How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[YoursTrue]

You don’t seem to understand LUCA at all.

The webpage you cited only say that these are all tetrapods - 4 limbs, not that humans from birds. That your misunderstanding of the website.

Humans are mammals not birds, and certainly didn’t evolve from birds.



What you are claiming is not possible, and more to the point, you have misunderstood the link you have posted.

I didn't make it up. In fact, just to set the matter straight, I don't believe it as if anything happened by mutation, etc., "natural selection," etc. to produce the diversity of lifeforms there are today, including -- birds, bees, plants, lions, etc. But here is what the theory is, in part: Inheriting homologies

Whales, lizards, humans, and birds all have the same basic limb layout. But how did such different animals wind up with the same sort of limb? The answer is that they inherited it from a common ancestor, just as cousins might inherit the same trait from their grandfather.​

"In the same way, an evolutionary “family” tree (called a phylogeny) shows relationships over much longer periods of time."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

yes, all life are related.

however I have issues with claim made by @YoursTrue that humans evolved from birds.

her nonsensical have nothing to do with LUCA.

Well, that explains everything. He has been corrected on this so many times.There is nothing you will be able to say to him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, that explains everything. He has been corrected on this so many times.There is nothing you will be able to say to him.

So how would you say God was seen when millions of Jews and others were killed by the Nazis in the concentration camps?

 

[gnostic]

I didn't make it up. In fact, just to set the matter straight, I don't believe it as if anything happened by mutation, etc., "natural selection," etc. to produce the diversity of lifeforms there are today, including -- birds, bees, plants, lions, etc. But here is what the theory is, in part: Inheriting homologies

Whales, lizards, humans, and birds all have the same basic limb layout. But how did such different animals wind up with the same sort of limb? The answer is that they inherited it from a common ancestor, just as cousins might inherit the same trait from their grandfather.​

"In the same way, an evolutionary “family” tree (called a phylogeny) shows relationships over much longer periods of time."

The "ancestral tetrapod" with 4 other images that of the whale, human, lizard & bird, is indication that they are all tetrapods - hence have 4 limbs. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I stated before, which you would ignored, the ancestral tetrapod, would have extinct organisms of the clade of Tetrapoda - known as the Amniota - tetrapods animals that reproduce and EITHER give live birth as the indicated by grouping whale and human, together, OR lay their eggs as indicated by grouping together lizard and bird together.

TWO SEPARATING GROUPING, which I have mentioned in my previous reply, @YoursTrue, but which you are too lazy to understand.

This diagram is oversimplification of what I was trying to tell you about amniotes.

The 1st group: would represent the

Synapsida - a clade of Amniota - those that reproduce through a fetus developing in the female's womb followed by live birth. The synapsids would include all mammal-like tetrapods and mammals (which would include whale & human).​

The 2nd group: would represent the

Sauropsida - a clade of Amniota - would include all animals that reproduce and lay their eggs on dry lands. The sauropsids would include all reptiles or Reptilia. The reptiles would include 2 groups (or 3 groups, if turtles are the order Testudines, is separate group) :​

​

Archosauria, which would include crocodiles, dinosaurs, and the only surviving dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs), the birds.​

​

Lepidosauria, which would include the order Sqamata, which would include lizards and snakes.​

As the birds evolved from the avian dinosaurs, then there is no way for humans to evolve from birds.

You still don't understand the concept of tetrapods.

There is another tetrapod vertebrates that you completely overlook - the amphibians. The differences between amphibians and the amniotes in Amnoita, is that amphibians, like frogs and salamanders, are - when they reproduce, they lay their eggs underwater, hence amphibians like fishes are classified as Anamniota.

Sure, you can ignore what I say, you can also ignored what every other biologists say, but your wilful ignorance is your problem, not mine.

Good luck, keeping your head buried in the sand.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "ancestral tetrapod" with 4 other images that of the whale, human, lizard & bird, is indication that they are all tetrapods - hence have 4 limbs. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I stated before, which you would ignored, the ancestral tetrapod, would have extinct organisms of the clade of Tetrapoda - known as the Amniota - tetrapods animals that reproduce and EITHER give live birth as the indicated by grouping whale and human, together, OR lay their eggs as indicated by grouping together lizard and bird together.

TWO SEPARATING GROUPING, which I have mentioned in my previous reply, @YoursTrue, but which you are too lazy to understand.

This diagram is oversimplification of what I was trying to tell you about amniotes.

The 1st group: would represent the

Synapsida - a clade of Amniota - those that reproduce through a fetus developing in the female's womb followed by live birth. The synapsids would include all mammal-like tetrapods and mammals (which would include whale & human).​

The 2nd group: would represent the

Sauropsida - a clade of Amniota - would include all animals that reproduce and lay their eggs on dry lands. The sauropsids would include all reptiles or Reptilia. The reptiles would include 2 groups (or 3 groups, if turtles are the order Testudines, is separate group) :​

​

Archosauria, which would include crocodiles, dinosaurs, and the only surviving dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs), the birds.​

LO​

Hmm. I have looked into this and my head is not buried in the sand, as you say it is. You and others may think so, but then I think you are not thinking either about this in a realistic way. It is folklore promoted by many scientists and based on fossils and projection that are said to be evidence of the truthfulness of the theory. I do understand the theory. I no longer believe it to be true as promoted by you and others. While you may claim there is evidence, it is not evidence of "natural selection" and that as if caused by mutations. So bye for now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh yes, the reason is that there is no real substance to the guesswork, and that's what it is, guesswork based on what they say are fossil remains as well as more guesswork about the "first cell."

