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

What sort of experiment confirms the best (most precise) estimator of phylogenies? Simulations?littlejohn_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Experiments and simulation studies.wd400_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

wd400 How do you know which method is the best estimator of phylogenetic relationships?littlejohn_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

# Mark Frank I am particularly interested in the answer from the other people in this thread.Seqenenre_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

#8 Seqenenre Abour 4 billion yearsMark Frank_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

"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://uncommondescent.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.htmlbornagain77_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

#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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Where is this Common ancestor? Show me? Where is he? Oh and her...... You need 2 to make 1Andre_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

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_{July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply