Real Science Friday: Old Birds and Fish Fins
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Buckland-Nicks seems to be a rather conventional evolutionist. Nothing at all about ID in any of his papers I can find.
When IDers try to present papers written by non-IDers as examples of ID work, you know they aren't getting anywhere on their own.
When IDers try to present papers written by non-IDers as examples of ID work, you know they aren't getting anywhere on their own.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Apparently? I still say you're connecting the dots on two different pictures. Give me some evidence that you're not.
So? If they're not related, this means nothing. Show me some evidence that they're related.
That's called an "inference from evidence." It's how you're able to type on the thing in front of you and send electrons around the world.
Science is the way it's done. It might seem a bit odd to you, but as you see, it works very well.
Barbarian observes:
Reduction in size, for one thing. It's smaller than it is in earlier fish.
But the evidence shows they are.
Show me some evidence that they're related.
A quick look...
Contrary to previous studies, we find convincing evidence that teleosts contain orthologues of four relaxin family peptides. Overall our analyses suggest that in teleosts: 1) rln3 exhibits a similar evolution and expression pattern to mammalian RLN3, 2) insl3 has been subject to positive selection like its mammalian counterpart and shows similar tissue-specific expression in Leydig cells, 3) insl5 genes are highly represented and have a relatively high rate of sequence evolution in teleost genomes, but they exhibited only low levels of expression in adult zebrafish, 4) rln is evolving under very different selective constraints from mammalian RLN. The results presented here should facilitate the development of hypothesis-driven experimental work on the specific roles of relaxin family genes in teleosts.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/293
And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. Even to determine paternity, sometimes.
One Eyed Jack
New member
How do you know these earlier fish are in any way related to salmon?
This entire study assumes evolution to begin with. Try again.
Last edited:
No, just that the work is good, technically proficient and based on basic science, not based on the Bible, Koran or other theological source.
Overturn evolution, man, you will be the most famous person on earth.
Cricket
New member
But you've just finished saying falsification of predictions has not weakened the theory.
Why are you urging me to do work already being done that does not mean anything to you?
tt
I didn't know you cared I'm touched.
Trust me, I would be fascinated should evolution be overthrown by some other explanation of the evidence.
And can you refer me to the work being done which might provide that other explanation. Names of investigators and a reference to any important papers in the literature. Thanks.
Cricket
New member
Nope. It tests the hypothesis that these fish are related to each other. Since we know that genetic match measures degree of relationship (we can test that on organisms of known descent), the results validate the hypothesis.
"That assumes evolution is true" is just a mantra creationists use to ward off evidence.
What matters is his conclusion, which addresses the evolution of teleosts.
Sorry, no time to go back through this entire thread. Please point me in the direction, what paper are you referring to.
Frayed Knot
New member
Wait - what prediction was falsified?
Cricket
New member
Ha ha. The show summarised the paper we've looked at by saying evolutionary theory predicts there to be vestigial parts with no function. So the fins were cut off fish, but it seems every time no function is predicted, function is found.
tt
Frayed Knot
New member
I guess I'm not familiar with that part of the Theory of Evolution, which says that a small vestigial fish fin will have no function at all. Can you cite where you got that from?
Cricket
New member
There are such. But from the start, the theory acknowledged vestigial organs with new functions. Darwin discussed them in The Origin of Species.
Thanks, did not see this cite before. I will track down the whole paper when I have a chance, in the meantime I read the abstract. And you think this is a hole in evolutionary theory? I think you are wrong. I think it says the following:
1. that little adipose tissue fin is just left over.
2. further review suggests it is neither adipose nor really left over.
3. it may be vestigial but it appears it remains for a reason
4. it shows that evolution conserves structures that might seem useless and therefore a waste of energy but further examination suggests that the energy to keep the structure is not wasted.
Sorry, that is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict.
Cricket
New member
It is not what was predicted. It was cut off in the false belief that it had no function.
tt