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

_{Salvador Cordova

July 22, 2013

Darwinism, Humor}

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

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

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

24. What do you think you are adding to a conversation about the taxonomic position of the so called fishapods with that comment?wd400_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

wd400- I need specific examples in order to answer your question. Do you have any?Joe_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Oops! On the ticksAlan Fox_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

I am imbued with reality, Alan.
Keep me posted onthe tiks and their liking for watermelon. I want photos!Alan Fox_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

I am imbued with reality, Alan. I know that you think fantasy and imagination = science, but you are wrong.Joe_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Not overly imbued with curiosity, Joe, are you. :)Alan Fox_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

...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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

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.htmlbornagain77_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

OR isbornagain77_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

BA77 (25/27) What's it gonna be boy, yes or no?Seqenenre_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

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-4umGkgosbornagain77_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

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_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Earth to wd400- your position cannot account for fish, fishapods nor tetrapods.Joe_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

BA77 (15) So, 'Eve' did not have a mother?Seqenenre_{July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

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.pdfbornagain77_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply