"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead one wrote: »

The evolutionists are now at that stage where you were years before.

I'm willing to bet that the ones posting here know quite a bit more about evolution than J C ever did.
I'm not surprised he doesn't believe in evolution when you consider the crap he mistakes for evolution.

Sarky wrote: »

He's not very good at quoting people, is he? It really does look as if he's trying to make it hard for people to pick out his specific bullsh*t by inserting into the posts he quoted off reasonable people.

Still, regarding the PPI network I posted up, I knew he'd say it was too complex to have come about randomly. He's predictable like that.

It's a shame then that every single protein-protein interaction network follows some pretty simple rules. They're called Scale-free networks, and they comprise most biological systems from genes to proteins to webs of social and sexual interaction. Not to mention the entire internet. Debate is still ongoing on some of the finer points, but the fact that scale-free networks are so bloody useful to biologists is evidence that they're on our side. And that J C is still talking muck.

Even still, the protein interaction network is complex but very imperfect. There is so much redundancy that it must have been a very muddled "higher power" that "designed it".

J C wrote: »

Could I ask for evidence for how we all evolved from a worm.

Sure. No problem.

You seem to think, JC, that this hasn't already been posted by multiple posters on multiple occasions but since you insist on responding with this mindless reference to W2M evolution I'm going to deal with it because it's getting on my f*cking nerves.


The article that koth posted refers to a recent discovery of a specimen of one of the earliest chordate species, Pikaia gracilens. P. gracilens is thought to date to approx. 530 mya. As a primitive chordate it developed a notocord, a proto-spinal cord running the length of it's body which it retained throughout it's life (as opposed to other species who only retained a notocord for a short period). It was first discovered and described in 1911. This is a picture of the little fella as recovered from the Burgess Shale:



and how he would have looked in his Sunday best:



Now, chordates are a subgroup of deuterostomia (to which we belong, obviously), a group characterised by the anal end of the digestive tract opening before the mouth during development. Chordata is distinct from the other branches of deuterostomia, namely echinodermata and hemichordata because of the development of a persistent spinal cord for at least some portion of its life.

Now that I have explained who P. gracilens is and how it fits within chordata and chordata within deuterostomia, now we can see how the ongoing divergence of features leads us from chordata through a gradual filtering process to reach homo sapiens.

Chordata is split between tunicata (previously known as urochordata), hemichordata and craniata. The differentiation is the degree to which the notocord is retained throughout the life of the organism. Craniata, the subset of chordata whose brain is enclosed inside a skull is the one of interest to us.

Craniata is then divided between vertebrata and myxini or hagfish. Here we see the increasing development of calcified tissue being realised through the introduction of a vertebral column, a bony support structure for the spinal cord.

Vertebrata continues the development of calcified tissue and is split into many subgroups: Conodonta, Cephalaspidomorphi, Hyperoartia, Pteraspidomorphi and finally and most importantly, Gnathostomata. This is important since it marks the first appearance of David Coulthard the jawbone. Gnathostomata first appears in the Ordovician period approx. 450 mya and as a group includes 99% of all the vertebrates alive today.

The next major difference we see emerging is between cartilagenous and calcified skeletons. Here, gnathostomata splits between placodermi, chondrichthyes and teleostomi. Teleostomi, the group to which we belong, is distinguished by the development of a bony skeleton and an operculum (the structure in a fish which covers the gills).

Next we move on to the divisions in teleostomi between acanthodii and osteichthyes. Osteichthyes are differentiated from acanthodii by their increasing development of a bony skeleton including cranium, pelvic girdle and dermal bones while acanthodii retained a skeleton comprised of a bony infrastrucutre supported by cartilage. Also osteichthyes lacked the placoid scales seen in acanthodii.

From here osteichthyes splits between acinopterygii and sarcopterygii. The key difference here is the diverging fin development between the ray-finned fishes (acinopterygii) and the lobe-finned fishes (sarcopterygii). The ray-finned fishes can be seen in modern fish like the herring or bluefin tuna. The lobe-finned fishes show the start of the development of proto-limbs and lungs which would lead to the development of all four-limbed creatures (including us).

The next major development is the transition that is now (i.e. 345 mya) occurring as previously aquatic creatures move on to land. Of interest to us here is an offshoot of sarcopterygii called stegocephalia where the lobed fins of sarcopterygii have begun to develop digits on the end of the fins along with further development of the limbs themselves and an increased development of lungs at the expense of gills. Another subset of stegocephalia is tetrapoda, four-limbed land-based air-breathing creatures with a fully adapted quadripedal skeleton.

Tetrapoda is one of the most important developments after gnathostomata since it is one of the most easily recognisable supergroups to which we belong and includes most of the animals that are familiar with. However, before we move on, I want to include a cladogram so we have a visual representation of what we've covered so far.




The most pronounced divergence within tetrapoda occurs in the split between amphibia and amniota. Here the difference between the groups is developmental rather than morphological as we have seen previously, specifically in the emergence of the amnion or placenta to protect the young in the now (300 mya) rapidly changing environment.

As we move on through the development of amniota we return to morphological differences as a means to distinguish between the groups. In particular, the primary split in amniota between synapsida and sauropsida. The key feature here is the temporal fenestrae or, more correctly, the number of temporal fenestrae (the openings in the skull). Synapsids have just one pair of fenestrae while sauropsids are split between anapsids (e.g. turtles) which have none and diapsids (e.g. crocodiles, lizards, snakes) which have two. This is also where we part company with, among other groups, birds and dinosaurs.

