Year of Darwin - Neil Shubin, Ph.D.

Neil Shubin, Ph.D.
University of Chicago
October 14, 2008
Cleveland Museuem of Natural History
Professor Shubin (University of Chicago) is a well-known paleontologist who studies the morphological and developmental origins of the tetrapod limb. He recently discovered Tiktaalik, a species linking aquatic "lobe-finned" fishes with early terrestrial tetrapods. Held in conjunction with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's annual meeting in downtown Cleveland.

[@g24417]

When you ask detailed and specific biological questions in an evolutionary framework, the answer almost always makes good sense. When you ask the same questions in a "design" framework, you only get evasions - similar to your evasions about my questions regarding MYH16 and vestigial genes. I have yet to hear a "design" proponent produce single good answer to biological questions - they only provide good evasions.

[@Schmoikel]

Fantastic Video. Thanks for taking the time to post this. We need more videos (and people) like this.

[@whatabouttheearth]

In case any of yall future viewers haven't put this together: Sarcopterygii are the line that turned into Tetrapodamorph, Stegocephalia is a clade after Tetrapodamorph, and Tetrapoda is a clade after that. Tiktaalik is a genus of Stegocephalia which are Tetrapodamorphs like Tetrapoda, but Tiktaalik is not of the clade Tetrapoda. Tiktaalik is a non Tetrapoda Sarcopterygii Tetrapodamorph Stegocephalian. Tetrapoda derived from the lobed fin "fish" (Sarcopterygii), as opposed to ray finned fish (Actinopterygii). Tetrapodamorph Stegocephalians (like Tiktaalik) are towards the line of Tetrapoda Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, Watcheeria, Pederpes, Tulerpeton, Greererpeton, Crassigyrinus, Baphetidae, etc are all Tetrapodamorph Stegocephalians that are more closely related to Tetrapoda than Tiktaalik. No one "fish" just turned into one Tetrapoda, that's not how things work, and you may never know which specific species was "the first". What we are looking at is a radiation of change over a larger grouping of Sarcopterygii towards Tetrapodamorpha, towards Stegocephalians, towards Tetrapoda. Basic taxonomy. Note Shubin says "Sort of intermediate", he's trying to explain stuff to the broader public in a way they can somewhat understand, this is not a deeper scientific presentation, obviously.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Recent experiments had shown that fish, even though they do not have parathyroid glands, do possess two genes for parathyroid hormone (PTH). The researchers examined the fish genes and found their encoded proteins contain key amino acids needed for function, which served to confirm other recent work by another group that suggested fish possess fully active PTH. They found these PTH genes were expressed, and detected parathyroid hormone in the gills.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Life started in the seas. Long before the first terrestrial tetrapod existed, fish needed to maintain homeostasis and one of the requirements was to maintain steady levels of calcium ions, Ca2+. As with other homeostatic regulation, one of the components needed is a sensor to monitor the system. The authors investigated and found that fish have calcium-sensing receptors in their internal gill buds, which themselves are derived from the embryonic pharyngeal arches.

[@g24417]

Do you have an alternative explanation as to why we have the MYH16 gene? A gene that if it worked it would kill us? Are you saying it somehow comports with "design"? If so, could you explain that? If not, then I don't see how you have a case against my assertions.

[@valnain]

@CrossfireCritic You misunderstood. That comment was a response to timmysame's post.

[@8DX]

8:46 I love the way his voice goes all low and sexy when he's saying ".. some significant devonian rock"! Niel Shubin rocks =D

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

So perhaps you'd care to explain the mechanism preventing small changes from accumulating to produce a big change from the starting point. Explain what keeps a bucket from being filled one drop at a time. Good luck.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens One of the anatomical homologies at this stage is the presence of pharyngeal arches and related structures, which are sometimes loosely called “gill slits”. Several lines of evidence indicate that pharyngeal arches in vertebrate embryos - which includes fishes and humans - are truly homologous structures. One of the latest evidences concerns the parathyroid gland in humans (and other tetrapods) and the corresponding internal gill buds in fish.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens In addition, a gene called Gcm-2 (which encodes a transcription factor) was known to be expressed only in the pharyngeal arches and then in the parathyroid of mice: the researchers found that Gcm-2 was also present in both the zebrafish and the dogfish, and further, that its expression in those animals was restricted to just the pharyngeal arches and the internal gill buds.

