned fish, tuna. You can't BLAST away and look at numbers,without understanding the amount of data in genbank for each taxon you are considering (and even then BLASTing isn't a a great way of estimating phylogeny). You still (havning been asked at least 3 times) told me if Tiiktaalik is a fish or a tetrapod, or why it's harder to place the "fishapods" in a taxonomic group than modern species. But since you have shown no desire to actually think about the evidence for phylogenetic relationships, I don't suppose you will. Hell, you can't even read my handle let alone anything I've written. wd400

Common descent implies that complex life is arranged in a hierarchy (not necessarily true for very simple life). Therefore, any two species have a common ancestor species. So we are simply talking about where in the hierarchy did two divisions happen: .... As I sure you know this is determined by a number of processes but most importantly by looking for when new features appear in the fossil record. The particular one that interests us is the split between ray finned fish which led to tuna and lobe finned fish which include the lumpfish. The fossil record shows that a) this happened long before the appearance of the first tetrapods b) there is a natural development of tetrapods from lobe finned fish

Assume for the sake of argument the evolutionary tree is correct that humans descended from fish, this generates a phylogenetic tree of supposed ancestry and descendants. At issue is the trees generated by unprejudiced comparisons of morpohology and molecular sequences are at radical variance with the phylogenetic tree (i.e. fish look like descended from fish, and humans look like the descended from humans). At best we might say fish and humans shared a common vertebrate ancestor since the groups look more like they have a sister-to-sister relationship than great great... grand parent to great great ...grand child. We have two trees: 1. one constructed by the evolutionary story 2. one based only on morphology and unprejudiced molecular comparisons The problem is there is sharp incongruity between these two trees, a fact I noted earlier from a paper:

See: The Incongruence between Cladistic and Taxonomic Systems Incongruences are ubiquitous in comparisons of cladograms with taxonomic classifications. … (1) Cladistics is based on inferred phylogenies, which makes for an uncertain foundation. Phylogenies of groups above the species level are, with rare exceptions, unverifiable hypotheses. Taxonomic systems are based on observable characters and do not rest on phylogenetic hypotheses.

That incongruence is not resolvable, it is here to stay. Even assuming physical common descent, the incongruity is suggestive of design. The incongruity disappears if one assumes creation, but not all ID proponents will go that far. scordova

# Mark Frank I am particularly interested in the answer from the other people in this thread. Seqenenre

I ran the following blast search for comparisons of the lungfish cytochrome-c oxidase subunit 1. You cansee the near 100% identity between one lungfish and other lungfishes and 92% identity with other non-lungfishes fishes. The list went on for pages with no humans to be seen, only other fish! One of the reasons for this is that I used a sequence that was short but not very short of around 515 amino-acids. The longer the sequence, the more difficult it becomes to pull off the dictionary trick, hence the human appear nowhere near the lungfish. One can only argue lungfish are close to humans by cherry picking data that seems to agree with a predetermined conclusion and ignore vast amounts of data that conflict with a predetermined conclusion. Here I've just shown humans are nowhere near lungfish for a single data point. A fair comparison of course would compare lots more data points, but I already pointed out, at best one can get only 3% identity between lungfish and humans based on the genome sizes.

Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 Protopterus dolloi (Slender lungfish) 515 100.0% Protopterus annectens (African lungfish) 515 99.0% Protopterus aethiopicus (Marbled lungfish) 515 99.0% 2,710 0.0 COI Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish) (Ceratodus forsteri) 518 95.0% Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish) (Ceratodus forsteri) 518 95.0% Lepidosiren paradoxus (South American lungfish) 517 94.0% Oryzias sarasinorum 516 93.0% Retropinna retropinna (cucumberfish) 516 93.0% Oryzias javanicus (Javanese ricefish) 518 93.0% Oryzias dancena 518 93.0% Ablennes hians 517 92.0% Oryzias celebensis (Celebes medaka) 516 92.0% Pantodon buchholzi (Freshwater butterflyfish) 518 92.0% Oryzias javanicus (Javanese ricefish) 518 93.0% Coregonus lavaretus (Common whitefish) (Salmo lavaretus) 516 92.0% Prosopium williamsoni (mountain whitefish) 516 92.0% Coregonus nasus (broad whitefish) 516 92.0% Prosopium cylindraceum (round whitefish) 516 92.0% 2,595 0.0 COX1 Coregonus clupeaformis (Lake whitefish) 516 92.0% 2,595 0.0 COX1 ...... Epinephelus fuscoguttatus (brown-marbled grouper) 516 92.0%

