'Fossil eel' squirms into the record books
An handout picture release by the Natural History Museum & Institute of Chiba shows a new species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave which is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam some 200 million years ago, biologists reported.
A new species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam some 200 million years ago, biologists reported on Wednesday.
The strange find was made last year in a 35-metre- (113-feet) deep fringing-reef cave off an island in the Western Pacific state of Palau, they said in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The small brown fish has very few of the anatomical characteristics of modern eels, a vast range whose 819 species are grouped into 19 families.
In contrast, it has many hallmarks of primitive eels which lived in the early Mesozoic era, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.
The similarities include a disproportionately large head, a short compressed body, collar-like openings on the gills, rays on the caudal fin and a jawbone tip called a premaxilla.
Graphic on a newly discovered species of eel found in an undersea cave in the Pacifc
The find is so exceptional that the eel not only has been honoured as a separate species, Protoanguilla palau. It also occupies the only niche in a freshly-created taxonomic family, Protoanguillidae.The name comes from the Greek word "protos," meaning first, and the Latin word for eel, anguilla.
The discovery was made in March last year by a team led by Masaki Miya of the Natural History Museum and Institute in Chiba, Japan.
Using hand nets and lamps, they collected eight specimens, about six to nine centimetres (three to four inches) long, and carried out DNA tests to assess the fish's place in the eel genetic history.
So far, P. palau has only been found in this one location, but it may well have a far wider distribution, according to the study.
The term "living fossil" was coined by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species.
It is used to describe species that have survived for millions of years, exploiting niches that are so stable that there is little pressure on them to evolve.
(c) 2011 AFP
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
What would stain as translucent on light-coloured fabric?
19 hours ago
-
How do I identify different bacteria on culture plates?
May 26, 2012
-
Why Do Dogs do Strange things...
May 25, 2012
-
What does exophillic and endophillic mean in terms of mosquito and their control?
May 24, 2012
-
Semen stains glows under black lights (uv light)?
May 23, 2012
-
Question on Human Chromosome 2
May 23, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Manufacturing genes to attack flu virus
An international research team has manufactured a new protein that can combat deadly flu epidemics.
4 minutes ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
18 hours ago |
3.3 / 5 (18) |
63
More plant species responding to global warming than previously thought
(Phys.org) -- Far more wild plant species may be responding to global warming than previous large-scale estimates have suggested.
May 22, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (14) |
18
|
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
May 26, 2012 |
4.8 / 5 (4) |
7
For monogamous sparrows, it doesn't pay to stray (but they do it anyway)
It's quite common for a female song sparrow to stray from her breeding partner and mate with the male next door, but a new study shows that sleeping around can be costly.
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
7
|
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
Same gene that stunts infants' growth also makes them grow too big: research
UCLA geneticists have identified the mutation responsible for IMAGe* syndrome, a rare disorder that stunts infants' growth. The twist? The mutation occurs on the same gene that causes Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, which makes ...
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (19)
Evolution is even more slippery than this eel. It fits all descriptions of anything that can happen under the sun.
So here we have a case of evolutionary stasis. A most beautiful, first-class oxymoron if ever there was one. There's actually hundreds of thousands of them. The reason they're not so well-known is that the people who discovered the species have given them totally different names to the modern versions - to the extend that one would not go looking or finding those "primitives" because there's very little if any association with the modern name for the same thing.
There hasn't been any evolution of this creature because there cannot be any evolution e.g. from this eel into a walrus for instance. When external pressures become too much to bear, any attempt to change identity simply results in death, not evolution.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (17)
How can one thing exist for eons with no evolution, while everything else allegedly changed so much?
BS.
The whole earth has allegedly gone from ice age to interglacial and back dozens of times in the alleged lifespan of this species.
Neither the ecosystem nor the niche could be stable over such insane changes, and anyone with any intelligence whatsoever would know this.
Right, it's just allegedly been around for 65 to 200 million years, and while 90-99.9% of all other life allegedly went extent (several times) during these eons, it's entire "niche" and ecosystem never changed.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (17)
I mean damn, just look at that BS.
If the environment changed, then the niche changed.
