If you thought it strange that those incredible whales and dolphins are supposed to have evolved from freshwater and ultimately terrestrial environments then you’ll be amazed to hear that evolutionists are now saying the same is true for the majority of fish in the ocean. As they explain:
Remarkably, trait reconstructions (for both living and fossil taxa) suggest that all extant marine actinopterygians were derived from a freshwater ancestor …
Another evolutionist speculates that these new results may point to a more general pattern. Perhaps most major groups of vertebrates ultimately came from land-based ecosystems. If so, then the incredible Mr. Limpet had it all wrong. Most fish didn’t crawl out of the ocean, they crawled into the ocean:
Have you given much thought to the Devonian Period?
The what?
The Devonian Period of the Paleooic Era. You know, it followed the Silurian and preceded the Carboniferous Eras.
I try not to think of things like that.
I've given it a lot of thought. Do you realize our ancestors were fish?
Maybe your ancestors, Henry, not mine. Maybe you ought to try to find a new hobby. Maybe go in for parakeets.
I'm not joking. I can explain.
He sure can. He's read many books on the subject. He claims years ago there was nothing but fish in the world.
That's right. Then some of those creatures became amphibians. They crawled out on land. Millions of years later they became men.
I know some who ought to crawl back.
Doesn't it give you a thrill of hope?
Hope for what, Henry?
But while Mr. Limpet has been falsified, evolutionists are of course undeniably correct. True, evolution doesn’t always make sense, but there are always just-so stories to explain the contradictions. In this case the evolutionists are now saying that freshwater environments form an “arc of survival” that act to reseed the oceans. Makes perfect sense.
Religion drives science and it matters.
Hi Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteSturgeon fish have not changed much in the last 200 million years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon
It seems with Darwinists its Evolution when it is and when it isn't.
Well CH, at least you didn't blatantly lie in this one like you did with your "science says mice evolved into elephants" last one.
ReplyDeleteLooks like you're back to simple dishonest equivocation, trying to spin the findings as though ocean ray-finned fish evolved from land-dwelling animals like cetaceans did ("Most fish didn’t crawl out of the ocean, they crawled into the ocean") instead of freshwater fish. But that's OK. We've come to expect the weekly does of anti-science propaganda from you.
The scenario laid out in the paper is:
Fish originally evolved in the ocean over 400 MYA
Fish colonized freshwater habitats by 300 MYA
Ocean fish had their numbers greatly reduced by large extinction events
Around 170 MYA the empty ocean niches began to be filled by ray-finned fish who moved from freshwater back into the ocean.
I'd ask you to give us your explanation for the described patterns of fish fossilization over time, but you already told us you don't know anything.
Maybe someone with more intellectual honesty that CH here can give us the alternate explanation for the paper's data. I won't hold my breath.
I'm confused. How does "All extant marine actinopterygians were derived from a freshwater ancestor" become "Most fish didn’t crawl out of the ocean, they crawled into the ocean"?
ReplyDeleteThey are utterly different claims.
A charitable person would call this a strawman. A less charitable person would call this a lie - a deliberate misrepresentation.
Shame on you Cornelius. Again.
Computerist29: It seems with Darwinists its Evolution when it is and when it isn't.
ReplyDeleteEven if it was true that Sturgeon fish have not changed much in the last 200 million years, how exactly would this falsify the underlying explanation behind evolution? Specifically, we explain the knowledge of how to build the biosphere as being created by conjecture and refutation in the form of genetic variation and natural selection.
So, again, this falsifies evolutionary theory, how? Please be specific.
There must be something wrong with this study, but Cornelius didn't say what. I suppose it's enough to feel it.
ReplyDeleteCharacter reversion sure feels like a contradiction.
Scott: So, again, this falsifies evolutionary theory, how? Please be specific.
ReplyDeleteThe question is does it support NS & RM, never-mind evolution.
Why continue to propagate the false notion that ID is anti-evolution?
Is NS & RM the only means by which you can conceive a system to evolve?
Long periods of time without change is an indicator.
Assuming Darwinian Evolution; what is the probability that Sturgeon fish have not had the selective pressure over the past 200 million years.
AND
If selective pressure is not necessarily the determining factor for morphological change, we still have RM's within our midst. Random mutations happen with or without selective pressure.
Against all odds Darwinian Evolution seems to have left the Sturgeon fish stranded.
computerist29
ReplyDeleteLong periods of time without change is an indicator.
You have no evidence that there was no genomic change, only that there was very little morphological change over that time. Evolution predicts that morphological change will be driven by selection pressures from the environment. If the environment and pressures don't change significantly, you won't get significant morphological changes.
Looks like the problem is in your understanding of the theory, not in the theory itself.
If the a random mutation gives an individual organism an advantage, then that means that that individual will live longer, and have more offspring. These will outcompete the other individual organisms, and replace them, Nothing else in the environment has to change. This is Darwinism 101. That means that in the case of the sturgeon, no mutations that can give an individual sturgeon an advantage happened for the past two hundred million years. That seems unlikely, seeing that so much evolution has been happening during that time.
