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 ...
I disagree that paleontology is hard science. It is too much subject to subjectivity. That is not a knock on the field, just it’s nature by dint of Nature.
As far as “Deep time” DNA comparisons, no, that is not necessary.
It would be comparisons of extant genomes. If their theory is worth anything, it should be able to predict relations of currently existing species.
you expect creation scientists to publish in your SECULAR ANTI GOD journals for peer review, when even your own kind publish and mention the word ‘creator’ in a peer reviewed article, and then have a shit fit over it and demand it be removed???
you just keep on believing and worshipping at the altar of darwin, i will go with the truth instead.
Better get a bigger brush there, Jim. You might have missed someone.
Even Kent Hovind admits that “micro evolution” occurs. However, he then invents something called “macro evolution” which no one ever said occurs. A rabbit doesn’t give birth to a cat. Evolutionary science has never said that “kind” begets anything other than “kind”. Evolution is change over time and change over deep time bring about other species. We have tail bones but usually we don’t have tails. That’s a remnant of long ago ancestors and the “tail” genes we have are usually, but not always turned off.
Mutations affect what is already in the code.
We used to call it gene expression way back when I was in school. There is no new genetic information.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are as far as most people think.
Our genes do demonstrate our relationships to other species. In fact, our branch of the tree of life can be traced back to other “branches” easily and in that manner validate relationships suggested in paleontology. It’s a matter of determining common ancestors. For instance, we are not directly related to chimps but we share a common ancestor.
If anything what we see over time is loss of genetic information. Adaptation to environment causes loss of genetic material.
Evolutionary science has never said that “kind” begets anything other than “kind”. Evolution is change over time and change over deep time bring about other species.
Given enough deep time argument, I suppose one could grow a foot up ones ass (pardon my French), but aren’t there better simpler explanations for the observation?
Best scientific answers coalesce when one can observe, measure, replicate by experiment, and compute formulas for a phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.
One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Elegant mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion. Rigorous debate continues.
At the other extreme is Darwinism, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Scientists contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything. Yet evolution fails computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes in open systems, required by natural selection, create increased disorder, release energy, and increase entropy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality. All debate prohibited.
One standard for good science is usefulness. Even if Darwinism stumbles in explaining physical phenomenon, it has already contributed vital social and political apologetics. Darwin’s life on PBS explained his important contributions to predatory nationalism, capitalism and socialism as seen through lives of Adolf Hitler, John D. Rockefeller, and Vladimir Lenin. Darwinism’s utility remains esteemed for convincing masses to relinquish control to elites.
They would never allow such a submission to be printed in their journals. They destroy careers of scientists who even talk about believing intelligent design, much less, creationism.
If anything what we see over time is loss of genetic information. Adaptation to environment causes loss of genetic material.
I call that devolution, but that is just me.
But, that so called junk dna does raise questions and may be quite a genetic back up system.
Even if evoultion somehow came up with a man, because of how reproduction occurs, at the same time, it must also come up with a viable woman as well. Now they wil point out that there is no hop from fish to man, denying punctuated equilibrium when it fails them. But if it takes more changes over time, they glos over the fact that a compatible mate must always be around that still can mate with the mutated oe, or both may have to have the same mutatios to ensure passage of the new mutations. Now a lot more times. Theyve compounded the problem.
Good for B.C. I remember that specific cartoon when it first was published. One of my favorites.
Darwinism’s utility remains esteemed for convincing masses to relinquish control to elites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
A mutation is new information any way you look at it. The point that may bring us closer is that the gene itself isn’t new. Also, essentially the same mutation might occur independently many times.
Of course you have left out natural selection. I’d doubt that having a foot up your ass would give you a competitive advantage making your genetic survival likely.
Our genes do demonstrate our relationships to other species. In fact, our branch of the tree of life can be traced back to other “branches” easily and in that manner validate relationships suggested in paleontology. It’s a matter of determining common ancestors. For instance, we are not directly related to chimps but we share a common ancestor.
1) Those branches and other organizations are VERY SUBJECTIVE. They are made to help us understand the world but that does not make them true and can lead to wrong understanding.
For example, in studying nematology, we would cut off the rear ends of nematodes, smash them on a slide and depending on the pattern, determine what they were. I often thought this would be a better way to categorize people than the color of their skin.
2) Would not the common genetic relationship speak more to the creativity of a creator, than evolution. A painter uses the same paint to paint different pictures.
A front leg on a reptile, through a multitude of changes becomes a dinosaur’s (velociraptors) arm which through a series of small changes each of which was either beneficial or neutral became a wing which combined with pre existing feathers became a wing for gliding and eventually flying. Over time you got a bird or rather numerous similar kinds of bird like creatures.
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.