[__ Darwin __] Something to think about

[brother Paul]

And here is a clincher for ya:

Paul observes (and actually has) that Barbarian has not observed at least 1/2 of what "Barbarian observes".

It is so funny...I love it and you, but really I know and more importantly the Holy Spirit KNOWS you have never "observed" much of what you say you have "observed" most of which has NEVER been OBSERVED by anyone. This is why sometimes I laugh. Not at you but at the absurdity of the claim. But stick to your beliefs and keep piling up support, it makes these threads engaging.

Siincerely,

Homo Cogito

 

[Barbarian]

DNA function predicted that closely related organisms would have more similar DNA, a prediction that was validated by comparing those of known descent.

So because we share 99% in common with mice and only 95% in common with Chimps

No, thats wrong...


Analyses of deep mammalian sequence alignments and constraint predictions for 1% of the human genome
Genome Res.
2007 17:760-774
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/760/F1.medium.gif[/quote]
Phylogenetic tree relating the set of analyzed species. The depicted topology and branch lengths illustrate the relationships among the analyzed species’ sequences. Analytical support for the represented tree is provided elsewhere (Nikolaev et al. 2007). The numbers next to each species name indicate the amount of sequence (in Mb) examined in this study (some species have >30 Mb of sequence either as a result of lineage-specific expansions of these regions or the resolution with which orthologous sequences can be identified before alignment) (see Supplemental Material for additional details); (red numbers) BAC-derived sequence sequenced to “comparative grade” (see Methods); (blue numbers) sequence obtained from whole-genome sequencing efforts; and (black numbers) finished human sequence. Blue and green branches distinguish mammalian from non-mammalian sequences, respectively.

that logic dictaes we SHOULD conclude a MORE LIKELY relationship (and a closer one) with mice.

Would have been. But it's not the way they told you it is. Let's look at another way. Highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C or Hemoglobin vary by tiny amounts over the different taxa. Let me see it that can give us some indication...

Cytochrome C:

Comparisons of these two rates, the rate of mutation and the evolutionary substitution rate, have revealed the very surprising fact that the two rates are the same. This remarkable finding that the difference between the DNA sequences of different species have been generated by mutation and that other factors such as natural selection could only have played a relatively minor role.

By comparing sequences a curious pattern was observed. For example, in the case of cytochromes, all the higher organism cytochromes (yeasts, plants, insects, mammals, birds, etc.) exhibit an almost equal degree of sequence divergence from the bacterial cytochrome in Rhodospirillum. This means that all their cytochrome genes have changed to about the same degree—in other words, have evolved at a uniform rate.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Now then you (the convinced) say, “Couldn't echolocate” while the very scientists you got that from said their finding implied it “PROBABLY” could not echolocate can you see the honest admission of the plausibility factor?

It merely lacks the structures needed for echolocation. But you bring up an important point. All animals capable of hearing can echolocate to some degree. You, for example, can do it. Vikings used it to navigate in fog by shouting and listening for echos, noting the direction.

He is admitting he could be incorrect and maybe they could by this PROBABLY but you on the other hand swallowed it as a fact (though it is not REALLY evidenced)

Lacking the anatomical features known to allow effective echolocation, it would be remarkable if this transitional creature could echolocate as bats do.

And you should know I am well aware pf how your camp (the convinced) has altered the meaning of the term transitional so they can vacillate from the original intention of the word’s use in your camp’s earlier published writings (which meant “in-between” or one from the other). I am not stupid...your camp has done this with many words they once used that were proven incorrect in their original use and application.

Perhaps you don't know what the proper definition of "transitional" is. What do you think it is?

Barbarian observes:
“whales were initially thought to be descended from perissodactyls. But DNA analysis shows them to be descended from artiodactyls (even-hooved mammals). And later fossil finds, such as Indohyus confirmed that analysis.”

Which only makes sense to one who already swallows whole the historical narrative created that they evolved from land animals (instead of your own standard explanation which would indicate or predict the other way around (from the sea to the land).

