What about the DNA evidence?

[USincognito]

On my phone...was in the process of deleting them, like I did on the previous post. ;-) just neglected to do it on initial posting; had to go back and edit, and my phone sucks for posting to these boards.

I post exclusively from desktops so I try and be sympathetic and request an edit when I see things like that.

Why not, I am using the images as a visual means to make a point.

STEVE! I was responding to 46and2. He, in the post right before mine, had quoted your post with all the images. I was trying to politely ask him to rectify that.

Got it?

 

[stevevw]

And if you had the choice, which looks more similar to each other:

Whale and hippo, or

Protocetus and kutchicetus?

Well by the looks of the skeltons the kutchicetus looks more like a crocodile.

They have assumed the kutchicetus is linked to the whale without the DNA tests. They have been proved wrong before by the DNA. I cant see any transition of the feet with toes getting smaller and smaller and turn either into fins and/or disappear. We have fully developed legs with toes. We have fully developed fins and we have fully developed creatures with no legs. But as i said before the whale is near on 100 feet and 170 tonnes and there must have been 100 or more transitions as a mother could not have to larger a baby. So we should be seeing heaps of transitions.

The creatures that have no legs and swim in the ocean could all be variations of the same species and family just like dogs.

 

[stevevw]

Does the whale have more similarities to a hippo than protocetus?

Maybe not but they have linked the hippo to the whale through the DNA which i will believe more than the observational methods. They have been shown to be wrong before with their observational methods even when the two creatures looked very similar. Only to find that another animal that looked completely different was the actual closer relative through the DNA.

 

[stevevw]

I post exclusively from desktops so I try and be sympathetic and request an edit when I see things like that.



STEVE! I was responding to 46and2. He, in the post right before mine, had quoted your post with all the images. I was trying to politely ask him to rectify that.

Got it?

OH OK sorry, then somehow why did i get the post to me i think. The trouble is i am getting posts from several people at the same time. I better shut up.

 

[USincognito]

But of course you have nothing to say about the evidence, because we both know it is true.

All I know is true is the fact that you plagiarized - aka committed theft of intellectual property. Not only did you plagiarize, you plagiarized from one of the worst, most insipid Creationist sites on the Internet. That I know to be true.

All fossils are the same from the first appearance of a species, until its extinction. Those that survived the extinction event are the same as their fossils.

No, just no. And the Coelacanth you cite as an example is, ironically, a perfect example debunking your assertion.

DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH: THE FISH OUT OF TIME
(This website is older and uses frames. From the Biology and Behavior section, "Main Facts" link.)

Fossils of ancient coelacanths have been found on every continent except Antarctica. They were first identified from an English fossil by naturalist Louis Agassiz in 1836. (Ironically, Agassiz became a firm opponent of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution!) 250 million years ago there were as many as 30 species living at the same time, about a third of them in fresh water. With a couple of exceptions ancient coelacanths were small, seldom exceeding 55 cm.​

Modern coelacanths can grow to 6 feet or ~180cm and average 165cm.

Further down:

While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way. Live bearing, for example, would seem to be a modern feature.​

 

[USincognito]

OH OK sorry, then somehow why did i get the post to me i think. The trouble is i am getting posts from several people at the same time. I better shut up.

You're on a mobie device, aren't you? If so, I'd suggest opening a browser and using the full feature version. It'll be a lot easier to keep track of things. Last night you replied to me about something in one thread with an issue from a completely different thread. It's hard to have a conversation with people when they do things like that.

 

[46AND2]

Well by the looks of the skeltons the kutchicetus looks more like a crocodile.

They have assumed the kutchicetus is linked to the whale without the DNA tests. They have been proved wrong before by the DNA. I cant see any transition of the feet with toes getting smaller and smaller and turn either into fins and/or disappear. We have fully developed legs with toes. We have fully developed fins and we have fully developed creatures with no legs. But as i said before the whale is near on 100 feet and 170 tonnes and there must have been 100 or more transitions as a mother could not have to larger a baby. So we should be seeing heaps of transitions.

The creatures that have no legs and swim in the ocean could all be variations of the same species and family just like dogs.

You didn't answer my questions. Your point about whales looking more like hippos than their land based ancestors is a bad argument, and I'm trying to show you why.

Yes, morphological comparisons alone can lead to mistakes, but it doesn't make the science worthless. Paleontologists are very good at their jobs, and for every mistake discovered through DNA analysis, there are many confirmations through DNA analysis as well, such as the relationships between humans and the great apes.

This is why nested hierarchies through multiple independent disciplines are compared against each other. The strength of evolution comes from the FACT that family trees made from morphology, embryology, genetics, biodiversity, and many more are in astounding agreement.