[@g24417]

how do you explain it?

[@CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY]

Creationist Nuts need just FF to about 1:04:00. Watch it over and over...for hours or even days. Therein you will find the beauty of science.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens In addition, they also discovered that the Gcm-2 gene is linked to the gene ELOVL2 in zebrafish, chickens, and humans. Thus there are strong similarities in function (maintenance of Ca2+ levels), genetics (Gcm-2 gene, which is also consistently linked to the ELOVL2 gene), structure (calcium-sensing receptors), and embryonic origin (pharyngeal arches as the progenitor) between the internal gill buds of fish and the parathyroid gland of humans and other tetrapods.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Further, like fish gills, the tetrapod parathyroid glands are derived from the pharyngeal arches.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens It was long known that the tetrapod parathyroid gland has calcium-sensing receptors, which are coded for by a gene called CasR. The authors’ detection of the expression of the CasR gene in fish gill buds established a strong functional and structural link between the gill buds of fish and the tetrapod parathyroid gland.

[@CarolynEllisQtEllis]

The claim that Tiktaalik is a transition between fish and tetrapods ( four-legged vertebrates ) has been devastated by the discovery in 2010 of unmistakable footprints (with digits) of tetrapods in Poland, that were made about 20 million years BEFORE Tiktaalik existed. The numerous tetrapod tracks indicated large vetebrates up to 2.5 metres in total length. The article is contained in Nature, entitled Palaeontology: Muddy tetrapod origins So where are the fish that turned into tetrapods?

[@whatabouttheearth]

Sarcopterygii are the line that turned into Tetrapodamorph, Stegocephalia is a clade after Tetrapodamorph, and Tetrapoda is a clade after that. Tiktaalik is a genus of Stegocephalia which are Tetrapodamorphs like Tetrapoda, but Tiktaalik is not of the clade Tetrapoda. Tiktaalik is of a non Tetrapoda Sarcopterygii Tetrapodamorph Stegocephalian. Tetrapoda derived from the lobed fin "fish" (Sarcopterygii), as opposed to ray finned fish (Actinopterygii). Tetrapodamorphs (like Tiktaalik) are towards the line of Tetrapoda Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, Watcheeria, Pederpes, Tulerpeton, Greererpeton, Crassigyrinus, Baphetidae, etc are all Tetrapodamorph Stegocephalians that are more closely related to Tetrapoda than Tiktaalik. No one "fish" just turned into one Tetrapoda, that's not how things work, and you may never know which specific species was "the first". What we are looking at is a radiation of change over a larger grouping of Sarcopterygii towards Tetrapodamorpha, towards Stegocephalians, towards Tetrapoda.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Incorrect.The Polish tracks preclude Tiktaalik from being ancestral to tetrapods, something it was never claimed to be. They do not preclude it from representing a transitional stage of tetrapod evolution, which is all that was ever claimed by the discovers.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens In addition to (1) the "almost complete" set of anatomical structures, found in humans, that already present in bony fish, and (2) the anatomical, molecular, and functional homology between the fish gill buds and the human parathyroid, there are also ... (3) The fact that human embryos start off with a very fish-like arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then must undergo much remodeling to end up in a human-appropriate arrangement.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens In addition to (1) the anatomicalhuman chacteristics already present in bony fish, (2) the multiple lines of evidence showing the relationship between the fish gill buds and the human parathyroid, and (3) the fishilke arrangment of aortae and aortic arches in human embryos, there's (4) the fact that the same executive genes are used in development of a human arm (a bat wing, mouse forelimb) and the pectoral fins of sharks and otehr fish.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens During the long transition from a wholly aquatic life of fish to the fully terrestrial existence of most reptiles and mammals, organisms gradually lost their gills. Yet throughout the transition, they still needed to maintain homeostatic control over calcium-ion levels. Because of the known function of the parathyroid gland - maintenance of Ca2+ levels in tetrapods - it, along with PTH (parathyroid hormone), evolved during this time to meet the need.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Endoskeleton, with bone of endochondral origin; Vertebrae; Vertebral column; Spinal cord; Ribs; Paired appendages; Internal pectoral girdle; Internal pelvic girdle Heart (but with single atrium and single ventricle, and bulbus arteriosus); Aortae; Arteries; Veins; Single circulation, but Sarcopterygii have double circulation (with a pulmonary and a systemic circuit); Erythrocytes (but nucleated)

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"chickens tears and humans tears are almost exactly the same" I don't suppose you'd mind supporting that assertion.