Deletenatschuster
DeleteIf the a random mutation gives an individual organism an advantage, then that means that that individual will live longer, and have more offspring. These will outcompete the other individual organisms, and replace them, Nothing else in the environment has to change. This is Darwinism 101. That means that in the case of the sturgeon, no mutations that can give an individual sturgeon an advantage happened for the past two hundred million years.
Unless the organism has already evolved to be very well adapted to its stable environment. Then it becomes more and more difficult for a change to add any great improvements. When you're close to the top of the mountain there are few ways to climb higher, lots of ways to fall down.
That seems unlikely, seeing that so much evolution has been happening during that time.
Again, you have no idea if any significant changes happened to the genome in that time, only that the external morphology kept the same shape. There could have been significant behavioral changes that helped survivability during that time. There could have been significant internal changes to organs - gills could have become more efficient, eyesight better, etc.
To base your claim that there was NO evolution solely on a roughly similar physical structure just highlights your basic misunderstanding of the process.
Thorton: You have no evidence that there was no genomic change, only that there was very little morphological change over that time. Evolution predicts that morphological change will be driven by selection pressures from the environment. If the environment and pressures don't change significantly, you won't get significant morphological changes.
ReplyDeleteSo genomic change is indirectly proportional to morphological change?
Assuming selection pressures were absent in the case of Sturgeon, RM's had no effect genomically and therefore morphologically?
Thorton: Looks like the problem is in your understanding of the theory, not in the theory itself.
Seems the Sturgeon fish does not understand the theory, otherwise I'd expect it might have atleast imagined how it could have evolved.
computerist29
DeleteSo genomic change is indirectly proportional to morphological change?
Where ever did you get that idea? The amount of genomic change and amount of morphological change are extremely loosely coupled at best. Small changes to certain loci can have huge physical changes, such as in Hawaiian silverswords. In other places changes to large sections of the genome will have no outward effect at all, such as different subspecies of Zebras having a hugely varying number of chromosomes. It all depends where the changes take place.
Assuming selection pressures were absent in the case of Sturgeon, RM's had no effect genomically and therefore morphologically?
Why would you assume no selection pressure? Once the form got close to optimum in its local environment, if the environment was stable then selection pressure would tend to keep it there.
Seems the Sturgeon fish does not understand the theory, otherwise I'd expect it might have at least imagined how it could have evolved.
Ignorance based expectations carry no weight in science. You really need to learn the subject at least a little before offering unlearned opinions.
"the incredible Mr. Limpet had it all wrong. Most fish didn’t crawl out of the ocean, they crawled into the ocean:"
ReplyDeleteI think you meant *swam* into the ocean (probably not though). This of course has nothing to do with whether or not they crawled onto land.
Your evidence against evolution boils down to the (paraphrased?) increduility of George from a Disney movie from the 60s. Do you get all your scientific understanding from Disney movies, Dr. Hunter?
natschuster
ReplyDeleteno mutations that can give an individual sturgeon an advantage happened for the past two hundred million years. That seems unlikely, seeing that so much evolution has been happening during that time.
"That seems unlikely," a fair point. We have an apparent exception to the rule. You have a hypothesis, now support it with evidence.
As Thorton said, we don't know how much genetic change has been going on during this time, but the question remains as to why so little moriphilogical change has happened. Is there something about the sturgeon genome that makes slight modifications that affect the morphology disasterous? Maybe this is a good place for you to do some actual original research in irreducible complexity.
Are there other explanations for this apparent exception? Is there some great DNA error correcting going on in that fish that makes errors less common? Maybe that would give us insight into diseases such as cancer. Is there something about the environment?
Collect evidence, build a case, natschuster. Your "That seems unlikely" reson for throwing out evolution--a hunch--is not convincing.
Thorton: Where ever did you get that idea?
ReplyDeleteI seemed to have got the impression you were claiming genomic change does not inevitably trigger morphological change.
Thorton: The amount of genomic change and amount of morphological change are extremely loosely coupled at best.
You seem to be missing the entire point which is that morphological change should inevitably follow given genomic change and given 200 million years.
You are simply ignoring the context and repeating the same old mantra on the assumption that "no, Sturgeon is not an exception because you just don't understand Evolution".
computerist29
ReplyDeleteI seemed to have got the impression you were claiming genomic change does not inevitably trigger morphological change.
That is correct. It doesn't.
You seem to be missing the entire point which is that morphological change should inevitably follow given genomic change and given 200 million years.
Evidence please. Why should it be inevitable since genetic change doesn't always lead to morphological change?
You are simply ignoring the context and repeating the same old mantra on the assumption that "no, Sturgeon is not an exception because you just don't understand Evolution".
So far you've demonstrated that you really don't understand evolution, even a little bit. A high school level biology textbook would do you wonders.
Please read this,
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
...especially the section titled Common Misconceptions about Evolution. Tell me what the first sentence in that section says.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecomputerist29: The question is does it support NS & RM, never-mind evolution.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you start by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how RM & NS doesn't fit this explanation. Please be specific.
computerist29: Why continue to propagate the false notion that ID is anti-evolution?