But it is a natural world, with MANY variables, so agreement is not going to be absolute. If you want to defeat evolution, pointing out the few exceptions (which have reasonable explanations) is not going to cut it. You will have to find a better way to explain the large majority of agreement between the different family trees. An undeniable pattern exists. If not inheritance, then what?

 

[stevevw]

You're on a mobie device, aren't you? If so, I'd suggest opening a browser and using the full feature version. It'll be a lot easier to keep track of things. Last night you replied to me about something in one thread with an issue from a completely different thread. It's hard to have a conversation with people when they do things like that.

Yeah thanks, no I was on my laptop. Sometimes i get emails of replies and i haven't made any comment so i ignore those ones. I think you get emails of anyone you have replied to even if your not involved in their conversation. I may have been tired and misread it. I noticed the last one when it said something about posting pictures happened to be coincidentally the time i posted a reply with mostly pictures. I could have sworn i seen my name on it though. Doesn't matter i will keep it in mind now and check that they are speaking to me. Doesnt help when you have 4 or 5 people replying at the same time.

 

[USincognito]

Yeah thanks, no I was on my laptop. Sometimes i get emails of replies and i haven't made any comment so i ignore those ones. I think you get emails of anyone you have replied to even if your not involved in their conversation. I may have been tired and misread it. I noticed the last one when it said something about posting pictures happened to be coincidentally the time i posted a reply with mostly pictures. I could have sworn i seen my name on it though. Doesn't matter i will keep it in mind now and check that they are speaking to me. Doesnt help when you have 4 or 5 people replying at the same time.

My recommendation is turn off e-mail notification and use the User CP button at the top of the screen. It will take you to all your subscribed threads and tell you which ones have new messages.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't answer my questions. Your point about whales looking more like hippos than their land based ancestors is a bad argument, and I'm trying to show you why.

Yes, morphological comparisons alone can lead to mistakes, but it doesn't make the science worthless. Paleontologists are very good at their jobs, and for every mistake discovered through DNA analysis, there are many confirmations through DNA analysis as well, such as the relationships between humans and the great apes.

This is why nested hierarchies through multiple independent disciplines are compared against each other. The strength of evolution comes from the FACT that family trees made from morphology, embryology, genetics, biodiversity, and many more are in astounding agreement.

But it is a natural world, with MANY variables, so agreement is not going to be absolute. If you want to defeat evolution, pointing out the few exceptions (which have reasonable explanations) is not going to cut it. You will have to find a better way to explain the large majority of agreement between the different family trees. An undeniable pattern exists. If not inheritance, then what?

More and more genetics is showing the traditional tree that is based on the Darwinian model is wrong. It is linking animals that shouldn't go together and it is taking kinks out and leaving gaps.

There is more and more evidence that it is more complicated and things such as epigenetics, HGT, cross breeding and hybridization may influenec how creatures are formed and what is passed down to the next generation. All this takes away from the traditional model of natural selection and that all creatures evolved from one another by taking on features gradually and over a long period of time.

There are a lot more sites that show the genetics is bringing up more and more evidence that evolution according to how Darwin seen it is wrong, More and more scientist were coming up with contradictory results and conclusion that weren't fitting in with the theory they pro ported. Then the genetics started to show that there was more to it. Some say the tree that evolution has built has to be totally remodeled or even thrown out.

Sign in to read: Horizontal and vertical: The evolution of evolution - life - 26 January 2010 - New Scientist
and-vertical-the-evolution-of-evolution.html

Modern genetics reshapes the tree of life | Genetic Literacy Project

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | theguardian.com

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views

Demolishing Darwin's Tree: Eric Bapteste and the Network of Life - Evolution News & Views

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

 

[stevevw]

My recommendation is turn off e-mail notification and use the User CP button at the top of the screen. It will take you to all your subscribed threads and tell you which ones have new messages.

Ok thanks i will. I have gone in that way as well just to check that i haven't missed anything. I have also noticed if i reply to a post through my email it will effect the next email reply for the same thread and change it to my latest reply. You then have to scroll back to see that reply. This caused me to miss a few and so now i have to double check. The email replies are good as i dont often go into the forums through the main page and signing on. I can click the email and go straight in to the reply normally. But using the CP button makes more sense for keeping things organized.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, just no. And the Coelacanth you cite as an example is, ironically, a perfect example debunking your assertion.

DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH: THE FISH OUT OF TIME
(This website is older and uses frames. From the Biology and Behavior section, "Main Facts" link.)

Fossils of ancient coelacanths have been found on every continent except Antarctica. They were first identified from an English fossil by naturalist Louis Agassiz in 1836. (Ironically, Agassiz became a firm opponent of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution!) 250 million years ago there were as many as 30 species living at the same time, about a third of them in fresh water. With a couple of exceptions ancient coelacanths were small, seldom exceeding 55 cm.​

Modern coelacanths can grow to 6 feet or ~180cm and average 165cm.