How could the niche not change when 99.9% of all species that have ever lived in that alleged time spand have supposedly gone extinct?
the whole concept of a "niche" is precisely defined by how the species interacts with the environment, ESPECIALLY OTHER LIFE FORMS.
That statement is therefore representative of a complete self-contradiction in evolutionary theory.
You can't claim that the whole planet changed, and 99.9% of life on it went extinct in one part of your theory, and then claim in another part of the theory that whole niches were unaffected and survive unchanged or nearly unchanged for eons (see also coelecanth).
Lies.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (12)
They were found in deep underwater caves. I would say that those niches could remain stable if there is an ice age...on land...or if a comet hit, or a virus were to spread...on land.
That said, these scientists aren't claiming that zero evolution has happened, just not a large amount. I'm sure if you were to take the DNA of the ancestors of these eels and compared it to their modern day decedents, you would find quite a large amount of variation.
Techno1, at the end of the day, how do you know what is true? Are you a man of immutable faith or one that draws conclusions based on past evidence and revises said conclusions when new evidence arrives?
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (11)
It's not a question of 'wanting to believe' in evolution, that's the domain of religion, it is just a fact, that any rational person with enough knowledge has to accept. That's just the way the world works. The only reason to doubt is through a lack of understanding which anyone with web access can easily remedy.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (8)
Well that's not different than what most creationist claim. It's the "large amount" that gets criticized.
If you wish to test the theory fully. Take this "living fossil" drop it into a modern eel environment, and see not only if it can survive, but survive long enough to produce offspring that evolve to similar modern eel species.
But a creationist doesn't argue that even. A creationist argues that sure, an evolution for the eel is fine, but please call me when it gives birth to an eel with legs capable of walking on land. That degree of variation has never been proven. It's just guess work because of similarities, not direct observation.
Evolution occurs at reproduction. And species only have a few generations at most to adapt to a new environment. They are only going to adapt to the GIVEN environment, not one they aren't subjected to. (i.e. land)
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
What about a lungfish? Are you about to tell me that "flying fish" became birds? Are you going to ignore many other fish like the betta that breathe air too, or like the walking catfish that can wiggle across land?
Lungfish enter the fossil record, diverse, and well formed already. Which came first, lung or gill? There is a vast difference between a tetrapod and the gravity/balance/weight it has to handle verses a fish fin that can help wiggle a fish over muddy land.
So back to my point. A fish (like any other animal), will find it's best environment. So when the environment changes, where will it go? It will recede with the water. It is far easier to remain a fish than to guess at how to have tetrapod like legs, or to live without remaining moist (like even mudskippers and lungfish
Further, it can't even consider it. Lungfish, moving across land, aren't reproducing then. It's like your trying to assign DNA, ESP.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Creationism is simply in denial of reality. Lung fish are not closely related to the ancestors of land vertebrates. Those were most closely related to the modern coelocanth.
Are you going to claim anyone actually said that?
The gill did. Lungs do not appear to have evolved from gills.
It can move, adapt or go extinct. All of those can be seen in the fossil record. The ancestors of fish started in fresh water. They had to adapt to do so.
Mutations happen. Selection happens. Evolution must therefor occur. There is no magic stopping major change over time. There is nothing stopping new species from evolving.
Nor is there any evidence that world is young or that the Great Flood occurred ever much less wiping out the Egyptians.
Ethelred
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
For God's sake, go outside and look at real environments.
Outside is an evergreen forest. Three of the pines along the edge of this field here are DEAD. They are eaten alive by bugs. All the trees come from the same seed stock. Right in the middle of them is the tallest, healthiest look tree in the entire line of sight.
Evolution and "adaptation" has nothing to do with that.
Random chance killed some, for no reason whatsoever, and left an equally "adapted" specimen standing right in the middle of it, for no good reason.
Genetics had nothing to do with it. Had the insect landed on that tree first, it'd be just as dead. Had the lightning hit the one and not the other, it'd be just as dead.
Had the shark randomly attacked the bait fish to the left, instead of the one to the right, it too would be just as dead.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
So ... tell me again about babies and storks, OK?
