Evolution

Fish invaded land suddenly, not slowly

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

Their findings have just been published in the research journal Nature. “It forces a radical rethink of what evolution was capable of among the first tetrapods,” said project lead Jason Anderson, a paleontologist and Professor at the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (UCVM).

Before this study, ancient tetrapods — the ancestors of humans and other modern-day vertebrates — were thought to have evolved very slowly from fish to animals with limbs.

“We used to think that the fin-to-limb transition was a slow evolution to becoming gradually less fish like,” he said. “But Lethiscus shows immediate, and dramatic, evolutionary experimentation. The lineage shrunk in size, and lost limbs almost immediately after they first evolved. It’s like a snake on the outside but a fish on the inside.”  Paper. paywall – Jason D. Pardo, Matt Szostakiwskyj, Per E. Ahlberg, Jason S. Anderson. Hidden morphological diversity among early tetrapods. Nature, 2017; DOI: 10.1038/nature22966 More.

So design is dead in the water, right? Or …?

See also: What the fossils told us in their own words

24 Replies to “Fish invaded land suddenly, not slowly

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Perhaps the fish thought a quick invasion would be more likely to succeed than a gradual one.

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    Evolutionary blitzkrieg? 🙂

  3. 3
    J-Mac says:

    Fin-to-limb almost immediate transition…

    Shrunk in size and lost limbs almost immediately…

    Another set of the mysteries of evolution…

    Let’s call the first mystery the genetic fart because we already have an explosion…

    And the second the genetic loss of inventory because we already have brain shrinkage among some of the most educated who promote this crapola…

    BTW: I have stopped going to comedy clubs… It’s much more entertaining to read the Darwinian flapdoodle lol

  4. 4
  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac,

    That’s really a funny commentary, but very serious too. Thanks.

  6. 6
    J-Mac says:

    Fish invaded land suddenly, not slowly

    Upon invasion, did the fish evolve the feet immediately to shoot themselves in?

  7. 7
  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac @7,

    Is that the Galapagos finch’s ancestor?

    🙂

  9. 9
    tommy hall says:

    Is there anything about this dopey theory that these people don’t have to radically “rethink?”

  10. 10
    rvb8 says:

    The Cambrian Explosion was not an overnight fling,it took between 40 and 70 million years, depending on which evolutionary biologist you consult. What we do know is that it is not an ‘explosion’, in the way creationists believe the term to mean.

    When geologists and evolutionary biologists talk of ‘explosions’, and ‘rapid evolution’, they are talking in the millions of years, not in ‘flood geology’ terms.

    When will IDists actually come to grips with vast periods of time?

    ‘Quick’, is a relative term, and when referring to evolutionary biology, one million years is quick.

    Understand?

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    At the end of the day they have to present macro evolutionary cases that satisfy the basic evo-devo conditions described @1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”.

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    The Darwinian evo-devo folks have written gazillion papers but still the main question one asks after reading them is: where’s the beef? 🙂
    Again, they should do what it says @11. That’s all. Very simple.

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    The Darwinian researchers will remain surprised by unexpected discoveries as long as they keep their reductionist bottom-up reverse engineering approach to biology.

  14. 14
    Eric Anderson says:

    rvb8, you really need to get up to speed on the Cambrian explosion and consult some experts, rather than just reading Darwinist talking points online.

    Regardless, even if we use your absurd 40-70 million estimate, what does that do for the math in terms of allowing Darwinian evolution to produce the transitional forms allegedly produced to get to the Cambrian?

    Hint: I’ll not only spot you 70 million, but 700 million years. It is still a rounding error. The Darwinian story is just laughable on its face. The math is quite clear that Darwinian evolution can’t produce a single metabolic pathway during the whole history of the Earth. Your “vast periods of time” is a pittance against what is required.

    It was a nice idea, back in the 1800’s, when Darwin didn’t know anything about DNA or genetics or protein formation or molecular machines. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t add up given what we know about biology now.

    No offense to Darwin. He admitted publicly that he was never that good at math.

  15. 15
    Dionisio says:

    The Darwinian researchers will remain ‘surprised’ by ‘unexpected’ discoveries as long as they reject open-mindedness and refrain from thinking out of wrongly preconceived boxes.

  16. 16
    Dionisio says:

    At the end of the day they have to present macro evolutionary cases that satisfy the basic evo-devo conditions described @1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”.

    The Darwinian evo-devo folks have written gazillion papers but still the main question one asks after reading them is: where’s the beef? ????
    Again, they should do what it says @11. That’s all. Very simple.

    The Darwinian researchers will remain surprised by unexpected discoveries as long as they keep their reductionist bottom-up reverse engineering approach to biology.

    The Darwinian researchers will remain ‘surprised’ by ‘unexpected’ discoveries as long as they reject open-mindedness and refrain from thinking out of wrongly preconceived boxes.