[@valnain]

Yeah, I've been meaning to read "Your Inner Fish." I'll get to it some day. And thanks for the other recommendation. I hadn't heard about that one.

[@jamarilee5162]

Sorry to be so offtopic but does anybody know of a method to log back into an Instagram account..? I was stupid forgot my account password. I would appreciate any help you can offer me

[@harryadriel7449]

@Jamari Lee instablaster ;)

[@jamarilee5162]

@Harry Adriel i really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.

[@jamarilee5162]

@Harry Adriel It worked and I actually got access to my account again. I'm so happy! Thank you so much you really help me out!

[@valnain]

Man, you are some crappy bots.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens "seems to me you didn´t see Euphorbia and Astrophytum" I already refuted you on them, because you claimed they weren't related, when they are.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Skeletal muscles -- In Sarcopterygii, muscles that move paired fins located on appendage; Tendons Most with gas-filled swim bladders; some with lungs (16 species of Birchirs & 6 species of lungfish) Testes (males); Sperm; Ovaries (females); Ova

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens (1) human anatomical preqrequisites present in fish (2) the relationship between fish gill buds and human parathyroid (3) the fishilke arrangment of aortae and aortic arches in human embryos (4) the same executive genes used in development of a human arm (a bat wing, mouse forelimb) and the pectoral fins of sharks and other fish. (5) transitional fossils - Tiktaalik and many other just for fish-to-amphibian transition, plus others for 'reptile' to mammal

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Animals like Diarthrognathus illustrate this transition. They posses, for example, both the quadrate-articular jaw joint found in reptiles as well as the dentary-squamosal jaw joint found in mammals. So again, provide a mechanism that prevents observable genetic mutations from accumulating to produce evolutionary change. And please try to do better than simply restating that mutation can't accumulate to produce great change like you did in your most recent post.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens "if a frog turns into a Prince by a kiss in an instant that´s a tale, " Kent, how are you posting on the Internet from behind bars???

[@g24417]

There is no Wall near Wall Street. Why does it have the name Wall Street?

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Um, "genetic blueprint" is not a counter argument. You're just rewording the assertion that mutations can't accumulate to produce evolutionary change. You haven't proposed a mechanism that prevents this. What would prevent, in a certain group of reptiles, a series of mutations that produce morphologies we now categorize as "mammalian" from accumulating until the end result is a mammal?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Paired cranial nerves (10 pairs); Eyes; Retinas; Extrinsic eye muscles; Excellent sense of smell, having an olfactory bulb -- In Sarcopterygii, paired olfactory sacs may open into mouth; Jaws (and from the mandibular arch); Teeth with dentine, and with true enamel in Sarcopterygii;

[@g24417]

Have you heard of Wall Street?

[@g24417]

How do you explain the fact that we have genes that are broken and if they worked they would be mortal to our current physiology? In evolution it makes perfect sense but it does not comport with "design".

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

You've done exactly what most other creationists here do: open with what you imagine to be a strong argument and then, once that argument is dismantled, try desperately to change the subject and avoid the issue. If you're to much of a coward to stick to your guns, then perhaps you should just run along now.

[@ApocalypticAang]

"Hmmm, how major transformation can happen?" Err, "major transformation" happens over MILLIONS of years-- you know, as an accumulation/culmation of many minor "transformations".... of course, the evolutionary time-scale is pretty hard to understand if you think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[@g24417]

Have you ever looked like a fish? You yourself - did you ever look like a fish?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens The origin of the parathyroid gland”, Masataka Okabe and Anthony Graham, PNAS, December 24 2004, Vol. 101, No. 51, p177716-177719. Source of the following ...

[@g24417]

Why are these easy questions so difficult for you to answer? They are such easy questions that you should be able to answer that you have to respond with distractions so you hope no one will notice that you didn't answer.

[@g24417]

You are avoiding the question again.

[@g24417]

Maybe you didn't understand my question, I will rephrase it. We have "vestigial genes" that no longer work, but were necessary for our ancestors in-which they still function properly. Some of our vestigial genes would kill us if they did work properly, yet we have them anyway. These are well established facts. They comport well with evolution. How to you propose these facts fit with "design"?