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (8)
Has everything to do with it. You have just described the selection process.
No. It was resistant to the bugs.It will reproduce.
Sure it did. The right mutation of those genes and a tree becomes unpalatable for the bugs.
Random chance is part of the evolutionary process. It has the most effect with small populations and very little with large populations.
Had you actual evidence for the Flood you would post it. Sharks however don't normally attack randomly so why did you make up something unrealistic. Because nothing realistic supports you.>>
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Megatons of fossils and large numbers of lab experiments and field observations are not going to away because you posted some stuff you didn't even understand. If you want to show that the world is young and there was a Great Flood then you have to produce evidence. Which seems to be very difficult as I have yet to someone actually produce any. In ten years of discussing this online I have never seen any credible evidence that supports the Creationist Genesis based view of the world. I have seen many posts that were even sillier than yours. Many by Kevin.
Ethelred
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
ethelred is dead on...your own children are a combination of their parents plus mutation...this is a well established fact...
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (5)
Kevin, why don't you learn something about evolution for a change, instead of spouting stuff that just makes you look stupid? I know this may be difficult, given that you have an emotional block against the very idea of it, but if you could work on that, it would pay dividends, and you wouldn't be such a laughing stock.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Survival of both bugs and trees would depend on evolved genetic characteristics of both species. It could depend on gestation period/spawn produced for the bugs, for example, and on the reproductive abilities of the trees (how many seeds are released, how far the seeds travel, how many take root, how fast they grow, etc. Other factors would also apply (deliciousness of the trees for example).
Once a balance is reached, the species appear to stop evolving because there's no selection pressure any more and both species survive and reproduce well enough 'as is'. It doesn't mean no members of either species will ever die simply because they've reached an equilibrium within that ecosystem.
Introduction of a new species of bug would put selection pressures on both the trees and the existing bugs which would have to evolve to cope or face extinction since the equilibrium has been disrupted.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Well aware.
But by what mechanism, can a coelocanth (or it's ancestor), consider land? How does it's DNA consider reproducing more like a tetrapod, when it is far easier to be a better fish, especially since that is it's environment. The modern coelocanth is largely unchanged from it's 300 million year old fossils, just like this eel.
Claiming extrapolation based on similarities is a fairy tale. We may both own the same exact pair of Nike's, bought from the same athletic store. But mine may be made in Vietnam, and yours in China. Similarity, does not prove, origin or even succession (ancestry).
Agreed.
Disagree. Dead bones show death. They do not show movement, or adaptation, nor can they prove extinction.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
If there is no limit on it's scope, then why are millions of years even necessary?
If evolution is just the variation in reproduction, why assume it must be gradual?
You can't have the cake and eat it to here. Either evolution is unlimited, or it has limits. And if it has limits on the amount of change then you can't assume a fish can become a tetrapod without direct observation.
Who claims it wiped out the Egyptians? Egypt developed afterwards by just about any creationist standard.
Most fossils are found in SEDIMENTARY layers (never below for sure). A global flood, is a great mechanism for delivering sediment, globally, burying species and making fossils out of them.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
If you drop this eel from the article, back into the open water, it's going to go seek out an undersea cave. It's going to find the environment that it's already well suited to.
But fine, assume it's forced to remain in open water and even able to reproduce. By what mechanism can or does DNA even recognize it's not able to be a cave dwelling eel anymore?? That it must adapt to open water. And in so doing, why would it ever become anything other than just an open water eel??
Mutation and Selection does not consider what characteristics the parent sees or acquires (like muscles). You cant direct what your kids will look like or how athletic they'll be just by watching the NFL.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Absolutely. Evolution tends to occur when they seek, yet can't find, yet also manage somehow to survive in the less-than-ideal circumstances, for enough generations that beneficial genomic changes improve their adaptation to the new environment.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Creationists don't argue adaptation. They argue that such gradual changes have never been proven to lead to anything on the scale of some fish (or it's ancestor), becoming a tetrapod. Why? Because dry land is NEVER a fish's environment and especially not it's reproductive environment. An eel, and the eel's DNA, will want it to be the best eel in it's given water environment. Not the best tetrapod for another env.