Further down:

While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way. Live bearing, for example, would seem to be a modern feature.​

The fact that you had to rely on an outdated website shows your fallacy.

After all the hype we finally get to the truth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/pdf/nature12027.pdf

"Since its discovery, the coelacanth has been referred to as a ‘living fossil’, owing to its morphological similarities to its fossil ancestors. However, questions have remained as to whether it is indeed evolving slowly, as morphological stasis does not necessarily imply genomic stasis. In this study, we have confirmed that the protein-coding genes of L. chalumnae show a decreased substitution rate compared to those of other sequenced vertebrates, even though its genome as a whole does not show evidence of low genome plasticity. The reason for this lower substitution rate is still unknown, *(my comment: it's not unknown, evolution is simply untrue, which is why no evidence is found)* although a static habitat and a lack of predation over evolutionary timescales could be contributing factors to a lower need for adaptation. *(my comment: or you could simply be wrong about evolution entirely, which is why the genomes show no evidence of evolution)* A closer examination of gene families that show either unusually high or low levels of directional selection indicative of adaptation in the coelacanth may provide information on which selective pressures acted, and which pressures did not act, to shape this evolutionary relict.

The vertebrate land transition is one of the most important steps in our evolutionary history. We conclude that the closest living fish to the tetrapod ancestor is the lungfish, not the coelacanth."

Your info is outdated. There is no evidence of DNA links to tetrapods. No DNA evidence it is evolving over time. There is evidence however that variations occurred in the fossil record, just as we have observed with cats in a short time span thru manipulation.Once again your evolutionists rely on what if's instead of the actual DNA evidence and fossil record. Fantasy instead of facts, what they want to believe instead of believing the evidence.

 

[46AND2]

The fact that you had to rely on an outdated website shows your fallacy.

After all the hype we finally get to the truth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/pdf/nature12027.pdf

"Since its discovery, the coelacanth has been referred to as a ‘living fossil’, owing to its morphological similarities to its fossil ancestors. However, questions have remained as to whether it is indeed evolving slowly, as morphological stasis does not necessarily imply genomic stasis. In this study, we have confirmed that the protein-coding genes of L. chalumnae show a decreased substitution rate compared to those of other sequenced vertebrates, even though its genome as a whole does not show evidence of low genome plasticity. The reason for this lower substitution rate is still unknown, *(my comment: it's not unknown, evolution is simply untrue, which is why no evidence is found)* although a static habitat and a lack of predation over evolutionary timescales could be contributing factors to a lower need for adaptation. *(my comment: or you could simply be wrong about evolution entirely, which is why the genomes show no evidence of evolution)* A closer examination of gene families that show either unusually high or low levels of directional selection indicative of adaptation in the coelacanth may provide information on which selective pressures acted, and which pressures did not act, to shape this evolutionary relict.

The vertebrate land transition is one of the most important steps in our evolutionary history. We conclude that the closest living fish to the tetrapod ancestor is the lungfish, not the coelacanth."

Your info is outdated. There is no evidence of DNA links to tetrapods. No DNA evidence it is evolving over time. There is evidence however that variations occurred in the fossil record, just as we have observed with cats in a short time span thru manipulation.Once again your evolutionists rely on what if's instead of the actual DNA evidence and fossil record. Fantasy instead of facts, what they want to believe instead of believing the evidence.

Haha. Too funny. You talking about something outdated. You used a paper from 1936 to try to show that fossilization happens quickly.

 

[46AND2]

The fact that you had to rely on an outdated website shows your fallacy.

After all the hype we finally get to the truth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/pdf/nature12027.pdf

"Since its discovery, the coelacanth has been referred to as a ‘living fossil’, owing to its morphological similarities to its fossil ancestors. However, questions have remained as to whether it is indeed evolving slowly, as morphological stasis does not necessarily imply genomic stasis. In this study, we have confirmed that the protein-coding genes of L. chalumnae show a decreased substitution rate compared to those of other sequenced vertebrates, even though its genome as a whole does not show evidence of low genome plasticity. The reason for this lower substitution rate is still unknown, *(my comment: it's not unknown, evolution is simply untrue, which is why no evidence is found)* although a static habitat and a lack of predation over evolutionary timescales could be contributing factors to a lower need for adaptation. *(my comment: or you could simply be wrong about evolution entirely, which is why the genomes show no evidence of evolution)* A closer examination of gene families that show either unusually high or low levels of directional selection indicative of adaptation in the coelacanth may provide information on which selective pressures acted, and which pressures did not act, to shape this evolutionary relict.

The vertebrate land transition is one of the most important steps in our evolutionary history. We conclude that the closest living fish to the tetrapod ancestor is the lungfish, not the coelacanth."

