After Pangaea's Break-up, Biology and Geology Agree on a Date

[Job 33:6]

im not sure. coelacanth and lungfish for instance are very similar. but they split off about 400my. when human and a bird suppose to be more closer from phylogenetic prespective then coelacanth to a lungfish.

An animal doesn't have to change a great deal over time. There is no law in nature that mandates such a thing.

Regardless, my words are what they are. Never for example, has a change in the fossil record been so great over a brief amount of time, that mutation rates could not account for it.

 

[Job 33:6]

An animal doesn't have to change a great deal over time. There is no law in nature that mandates such a thing. Also, animals can change back and forth, morphologically. For example, an animal may significantly increase in size for millions of years, and then may return to their original size over the next several million. It all depends on environmental stresses.

Regardless, my words are what they are. Never for example, has a change in the fossil record been so great over a brief amount of time, that mutation rates could not account for it.

 

[xianghua]

Never for example, has a change in the fossil record been so great over a brief amount of time, that mutation rates could not account for it.

im not sure. for instance: according to evolution fly and mosquito split off about 250 my ago. fly generation is about one month. so even if one generation means only 1 new mutation (and not about 100 like human) we will need only about 10^8 month to change his entire genome. or about less than 10^7 years. so fly and mosquito are suppose to be different in about their entire genomes (actually 75%). so fossil in this case doesnt fit well with the molecular clock.

 

[Job 33:6]

im not sure. for instance: according to evolution fly and mosquito split off about 250 my ago. fly generation is about one month. so even if one generation means only 1 new mutation (and not about 100 like human) we will need only about 10^8 month to change his entire genome. or about less than 10^7 years. so fly and mosquito are suppose to be different in about their entire genomes (actually 75%). so fossil in this case doesnt fit well with the molecular clock.

A mutation does not mandate morphological change, for multiple reasons. Most mutations do not directly cause morphological changes that you would see in the fossil record. Also, have you heard of "random walks"?

 

[xianghua]

A mutation does not mandate morphological change, for multiple reasons. Most mutations do not directly cause morphological changes that you would see in the fossil record. Also, have you heard of "random walks"?

im actually talking about genetic differences.

 

[Job 33:6]

im actually talking about genetic differences.

If we re read my comment

"Never for example, has a change in the fossil record been so great over a brief amount of time, that mutation rates could not account for it."

You responded to my comment, and now you aren't talking about morphological differences? Have you heard of "random walks"?

Even mutations are not directly equivalent to genetic change over time. You can have multiple mutations in one location of the genome, as well as back mutations.

 

[dad]

No, it's not the personals column, it's science:

They founded their investigation on the basis that “the molecular clock dates, for the divergences of species whose geographical ranges were divided, should agree with the palaeomagnetic dates for the continental separations,” reports the study. Looking at the phylogenetic divergence dates of 42 pairs of specifically chosen vertebrate taxa (chosen for their reduced ability to disperse), the team confirmed that the phylogenetic trees’ divergence dates of continent-bound terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates line up with the palaeomagnetic dates of continental separation.

"After excluding species that could easily move between continents, a new comparison of these two independent dating methods, applied to the breakup of Pangaea over the past 180 million years, finds good agreement between the two methods,” said Ms. McIntyre from the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics. “Geological dating provides important independent support for the relatively new field of using genetic trees to date biological divergences.”

Molecular clock dates are religious fiction.

 

[Colter]

And before Pangea there was Rodinia. The Jews created the creation story about themselves for consumption by the child like minds of Bronze Age sheepherders.

 

[dad]

View attachment 200012 And before Pangea there was Rodinia. The Jews created the creation story about themselves for consumption by the child like minds of Bronze Age sheepherders.

Jesus verified Moses was true..which makes Genesis true.

 

[Colter]

Jesus verified Moses was true..which makes Genesis true.

No he didn't verify that all of Genesis is true, it's obveously not all true. Jesus selected true quotes that fit his purpose and left the untrue or irrelevant.