It is a fair criticism of gradualism, whether by some creationist or anyone else. And if you actually read evolutionists over the last 20-30 years, you can see the slow death of gradualism. The move is back toward Catastrophism (well as long as the Flood is still excluded).
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Not the creation stuff - thats obvious silliness. But the promise of immortality and the absolution of guilt are so COMPELLING, that believers will gladly surrender their reason, and their dignity, for it.
Dogs will do backflips for free food. You will believe fairy tales and slaughter heretics for your daily bread.
"35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." john6
Arf arf
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
"Grunions, native only to the shores of Southern California, are the only known fish to lay its eggs on land. Between March and August, they come onshore in ..."
In... little scuba outfits??
Maybe you just dont know near enough about animals or evolution to form a proper opinion?
-But then the bible tells you you dont have to, doesnt it? It gives you your opinions all precooked and prepackaged by chefs from 2000 yrs ago. Who didnt think anyone would ever know the difference.
Aug 19, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (4)
Somehow I was never at a major run. It varies from beach to beach and month to month as where the largest number storm the beaches. They need more planning and it would help if they could hire Robert Mitchum to kick them in the ass if they ever want to get off the beach.
Ethelred
Aug 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Once you accept that a small group within one species can become another, it is only a small step to accepting that, over much longer periods, large differences can evolve.
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
That is not entirely true. While it is true that many inevitably do die, others do change to meet the demands imposed upon them by changes in their ecosystems. Many varieties of species can result from a single bird due to changes in diet and expansion/competition and so forth.
So-called "Darwin's Finches" are an excellent example of that kind of microevolution. Another example is the horse. Originally, it was a rodent-like creature a lot like a squirrel. Over time and many thousands of years it evolved into several varieties, most of which are now extinct. Some had five toes, some had four, some had three, and others only had one fused toe.
There is no such thing as macroevolution, just microevolution spread out over very long periods of time.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
We know politicians distort the facts to support their view point. Scientists try and interpret the facts and develop points of view that match.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Which fish? No fish, has tetrapod legs. Species like mudskippers use their modified fins as support, but not for actual walking or running. The physics are entirely different.
The only known fish that lays eggs on "land" is the grunion which buries them during high tide...which is frankly, still in the groundwater, as they remain moist as the tide recedes.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
As small steps sure, but to say they can add up to substantial large changes, that is misleading. The jump from a cane used for support and to actual mechanical motion meant to run and walk on is tremendous. Millions of genes have to evolve and it has to get it right and it has to get it right over multiple offspring within a few generations. How does DNA understand the physics involved? How does it reckon with an environment it is not yet exposed to?
If the change in the environment is really slow (like over millions of years), it is very easy to move to the consistent environment it is already adapted to. This is all the eel above has done.
Gradualism fails. It provides no incentive to change.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Ignoring your personal attack, let's go over what rational thought is. If a white dog bites a mailman, and you say "all white dogs hate mailmen", then you've produced an irrational thought. If instead you say, "that white dog hates that mailman", then you've begun with a rational thought.
From the proper thought, you can deduce logically. So in the case of evolution, we've only ever witnessed small changes, and the ones we have directly observed, have been quite rare. So rationally, we can agree on small changes. But to state that small changes over time would add up, is irrational, as it has not been directly observed, just assumed.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
Implying that scientists are immune to distortion of the facts or bias is irrational, and poor logical deduction.
Both scientists and politicians are men. Men are biased. Scientists and politicians are subject to the same temptations toward bias. The incentives may be different, but no one is immune.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Wrong. Cancer is common, strange birth defects are 'rare' but still pretty common. This is just in humans.
A small change genetically can lead to a very large change functionally.
Also, "that white dog hates that mailman", is not a rational thought, it's an anthropomorphized observation.