No, that's incorrect. No one in science supposes that mammals first appeared in the sea. That's a common misconception; I see it a lot from creationists. Mammals evolved from land-dwelling therapsid reptiles. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

And such actions do not imply honest self correction, but rather manipulation of interpretation to support the already believed presupposition.

It probably seems like cheating to creationists, who have to make new evidence fit into their preconceived beliefs, that scientists change their opinions when new evidence shows a need to do that. It's not dishonesty; it's the antithesis of dishonesty.

Indohyus proves NOTHING other than they have similarities in their DNA (just as we do with mice).

So far, we can't look at the DNA of fossils that old. Rather, we see in Indohyus, an animal adapted to aquatic life with characteristics otherwise found only in whales and transitional forms like Pakicetus.

As you see, the data is quite clear on this. And it explained a lot of things about whales, like having an ungulate digestive system, horizontal flukes instead of vertical tail fins, and so on.

Again I cannot believe you so easily fall for this:

Well, let's look at your arguments there:

[Ungulates (especially Indohyus) do not have flukes at all,

No, but they do run by moving the spine up and down in a vertical manner. The earliest whales still had functional legs, and swam in the same manner. Otters and other aquatic mammals do that. So whales, as they evolved, were locked into that mode of movement.

[quote[Dolphins also have horizontal flukes to make them perfectly suited to their environment and purpose (POSSIBLY developed via adaptation)[/quote]

We see fossils of reptiles that became marine, with vertical fins. And that's not surprising, since most reptiles retain the fishlike horizontal movement. Again, the adaptations indicate why these structures evolved that way.

And lots of creatures share similar digestive systems...

You never see another sort of mammal with an ungulate digestive system. Only those for which evidence shows them to be evolved from ungulates.

In fact if the standard Darwinian model was predicting correctly it COULD INDICATE (an equal plausibility) that ungulates have a whale digestive system not the other way around.

No, that's wrong. Since the evidence shows whales to have evolved from ungulates, one would not expect to see whale apomorphies in primitive ungulates.

Using assumption based conclusionism it is equally plausible that the later ungulates evolved from whales

Yes, but that would be the creationist way. Evolutionary theory would not produce such an odd conclusion.

(after all they share a lot of whale DNA and have similar whale digestive systems) though if we go by the fossils they both appear around the same time...50 mya.

Hyopsodus is the first one I know of, an ungulate that lived 56 million years ago. The earliest whales are about 50 million years old. Not the same time.

 

[Razeontherock]

As you see, the fossil is demonstrably transitional between climbing mammals and bats.

That has nothing to do with the context of the comment you're responding to, as I'm sure you're well aware. Play such childish games with someone else.

 

[Razeontherock]

DNA function predicted that closely related organisms would have more similar DNA, a prediction that was validated by comparing those of known descent.



No, thats wrong...


Analyses of deep mammalian sequence alignments and constraint predictions for 1% of the human genome
Genome Res.
2007 17:760-774
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/760/F1.medium.gif[/quote]
Phylogenetic tree relating the set of analyzed species. The depicted topology and branch lengths illustrate the relationships among the analyzed species’ sequences. Analytical support for the represented tree is provided elsewhere (Nikolaev et al. 2007). The numbers next to each species name indicate the amount of sequence (in Mb) examined in this study (some species have >30 Mb of sequence either as a result of lineage-specific expansions of these regions or the resolution with which orthologous sequences can be identified before alignment) (see Supplemental Material for additional details); (red numbers) BAC-derived sequence sequenced to “comparative grade” (see Methods); (blue numbers) sequence obtained from whole-genome sequencing efforts; and (black numbers) finished human sequence. Blue and green branches distinguish mammalian from non-mammalian sequences, respectively.



Would have been. But it's not the way they told you it is. Let's look at another way. Highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C or Hemoglobin vary by tiny amounts over the different taxa. Let me see it that can give us some indication...