Your info is outdated. There is no evidence of DNA links to tetrapods. No DNA evidence it is evolving over time. There is evidence however that variations occurred in the fossil record, just as we have observed with cats in a short time span thru manipulation.Once again your evolutionists rely on what if's instead of the actual DNA evidence and fossil record. Fantasy instead of facts, what they want to believe instead of believing the evidence.

And what is REALLY funny is that he said the webpage STYLE is old. Not the information. Continuing the paragraph, it references a paper which was published in 2012.

 

[createdtoworship]

More and more genetics is showing the traditional tree that is based on the Darwinian model is wrong. It is linking animals that shouldn't go together and it is taking kinks out and leaving gaps.

There is more and more evidence that it is more complicated and things such as epigenetics, HGT, cross breeding and hybridization may influenec how creatures are formed and what is passed down to the next generation. All this takes away from the traditional model of natural selection and that all creatures evolved from one another by taking on features gradually and over a long period of time.

There are a lot more sites that show the genetics is bringing up more and more evidence that evolution according to how Darwin seen it is wrong, More and more scientist were coming up with contradictory results and conclusion that weren't fitting in with the theory they pro ported. Then the genetics started to show that there was more to it. Some say the tree that evolution has built has to be totally remodeled or even thrown out.

Sign in to read: Horizontal and vertical: The evolution of evolution - life - 26 January 2010 - New Scientist
and-vertical-the-evolution-of-evolution.html

Modern genetics reshapes the tree of life | Genetic Literacy Project

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | theguardian.com

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - Evolution News & Views

Demolishing Darwin's Tree: Eric Bapteste and the Network of Life - Evolution News & Views

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

good stuff

 

[createdtoworship]

Hand2. Sonic Hedgehog. Look them up.



It's a good thing we don't use face value.

And I notice you make the claim that the skeleton of a thylacine and a Pakicetus "look very similar".

Are you sure about that?

your lower picture is a perfect example of how dissimilar a dog like creature and a whale are.

 

[createdtoworship]

evolutionists have linked animals in the past through their looks. Using similar features bone structures and anatomy to show how they are linked. Now that DNA is being used more this is showing how you cant necessarily depend on that alone. In some cases it is linking animals that dont look the same together. It is taking links in their branches out and putting other animals in that shouldn't belong.

The whale is an example. They say the Pakicetus is one of the land creatures that developed into the whale. This is based on similar features such as the nasal position and enlarged ear bone cavities. But when i look at the creature it doesn't look like a whale. DNA evidence has the hippo as the whales closet living relative yet it is put well back in the branch. Many say the pig was the hippos closest relative and looking at it you could see why. But evidence has found it is not and its the whale that is.

So until the DNA evidence supports the links i wouldn't be saying with confidence that certain animals are linked.

pakicetus Sperm whale Pilot Whale

pakicetus

Tasmanian tiger which looks very similar to the pakicetus even its skeleton does.

Tapir Numbat

hyena

Hyena amphicyon bear dog

Crocodile head Komodo dragon

Thylacoleo carnifex

pakicetus

Tasmanian tiger

hyena

As you can see many animals look the same at face value. I know that the experts will have a more detailed look. But on face value the pakicetus looks more similar to half a dozen other species than the whale.

To me the whale has more similarities to the hippo or a dugong which is related to an elephant.

Even though they don't want to confess it to be similiar to a dog! lol. It obviously is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Even though they don't want to confess it to be similiar to a dog! lol. It obviously is.

Yes, it's like Lions and Tigers.

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a tigress (Panthera tigris). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species"

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon_(hybrid)

"A tigon /ˈtaɪɡən/ or tiglon /ˈtaɪɡlən/ is a hybrid cross between a male tiger (Panthera tigris) and a lioness (Panthera leo). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species. "

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."


One really needs say no more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it's like Lions and Tigers.

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a tigress (Panthera tigris). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species"

Or:

Tigon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A tigon /ˈtaɪɡən/ or tiglon /ˈtaɪɡlən/ is a hybrid cross between a male tiger (Panthera tigris) and a lioness (Panthera leo). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species. "

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."


One really needs say no more.

Except for the fact that since their offspring have very limited fertility so they are clearly of different species. The Wiki articles that you quoted even point that out. Too bad you never read past the introduction.

Poor Justa, he cannot even get the simplest of facts straight.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, it's like Lions and Tigers.

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a tigress (Panthera tigris). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species"

Or:

Tigon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A tigon /ˈtaɪɡən/ or tiglon /ˈtaɪɡlən/ is a hybrid cross between a male tiger (Panthera tigris) and a lioness (Panthera leo). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species. "

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."


One really needs say no more.

I believe micro evolution can happen outside of species level, but not past the genus level, your illustrations prove that perfectly. None of the above was "out of genus" while still breeding and not sterile.

good post.