according to the post id cant explain OR pseudogenes. but actually some whales can smell very well:
on the other hand some fishes has pseudogenes of terrestrial creatures too. but im sure that he doesnt believe that they evolved from a terrestrial creature.
Many errors here. yet the bigger point here is that creationism should not only agree but love the idea that marine mammals were just critters that changed from land lovers to sea lovers. In other words they were on the ark and only in a post flood world did they go surfs up.
Yet this was not from crazy train mutations working on mutations. Berlinsku dioes a good job on debunking this. However he is wrong that they were not land creatures changed to sea ones.
YES if morphology changed it could only be coupled with genes. YES it should be a loss of genes and a gain.
There are no fossils showing transitions. All that fossils show is a diversity of creatures that may be in the KIND of the types of marine mammals.
In other words it could only be , IF these land creatures adapted to the sea, that there would be a spectrum of those farther/closer to permanent sea life. Yet all this within mere decades and not from chance mutations. just like people are in diversity but are not evolving from one group to another.
Bodyplans changed quickly and it should RATIONALLY be seen it could only be this way if to stay within boundaries of biology.
BY THE WAY. marine mamm,als are amongst the very, very, very, few critters that actually show within thie bodyplans having had a previous bodyplan of note.
So these creatures are not accurate sampling for the hordes of creatures that ever existed.
evolutionists are doing poor sampling in trying to make a point.
The reason the rest of biology has no evidence of former bodyplans is because they never changed or not in the same way. No bits and pices left over.
Marine mammals are very unique. Evolutionists convince themselves about evolution using the wrong sampling group. In fact why not just use peoples looks? It must be for evos and ID and YEC that the morphological change SEEMS to radical to be innate like human traits of difference.
Robert, can you tell me what these are?
By the way, I glued that bad boy back together. Admire my handiwork.
. “Groups α and γ of type 1, which are present in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals and absent in fish except for one intact gene in zebrafish and a few pseudogenes in medaka and stickleback”
What does that have to do with “pseudogenes of terrestrial creatures”? Or were you just making the mundane claim that some fish have pseudogenes where some terrestrial animals have functional genes?
If you wanted to show evidence of fish evolving from terrestrial creatures, you’d need to show that fish possess pseudogenes of genes associated with terrestrial life. That’s the class of evidence that is interesting from a macroevolution perspective. Finding huge numbers of olfactory pseudogenes in whales suggests their ancestors had a keener sense of smell, which is generally associated with being terrestrial. Finding tooth development-related pseudogenes in edentulous animals suggests that their ancestors did indeed have teeth. Finding chitinase pseudogenes in mammalian genomes suggests their common ancestor was insectivorous.
Looks like Canadian driving conclusions! sorry canucks just a joke! No i don’t know what they are but it would never matter. They would just be a moment in time of some critter fossilized. it does not show the origins of the creature or timelines.
Rocks have nothing to do with biological processes. this is a evolutionist intellectual incompetence to think they do. If you want to compare then while compare ADMIT its based on already accepted presumptions of the biological processes having existed and been active. Don’t say the rocks/fossils show biology stories of creation.
I can’t admire that handiwork of poor analysis and poor science. Hope its not you but your crowd it is.
And what does this mean?
this is what i did. these types of OR belong to terrestrial creatures and rare among fishes. so finding them as pseudogenes among fishes should be evidence for common descent with terrestrial creatures.
Except phylogenetic analyses show that the common ancestor of fish and tetrapods possessed these genes, implying that they served a different function in the common ancestor. The massive radiation of these genes in tetrapods suggests they underwent highly beneficial neofunctionalisation.
how is that make any difference? we find fish x with a pseudogene x that is almost unique to terrestrial creature. thus its evidence for a terrestrial past.
If the pseudogene itself isn’t a pseudogene associated with a terrestrial lifestyle, meaning that the gene wasn’t specialised for living on land before it was inactivated, then it isn’t evidence of a terrestrial ancestor in the way I described earlier. That’s why it’s important to consider the distribution of the gene in extant groups and where on the tree the gene because pseudogenised.
In this case, the phylogenetic evidence clearly shows that the gene families you’re referring to were present prior to the divergence of fish and tetrapods (see figure 1B of the paper I linked).
since these genes are almost unique to terrestrial lifestyle (and we know that because they exist in such creatures but not in most fishes) i dont see any reason to reject it.
again: how is this relevant? even if these genes were present in the first fish ever, the claim above is still true- these genes are associated with a terrestrial lifestyle.
If modern fish, who spent all their lives in the water still possess some of them, then clearly the gene family itself isn’t singularly functional in terrestrial creatures. You’re completely ignoring the phylogenetic context around these genes, as well as completely lacking functional data.
When you say “fish”, just how many species have been checked for these genes?
In these studies, only a handful of teleost fish. A broader sampling would of course be desirable.
So basically scd’s claim is unsupported. He has no real idea of the distribution of these genes and/or pseudogenes in teleosts, let alone in “fish”.
indeed. that is my real position. but in this case we will need also to reject the evolutionery cases you gave above. we can just claim for degeneration (genetic loss).