Countdown to alarm

Sturgis Hooper
“In some cases, if their environments don’t change, evolutionary processes work to keep species from altering much.”
Are you sure that word (evolution) means what you think it means?
The relevant question about fins, is not how did ray-finned fish diverge from lobe-finned fish, as that would just be discussing variation of already existing body features. The question that gets to the heart of the matter, is How did the first fin start? Was it a growth on one side of the fish’s body that forced the fish into a permanent left turn? How would that result in increased survival rates? That first fin would not have had muscles to flex it, nor nerves connected to the fish’s brain to control those muscles, nor would the brain have a fin motor control center. For a fin to be useful, enabling increased survival rates, it would need all that stuff. How could a random DNA point mutation produce all the new code required to direct the embryo’s growth in so many new ways? On the other hand, if the first stage of the first fin was just a tiny bit of tissue, how could it increase survival rates, the requirement for natural selection to operate? Was it nasty tasting, warding off predators? How is it that fins come in pairs? Did fins just pop up randomly all over the fish body, and then eons later, did the fins that didn’t have a match dwindle away? Or did fish always turn only left, until some lucky tyke was born with a matching fin that straightened fish out forever more? How is it that each fin of a pair has the same size, the same shape, and the same internal structure? The sameness means there must have been duplication after first a single fin having become fully evolved, with the implication that the fish species survived for eons with a gradually evolving single fin. The alternative is that random mutations produced identical fins in paired locations on the fish body.

Steve,
Evolution” means in biology exactly what I think it means. I´ve studied and written on the fact and theory of evolution for decades. The reason there are “living fossils”, ie species which at least superficially haven’t changed much for on the order ten million years is that they live in stable environments. A good example is one of the last surviving lobe-finned fish, the Australian lung fish. The anatomical differences between lungfish and amphibians aren’t much.
To answer your questions about the origin of paired fins, they didn’t develop with just one on one side of the body, as you imagined. Nor did this innovation require any new genes, but just the repurposing of existing genes, as so often happens in evolution, with structures as well as the genome.
Fish without paired fins, like lampreys, had median fins (such as dorsal, caudal and anal). The same gene that controls the growth of these structures controls the growth of paired fins in more derived chordates such as the cartilaginous sharks and the bony fishes. Bone is readily derived from cartilage, as has been repeatedly found throughout evolutionary history.
http://www.hhmi.org/research/development-and-evolution-vertebrate-appendages
You could have discovered these facts for yourself easily, but I don’t mind helping you learn about biological reality, as that was once my job.

PSS: Your ludicrous, baseless speculation that the defective human foot has degenerated from a perfect condition is belied by all actual observational evidence and by the fact that many other features of human anatomy could only have been designed by a stupid, incompetent designer.
Did this imaginary degeneration perhaps result from the Fall? If not, then why would an omnipotent designer make a foot so readily subject to degeneration.
Rational objection, my flat foot!

Hello Catherine,
Because comments are intermingled, I will put my responses below your comment at 1:43 below.
SR

As an engineer I routinely reuse parts of my designs that work in new designs. Nobody who designs things do it from scratch. There is always design reuse. Why wouldn’t Creator do the same thing?

BFL and Michael Wassil,
DNA sequences guide, among other things, the production of chemicals within all organisms. These are the parts of the DNA codes that corollate among different organisms. If organisms are to be interdependent, if you are to gain sustenance from eating other organisms, there has to be a corollation of your body chemistry to all other organisms’ chemistry. If a mushroom was designed to be food for a human being, it would have to be given similar body chemistry. and thus similar DNA.
The second part of the question: why not use different DNA (or other) sequences that result in production of the same chemicals. That is indeed done. That is actually the reason some germs have resistance to antibiotics. Many chemical processes within organisms use primary and secondary paths. Each path creates different intermediate chemicals. Many antibiotics work by reacting with an intermediate chemical (to produce a poison) within the primary production path of some chemical vital to that virus’ well being. However, any strain of that virus that has damage in the DNA sequence that provides the primary path in question is only using the secondary path, and is unaffected by that antibiotic. The immunity to the antibiotic is not evolution at work, it is a case of saved by a birth defect. This is similar to being overlooked by the military draft due to flat feet.
SR

Guys: the point was that having large numbers of specific groups of organisms that are totally independent of each other in DNA or alternate structure would point toward specialized design. But since that ain’t so, the most realistic explanation, from evidence, and not based on myth, would be evolution.

