The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[USincognito]

@Kenny'sID
If whales evolved from terrestrial mammals we would expect to find certain things in addition to the characteristics that undeniably make them mammals.

From physiology we see that unlike fish and marine reptiles (see the ichthyosaur body plan), which move side to side, whales should move up and down just like their terrestrial counterparts do. Indeed, that is what we observe. A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

Based on the fact that we've observed atavistic legs on whales, we would expect from genetics and embryology to see that they retain anatomical or molecular vestiges for hind leg development. We observe both.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm

Cetaceans also have the gene package for limb development. In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work together to develop them, but in cetaceans that gene package is non-functioning so the limb buds never develop unless there is a problem and atavistic hand limbs actually grow.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8414.full

Press release here:
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html
>> In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt. <<

 

[USincognito]

The diversity of globin genes and proteins seen in modern vertebrates is due to two whole genome duplication events in a stem vertebrate population. Here's four papers on the subject.
2005
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314
2007
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/9/1982.short
2011
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/04/molbev.msr207.short
2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790312002709

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22846683
>> The functional diversification of the vertebrate globin gene superfamily provides an especially vivid illustration of the role of gene duplication and whole-genome duplication in promoting evolutionary innovation. For example, key globin proteins that evolved specialized functions in various aspects of oxidative metabolism and oxygen signaling pathways (hemoglobin [Hb], myoglobin [Mb], and cytoglobin [Cygb]) trace their origins to two whole-genome duplication events in the stem lineage of vertebrates. <<

 

[USincognito]

The more information we get from genetics, the more we verify common ancestry. This study shows support for animal/fungi common ancestry and validity of the clade Opisthokonta.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/93.full
>> Phylogenetic analyses of combined multigene data sets including a diverse set of opisthokont and nonopisthokont taxa place all of the proposed opisthokont protists unequivocally in an exclusive clade with animals and fungi. Within this clade, the nucleariid appears as the closest sister taxon to fungi, while the corallochytrean and ichthyosporean form a group which, together with the ministeriid and choanoflagellates, form two to three separate sister lineages to animals. These results further establish Opisthokonta as a bona fide taxonomic group and suggest that any further testing of the legitimacy of this taxon should, at the least, include data from opisthokont protists. Our results also underline the critical position of these “animal-fungal allies” with respect to the origin and early evolution of animals and fungi. <<

 

[USincognito]

For this post I'll just ask a question - is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human" and why do you conclude as you do?

 

[Jimmy D]

Nice posts, unfortunately it seems Kenny'sID doesn't deal in evidence, only empty rhetoric.

 

[crjmurray]

@Kenny'sID
...In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog... <<

The diversity of globin genes and proteins.... <<

Now I'm not a scientist Incognito, but I'm fairly certain Sonic the Hedgehog is a fictionary character and goblins are actually a breed of diminutive orcs from the Tolkien universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheists> technical discussion...
Deist> Lol, funny words!

'Nuff said

 

[USincognito]

Nice posts, unfortunately it seems Kenny'sID doesn't deal in evidence, only empty rhetoric.

Yeah, I could tell from the blustery shtick that there's no substance behind the facade.

I'll post some more tonight and see if any of those rouse his interest.

 

[USincognito]

Lungfish are the closest sarcopterygiian relative to modern tetrapods.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/fig_tab/nature12027_F1.html

Full article here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/full/nature12027.html

The resulting phylogeny, based on 100,583 concatenated amino acid positions (Fig. 1, posterior probability = 1.0 for the lungfish–tetrapod node) is maximally supported except for the relative positions of the armadillo and the elephant. It corroborates known vertebrate phylogenetic relationships and strongly supports the conclusion that tetrapods are more closely related to lungfish than to the coelacanth​

 

[USincognito]

Feathers evolved from scales.
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

As did hair.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/human-hair-bird-feathers-came-reptile-scales

 

[bhsmte]

Nice posts, unfortunately it seems Kenny'sID doesn't deal in evidence, only empty rhetoric.

To some, evidence is scary.

 

[USincognito]

I guess @Kenny'sID wasn't really interested in discussing evolution after all.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess @Kenny'sID wasn't really interested in discussing evolution after all.

He will give his opinion on evolution, but addressing the evidence, is another matter.

 

[USincognito]

Why is @Kenny'sID avoiding this thread?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why is @Kenny'sID avoiding this thread?

Have you PM'd him to remind him you set it up and that there is evidence here for him to debate?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why is @Kenny'sID avoiding this thread?