Cytochrome C:

Comparisons of these two rates, the rate of mutation and the evolutionary substitution rate, have revealed the very surprising fact that the two rates are the same. This remarkable finding that the difference between the DNA sequences of different species have been generated by mutation and that other factors such as natural selection could only have played a relatively minor role.

By comparing sequences a curious pattern was observed. For example, in the case of cytochromes, all the higher organism cytochromes (yeasts, plants, insects, mammals, birds, etc.) exhibit an almost equal degree of sequence divergence from the bacterial cytochrome in Rhodospirillum. This means that all their cytochrome genes have changed to about the same degree—in other words, have evolved at a uniform rate.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny



It merely lacks the structures needed for echolocation. But you bring up an important point. All animals capable of hearing can echolocate to some degree. You, for example, can do it. Vikings used it to navigate in fog by shouting and listening for echos, noting the direction.



Lacking the anatomical features known to allow effective echolocation, it would be remarkable if this transitional creature could echolocate as bats do.



Perhaps you don't know what the proper definition of "transitional" is. What do you think it is?

Barbarian observes:
“whales were initially thought to be descended from perissodactyls. But DNA analysis shows them to be descended from artiodactyls (even-hooved mammals). And later fossil finds, such as Indohyus confirmed that analysis.”



No, that's incorrect. No one in science supposes that mammals first appeared in the sea. That's a common misconception; I see it a lot from creationists. Mammals evolved from land-dwelling therapsid reptiles. Would you like to see the evidence for that?



It probably seems like cheating to creationists, who have to make new evidence fit into their preconceived beliefs, that scientists change their opinions when new evidence shows a need to do that. It's not dishonesty; it's the antithesis of dishonesty.



So far, we can't look at the DNA of fossils that old. Rather, we see in Indohyus, an animal adapted to aquatic life with characteristics otherwise found only in whales and transitional forms like Pakicetus.

As you see, the data is quite clear on this. And it explained a lot of things about whales, like having an ungulate digestive system, horizontal flukes instead of vertical tail fins, and so on.



Well, let's look at your arguments there:


No, but they do run by moving the spine up and down in a vertical manner. The earliest whales still had functional legs, and swam in the same manner. Otters and other aquatic mammals do that. So whales, as they evolved, were locked into that mode of movement.

[quote[Dolphins also have horizontal flukes to make them perfectly suited to their environment and purpose (POSSIBLY developed via adaptation)[/B]

We see fossils of reptiles that became marine, with vertical fins. And that's not surprising, since most reptiles retain the fishlike horizontal movement. Again, the adaptations indicate why these structures evolved that way.



You never see another sort of mammal with an ungulate digestive system. Only those for which evidence shows them to be evolved from ungulates.



No, that's wrong. Since the evidence shows whales to have evolved from ungulates, one would not expect to see whale apomorphies in primitive ungulates.



Yes, but that would be the creationist way. Evolutionary theory would not produce such an odd conclusion.



Hyopsodus is the first one I know of, an ungulate that lived 56 million years ago. The earliest whales are about 50 million years old. Not the same time. [/QUOTE]

A cow turned into a whale in only 6 million years, that's some seriously punctuated equilibrium!
What do you do for a living?

 

[Barbarian]

A cow turned into a whale in only 6 million years,

You've been listening to too many creationists. What a silly idea. Whales didn't evolve from cows. They evolved from primitive ungulates. And the highly evolved whales we see today didn't evolve in just six million years.

that's some seriously punctuated equilibrium!

Perhaps you don't know what "punctuated equilibrium" means. What do you think it means?

What do you do for a living?

I was a biologist. I last made my living as an ergonomist and a teacher. Did some consulting work. Reviewed science books, was a gandy and a machine operator in my youth. Stuff like that. Retired, now.

 

[Barbarian]

That has nothing to do with the context of the comment you're responding to,

It's exactly addressing the context of the comment I'm responding to, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Play such childish games with someone else.

Paul, while I disagree with him, is able to maintain his civility and self-respect. When you can do that, come on back and take part in the discussion.