 

[dad]

No he didn't verify that all of Genesis is true, it's obveously not all true.

Yes it is. Your opinion notwithstanding.

Jesus selected true quotes that fit his purpose and left the untrue or irrelevant.

Says you.

 

[lesliedellow]

The Pangaea does not exist, it's a hoax.

Tell me Mr Morse, is there anything on this planet which isn't a hoax? Maybe even you are a hoax, and you don't really exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Molecular clock dates are religious fiction.

dad, just because you do not understand something that does not make it fiction.


Perhaps you could try to learn a little bit.

 

[dad]

dad, just because you do not understand something that does not make it fiction.


Perhaps you could try to learn a little bit.

It is fiction. I know. Pretend all you like. Defend it if you like. Whatever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is fiction. I know. Pretend all you like. Defend it if you like. Whatever.

Your fear indicates that you are not taking yourself seriously. There is no need to "defend" it. We know that it is real.

The question is how long are you going to be afraid to learn?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

im not sure. for instance: according to evolution fly and mosquito split off about 250 my ago. fly generation is about one month. so even if one generation means only 1 new mutation (and not about 100 like human) we will need only about 10^8 month to change his entire genome. or about less than 10^7 years. so fly and mosquito are suppose to be different in about their entire genomes (actually 75%). so fossil in this case doesnt fit well with the molecular clock.

That would be the case if the genome was unrelated to an organism's survival and reproduction. Which is not the case. Changes to some parts of the genome are invariably lethal. These are known as 'highly conserved' sequences. Other areas are tolerant to a limited number of changes but only in some positions, e.g. a protein may have a limited number of functional variants corresponding to the sequence variations in the gene that codes for it, and so-on. Consequently, creatures that share the same kind of metabolism, cell structure & function, etc., will share common genetic sequences for those features. In any particular lineage, the similarities in genetic sequences between creatures in that lineage will tend reflect their shared phenotypic similarities (because genetic sequences determine the phenotype).

 

[xianghua]

That would be the case if the genome was unrelated to an organism's survival and reproduction. Which is not the case. Changes to some parts of the genome are invariably lethal. These are known as 'highly conserved' sequences. Other areas are tolerant to a limited number of changes but only in some positions, e.g. a protein may have a limited number of functional variants corresponding to the sequence variations in the gene that codes for it, and so-on. Consequently, creatures that share the same kind of metabolism, cell structure & function, etc., will share common genetic sequences for those features. In any particular lineage, the similarities in genetic sequences between creatures in that lineage will tend reflect their shared phenotypic similarities (because genetic sequences determine the phenotype).

i actually refer to neutral mutations. most of the mutations are need to be neutral. so my claim is still valid because its refer to most of the genome and not a small part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i actually refer to neutral mutations. most of the mutations are need to be neutral. so my claim is still valid because its refer to most of the genome and not a small part.

It does not matter. You do not seem to understand evolution at all. You seem to think that there was not enough time for flies and mosquitoes to evolve. I could tell from your answer that you forgot that populations evolve, not individuals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i actually refer to neutral mutations. most of the mutations are need to be neutral. so my claim is still valid because its refer to most of the genome and not a small part.

It shouldn't take you more than a moment to realize that a neutral mutation cannot be one that adversely influences survival and reproduction, therefore there are no neutral mutations in highly conserved areas, and only a limited number in other functional areas.

There are many different mechanisms for mutation, but whether a mutation is disadvantageous, neutral, or advantageous, depends only on its phenotypic effects.

The suggestion that the percentage of the genome that should have changed is simply related to the mutation rate and the elapsed time is false.

 

[xianghua]

It does not matter. You do not seem to understand evolution at all. You seem to think that there was not enough time for flies and mosquitoes to evolve. I could tell from your answer that you forgot that populations evolve, not individuals.

you are wrong because i dont even talked about the time for evolution of the fly.