Lungfishes vs Creationism

[The Hammer]

"Living fossil" genome sequence reveals clues to evolution of life on land

"With the genome fully sequenced, the researchers were able to confirm that the lungfish is the closest living fish relative of all tetrapods, the absolutely gigantic group of land animals containing everything with the familiar body structure of four limbs coming off a central trunk. That means reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans.

In fact, we’re more similar than you might think. The genes that control embryonic development of the lungfish’s lungs are the same ones as in humans, which show that the evolution in both species can be traced to the same origin. The development of the bones in their fins is also controlled by the same genes as those of our hands."

 

[Brian2]

"Living fossil" genome sequence reveals clues to evolution of life on land

"With the genome fully sequenced, the researchers were able to confirm that the lungfish is the closest living fish relative of all tetrapods, the absolutely gigantic group of land animals containing everything with the familiar body structure of four limbs coming off a central trunk. That means reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans.

In fact, we’re more similar than you might think. The genes that control embryonic development of the lungfish’s lungs are the same ones as in humans, which show that the evolution in both species can be traced to the same origin. The development of the bones in their fins is also controlled by the same genes as those of our hands."

If the lungfish had everything in it's gigantic genome to evolve into the different types of land creatures, would that be called evolution by scientists?

 

[The Hammer]

If the lungfish had everything in it's gigantic genome to evolve into the different types of land creatures, would that be called evolution by scientists?

It has the same base genes, not necessarily the same need to evolve, that requires a necessity and sometimes chance. This fish has no need to evolve further currently, it fits it's ecological niche.

 

[Audie]

If the lungfish had everything in it's gigantic genome to evolve into the different types of land creatures, would that be called evolution by scientists?

Could you explain? I cannot see what
you mean.

 

[Audie]

It has the same base genes, not necessarily the same need to evolve, that requires a necessity and sometimes chance. This fish has no need to evolve further currently, it fits it's ecological niche.

Part of it is also, the land jobs are taken, and a
languish would be as babies in the woods
if they tried going terrestrial.

 

[Brian2]

It has the same base genes, not necessarily the same need to evolve, that requires a necessity and sometimes chance. This fish has no need to evolve further currently, it fits it's ecological niche.

Could a pre lungfish with as big or bigger genome, have evolved into the lungfish and land creatures without any chance, just from what it already had?
On the same theme, would it be possible in the right circumstances for a lungfish to evolve into land creatures without any chance involved, just a different environment? Or would it's evolution history have ended at lungfish. Or is that sort of thing just not known?
I'm sort of trying to get my head around evolution more than I have.

 

[Brian2]

Could you explain? I cannot see what
you mean.

Would a lungfish be able to evolve into a land animal without changes to the genome except maybe genetic drift due to changing environment?

 

[Audie]

Would a lungfish be able to evolve into a land animal without changes to the genome except maybe genetic drift due to changing environment?

I'm not sure i follow your q.

Mutations of course are involved

What sort of environmental change do
you mean? Thrred have to be no terrestrial
predators.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure i follow your q.

Mutations of course are involved

What sort of environmental change do
you mean? Thrred have to be no terrestrial
predators.

"Thrred have to be no terrestrial
predators." ?
I assume you mean that they are non terestrial predators and so would die out of their niche.
But evolution takes time and genetic drift might do the job without mutations assuming they still had enough of the possibilities in their current genes. Sort of like the dark moths that turn white (or visa versa). If that white state lasted long enough I guess they may not be able to drift back even in the right environment.
It seems within the realms of possibility that the lungfish might still have land animal potential without mutations.

 

[Audie]

"Thrred have to be no terrestrial
predators." ?
I assume you mean that they are non terestrial predators and so would die out of their niche.
But evolution takes time and genetic drift might do the job without mutations assuming they still had enough of the possibilities in their current genes. Sort of like the dark moths that turn white (or visa versa). If that white state lasted long enough I guess they may not be able to drift back even in the right environment.
It seems within the realms of possibility that the lungfish might still have land animal potential without mutations.

Well, no, you assume wrong.

The watery life worked fine for a gazillion years,
still works fine.