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Except that no available data indicates that the moon runs on gas rather than being moved by gravity whereas there's a wealth of evidence supporting evolution. Your contention is generally that the evidence does not support evolution and specifically that there is a mechanism preventing mutations from accumulating. Yet you've been laughably unable to support your position and have been reduced trying to avoid answering the question entirely.

[@adwarakanath]

@JCH0720 lol oh JCH0720, you so silly.

[@eppurse]

Abe Lincoln born the same day as Darwin

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Oops, you've failed again to back up your claim. You said there was a mechanism to prevent evolution but have so far been unable to provide it. Organisms do indeed produce after their own kind, but the point is that mutations accumulate in those offspring until the animals producing after their kind are distinct from the original line. So where's your mechanism to prevent this accumulation? And address the evidence of mosaic morphologies as seen in Diarthrognathus.

[@shinobi1kenobi75]

You have presupposed a position and want me to take a contrary position and by such give credence to your presupposition. It's like my asking you, what mechanism prevents the moon from running out of gas and having to pull over? The original position is flawed. No matter what you will believe what you want to believe because to you the alternative is unthinkable.

[@g24417]

Yes - MYH16 fits into the category of evidence for evolution because there is no other explanation for MYH16. Even you have admitted you have no explanation for MYH16, yet evolution answers it very well. All you can say is "no way" without any reason. This is just one specific case that we can examine right here in this tiny place There are thousands of other examples and evidence, but there is not room to explain any of them to you when you can't even understand this very simple example.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Still waiting for you to support your assertion that chicken tears are almost exactly the same as human tears.

[@cocogoat1111]

@Timbul53525253 If you have to resort to SHUT UP then your argument has already failed. Obviously it is a matter of opinion since a lot of scientific explanation is not good enough for a lot of people and for some it is.

[@thetraceur123]

@squirrelroks Agreed. Same here, also a Christian and very pro-science.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

And if you ever fact-checked the dogma you get from the Creation websites you’d know that life appears in the fossil record billions of years before the Cambrian event and that the event itself took place over a period of 80 million years. Nice try, sport. I know I've said this before, but in your next post I want you to try really hard to come up with a supporting point for your position. Though you've obviously conceded my point that there is no mechanism to prevent mutations aggregating.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

We don't expect to see a reptile birthing a mammal, we expect to see a gradient of reptiles acquiring mammalian traits until they must be classified as mammals. This is precisely what we see in therapsids like Diarthrognathus. Perhaps try being less evasive and cowardly and explain why such mosaic morphology is more consistent with Creation than evolution.

[@g24417]

This is a distraction. If you have evidence that anything I said is wrong, present it - otherwise all you are doing is trying to distract from the fact that you cannot answer this simple question.

[@NestorSanchez3D]

@realhomosapiens feel free to publish your results, and turn the scientific world around with your undeniable case for a 6000 year old Earth and Intelligent Design. Until then, your beliefs are not any different from any other myth regarding Creation from cultures all over the world from the bronze age: interesting and sometimes beautiful tales that have no connection with reality and are easily disproved using our current knowledge.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens Going back some 360+ million years and including a myriad intermediate forms, we human come from certain long-extinct fish. By the way; if you kiss a zygote will it magically and instantly turn into an adult human? No. Well then, do you claim that a zygote turning into an adult human is a fairy tale?

[@zencat999]

no more b u l l s h i t yaaaAAAAAAAAAAAA SCIENCE!

[@g24417]

Your claims here are simply wrong. This is a distraction. Don't create distractions when you don't have answers. The original question is how does MYH16 comport with design? Answer that question and I will be glad to answer one of your questions.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens "Have you ever heard of a frog turning into a prince in an instant?" Which has nothing to do with evolution. Once we eliminate the strawman part of your "argument", the "logic" seems to be that if X cannot happen instantly, then it cannot happen given long periods of time either. Hopefully you can see how silly that is.

[@squirrelroks]

Evolution is not "fish turning into man" but how earlier organisms developed and diversified over time by natural selection. The problem with the arguments today is that people compare modern species to each other. For example, the modern ape to the modern human. But in reality the ancient form of apes would be more similar to the ancient form of humans, not the forms today. Evolution does not dispute religion, and I, a christian, believe in the validity of evolution. Its a proven theory.