scordova

#8 Seqenenre Abour 4 billion years Mark Frank

I have a question: I was born 57 years ago, my mother was born 93 years ago, her mother was born 120 years ago, her mother... How far can I go back into the past with this line? Seqenenre

"because the evidence for common descent is absolutely overwhelming" MMM no it isn't: Darwin's Doubt http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/# as to "just think about the alternative implies" Please do tell ,, Just how unpleasant is the implication of the 'alternative' for you? Is it 'repugnant'? "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me." Arthur Stanley Eddington, Darwinists, and Repugnant Notions https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/arthur-stanley-eddington-darwinists-and-repugnant-notions/ footnote: A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html bornagain77

#4 JDH My only "assumption" is common descent - whether that descent be designed or not. I am pretty sure William Dembski, Michael Behe, gpuccio, vj torley and many others that believe in ID share the same "assumption". I put "assumption" in quotes because the evidence for common descent is absolutely overwhelming (just think about the alternative implies). Common descent implies that complex life is arranged in a hierarchy (not necessarily true for very simple life). Therefore, any two species have a common ancestor species. So we are simply talking about where in the hierarchy did two divisions happen: a) the divide that led on one side to the tuna and on the other side to the lungfish b) the divide that led to lungfish on one side and humans on the other side As I sure you know this is determined by a number of processes but most importantly by looking for when new features appear in the fossil record. The particular one that interests us is the split between ray finned fish which led to tuna and lobe finned fish which include the lumpfish. The fossil record shows that a) this happened long before the appearance of the first tetrapods b) there is a natural development of tetrapods from lobe finned fish All of this might well have been designed. Quite why you describe this as a statement of faith I don't know. Are you saying the geology that goes into dating fossils is faith? How much of science do you want count as faith? Mark Frank

The evolutionist obviously fails to see that circular reasoning creates the evidence for their assertion of a common ancestor between a lungfish and humans. OldArmy94

Mark Frank @1 1. Judging from the pictures, I think to claim that lungfish are "more closely related to the tetrapods than... to tuna" is an extraordinary claim. 2. According to some this would imply it needs extraordinary evidence. 3. Evidence based on a particular assumption only shifts the focus of the argument to the justifiability of the assumption. 4. If you insist that the world had no designer and OOL happened by chance ( a very shaky assumption which no one has shown to be in line with any reasonable calculation of the probabilities involved ) then there exists extraordinary evidence that the lungfish is closer, because the function of lungs. However, this is only sufficient evidence, it is not necessary evidence. the exact same situation is likely to have occurred given the assumption of design 5. So we are back to the all evidence being subject to a basic assumption that do you (by faith ) believe that creation happened without an intelligent designer... and I do not. 6. Your basis for believing that lungfish are closer related to humans than tuna ( even in a narrow technical sense ) is a statement of faith. 7. I don't have enough faith to believe the notions that you believe. JDH

Mark Frank:

I presume you know the slightly technical sense in which the lungfish is more closely related to the tetrapods than it is to the tuna.

If any relationship exists it is by design. Joe

Where is this Common ancestor? Show me? Where is he? Oh and her...... You need 2 to make 1 Andre

Sal I presume you know the slightly technical sense in which the lungfish is more closely related to the tetrapods than it is to the tuna. It is not a morphological relationship. It simply means that the last common ancestor of the lungfish and the tuna was older than the last common ancestor of the lungfish and tetrapods. The fact that a lungfish looks more like a tuna than a person is irrelevant. I am sure you must know this, so I don't understand why you write as if WD40 was saying they looked similar. Mark Frank