Posted on 03/08/2016 10:19:08 AM PST by JimSEA
New research reveals that the limbs of the earliest four-legged vertebrates, dating back more than 360 million years ago, were no more structurally diverse than the fins of their aquatic ancestors.
The new finding overturns long-held views that the origin of vertebrates with legs (known as tetrapods) triggered an increase in the anatomical diversity of their skeletons.
The research was carried out by Dr Marcello Ruta from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Lincoln and Professor Matthew Wills from the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath in the UK. The authors found that fish and early tetrapods developed similar levels of anatomical diversity within their fins and limbs, despite the fact that their skeletons were constructed in very different ways.
Published in the leading scientific journal Palaeontology, the findings challenge some long-standing assumptions about evolution. It is generally expected that when organisms evolve new features -- or 'key innovations' -- that enable them to exploit new environments, the rate of evolution and diversification will speed up. This is believed to have happened with the evolution of birds from dinosaurs and, most iconically of all, in the transition from finned aquatic fish to limbed tetrapods.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
And while the leg was turning into a wing over milions ofyears, being a lesser leg and lesser wing this entire time, both sub optimal, they would be prime targets for something else to eat.
Not to mention the soulder changes and muscle changes needed to make a wing it could flap to atually fly, and also weight considerations. And once its up there what about the tail feathers? All of this would have to magically mutate too. Just at the same rate. And reproduction? A suitable mate also mutated enough to, concidentally?
Takes more faith to believe evolution than creation that has let life adapt to diffrent environmental stresors. Brids come in al shapes and sizes due to geography and environments, but thy are all birds, you dont get something other than a bird from them.
Jim, with all due respect, you don’t seem to understand the topic you are choosing to discuss.
You demonstration of statistical probability is incorrectly stated.
For example, if you want to get a result where twenty five genetic changes are necessary in order to get an arm to evolve into a wing (for example). To get the wing you would need for blocks to be in a 1,2,3,...24,25 order. If they are not in 1 to 25 order, no wing. Your demonstration could be to take 25 numbered blocks and put them in a box, shake the box and dump the blocks onto the ground. In fact, your statistical example does this and, yes under this process, you’d still be tossing blocks in the air and letting them all fall to the ground in the required order, you’d be tossing blocks until the cows come home.
I’d use the method demanded by evolutionary theory. Each consecutive change depends on its precursor already existing in the organism. So, I’d put the blocks in the box and toss them until the number 1 comes out first. As that change has now occurred and is a part of the organism, I’d remove the one from the box and toss the remaining blocks until a 2 comes first. Now we have two of the required changes, I’d remove the 2 block and put it with the 1 block as I’d have change 1 and 2 in this generation of the organism. Now, I’d repeat this process until I had all twenty five blocks in order (The wing in this example).
Your statistics ignore natural selection. Nature will first select 1 then 2 and so on so long as each change either gives the organism an advantage in passing on its genes or is neutral.
How so?
Because your responses don’t answer or address the comments made.
They are non-sequiturs.
Yes - even if you happen to buy in to all of the developments that get one from plants to fish to animals to legged or flying animals and all of that...
...there's still sexual reproduction. Two compatible creatures being required that have to be in the same region of earth at the same time with dissimilar-yet-necessary cells and instead of trying to eat one another for survival, they instead come together and produce multiple offspring via a process that's also dissimilar among multiple species.
And don't even get me started on the chemical processes that are necessary to provide for ovulation, conception, the carrying of young, giving birth - a wholly unique event on its own - and nursing young.
Fascinating stuff, that genetic mutation thing. /s
Also, we have different understandings of the second law of thermodynamics in an open system (earth) where energy comes from outside (sun).
My approach is wrong to the extent I have come up with a much greater probability of evolution happening than actually would occur. The actual probability that any one of the 25 blocks would ever exist is less than one. The probability that any one of the blocks would align with the previous one is a good deal less than one. Every process in an open system never occurs with certainty.
If you mean I didn’t discuss God, then you are correct. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t do god. That’s what theology is for. Science deals with natural phenomenon. Most of the objections in this thread misstate scientific theory and hypothesis. The branch of science I’m most comfortable with is geology but it requires at least a basic understanding of biology and that means evolution. I don’t think most people understand what science actually is and what it does. That’s not a criticism in any way but there are an awful lot of people teaching pseudoscience.
Aw. You’re taking away my blocks now. Stay with the beliefs that make you comfortable.
I guess this has given another proof that communication isn’t possible on subjects where people are emotionally invested. I still think the article is interesting for anyone who follows such things.
I am interested in statistics not beliefs.
“If you mean I didn’t discuss God”
No I don’t mean that. This is another example of a weird non-sequitur. Nothing I said would merit such a response or thought.
“I don’t think most people understand what science actually is and what it does.”
I agree and in as nice a way as possible I am saying this applies to you also.
I’ve noticed in this “debate” between evolution and creation that most coming down on the “pro-science” side don’t understand science any better than the creationists.
And you do? You said, “If their theory is worth anything, it should be able to predict relations of currently existing species.” I answered Thet they could. As you stated, that is comparative genomics which deals with relationships of existent species and, by studying gene sequences which might show a common ancestry. However, at some point, you have to place fossils in an evolutionary linage by morphology.
All amphibians are in the same linage. Comparative genomics can tell you that fish and amphibians share a common ancestor and give information as to when. Morphology narrows down which fossils might be that ancestor and what the physical adaptations looked like. So comparative genomics can tell you what rocks age wise to look in. That’s close to how tiktaalik was found.
“You said, “If their theory is worth anything, it should be able to predict relations of currently existing species.” I answered Thet they could.”
Ok.
What did they predict?
Evolution doesn’t take place on that scale. It is a change in the frequency of certain alleles within a population.
Are you not familiar with cladistics?
Amphibians and fish share a common ancestor x number of years ago. Go look at fish with certain characteristics. Obviously I can’t know their conclusions but I’d look for gene expressions for lungs and legs. Now fish share those as well as do amphibians. How long ago did this happen? From the answer to that question, I’d go look for rock spanning that age which came from sediment of shallow water bodies’ shorelines.
However I’ve just read this extract so I haven’t got the detail.
You can read the whole thing here:
Marcello Ruta, Matthew A. Wills. Comparable disparity in the appendicular skeleton across the fish-tetrapod transition, and the morphological gap between fish and tetrapod postcrania. Palaeontology, 2016; 59 (2): 249 DOI: 10.1111/pala.12227
Are you not familiar with cladistics?
That there are no Precambrian rabbits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.