[@NestorSanchez3D]

@realhomosapiens EVIDENCE, tons of it. Lots of data from many different disciplines (geology, paleontology, biology, archeology, chemistry, tectonics, forensics and a lot of others) all pointing out to the same direction from multiple angles and starting points. Is just the most plausibleRATIONAL conclusion, the most obvious one that is supported by the data. If you can prove a better NATURAL, UNIVERSALLY VERIFIABLE explanation, that does not contradict the all the evidence

[@g24417]

You are very good at confusing yourself. I hate to inform you, but evolution predicts that bananas would share a great deal of our genes because we are related. If you don't understand MYH16 though then i don't think you will understand our relation ship to bananas. For creation though or design - this should not be the case. There is no other reason we should share so much from bananas. But you have to understand biology and DNA for it to make sense.

[@g24417]

Then you are confused because that is evolution. MYH16 is evidence for evolution.

[@kablamo9999]

It's always funny and sad at the same time to see people who think they know more than actual scientists in the relevant fields do.

[@dudev]

@realhomosapiens Who ever said a fish turned into a man? Nobody, that's who. But the bible does say that dirt turns into a man by magic.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Still unable to support your original assertion? How embarrassing for you. When you say you haven't got the time, what you mean is you haven't got an answer, otherwise you'd have provided it by now. And let's clarify something: evolutionary theory absolutely does not predict organisms that are half one thing and half another. Evolution is descent with modification (i.e. mutation), and posits that organisms will produce offspring like themselves but slightly altered

[@shinobi1kenobi75]

This is all rhetorical gainsaying but the mechanism you asked about is genetic blueprint. A clock face changes slowly over time but the hands are centered and return to the same positions time after time. Saber toothed cats pop up and disappear over and over throughout history but they are still cats. Your bucket whether empty or full, large or small is still a bucket. I used to argue adamantly for Darwinism but then I was challenged to take a hard look at the lack of evidence. Sorry, no sale.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

shinobi1kenobi75 There is NO such genetic species barrier, that is a bullshit lie only recently promoted by DI that is TOTALLY unsupported by ANY evidence. You were NOT challenged, and you DID NOT EVEN LOOK!!

[@timmysame]

Whaaattt??? This guy has a great imagination and even better drawing skills. So if you want to see an evolution, or transitional form--just let him know, he'll draw them for you. For some reason, fish started turning its head, so the neck grew.... laaaammmmeee

[@theforestero]

believe and fear, in human faith...but don't believe in the gods they give their belief to, as being fact.....

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Furthermore, we know that most mutations have no effect at all, so right off your claim that they're all deleterious is nonsense. And there are many documented cases of beneficial mutation. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for one. Note that even one example is sufficient to disprove your assertion that all mutations are harmful. So are you going to put up a bit more of a fight than repeating the same logical fallacy and spouting demonstrably false statements like "mutation = bad"? I doubt it.

[@g24417]

Are you familiar with DNA testing? Every human has different DNA. Methods for testing DNA are accepted in all courts of law and considered such good evidence that they are used for murder cases and giving out the death penalty. This method can tell exactly who is your parent and grand parent and great grand parent. This method also reveals you are related to chimps 200,000 generations back. These are legal and scientific facts.

[@g24417]

Now you have more observational data than the experts? How can that be? You have already admitted you are not a DNA expert. DNA experts know the DNA data and the DNA observations and you do know, but somehow you just know they are wrong. Can you explain how you know the evidence that you admit you don't understand better than the experts?

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

Heh, I see you've realized that you've backed yourself into a corner in addition to lacking any support for your assertions. So long, little guy. Come back to play when you've got some big boy arguments to make,

[@g24417]

Your quote is inaccurate and irrelevant. It's not about what anyone says its about the evidence and the evidence is for evolution. But you admit you don't want to see the evidence so that is why you don't know.

[@g24417]

Of course it looks ludicrous to you, you don't understand science and you don't look at evidence unless you like. The idea that the earth is round is a crazy idea to, but science has shown very well that the earth is not flat. There is even more evidence for evolution than a round earth. Thousands of new evidence for evolution every day.

[@g24417]

Do you understand English? Do you understand my question? If you do understand English and you do understand my question than Everything you are saying is just a distraction from the fact that you have no answer for a very simple question - a simple question that evolution does answer.