But IF there are no terrestrial predators,
and a good food supply, those who
behaviorally were a bit better suited to
take advantage would prosper!

Note that many living fish get out of the water,
move about, seek food and a new water hole.

Any little advantage, larger lungs, sturdier
limbs, quicker bite, whatever, would
be give good results.

Its a pull, not a push.

Once there is breeding isolation
from the rest of the lungfish population
then favourable mutations will
become fixed in the population.

No, there is no genetic blueprint waiting to
be chosen, its new stuff needed to get
out and start trying to tetrapod-ize.

 

[Brian2]

Well, no, you assume wrong.

The watery life worked fine for a gazillion years,
still works fine.

But IF there are no terrestrial predators,
and a good food supply, those who
behaviorally were a bit better suited to
take advantage would prosper!

Note that many living fish get out of the water,
move about, seek food and a new water hole.

Any little advantage, larger lungs, sturdier
limbs, quicker bite, whatever, would
be give good results.

Its a pull, not a push.

Once there is breeding isolation
from the rest of the lungfish population
then favourable mutations will
become fixed in the population.

No, there is no genetic blueprint waiting to
be chosen, its new stuff needed to get
out and start trying to tetrapod-ize.

Is science sure about it being a pull not a push? Is it shown that the blueprint was not there waiting to be used? or has science reached conclusions about evolution based on the assumption that there was nothing there to begin with and it all slowly came about by chance and the right environment etc?
The chances of the right mutation at the right time and then that mutation surviving would be extremely low, and it had to have happened a gazillion times like that.
The design proposal certainly overcomes the problem of information being stored and used in DNA and how that could happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Would a lungfish be able to evolve into a land animal without changes to the genome except maybe genetic drift due to changing environment?

Well, evolution *is* 'genetic drift due to a changing environment'. But that can include gene duplications and subsequent drift.

 

[Polymath257]

Is science sure about it being a pull not a push? Is it shown that the blueprint was not there waiting to be used? or has science reached conclusions about evolution based on the assumption that there was nothing there to begin with and it all slowly came about by chance and the right environment etc?
The chances of the right mutation at the right time and then that mutation surviving would be extremely low, and it had to have happened a gazillion times like that.
The design proposal certainly overcomes the problem of information being stored and used in DNA and how that could happen.

You are assuming that only one possible mutation is 'right'. The point is ultimately survival and many different mutations would lead to that result. And, if they don't show up, that line goes extinct--a very common result.

And, yes, the hypothesis that this process is stochastic (random) has been tested. The amount and direction of change in a population follows the environment in general, but there are numerous backtracks and offshoots because of how genes change over time.

 

[Audie]

Is science sure about it being a pull not a push? Is it shown that the blueprint was not there waiting to be used? or has science reached conclusions about evolution based on the assumption that there was nothing there to begin with and it all slowly came about by chance and the right environment etc?
The chances of the right mutation at the right time and then that mutation surviving would be extremely low, and it had to have happened a gazillion times like that.
The design proposal certainly overcomes the problem of information being stored and used in DNA and how that could happen.

You assumed a push. I personally think
in this case its mostly a pull.
Sure? Of course not.

In view of the 100% absence of any evidence for
there being a blueprint and the introduction
of magic as an "explanation" there is no
call to introduce this hypothetical blueprint.

Magic certainly overcame the problem of
why we get sick, why there are earthquakes
and volcanoes and turtledoves and why
giving birth hurts. Um, right? It always used to be...

Hate to use the term on you, but your
blueprint idea has the look of a " god of
(a tiny) gap".

Calculations of difficulties in achieving
such as larger lungs is just your opinion
based on your religious views, not familiarity
with science...is it not?

 

[Brian2]

Well, evolution *is* 'genetic drift due to a changing environment'. But that can include gene duplications and subsequent drift.

Thanks for that.

 

[Brian2]

You are assuming that only one possible mutation is 'right'. The point is ultimately survival and many different mutations would lead to that result. And, if they don't show up, that line goes extinct--a very common result.