Steve Reddish March 4, 2015 at 12:36 am
On present evidence the genetic code developed only once, but different domains of life three times. Bacteria and archaea have different cell membranes. Eukaryotes, like us, either separately developed yet another membrane, or it evolved from the archaean lipid bubble containing life functions.
After the first emergence of life on earth, any other such attempt would not survive, but be consumed or outcompeted by the already existing forms.
There is zero evidence for a designer of living things on earth. If he, she or it exists, it is far from an intelligent, competent designer. It’s dumb as a rock.
Evolution can be traced by showing the inherited mutations in the genomes of related organisms. The supposed designer not only uses the same bits of DNA over and over, but makes use of whole body parts for new uses, which then are improved over very long periods. The human body, like all bodies, is rife with such jury-rigged anatomical features.
If I were an omniscient, omnipotent designer intent on creating a bipedal primate, I most certainly would not design the creature’s feet like ours, so prone to flatness. But evolution had to make do with a foot “designed” previously for grasping branches rather than walking upright long distances.
What are the supposedly rational objections you imagine exist to the observed fact of evolution and the body of theory explaining and seeking better to understand it? I’m unaware of any. Predictions made on the basis of evolution prove valid. Predictions made by creationists are inevitably show false.

Catherine Ranconi,
“What are the supposedly rational objections you imagine exist…” You ask.
You say:
“After the first emergence of life on earth, any other such attempt would not survive, but be consumed or outcompeted by the already existing forms.”
My rational objection:
This assertion is not born out by the accepted evolutionary history on Earth. By your thinking, prokaryotes should have consumed or outcompeted cyanobacteria, cyanobacteria should have outcompeted eukaryotes, eukaryotes should have outcompeted sponges, plants should have outcompeted animals. There is no rational reason to assume simple life which evolved in the seas adjacent to one continent could not have coexisted with equally simple but different life which evolved separately in the seas adjacent to a different continent. After all, the simplest life forms are neither predatory nor parasitic, and are assumed to have existed for a couple of billion years before multicellular life came on the scene.
You say:
“If I were an omniscient, omnipotent designer intent on creating a bipedal primate, I most certainly would not design the creature’s feet like ours, so prone to flatness. But evolution had to make do with a foot “designed” previously for grasping branches rather than walking upright long distances.”
My rational objection:
You bring up questions on 2 lines of reason:
1st. How is it that evolutionary processes can take anything (frog) and turn it into something else (lizard), but only gives humans an inferior foot? Evolution could make a hand for an ape perfect for grasping branches, but a foot for humans only 99% suited for walking? In your hypothetical example, the shortest metatarsal becomes the longest, to bring the thumb/big toe alongside the other toes, the triquetral greatly enlarges to become the calcaneus/heel bone, etc, but the arch that is formed is deemed weak. Why has evolution failed you?
As I posted earlier “Rational thought does however, reveal the flaws in the evolution belief system.”
Creationists don’t think God gave mankind inferior feet in the beginning, but has allowed our genetic code to slowly deteriorate for spiritual reasons.
2nd. The theory is evolution proceeds 1st by random DNA mutations that make tiny random changes in the bodies of organisms that are selected for if favorable, and against if not. Additionally, copying errors in genes can duplicate or eradicate chunks of chromosomes. With respect to feet, the theory is that the genetic code for a median fin on some ancestral fish got quadruplicated into pectoral and pelvic fin pairs which eventually developed into the 4 appendages of all backboned critters. My question is, once there were separate genetic sequences for each fin/leg, how could random mutations result in all four legged creatures having the same basic layout of bones in these legs, and have the same type of foot, paw, hoof on all 4 feet? Remember that the original fish didn’t have tibulas, fibulas, etc.
These are some of my rational objections to the theory of evolution.
What are some of the predictions made on the basis of evolution that have prove true, in your estimation?
SR

