Hagfish Haunts Darwin. A zombie hagfish rises from the dead, and scares Darwin from two directions.

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 1-24-19 | David F. Coppedge

[Zeneta]

All told, billions of individual fossils have been collected world-wide representing circa 250,000 species alive over the past ~500 million years. Do the math -- that's about one fossil species of some type preserved somewhere in the world every 2,000 years, that's been found. So, 250,000 sounds like a lot of species, and it is, but for every species found so far, somewhere between a hundred and a thousand species either left no fossils or they haven't been found, yet.

Do the math?

You're kidding, right.

The number of morphological changes required between species , never mind phenotype's, is mind blowing. Yeah, all random and somehow beneficial for the sake of it's survival. Like it knows what it needs to survive. Every so-called "transitional fossil" inserted creates the need for two more "Transitional fossils". Do the math. And FWIW, virtually all "Random Mutations" lead to death or the inability to reproduce. DO the MATH.

[Pontiac]

And, as for "testing" Darwin's theory, it's predictions are tested and confirmed daily by thousands of people who work in evolution related fields.

Selective breeding is not mutation. Selective breeding is choosing for desirable traits from the natural variability of the species.

Some modern species are so different from their wild ancestors they are classified as separate species -- i.e., modern cows vs. ancient aurochs.

Dogs have been selectively bred from their wolf ancestors for at least 10,000 years and are considered a different species. Yet any wolf can breed with any dog and produce viable offspring.

The dog 10,000 years separated from the wolf has not evolved in to a different species. It is still a wolf. The dog removed from the influences of man would revert to its wolf form in a very short time. This is demonstrated on a nearly daily bases with feral dogs.

And, as for "testing" Darwin's theory, it's predictions are tested and confirmed daily by thousands of people who work in evolution related fields.

Strange that I don’t read of these developments. You should post them when you find them.

[gundog]

Hey, I’m with you. I wouldn’t conflate hybridization with mutation, though.

[BroJoeK]

Zeneta: "Do the math? You're kidding, right."

No, my math is 100% correct -- 250,000 fossil species found in geological strata from over 500 million years averages to one fossil species of some type found somewhere on Earth for every 2,000 years.
But estimates of species life and rates of change suggest that for every fossil species found, between 100 and 1,000 species left no fossils that we've yet found.
That is especially true of species who lived in regions where fossilization was rare.

Zeneta: "The number of morphological changes required between species , never mind phenotype's, is mind blowing. "

No it's not, you just misunderstand (deliberately?) the word "species".
Here are examples of three different species of Zebra.
They physically can but normally don't interbreed.
Their morphological changes are far from "mind blowing" :

Now consider the following two different genera of elephants.
They can't interbred.
Still far from "mind blowing":

Zeneta: "Every so-called "transitional fossil" inserted creates the need for two more "Transitional fossils".
Do the math."

Only in your own mind.
For scientific purposes every transitional fossil identified confirms predictions that such forms will be found.
So do the math -- how many confirmations do you need?

I always say, every fossil, without exception, is a transitional form between its long line of ancestors and its descendants, if any.
But, if we've only found one species in a line of 1,000 species, then the changes will naturally seem pretty abrupt.

Zeneta: "And FWIW, virtually all "Random Mutations" lead to death or the inability to reproduce.
DO the MATH."

You sound like you're afraid of math -- do you shake & quiver in the face of it?
Relax, math can be your friend, if you respect it.

As for mutations, tests show us that every individual, without exceptions, is born with a small number of minor usually harmless mutations.
It's one way they can track paternity and lineage.
Harmful mutations are usually weeded out by natural selection over time, but the occasional helpful allele can get passed on to future generations.

And there's a fairly long list of recent helpful mutations in human beings, including high-altitude adaptions, lactose tolerance and cycle-cell malaria defense.

[Zeneta]

How much time, do you need?

To make the math work.

Is it OK to continuously re-work those numbers in order make your theories fit?

Or, is that just called “Science?”

[BroJoeK]

Pontiac: "Selective breeding is not mutation.
Selective breeding is choosing for desirable traits from the natural variability of the species."

But a small number of mutation is inherent in every reproduction.
Most of these mutations are harmless or harmful, but if they are selected for -- by nature or humans -- then those mutations lead to speciation.

Any domesticated animal or plant is an example of speciation -- whether it is a separate breed (i.e., dogs), sub-species (horses) or species (cows vs. ancient aurochs).
Small steps toward some speciation naturally occur in every generation and such changes will either be selected for or against.
If for example, a climate grows slowly colder, expect larger animals with heavier coats to do better.
If we then analyze their DNA compared to warmer climate versions we will find both mutations and non-mutation related adaptions.

Pontiac: "Dogs have been selectively bred from their wolf ancestors for at least 10,000 years and are considered a different species.
Yet any wolf can breed with any dog and produce viable offspring."

Dogs are classified as a sub-species of ancient wolves, meaning they can and do still interbreed.
But cattle are classified as a separate species from ancient aurochs, meaning they still could interbreed but normally wouldn't.