As we move from synapsids towards our next major milestone, mammalia, the distinguishing characteristics between sister groups tend to be the result of ever increasing refinements of key features such as the brain and the skeleton as well as other changes related to diet and environment.

Synapsids split into eupelycosauria and caseasauria. Eupelycosauria then splits into edaphosauridae and sphenacodontia with sphenacodontia further splitting into sphenacodontidae and therapsida. The main change within this set of divergences is related to the development of dentition and associated changes in the skeleton and musculature.

Therapsids represent another important milestone on the road to mammals and eventually humans. Many of the characteristics that we tend to think of as unique to mammals originated here. These include body-wide hair follicles, lactation and new posture orientations.

Continuing with the development of skeleton and dentition refinements we can see that therapsida splits between eutherapsida and biarmosuchia. Eutherapsida then splits between neotherapsida and dinocephalia. Neotherapsida splits into theriodontia and anomodontia. Then, theriodontia diverges between eutheriodontia and gorgonopsia. It is interesting to note that each fork in the road can lead to an entirely different lineage being traced as we saw earlier in the split between amphibia and amniota, although here, each of the alternate branches biarmosuchia, dinocephalia, anomodontia and gorgonopsia are all extinct with no modern examples.

Following on from eutheriodontia we can see it splits between cynodontia and therocephalia. Cynodontia is another minor milestone since it sees the development of canine teeth among the improving dentiary features. This is especially important for tucking into a nice rib-eye. Cynodontia then splits into dviniidae, procynosuchidae and epicynodontia. Epicynodontia then splits between thrinaxodon and eucynodontia. Eucynodontia then splits into cynognathus and probainognathia. Then around 170 mya we see the emergence of mammaliaformes the progenitor of modern mammals as probainognathia diverges between tritheledontidae, chiniquodontidae and mammaliaformes.

Before we move on to the last leg of the journey from mammals to humans here's another cladogram so no-one loses their place.




The first major divergence following the emergence of mammals is that between monotremata and theriiformes (theria). It is here where we part company with modern mammals such as the platypus and echidna. The difference here is that monotremes give birth to their young as eggs while theria give birth to live young. Theria is then further divided between metatheria (marsupials) and eutheria (placentals).

Eutheria then splits between epitheria and xenartha with one of the key distinguishing features being the development of external testicles (in males obviously). Here we part company with armadillos, sloths and anteaters.

The next important division is between euarchontoglires and laurasiatheria. This is one of the first examples of a split based on genetic evidence and as a result, here, we part company with giraffes, shrews, hedgehogs, pangolins, whales and bats.

Next euarchontoglires, around 90 mya split into glires and euarchonta. Euarchonta ("true ancestors") is then split between primatomorpha, dermoptera and scandentia. Here we lose treeshrews and colugos and we see an increasing development toward the kind of creature that we would begin to recognise as our distant ancestor.

Finally around 85 mya we see the split in primatomorpha between primates and the now extinct pleisadapiformes. Given the considerable volume that has been posted about primates on thread recently I think I'll leave it there. Finally one last cladogram (from the Ancestor's tale) to recap the relationships between modern mammals.




So you can see JC, that we can trace our lineage from worms to man and we have a mountain of evidence from fossils, genetics and a multitude of other fields to support it.

The great thing about this is that we can use this lineage to build up an increasing set of characteristics which we can use to define a particular term. For example, we can describe craniates as a metazoic, nucleic, bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome coelamate with a spinal chord and a brain encased in a skull. As we move down through time towards the present we keep adding features so that by the time we get to primates we have a more precise and robust definition. We can define primates as:

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle."

You can even get have it on a t-shirt if you want.

My apologies to anyone who thinks this explanation is a little light on detail, well, because it is. Tracing over 500 mya of our ancestry is no small task and any description must be necessarily summary in detail. I have included as many wiki links as I could find so that anyone interested in finding out more (obviously not JC) can do some further reading. I would also recommend the Tree of Life Project as an excellent taxonomic resource.

[/FONT]

You can rephrase it any way you like. All Jaycee sees is "snail, earwig, human" [/BBailey].

Just saw the tags for this thread, haha.

J C wrote: »

... W2M Evolution distinguishes between 'evolution' within Kinds (which happens) ... and the 'big picture' stuff such as from worms to man (that has no supporting evidence).

J C wrote: »

but the more I examined the evidence the more I found that rapid Creation was in line with the evidence ... and evolution (of any type) wasn't.

That's a bit contradictory, isn't it?

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok, if their was proof that their was a god i would automatically buy into the whole thing, now a genuine question to you-If their is proof that Evolution exists and it was not intelligent design would you be willing to agree.

As a working scientist, I always go where the evidence leads.
... so if the evidence unambiguoulsy lead to the conclusion that we all evolved from a microbe I would accept it.
... the opposite is actually the case at present ... with all of the unambiguous evidence pointing towards Creation.

Sarky wrote: »

I feel it appropriate to point out the time J C actually thought I was a priest of Dagon. Watching him trying to save me from the fictional creation of a 20th century horror writer was just about the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen.

That is, by far, the funniest thing I've seen from JC so far XD