Steve:
Just occurred to me that you may not be aware of the differences in the mammalian jaw joint from that of other vertebrates.
We have just one bone in the lower jaw, the dentary, which as you might guess, in our fish and reptile relatives carries the teeth. The joint with the skull in our extinct ancestors, as with our living vertebrate relatives, was formed by other bones at the back of the jaw. In modern mammals, these extra jaw bones have migrated into (or next to) the skull, where they form the middle ear.
Evidence that the malleus and incus are homologous to the reptilian articular and quadrate bones was originally embryological, but, as noted, discovery of an abundance of transitional fossils has both supported the conclusion and given a detailed history of the transition. Triassic Period proto-mammals like Morganucodon had both jaw joints, but its already reduced distal jaw bones were involved in hearing, while the new dentary-squamosal had formed to connect the jaw with the skull.
The evolution of the stapes, the third auditory ossicle of the middle ear. was an earlier and distinct event. The stapes develops from the second pharyngeal arch during the sixth to eighth week of embryological life. The central cavity of the stapedius is due to the presence embryologically of the stapedial artery, which later regresses.

Udar March 3, 2015 at 4:32 pm
But would you or any intelligent designer reuse broken code? Why not fix it?
Humans and other of our primate relatives have defective code in the gene for making Vitamin C in our bodies, so need to get this essential enzyme from food, unlike most other animals. Guinea pigs and the Indian fruit-eating bat also have defective Vitamin C genes, but theirs are broken in different places from the ape, monkey and tarsier gene,
And only a dumb, incompetent designer would retain features after they’ve lost their function, as with the muscles to move our small, effectively immobile ears. This is another derived dysfunctional design flaw shared by humans, apes, Old & New World Monkeys, but not tarsiers, whose ears (and eyes) are enormous, the better to hunt insects at night. Even so, some humans and other apes, including myself, still retain a vestige of the tip of our ancestors’ mobile ears, called Darwin’s tubercle or the Woolnerian tip, which is common in many monkeys despite the relative immobility of their small ears.
There are numerous other such vestigial muscles and other structures in the human body. Why would a supposedly intelligent designer keep using them, when they serve no purpose?
The arrector pili is a small muscle attached to each of our body hairs. When they contract, the hair becomes erect and a small dimple forms on the skin due to the shortening of the skin around it, called “goose bumps” since they resemble the skin of a plucked bird. In other mammals, this muscle reacts to cold, trapping more heat through greater insulation, but it serves no purpose in humans, due to our short body hair.
Our tail bones, the coccyx, look like a shrunken tail because that’s what they are. Why would a hypothetical designer add this easily broken structure to our anatomy? People are still born with short external tails or the extensor coccygis muscle to wag it. The same is true of other apes.
Another such atavism is the lanugo. At around six months gestation, human fetuses become completely covered in this fine hair called. We carry it until a month before delivery when it is shed and replaced by the less dense type of body hair we will have as an adult. In humans this transitional hair serves no purpose. But in our primate relatives, who are covered with this type of hair at the same stage in their development, they do not shed it and it later forms their thicker coat of body hair after they are born.
A dangerous design flaw is mammalian testes development. In humans, male testes begin development in the abdomen near the kidneys, even though to properly function they must move to a cooler place outside of the warm body. When the male fetus is six to seven months old, the testes begin a long migration into the pelvis through two oblong openings called the inguinal canals. At birth, they must even slip over the pubis, finally ending, if all goes well, in the scrotum. Sometimes they don’t make it or slip back up into the abdomen. They should stay down in the scrotum by three to six months post partum. If they remain in the abdomen, they can become cancerous later, if not brought down with surgery or even removed if not found until later (cryptorchidism). Where the testes descend through the abdominal wall the channel closes and forms a remnant ligament called the gubernaculum. Unfortunately for many adult males, if enough abdominal pressure is exerted later in life, a delamination can occur producing an inguinal hernia that often needs to be repaired. This incredible testicular journey with its occasional errors occurs because of our past ancestry and location of the testicles in our fish ancestors. A capable grand designer would never sketch out such a convoluted developmental sequence.
The plantaris is a superficial muscle of the foot, about two to four inches long. It is missing in some seven to ten percent of people. It provides so little function that it is often harvested to be used elsewhere during reconstructive surgery. It is frequently so small that it’s mistaken for a nerve by medical students, so has been called the ‘freshman nerve’. In monkeys it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus helpful in swinging from trees by the feet. In humans it is atrophied, commonly absent, as noted, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon.
I could continue multiplying instance of the remarkably shoddy design work that went into engineering the human body.