  17. 17
    rvb8 says:

    EA,

    thanks for the condescension. I’ll inform the scientific community of their glaring error in understanding the role time played in evolution.

    They will correct their failings and retool their entire enterprise to take into account the role God played in origins, and development.

    There will be one question that they will probably ask however, once design is accepted as the true scientific key to the immune system, blood clotting, the flagella, and umpteen other super complex systems;

    “How the hell do we test if something has been supernaturally created, altered, or designed?”

    I think they will stay with the natural world, it is afterall measurable, testable, and can help develop theories and ideas as to what, when and how.

    Oogidity boogity, is altogether much harder to measure, most good scientists will say, impossible!

  18. 18
    Eric Anderson says:

    I think they will stay with the natural world, it is afterall measurable, testable, and can help develop theories and ideas as to what, when and how.

    Exactly. Measurable, testable, and based on what we understand about the cause and effect relationships that obtain in the real world. That is precisely the basis for intelligent design.

    Some people don’t get that, because they are so blinded by their philosophical and religious preconceptions and misconceptions that they can’t even consider the possibility of design and can’t understand, or refuse to understand, how the design inference works. For them it really isn’t about the evidence; anything goes, as long as it props up the materialist narrative.

    Thus, just as a random example, even though a (wrong) 70 million year number is meaningless for the origin of the Cambrian phyla, someone with that kind of agenda might be tempted to throw it out there mindlessly as a talking point, as though it provided some kind of answer to the origin of such organisms. Never bothering to even consider the math or what is required to build new metabolic pathways or new organisms.

    But we’re always here to have a meaningful discussion, as soon as they are willing to actually look at the evidence . . .

  19. 19
    Mung says:

    But we’re always here to have a meaningful discussion, as soon as they are willing to actually look at the evidence . . .

    🙂

  20. 20
    rvb8 says:

    EA,

    quite correct, the latest informed guess is between 20 and 25 million years.

    Tell me, as a human being with a life span of 70 odd years, why do you quibble over 40 million years, give or take?

    It’s beyond yours and mine ken, these periods of time are mind boggling. Unless of course you just flip these massive periods of evolution the bird, and say something like, ‘evolution-smevolution, meh.’

  21. 21
    Eric Anderson says:

    Tell me, as a human being with a life span of 70 odd years, why do you quibble over 40 million years, give or take?

    Let’s review the facts:

    You claimed that the Cambrian explosion wasn’t really an “explosion” and that we need to come to grips with “vast periods of time.”

    Thus, it seems to be you who is focusing on these extra millions of years, easily impressed as you seem to be with all those zeroes.

    And so the question I originally posed remains. I even offered to spot you 700 million years, so I am certainly not quibbling over a few million years. Shoot, I’ll spot you a billion.

    Now, what does a billion years do for the math in terms of allowing Darwinian evolution to produce the transitional forms allegedly produced to get to the Cambrian?

  22. 22
    Eric Anderson says:

    Incidentally, the reason I called you on the extra millions of years (which you still don’t have the latest best estimates on, but that’s alright), is that I know these millions of years are a Darwinist talking point, a staple of the evolutionary claim, trotted in to try to impress people who don’t know better, just as you did on this thread.

    Anyone who has looked at the math knows the extra millions of years are a rounding error and won’t do anything to help the Darwinian story. But the Darwinian talking point gets mindlessly recycled anyway: vast stretches of time, not really an “explosion”, we can’t imagine how long it is, and so on . . .

    That’s why we need to come back down to earth and look at the biological realities and the math. Then those 10 or so zeroes aren’t very impressive.

  23. 23
    rvb8 says:

    EA,

    around 541 million (I like the 1, heh:), years ago the event known as the Cambrina Explosion began.

    It lasted for 20-25 million years.

    So, well done, my guess (and it was a guess, as I knew the ‘explosion’, was no such thing and occured over periods of time humans can barely imsgine), of 40-70 million years was wildly off.

    But my question remains, 20-25 million years may be an ‘explosion’ to evolutionary biologists, or fossil hunters, or geologists, but to you or me it is 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 years.

    These are the periods of time evolution works in, and we as tiny flicks in time, have incredible difficulty in imagining them; take Ken Ham for example, he’s awed by 6,000 years, what a tediously small world he inhabits.

  24. 24
    Eric Anderson says:

    These are the periods of time evolution works in . . .

    Wow. It would be hard to find a more circular statement. That is the time available, ergo, that is the period of time evolution can do its work in. This isn’t evidence. It is dogma.

    These are the periods of time evolution works in, and we as tiny flicks in time, have incredible difficulty in imagining them

    I don’t have any difficulty imagining 25 million years. And I am singularly unimpressed with those 8 digits when considered against the requirements to build a new phylum.

    And so, we still wait for any evidence, or any explanation that 25 million years, or 70 million years, or 700 million years is meaningful for evolution to do this great creative work required for the Cambrian phyla.

Leave a Reply