The line between "can interbreed" and "can't interbreed" is usually the genus, as in African & Asian elephants.
They can't interbreed and so are separate genera.
But within the African genus smaller forest elephants are a separate species which could but normally doesn't interbreed with larger bush elephants.

Another example is humans and Neanderthals, once classified as separate genera, now found to have interbred and so now classified as the same species, circa 99.?% the same DNA.

Here's my point: speciation is a gradual process which can begin as quickly as a new breed of dogs but takes geological time periods for major changes in genus or family.

Pontiac: "The dog 10,000 years separated from the wolf has not evolved in to a different species.
It is still a wolf."

But the species of wolf which lead to dogs & modern wolves is now extinct.
So dogs are no longer the same species as their wolf ancestors.
They are still the same genus, so could interbreed under certain circumstances.

Pontiac: "Strange that I don’t read of these developments.
You should post them when you find them."

Just as you don't read about 100,000 daily airline flights with 5 million passengers around the world which land safely.
So how do you know they happen?
Well... once in a while one crashes and that makes the news.

The "big news" you'll see on evolution with be the day it's confirmed to have "crashed".

Never fear, I'll let you know when it happens.

[BroJoeK]

gundog: "I wouldn’t conflate hybridization with mutation, though."

Right, of course.
But the key point to "get" here is that a small number of mostly harmless mutations happen in every reproduction, it's not the exception, it's the rule.
If the mutations are harmless they can get passed on and used to find paternity and lineage.
If a mutation is harmful, then nature can select it to not reproduce and if it's helpful then it can contribute to speciation.

Hybridization is something different, but even there you can't have hybridization without at least separate breeds and for that you need some level of DNA differences which can arise from mutations.

Clear as mud, right? ;-)

[Zeneta]

Harmful mutations are usually weeded out by natural selection over time, but the occasional helpful allele can get passed on to future generations.

Yes, weeded out by death.

And the occasional "Helpful" purely random changes just happen to provide some survival benefit for their future generations to be adapted to some future environment. And you call this science?

[BroJoeK]

Zeneta: "How much time, do you need?
To make the math work."

These days I let my computer do most of my math work.
It operates near the speed of light and so long as I don't mess up the equations or values, it's 100% accurate.

And your point is?

[Zeneta]

[Zeneta]

This is you.

Just a little Catfish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDXpd5g3Clc

[Chasaway]

Didn’t say you believed it.

Said they explain a lot.

And “KABOOM”...do you mean like the “Big Bang”? Someone posits “KABOOM”?

[BroJoeK]

Zenta: "This is you."

So, you're out of arguments, all you can do is chuck insults?

Have a great day, sir!

[BroJoeK]

Zeneta: "Yes, weeded out by death."

Sorry about that.

Zeneta: "And the occasional "Helpful" purely random changes just happen to provide some survival benefit for their future generations to be adapted to some future environment.
And you call this science?"

Science, yes, but not for future generations or environments, rather for immediate benefits.
And in post #62 I mentioned some recent human examples -- high altitude adaptions, different in the Himalayas than in the Andes.
Lactose tolerance among adults in dairying populations.
Cycle-cells to help fight malaria in populations which experience it.

And your problem with this is what, exactly?

[drpix]

That debate is why my post stated “...that could/should have left transitional fossil records” to make my point irrespective of it.

[BroJoeK]

drpix: "That debate is why my post stated “...that could/should have left transitional fossil records” to make my point irrespective of it."

But "could have left transitional fossil..." is meaningless because the data is what it is.
250,000 fossil species collected so far seems like a lot, but it's heavily weighted towards species living in places which might more readily fossilize them -- shallow marine animals, for example.

So in any particular transitional sequence, millions of years can separate one fossil from the next, making evolutionary changes seem abrupt, radical & ah, "punctuated."

Consider just one example: La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles -- over 3.5 million individual remains representing some 650 species discovered so far.
How many sites like it are there in the world?
None I know of, but others similar in having been at some time death traps accumulating large numbers of species in one place & time.

1. La Brea tar pits 10,000 to 55,000 years old.

2. Nullarbor Plain, western Australia, marsupial cave trap, one million years old.

3. Harrison, Nebraska, Agate Fossil Beds, 22 million years old.

4. Moab, Utah dinosaur trap 125 million years old.

5. Gobi Desert, China, mud traps, 160 million years old.

So, at "site A" we get a snapshot of a time & place, then separated by many millions of years at "site B" different snapshot of a different time & place, etc., etc. -- is it any wonder the evolutionary changes seem punctuated?

It shouldn't be.

[drpix]

"But "could have left transitional fossil..." is meaningless because the data is what it is."

Reread my post-20. The point was that the hagfish is not a challenge to Evolution because, as the article explains, it is a creature that doesn't "have hard parts, like bones and hard teeth...{and therefore} it’s really difficult for them to get preserved into the fossil record.”"

That point clearly removes the subject of the article, the hagfish, from any debate over the gaps in the fossil record of creatures with "hard parts, like bones and hard teeth" which are more easily preserved in fossils that make up the nearly all of our recovered fossil record.

This is an absolute truth no matter how rare it is for other creatures to leave fossil records or how meaningless you believe it to be.

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for clearing that up.