It's not?
The underlying explanation behind the predictions of evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
What is ID's explanation as to how the knowledge the supposed designer used to build the biosphere was created? Again, please be specific. Or perhaps you think this knowledge has always existed?
computerist29: Is NS & RM the only means by which you can conceive a system to evolve?
No. Are all conceived explanations equal?
computerist29: Long periods of time without change is an indicator.
The question is, an indicator of what?
computerist29: Assuming Darwinian Evolution; what is the probability that Sturgeon fish have not had the selective pressure over the past 200 million years.
You seem to be confused. Please see my comments here and here.
computerist29: If selective pressure is not necessarily the determining factor for morphological change, we still have RM's within our midst. Random mutations happen with or without selective pressure.
First, morphological features require knowledge to build. As such, the origin of this knowledge is the origin of the concrete Morphological features of the Sturgeon.
Second, are you suggesting that conjecture and refutation wasn't creating knowledge over the past 200 million years in the case of the Sturgeon. If so, I can see why you might reach this conclusion, but it would be a mistake.
Even when there is no morphological change, the knowledge that conjecture X (genetic variation X) is in error (filtered by natural selection) is still knowledge. Unfortunately, this knowledge is not always retained in the case of biological evolution. Rather, it is lost unless it is somehow preserved when the organisms genes are not passed on to future generations.
On the other hand, human beings can intentionally choose to record the knowledge that conjecture X was found to be in error when tested by observations.
In both cases, knowledge is created.
Thorton: Evidence please. Why should it be inevitable since genetic change doesn't always lead to morphological change?
ReplyDeleteThis is simply a highly unlikely outcome if you are to claim Darwinian processes (ie: the accumulation of RM's).
Little to none was expressed morphologically therefore we have a vast "unaccounted for" genomic displacement versus other species.
"It seems with Darwinists its Evolution when it is and when it isn't."
computerist29
DeleteThorton: Evidence please. Why should it be inevitable since genetic change doesn't always lead to morphological change?
This is simply a highly unlikely outcome if you are to claim Darwinian processes (ie: the accumulation of RM's).
Please show your evidence that it's highly unlikely in this particular case. You keep making assertions based on your ignorance, not on any empirical data. Those don't fly in science.
Little to none was expressed morphologically therefore we have a vast "unaccounted for" genomic displacement versus other species.
I see you were too lazy to read the reference I provided. Here's the first sentence under Common Misconceptions about Evolution
"Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution."
Genetic change affects the phenotype, which can include morphological, physiological, biochemical, and behavioral differences. It *can* entail morphological change, but it doesn't *have to* entail morphological change.
I can explain this to you all day long, provide you with lots of scientific resources to read, but I can't do anything about willful ignorance.
computerist -
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstand.
It's not that random mutations are less likely to be morphological ones - it's that when a species is very well adapted to a stable environment, the random mutations are less likely to be improvements.
Random mutations are just that - random. Due to natural selection, the 'bad' ones are killed off almost immediately, and the 'good' ones allowed to propagate. As a species becomes more and more suited to an environment, the chances that any random mutation will be an improvement will go down.
Sturgeons probably had the same number of morphological mutations being produced. But being so well suited to their environment, such mutations would have been 'bad' and stripped away by natural selection.
Such is the consequence of living in a stable environment.
RitchieFeb 10, 2012 05:18 AM
ReplyDelete" of living in a stable environment."
What do you mean by an stable enviroment and what for a non stable enviroment?
I mean an environment which doesn't change very much. An environment which swings often and irregularly between hot and cold, wet and dry, arid and fertile, etc., is a very unstable environment.
DeleteAnimals evolve morphologically at least in part to keep up with the changes in the environment. If the environment never changed, then animals would change far less.
Ritchie
DeleteI mean an environment which doesn't change very much. An environment which swings often and irregularly between hot and cold, wet and dry, arid and fertile, etc., is a very unstable environment.
To this I'll add - environment consists of ALL aspects that affect an animal's existence. That includes not just climate but geological changes, changes in food supply / availability of prey, changes in what is preying on them, diseases, pressures from sexual selection (if the guy next to me sports fancy colors to attract ladies, I better get fancy colors too), etc.
Evolution tracks changes in the environment. If the environment doesn't change very much, the external morphology of the animals won't change very much either.
Is there such a thing as a neutral mutation?--a mutation which neither hinders nor helps an organism's ability to survive. These would be able to propagate, I'd imagine, but I can't seem to grasp to what magnitude they might affect the development of an evolving species.
ReplyDeleteUnknown
DeleteIs there such a thing as a neutral mutation?--a mutation which neither hinders nor helps an organism's ability to survive. These would be able to propagate, I'd imagine, but I can't seem to grasp to what magnitude they might affect the development of an evolving specie
Yes. In fact, the large majority of mutations are neutral WRT evolutionary fitness. How such neutral mutations are spread through and become fixed in a population is known as neutral drift.
Neutral theory of molecular evolution