And, yes, the hypothesis that this process is stochastic (random) has been tested. The amount and direction of change in a population follows the environment in general, but there are numerous backtracks and offshoots because of how genes change over time.

I found an article which says that there is evidence that it might not be as random as has been thought.
Genetic Mutations In Our Bodies Might Be Less Random Than We Thought, Scientists Say

 

[Polymath257]

I found an article which says that there is evidence that it might not be as random as has been thought.
Genetic Mutations In Our Bodies Might Be Less Random Than We Thought, Scientists Say

Interesting, but this is limited to one particular mechanism of mutation: those mutations produced during recombination. And, given the mechanics of recombination, it wouldn't be too surprising there are 'copying errors' at the cross-over points.

This is different than, say, the mutations produced by radiation or mutagens in the environment. It is also different than other types of copying errors (where we might expect more in locations that are copied a lot).

What is the net effect? I'm not sure and it may depend on the environment.

 

[Brian2]

You assumed a push. I personally think
in this case its mostly a pull.
Sure? Of course not.

In view of the 100% absence of any evidence for
there being a blueprint and the introduction
of magic as an "explanation" there is no
call to introduce this hypothetical blueprint.

Magic certainly overcame the problem of
why we get sick, why there are earthquakes
and volcanoes and turtledoves and why
giving birth hurts. Um, right? It always used to be...

Hate to use the term on you, but your
blueprint idea has the look of a " god of
(a tiny) gap".

Calculations of difficulties in achieving
such as larger lungs is just your opinion
based on your religious views, not familiarity
with science...is it not?

I base my views on my religious beliefs and am trying to see if the pull factor is known or just assumed.
Getting information into a gene and getting it to work in practice may be a reason to see the push idea as possible.
Whether it is called magic or not is another thing. If evolution is designed to go in certain directions or even if you leave out the "designed" and just say it goes in certain directions, that sounds like science to me and the "designed" bit sounds like how they would have seen science in the past,,,,,,,,,,studying God's creation and how it was designed to work.
I have asked people in the past about my opinion of the push factor and have not received any helpful answers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sort of shrugging off the mere suggestion and noting that nobody has seen anything that seems to require a God to have done it.
I think there are things these days that do require a God to have done it, or designed it, but that is not the way of science. I doubt that anything will deter science from a purely naturalistic explanation for everything even if that explanation may not really work.

 

[Audie]

Interesting, but this is limited to one particular mechanism of mutation: those mutations produced during recombination. And, given the mechanics of recombination, it wouldn't be too surprising there are 'copying errors' at the cross-over points.

This is different than, say, the mutations produced by radiation or mutagens in the environment. It is also different than other types of copying errors (where we might expect more in locations that are copied a lot).

What is the net effect? I'm not sure and it may depend on the environment.

Its not a sign of a blueprint or god-meddling

 

[Audie]

I base my views on my religious beliefs and am trying to see if the pull factor is known or just assumed.
Getting information into a gene and getting it to work in practice may be a reason to see the push idea as possible.
Whether it is called magic or not is another thing. If evolution is designed to go in certain directions or even if you leave out the "designed" and just say it goes in certain directions, that sounds like science to me and the "designed" bit sounds like how they would have seen science in the past,,,,,,,,,,studying God's creation and how it was designed to work.
I have asked people in the past about my opinion of the push factor and have not received any helpful answers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sort of shrugging off the mere suggestion and noting that nobody has seen anything that seems to require a God to have done it.
I think there are things these days that do require a God to have done it, or designed it, but that is not the way of science. I doubt that anything will deter science from a purely naturalistic explanation for everything even if that explanation may not really work.

Not to sound seemingly harsh with you, but
basing your views on god-belief, setting out to find
confirmation puts one at great risk of the
vice of intellectual dishonesty.

Which, BTW, is exactly what you rather
unjustly say is what science is guilty of.

Thats a topic for another post, if you
want an explanation.

Back to your god- explanation and the
intellectual trap-

There is a creationist paleontologist, Dr. K Wise,
who states: " if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yet, i would still be yec because
that is what the Bible seems to say ".

You see how that is the distilled essence of
intellectual dishonesty? Any explanation
needed?