johnydon22:



hehehehehe so now you believe the world aint 6000 years like the bible said but actually more than 400million like science suggested... hehehehe thats a huge plus to science and a huge step from u in finding answers.!!!

sinequanon:


heeeheeeheeee

next...

sinequanon:
[size=18pt]THE COELACANTH[/size]

Daubed "the living fossil" because of its relative lack of evolution over 400 million years, scientists are desperately now trying to back-pedal.

A creature with such lack of diversity and evolution over 400 million years deals a body blow to the Theory of Evolution.

(I await some halfwit to try to explain, with their infant school biology skills.)

https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nathist.museum/images/coelacanth.jpg

Weah96:


Depending on who you ask, extant coelacanths are different from their fossil ancestors morphologically and genetically.

[b]Latimeria was first labelled as a ‘living fossil’ because the fossil genera were known before the extant species was discovered, and erroneous biological interpretations have grown and reports still show little morphological and molecular evolution. A closer look at the available molecular and morphological data has allowed us to show that most of the available studies do not show low substitution rates in the Latimeria genome, and furthermore, as pointed out by Forey 3 long before us, the supposed morphological stability of coelacanths from the Devonian until the present is not based on real data. As a consequence, the idea that the coelacanth is a biological ‘living fossil’ is a long held but false belief which should not bias the interpretation of molecular data in extant Latimeria populations. The same reasoning could be generalised to other extant species (such as hagfish, lamprey, shark, lungfish and tatuara, to cite few examples of vertebrates) that for various reasons are often presented as ‘ancient’, ‘primitive’, or ‘ancestral’ even if a lot of recent data has shown that they have many derived traits."[/b]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201200145/full

sinequanon:
[size=18pt]THE COELACANTH[/size]

Daubed "the living fossil" because of its relative lack of evolution over 400 million years, scientists are desperately now trying to back-pedal.

A creature with such lack of diversity and evolution over 400 million years deals a body blow to the Theory of Evolution.

(I await some halfwit to try to explain, with their infant school biology skills.)

https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nathist.museum/images/coelacanth.jpg

sinequanon:


Critical thinking is applicable in many fields. For example, when longstride reads the following, trips and falls into the coelacanth net, that is not critical thinking..



They do not live in an environment that suggests unusual pressure to improve molecular mechanisms, such as DNA replication and repair, resulting in a very low mutation rate.

Critical thinking helps you to read through BS. They are saying that 'nothing unusual' is the reason for an unusually low mutation rate. They have slipped in a couple of negatives and fooled you.
This is a fallacy. The whole point is that the mutations are random. Their explanation does not say why beneficial mutations should be any less for coelacanths
It is a link from your own article.



I have my line of work. You can join Dapo, who prefers to spend his 'productive' life asking rhetorical questions for "effect", stashing his hard drive with cartoons and remaining duped.

and your 'line of work', obviously, is looking for articles on evolution loopholes and attacking atheists with them using "critical thinking" ... You deserve a Nobel prize

sinequanon:


It is the same article I mentioned earlier. If you read it critically, you can see it is a heap of rubbish. I have already pointed out some errors.

On the one hand they acknowledge slow morphological and molecular evolution. On the other hand, they use obfuscating language to deny it, conflating it with substitution rates and using the fallacious argument that absence of environmental pressures significantly reduces mutation rates. It doesn't. Mutation rates are random, and the main effect of environmental pressures in ToE is to cull the mutations, allowing only the 'fittest' to survive. Fewer pressures only means that a more diverse population survives, which is the opposite of what is observed in coelacanth populations.

Weah96:
Here's a bigger picture showing the phylogeny of Actinistia, in terms of body outlines and approximate lengths. It looks like the morphology changed to me. The modern one at the bottom looks significantly different from the fossil ones.

sinequanon:


Sketches are not very scientific.

What is important is the evolution of the coelacanth relative to other species, and explaining why it is so significantly slower.

Weah96:


They acknowledge that some genes evolve more slowly than others. However, the most significant finding is that coelacanth genome sequences in phylogenetic analyses are NOT placed on short branches. This implies that there were [size=16pt]numerous[/size] genome modifications between the fossil coelacanth and the extant ones.

Weah96:
Analyses of three nuclear genes (protocadherin clusters 18, vitellogenin genes 19, and nuclear-encoded recombination activating genes 19, 20) and two of the whole mitochondrial genome 21, 22 are often quoted in support of the hypothesis of slow evolution. However, a closer look at the data challenges this interpretation: depending on the analysed sequence, the coelacanth branch is not systematically shorter than the branches leading to other species.

In addition, most phylogenetic analyses – including analysis of Hox sequences 23–26 – do not support the hypothesis that the Latimeria genome is slow evolving, i.e. they do not place coelacanth sequences on short branches nor do they detect low substitution rates 24, 27–31. The clearest example, which involves the largest number of genes, is a phylogeny based study of forty-four nuclear genes that does not show a dramatic decrease, if any, in the rate of molecular evolution in the coelacanth lineage.