[@xenocampanoli815]

Just as, mathematically, there is always an infinity of unique falsehoods associated with every truth, so a cynic can always pull some shit out of their ass as an excuse that some evidence is not adequate. Detractors only have value when they can add to legitimate process, and enlightenment is not in any way dependent on them, only accidentally aided, sometimes; some very limited few times..kind of like with evolution and mutations.

[@g24417]

Really - the experts in biology including the DNA experts, all of them overlooked this thing that you know for a fact even though you admit you don't know biology or DNA. The thing you keep forgetting is that you are not an expert so you do not know what the observational evidence is. Even though you don't know what the observational evidence is, you claim you know it better than the people who do know what the evidence is - the experts. Is that reasonable to you?

[@lindafalkner1]

You might want to actually read the book before posting and making your ignorance public.

[@g24417]

Ah ok - you don't have an answer. Also you think you have to be a DNA expert to know the implications of having vestigial genes? The DNA experts say it is evolution. If you are not an expert, why are you arguing with the experts? There is no such thing as a scientific myth by definition. Science can be wrong and all it takes is some evidence to show that it is wrong. However, all the experts have looked at this evidence and they all agree it is evolution.

[@g24417]

Incorrect, the experts have evidence. The Catholic church is more like you - you both hold your beliefs without evidence.

[@lindafalkner1]

You might try reading the book and learning what Shubin actual said so you don't make yourself look like a total idiot, if that's possible.

[@g24417]

No - you are wrong again. This has nothing to do with Haeckel, this is Embryology. You can look at the evidence, the first two weeks of Embryology or you can just remain ignorant, your choice. So far you can;t understand the simplest thing, how are you going to understand bananas?

[@g24417]

haha - yes of course, now that you can't deny that you looked like a fish for 2 weeks all of the sudden it's not so crazy. Instead of answers, run away from evidence and science. Nice!

[@shinobi1kenobi75]

Listen, I'm sure you are a world renowned paleontologist, but I do not have time to argue about a scrap of fossil that the experts can not agree on. Show me in nature a half this half that. Theoretic evolution would indicate that they SHOULD be everywhere, they are nowhere. The earliest existing fossils were fully developed and very diverse. There is nothing before the Cambrian explosion, is there? You believe an adult fairy tale and science is slowly coming to terms with that as we speak.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

shinobi1kenobi75 They are all over the world, you're an ignorant deluded little piece of shit!! The Ediacaran period had early animal/plants, and lasted tens of millions of years before the Cambrian!! Before that were microworms we can now see fossilized under mcroscopes! And before that were bacteria and blue-green algal colonies called stromatolites, which made the first oxygen on earth for billions of years!!

[@lindafalkner1]

Your ignorance about the immense amount of evidence that exists does not discount it. It only shows your own mental lacking.

[@g24417]

You will make a bad judge. You won't look at evidence you don't like. You already know the answer and no evidence will change your mind. All you can say is you don't know yourself and therefore no one can know. It's a very bad way of thinking and behaving.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

And try a bit harder than "Reality is my evidence" That's more than a little pathetic. The point of arguing a position is to support your view of reality, so you're really begging the question here. I could have easily said "reality is my proof", but recognizing that for the cop-out and logical fallacy that it is I chose to support my opinion, something of which you've thus far been incapable. I predict your response will be nothing more than another empty claim of victory devoid of any support.

[@g24417]

I believe your post is a complete failure to understand evolution.

[@lindafalkner1]

There is a book full of evidence. Your ignorance is not a valid arguement against facts.

[@Ianosauruscanadensis]

I called that one. No supporting points at all. Just begging the question again. You know what a logical fallacy is, right? And you did say there was a mechanism: "the mechanism you asked about is genetic blueprint" But you've realized that "genetic blueprint" isn't an answer and are incapable of identifying the mechanism you were so certain existed. Also, I have given just one example of evidence (Diarthrognathus and its mosaic morphology) and you've been too cowardly to even address it.

[@valnain]

Another person with no education in the field, thinking he is somehow qualified to refute the work of experts. How quaint.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@realhomosapiens One of the anatomical homologies at this stage is the presence of pharyngeal arches and related structures, which are sometimes loosely called “gill slits”. Several lines of evidence indicate that pharyngeal arches in vertebrate embryos - which includes fishes and humans - are truly homologous structures. One of the latest evidences concerns the parathyroid gland in humans (and other tetrapods) and the corresponding internal gill buds in fish.