An Oldie but Goodie

[Roy]

@RichardG

As far as I can tell nested hierachy depends promarily on the DNA sequencing.

You are completely wrong, as usual, because the nested hierarchy was recognised a long, long time before DNA sequencing was even possible.

[Roy]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

But a hierarchy is what we observe

No you do not. You do not observe each one giving birth to the next!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Laugh all you want, but if it has nothing to do with the progression of speciation then it is meaningless.

Richard

[TomS]

Jaw (and mammalian middle ear) from a “gill” was discovered by anatomists studying embryo development, well before Darwin’s exposition of evolution.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

Jaw (and mammalian middle ear) from a “gill” was discovered by anatomists studying embryo development, well before Darwin’s exposition of evolution.

Discovered? Are you kidding? it is tesselation! It is not even 3D tesselation. How anyone can believe it is beyond me!

It doesn’t mater whether it was proposed yesterday or a thousand years ago it is still an optical illusion.

Richard

[TomS]

And how can anyone believe that computers work is beyond me. I don’t know how these messages are being processed - it involves quantum mechanics and lots of other stuff about networks.
And then, how can anyone believe the Bible? We have to trust a whole bunch of people who claim to have seen manuscripts in places like Leningrad. Yeah, sure, as if Stalin can be trusted.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

And how can anyone believe

Noyt even close

You are expecting people to believe that a gill split off one section and it was ossified, Why?

Richard

[TomS]

Yes, it is an odd thing, that a feature in an early embryo of a fish becomes gills, and the same structure in early embryos of terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.) become bones.
Yes, why? Is doesn’t make any obvious sense that the world of life would have things like that going on. But it does fit in with the idea that structure of vertebrates are shaped by evolution.
I understand why someone would find that unbelievable - aside from any opinion about evolution.
No, I have not done the embryology for myself. Nor have I done the quantum mechanics and network engineering, but I trust embryologists and computer people. I believe that I am actually corresponding with a person - not some AI construction, or something which I have no idea of.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

This article gives an overview of what leads to what, and a summary of what you get when things go wrong:

Embryology, Branchial Arches

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

Yes, it is an odd thing, that a feature in an early embryo of a fish becomes gills, and the same structure in early embryos of terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.) become bones.

Do they become bones or are they replaced by bones?

The point being, it has nothing to do with what happens now.

It is based purely on comparing one fossil with another. I don’t suppose anyone counted the gill slits in the one with a hinged jaw to see if there was one less?

It is a visual tesselation based on the two profiles. it does not even look at the view fron the front, or account for the necessary muscles and ligaments and nerves needed to work this new lump of bone(s) flapping around at the front and sitting ever so conveirntly against the lower part of the mouth with extra skin at the sides to accomodate the new larger opening! It is just not plausible!

@TomS

But it does fit in with the idea that structure of vertebrates are shaped by evolution.

And that is the only thing is fits with!

Richard

[TomS]

Do you know what embryology is? Embryologists study the development of the embryos of contemporary animals. It has a lot to do with what happens now. Today, one can observe what happens in the development of gills in fishes, jaw bones in reptiles, the middle ear in mammals.
As far as the fossils with the doubly-articulated jaws, these were not embryos.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

Embryologists study the development of the embryos of contemporary animals. It has a lot to do with what happens now. Today, one can observe what happens in the development of gills in fishes, jaw bones in reptiles, the middle ear in mammals.

So yourclaim is that the growing embryo reflects the evolutionary development of the human, yes?

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@TomS

Yes, it is an odd thing, that a feature in an early embryo of a fish becomes gills, and the same structure in early embryos of terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.) become bones.

Do they become bones or are they replaced by bones?

The point being, it has nothing to do with what happens now.

It is based purely on comparing one fossil with another.

Nor is there any acknowledgement of such a bone-headed faux pas, just a pitiful attempt to argue against recapitulation instead.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@RichardG

It is based purely on comparing one fossil with another.

You clearly have a sick sense of humpur, or at lest an arrogant cruel one.

The point here being:

Many creatures have gills in their growth cycle. Those gills have to come from DNA whci will remain “nested” in the adult DNA. So all you re comparing is creatures who either have or have had gills. Brilliant.

Richard

[TomS]

I do not claim that a growing embryo reflects evolutionary development.
I claim that one can observe development of an embryo to see how it differs in different taxa. For example, some of what develops into gills in fish, develops into jaws in reptiles, and into the middle ear in mammals.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@TomS

I claim that one can observe development of an embryo to see how it differs in different taxa.

That is beyond my experience but i am unsure how you can compare one embryo to another unless you assume that they have a simllar or even identicle starting point and progression. Granted they stsrt as a single cell, but as it expands? Why should they run in parrallel? (Unless you assume that they must?)

Richard