How can I avoid something that I had no idea was here?

Why is @Kenny'sID avoiding this thread?

How can I avoid something that I had no idea was here?

Why is @USincognito saying I'm doing something I'm not?

 

[Kenny'sID]

He will give his opinion on evolution, but addressing the evidence, is another matter.

I'll address it but I assure you it will be short/sweet/ disappointing and unacceptable to many, so don't really see the point.

let me say right off, and as I've said before, I've seen your evidence before and it does not make evolution believable to me. I have already told you why, and what my logic is, so first you tell me, what is the point of this?

If you want to pat yourselves on the back with a "see I told you so, I/we really do have evidence" then do that.
You are going to think that way regardless of what I think, but I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact. And honestly you just don't have much if anything in the way of proof...just very weak stuff you claim is proof. Wait, that's not right, science proves nothing so, you don't have that much if anything in the way of compelling evidence. The compelling evidence God did it, is much much more viable than your evidence or what you call evidence, and I already explained why for me....end of story.

In my view, for the most part anyway, it's all contrived out of the want to believe no creator exists, in order to let yourselves off the hook with God....that is the root of it all. And what is hilarious to me is all the so-called smart people that are running wild with this, and are 100% positive they have something. If you could step back and see this from the perspective some of us do you'd get it. But you won't allow yourselves to do that, because seeing it would make fools of yourselves. For that reason there is no stopping you now, you/others have obligated yourselves, and instead of admitting the truth that got you into this pickle, you will take it with you to your graves and beyond.

Why are you trying so hard to get me to think as you do? You certainly don't need my blessing for you to believe evolution, so what is the driving force here? God is not going away even if you did convince me.

 

[amariselle]

I'll address it but I assure you it will be short/sweet/ disappointing and unacceptable to many, so don't really see the point.

let me say right off, and as I've said before, I've seen your evidence before and it does not make evolution believable to me. I have already told you why, and what my logic is, so first you tell me, what is the point of this?

If you want to pat yourselves on the back with a "see I told you so, I/we really do have evidence" then do that.
You are going to think that way regardless of what I think, but I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact. And honestly you just don't have much if anything in the way of proof...just very weak stuff you claim is proof. Wait, that's not right, science proves nothing so, you don't have that much if anything in the way of compelling evidence. The compelling evidence God did it, is much much more viable than your evidence or what you call evidence, and I already explained why for me....end of story.

In my view, for the most part anyway, it's all contrived out of the want to believe no creator exists, in order to let yourselves off the hook with God....that is it's root of it all. And what is hilarious to me is all the so-called smart people that are running wild with this, and are 100% positive they have something. If you could step back and see this from the perspective some of us do you'd get it. But you won't allow yourselves to do that, because seeing it would make fools of yourselves. For that reason there is no stopping you now, you/others have obligated yourselves, and instead of admitting the truth that got you into this pickle, you will take it with you to your graves and beyond.

Why are you trying so hard to get me to think as you do? You certainly don't need my blessing for you to believe evolution, so what is the driving force here? God is not going away even if you did convince me.

Exactly. Also, I think many people fail to realize or admit that much of mainstream science is highly biased and even dishonest. (Some outright scams and forgeries have even been discovered over the years)

The bottom line is, there is more money than we care to know (or even can know) wrapped up in current scientific "research." Mainstream, evolutionary science has a very definitive agenda. They have decided on the model of Darwinian evolution, and they are running with it at all costs, no matter the conflicting evidence. Big name publications, television networks and companies, well known and highly accredited institutions and educational facilities etc., they've all bought into the Theory of Evolution. They, quite literally, cannot afford to admit to any real problems with it now, which is why they will do everything they can to cover up any issues and put a convincing spin on their "findings."

Backing them up is continued "research." But who exactly is receiving the research grants, and who continues to fund this ongoing research and experimentation? That's right, those who have already bought into the idea of Darwinian evolution. Any scientist who disagrees is considered a "fringe scientist", and they do not receive any sort of mainstream acknowledgement or funding. They are discredited and tossed aside the very second they even dare to mention the possibility that Darwinian evolutionary theory has some major flaws and shortcomings. Now, is that honest science? Hardly.

Frankly, I don't trust all of these organizations. They are wealthy beyond imagination, they are politically powerful and they have every reason to lie. They are a huge part of an ongoing narrative that has, at its centre, the goal of removing God from every single facet of life and existence. But they will not win.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are going to think that way regardless of what I think, but I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact.

That about says it all. The only way that creationism can survive is by ignoring the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

double post