Catherine Ranconi,
This is a belated reply because I had to attend to other matters for a few days.
Catherine, I originally responded to a post far above which mentioned the evolutionary distinction between lobe fins and ray fins. I said the relevant question was not how one type of fin evolved into another type, but how the first fin started. Later in that post, I asked how fins might have become paired.
The poster responded that paired fins resulted from ” just the repurposing of existing genes” but ducked my question about the origin of the first fin.
Therefore, I said “The theory is evolution proceeds 1st by random DNA mutations that make tiny random changes in the bodies of organisms that are selected for if favorable, and against if not. Additionally, copying errors in genes can duplicate or eradicate chunks of chromosomes.” to point out that genes can only be repurposed once they have developed and are functioning, but the beginning of new genes must be a random DNA mutation.
You responded with “So much error, so little time….
“Clearly you know nothing at all about molecular genetics if you imagine that evolution always occurs because of single point mutations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Evolution from single point mutations does most certainly occur, but it´s far from the main method of evolution.”
Did You miss that we were talking about the evolution of the 1st fin? I think not, because you cut and pasted this from my earlier response:
“The 1st fin can’t be “the repurposing of existing genes”. I asked how the 1st (single point, according to theory) DNA mutation related to fins could have included all the instructions necessary to produce a functional fin. You fell back on the old standby that nothing is ever 1st.”
I think you were also ducking the point of my question, substituting obfuscation and insult for a reasoned reply.
Example: Your statement:
“If I were an omniscient, omnipotent designer intent on creating a bipedal primate, I most certainly would not design the creature’s feet like ours, so prone to flatness. But evolution had to make do with a foot “designed” previously for grasping branches rather than walking upright long distances.”
I responded:
“How is it that evolutionary processes can take anything (frog) and turn it into something else (lizard), but only gives humans an inferior foot? Evolution could make a hand for an ape perfect for grasping branches, but a foot for humans only 99% suited for walking?”
Your response:
“You still fundamentally misunderstand evolution. It can not turn “anything” into “something else”. Its options are limited. Frogs did not turn into lizards. Both groups share tetrapod ancestors…”
You point out that a lizard is not claimed to have evolved from a frog, correctly, as I should have chosen the generic “amphibian” and “reptile” (maybe just “tetrapod ancestors, as nothing is really “known”), but completely ducked my question concerning your claim that an ape rear hand turned into the human foot, as well as my earlier related question of how different feet (hooves, paws) could evolve from the same fin gene set yet share the same bone pattern (which fins did not have). (No, stating “The fins were not repurposed. The genes were. The first fish with pectoral fins retained its median fins. There might have been instances of median fins migrating to the sides of the body, but I’m not aware of them. Pelvic fins came after pectoral fins.” was not an answer to the point of my question.)
You continue with:
“…Frogs are highly derived amphibians, emerging in the Early Triassic, after the Great Dying (End Permian Mass Extinction Event). Lizards are amniotes which first appeared in the Early Jurassic. Their last common ancestor lived way back in the Carboniferous, or possibly even the Late Devonian. I’m not an expert on early tetrapod evolution.”
Mere obfuscation avoiding the point of the discussion.
You continued substituting obfuscation for reason throughout your long response, followed by more insults:
“You really ought to learn something about biology before presuming to comment on it. Your objections are ill-informed. I hope you’re willing to be educated, after all this effort.”
Since you didn’t respond to the actual points of my questions and statements, I don’t see the point of further discussion.
PS. Claiming that some reptiles having some characteristics in common with birds, or some amniotes having some characteristics in common with mammals, means there must have been transitions over time is analogous to lining up a marten next to a river otter, next to a sea otter, next to a sea lion, next to an elephant seal, next to a porpoise and claiming you have demonstrated the transition from terrestrial mammals to marine mammals.
SR