Weah96:
Secondly, the article doesn't suggest mutation rates are low because of the absence of environmental pressures. That argument comes from the people who assume that the extant coelacanth is a living fossil. This is what the authors said, from the abstract.

(i) low intra-specific molecular diversity does not imply low mutation rate,

Nothing was said about the rate of mutation in coelacanths. They're talking about the fact that there is a low amount of allelic differentiation among populations of coelacanths. It could be caused by a low mutation rate, the lack of genetic drift, or other factors like population size.

Interestingly, although the two available analyses of L. chalumnae natural population genetics both detected low allelic diversity and low levels of geographic differentiation, they came to different conclusions. The first study 11 concluded that the low allelic diversity is the result of a small population size and the absence of strong geographic isolation, as has been concluded for similar findings in other species 14. In contrast, the more recent study, Lampert et al. 7, rejected these straightforward hypotheses. On the assumption that coelacanths are ‘living fossils’, the authors concluded that their data ‘confirm the assumed slow rate of molecular evolution in coelacanths’.

Before we go any further I would first like us to agree or disagree on WHAT was discovered. It would help to eliminate the circles, if you know what I mean. I found one, feel free to add yours.

1.
Extant coelacanths show a low allelic differentiation among existing populations.

sinequanon:


It doesn't imply that at all!

We also have to be more precise about "numerous". This has to be measured against other species. 10,000 can be few if 1000, 000 is typical.




This is equivocation. If you are looking at systematic bias, you consider everything, NOT your preferred selection depending on your choice of analyzed sequence.



So what? They keep talking in negatives. They have to address the analysis for which the data was prepared, or generate their own data for their particular analysis.



You are contradicting yourself.




Their argument is weak. They use small population to argue for low diversity. Then they talk about some amalgamated large population to explain low differentiation. They have to be consistent.



Fair enough.

Weah96:


You said that a short branch on a phylogenetic tree comparing genes does NOT imply that there were few modifications. What does it then mean? You can't just refute something with an empty declarative statement. Distance matrices are commonly used tools in molecular genetics. What does the length of the branch indicate, since, according to you, it doesn't indicate modifications.

Weah96:
I didn't see where the authors used a large population to argue in favor low differentiation. A simple copy paste would be nice.

The low genetic differentiation found in Latimera could thus be the result of the absence of geographic barriers, and the absence of small pelagic larvae could explain the low impact of ocean currents on population isolation.

Weah96:
Speaking of systematic bias, you're the one relying on the analysis of a few HOX clusters, not even all, to define what you THINK is going on. Your position is not based on whole genome analysis, but only a few genes.

sinequanon:


You have to explain why "genome sequences in phylogenetic analyses NOT placed on short branches implies that there were numerous genome modifications between the fossil coelacanth and the extant ones." "What else does it mean?" is not a explanation or basis for a proof!

And sling around the term "distance matrices", while "impressive", does not impress me or explain anything. I suspect it isn't even their argument.





Maybe you can explain this. It seems that they are arguing that interbreeding between different populations explains low genetic variation!



Clearly, it is not practical to do an entire genome analysis!

You clearly are supposed to use as much data as possible to determine a systematic pattern. Your paper is arguing that it can pick a subset that would "systematically" point to a different result! What nonsense.

Weah96:


I told you what it means. You denied that it meant what I said. This is not a molecular biology class. I'm expecting you to provide information why you think that I was wrong, otherwise you shut the fck up and enroll in a molecular biology class. Don't tell someone they're wrong if you know absolutely nothing about the subject outside of what you can glean from creationist articles.

How st.upid can someone get. I tell you that Pichichi implies the highest goal scorer in Spain. You waltz in and say that's not what it means and then shut the fck up without saying anything else. Go fck yourself, you arrogant jerk. Don't waste my time trying to act like you know ANYTHING about the topics you lift from your creationist websites.

sinequanon:


lol, go and clean yourself up and calm down. You are clearly out of your depth.

Weah96:


I told you what it means. You denied that it meant what I said. This is not a molecular biology class. I'm expecting you to provide information why you think that I was wrong, otherwise you shut the fck up and enroll in a molecular biology class. Don't tell someone they're wrong if you know absolutely nothing about the subject outside of what you can glean from creationist articles.

How st.upid can someone get. I tell you that Pichichi implies the highest goal scorer in Spain. You waltz in and say that's not what it means and then shut the fck up without saying anything else. Go fck yourself, you arrogant jerk. Don't waste my time trying to act like you know ANYTHING about the topics you lift from your creationist websites.

joseph1013:

I've not seen a more arrogant stu.pid jerk. He never listens. Looks for holes that science does not mind having. Infact science thrives with such to make massive progress.

So, now that you've convinced yourself that evolution is wrong, is there an alternative? When would you like to do your 'spirits' initiation for us?

This guy is worse than a religionist.