You seem to have some trouble understanding speciation and evolution. Look at dog breeds. They all are descended from the wild wolf. Through evolution (albeit guided by human selective pressure versus nature selective pressure..but the same mechanisms are at work) we have both dobermans and chihuahuas. Try breeding a male doberman to a chihuahua. It won't work! If all the breeds of dog between doberman and chihuahua were to go extinct, then you would have two separate species.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Give the chihuahua a fence to climb and stand on and it will try! I saw it happen right outside my kitchen window once. I don't know whether there were puppies later but it was funny as hell seeing a Chihuahua on a fence 'going-to-town' on a Great Dane that was backed up to the fence. It may not have worked but that Chihuahua sure gave it a shot.
In other news, as to the fact that some species don't change because they lack the stresses involved in change, and why don't all of them move when the stressors occur, Darwin said exactly what is being observed in such living fossils as this one. Fact is, they either died out in mass numbers with the changes in environment or genetic modifications that allowed survival enabled and caused the changes that we see. That is what drives speciation and we can see it in many life forms. The major difference between ape and human skulls' shapes is a single genetic mutation. Mutations always happen.
Aug 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
They do add up but there is a lot of death in-between. We are exceedingly lucky even to have fossils at all. But something of interest recently occurred. I do not know if the monkey of which I speak is still alive in that Israeli zoo, but she got very ill, and when she awoke from her viral illness she began walking almost exclusively upright.
Should she survive and bear young, the question remains as to what they will do seeing their mother walk upright. Over time, all that walking upright will result in skeletal changes in herself and descendents, a little at a time.
We got the awesome opportunity to see live evolution in motion. Well, those who were watching did, anyway. :)
http://www.youtub...SjngmnO8
And, no, this is not a hoax.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
So you are using a destructive disease as the example? Defects?
We are talking about evolution which benefits, not destroys.
Further a genetic or immune system response does not require morphological change.
Name species that have been witnessed in nature to have produced a brand new species, under direct observation. In other words, contemporary species.
Excuse me, "that white dog bites that mailman". How the dog feels toward the mailman would also just be inferred so you are correct.
I have no trouble with speciation or evolution. I have a problem with the unproven extrapolation.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Acquired traits are not transferable by definition of standard evolutionary theory. In other words, you building muscles by working out, does not give your child said muscles when you produce offspring.
You could put an ape in a back brace and force it upright all day, and it would still produce the same ole apes. Teaching an ape sign language is not even transferable by the ape to it's young.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Are you saying because one is taller? If the female is the doberman, it is quite possible. A female chihuahua would have possible physical constraints.
There isn't an impossibility because of egg/sperm though.
Usually the ability to crossbreed is an indication of close proximity of species. Mules/Tigons/Ligers can be produced even by slightly distinct species, but those cross breeds can't reproduce. A doberman and chihuahua are far closer than a tiger/lion combo or a horse/donkey. Better example is a dog mating with a wolf. You get a wolf dog, but the wolf dog doesn't reproduce.
For some reason yet unknown, the crossbreeding of such kills or turns off the ability to reproduce.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
We didn't come from apes, but from a common ancestor with apes, as the evolutionary theory goes.
Our cranium is vastly different than apes. It takes far more than one mutation.
Even if you assume that one mutation, way back when, causes others to occur later, you have no direct observation or mechanism for the process. You are just assuming because it is similar that it must share an ancestor.
Sonar in dolphins and bats by evolutionary standards has arisen by different path ways and genes. No one assumes they share a common ancestor despite the similarity in Sonar.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Generally, it seems to be the case. But, if the learned trait gives a survival advantage in the wild, those that are born to better use the learned trait will pass the trait physically. Again, see Darwin's finches as an example.
Not necessarily. See Gardner & Gardner 1989:25. An ape that learned only 8 to 10 signs began spontaneously using them in varying combinations. Later, one ape that learned sign language taught several other apes how to sign the same way. All continued to use sign language and teach it to other apes thereafter without human interference.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
That is where genetics comes in. We no longer just need to assume anything. The DNA can be overlaid and the loci of the mutations easily can be shown.
It is the same technique as that used in population genetics. You can overlay the DNA of descendents to determine a common ancestor. It works similarly in phylogenetic analysis. And, yes, one mutation resulted in weaker head muscles, altering shape.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
The issue isn't that they can communicate. The issue is language itself. Which requires vocabulary and grammar.
There are plenty of counter arguments to Gardner's work, and especially whether or not they just copy to satisfy a demand. Read Terrance, Aitchison, Chomsky.
A "But" is just a hopeful fairy tale at this point. Plus, it was never a "learned" trait then. It was already ingrained in the DNA. It didn't require a mutation.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Genetics is far more than DNA though. The receptors, encoders, decoders, RNA, etc etc etc means that even if chimps and humans are only off 2%, that's still millions and billions of differences in the code.
But that's not exactly what they do. To determine maternity, you look for the mitochondrial DNA which is unshuffled (no variation) and for paternity, you focus on the Y chromosome.
That works pretty good because the DNA between recent generations is very close for a given species.
You couldn't determine which apelike was your ancestor, without major extrapolation and assumption.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Simply because a gene provides the enablement of other genes, that gives a larger cranial space and smaller jaw, doesn't mean that it's an evolution, anymore than substituting Na in for K in a reaction with H20 will be.
It's biological laws, with a consistent biological structure.
If you and I bought the same pair of Nike's color, size, and all, it's because it is by the same manufacturing rules, not necessarily by the same factory (origin) or descent.
So animals, because they are built on DNA, will naturally have similarities. But accuracy of ancestorship can only go as far as we can directly observe. This is why most creationists have no trouble with adaptation and localization of variation in the genetic code. But there is no scientific proof for extrapolation of that over millions of years, except by wishful thinking from others.
Aug 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Larger cranial space and smaller jaw is exactly evolution. It is the evolving or changing into one form from another form.
Yes, you are right that it became engrained into the DNA. But, it did so due to change in the structure of the DNA. That exactly is evolution. With accumulation of changes in the DNA comes morphological changes. It is a biological law.
We would not be able to trace it back directly without a number of examples. So far as we know, the common ancestor between man and ape died out long ago. Get a good sample of aDNA, though, and you have something to work with, especially if the markers line up and fill the gap between man and ape.
I suggest continued education. :)
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Autsomal is still PERCENTAGE BASED and attempted to line with geography!!!! It's similarity, not necessarily descent. Which it is why it has been criticized in published articles among other reasons.
Autosomal is just the non-sex chromosomes. You are only widening the margin of error.
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
They state it quite well. It's a shallower method, because it only is reasonable for relatively RECENT ancestors.
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Ethelred
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
JUST? In humans that is 47 out of 48. As opposed to just using sex chromosomes which is ONE out of 48 or mtDNA which is about 30 genes total. How the hell is that even remotely widening the error?
Ethelred
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Shaq is over twice my size. His morphology, does not necessarily make him a new species. His larger form, because of genetics and lack of inhibitors to his growth, do not make him a new species. His accumulation of change in size is still within the given human structure of DNA.
Identical twins have the same genotype. The same DNA. They are not decedent, one from the other.
The tree of life and phylogenics has been getting hammered since the 90s. It's becoming a web of life as the understanding and complexity of DNA, rRNA, etc grows. It is not a measure of descent, but of similar material or building blocks.
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
And, what's your point? Multiple ancestors would be beneficial and possible even under evolutionary consideration. Why? Well how else would aliens be possible?
Aug 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Doesn't take away the point. You can find several papers on the criticisms against autosomal testing for long term geneology.
Read Jennifer Hughes work (2010) on the Y chromosome between chimps and humans. There is a >30% difference compared to each other. The differences accounted for is on the scale of the differences between autosomal in chicken and humans.
Similarity does not = decent. Once you get outside of the initial ancestory, the amount of divergence is staggeringly large. Too large!! DNA evolves to make us better humans, or better chimps. It can not attempt to make us into something it can't consider, anymore than 2 2 = 5
Sep 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Layers of DNA data can be overlaid together to show relation. If the mutation rate were higher than is observed, however, that would be another story. But that is not what is observed.
Entire sections of DNA get swapped, deleted, and reduplicated, with genes mutated by substitutions and other sorts of phenomena that occur slowly and naturally. Over time this adds up and can be tracked with enough time, effort and money.
Again, I suggest continued education. :)