False on all accounts.
Genomic analysis leading to the conclusion of species being related is anything but "guesswork".
Just like DNA testing to see if your sibling is your biological sibling is anything but "guesswork".

Whilst you and others may make the assignation that I do not understand evolution (actually the theory of), I do.

Every post you make on the subject, demonstrates otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't make it up. In fact, just to set the matter straight, I don't believe it as if anything happened by mutation, etc., "natural selection," etc. to produce the diversity of lifeforms there are today, including -- birds, bees, plants, lions, etc. But here is what the theory is, in part: Inheriting homologies

Whales, lizards, humans, and birds all have the same basic limb layout. But how did such different animals wind up with the same sort of limb? The answer is that they inherited it from a common ancestor, just as cousins might inherit the same trait from their grandfather.​

"In the same way, an evolutionary “family” tree (called a phylogeny) shows relationships over much longer periods of time."

And what that shows, is that humans and birds have a common tetrapod ancestor, just like we have been telling you. Not that one evolved from the other, like you implied.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm. I have looked into this and my head is not buried in the sand, as you say it is. You and others may think so, but then I think you are not thinking either about this in a realistic way. It is folklore promoted by many scientists and based on fossils and projection that are said to be evidence of the truthfulness of the theory. I do understand the theory. I no longer believe it to be true as promoted by you and others. While you may claim there is evidence, it is not evidence of "natural selection" and that as if caused by mutations. So bye for now.

Phylogenies are based on DNA analysis, not on fossils.

 

[gnostic]

Hmm. I have looked into this and my head is not buried in the sand, as you say it is. You and others may think so, but then I think you are not thinking either about this in a realistic way. It is folklore promoted by many scientists and based on fossils and projection that are said to be evidence of the truthfulness of the theory. I do understand the theory. I no longer believe it to be true as promoted by you and others. While you may claim there is evidence, it is not evidence of "natural selection" and that as if caused by mutations. So bye for now.

YoursTrue.

The LUCA are based on biochemical and molecular studies of the current, living species of organisms (eg molecular clock of DNA), not on fossils.

In most cases, you cannot extract DNA or RNA where organisms have become "fossilised"…only more recent fossils might still contain DNA, so the older the fossils, the less likely any DNA sequence or protein sequence will be preserved.

When organisms died, DNA & RNA would breakdown eventually…disintegrating, as more time passed. DNA would be lost before organisms have been fossilised.

The only ways that I know of DNA being preserved longer and be viable for testing, if the organisms, eg animals, have been frozen dried from permafrost. Such as the mammoth discovered, where the dna were preserved and intact, even after 52,000 years. But such discoveries of ancient DNA are rare.

as I said, LUCA is less about fossils, and more about finding when divergence have occurred by testing nucleotide sequences and amnio acid sequences of proteins, from living organisms. The molecular clock of divergence between humans and chimpanzees around about 6 to 7 million years.

As to the diagram you posted from the webpage, you are misreading & misinterpreting the diagram, thinking humans evolving from birds, only reinforced everyone’s impressions of your apparent ignorance on the subject of LUCA, and of Evolution in general.

I seriously don’t see why you are so insistent of being wrong and being science-illiterate?

 

[YoursTrue]

The "ancestral tetrapod" with 4 other images that of the whale, human, lizard & bird, is indication that they are all tetrapods - hence have 4 limbs. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I stated before, which you would ignored, the ancestral tetrapod, would have extinct organisms of the clade of Tetrapoda - known as the Amniota - tetrapods animals that reproduce and EITHER give live birth as the indicated by grouping whale and human, together, OR lay their eggs as indicated by grouping together lizard and bird together.

TWO SEPARATING GROUPING, which I have mentioned in my previous reply, @YoursTrue, but which you are too lazy to understand.

This diagram is oversimplification of what I was trying to tell you about amniotes.

The 1st group: would represent the

Synapsida - a clade of Amniota - those that reproduce through a fetus developing in the female's womb followed by live birth. The synapsids would include all mammal-like tetrapods and mammals (which would include whale & human).​

The 2nd group: would represent the

Sauropsida - a clade of Amniota - would include all animals that reproduce and lay their eggs on dry lands. The sauropsids would include all reptiles or Reptilia. The reptiles would include 2 groups (or 3 groups, if turtles are the order Testudines, is separate group) :​

​

Archosauria, which would include crocodiles, dinosaurs, and the only surviving dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs), the birds.​

​

Lepidosauria, which would include the order Sqamata, which would include lizards and snakes.​

As the birds evolved from the avian dinosaurs, then there is no way for humans to evolve from birds.

You still don't understand the concept of tetrapods.

There is another tetrapod vertebrates that you completely overlook - the amphibians. The differences between amphibians and the amniotes in Amnoita, is that amphibians, like frogs and salamanders, are - when they reproduce, they lay their eggs underwater, hence amphibians like fishes are classified as Anamniota.

Sure, you can ignore what I say, you can also ignored what every other biologists say, but your wilful ignorance is your problem, not mine.

Good luck, keeping your head buried in the sand.

Thank you for mentioning this. It is said by those particular evolutionary scientists that humans and whales, lizards and birds, all came from the same ancestor. Similar to cousins and a grandfather. So they're connected by the evolutionary descent of mutations according to believers in evolution. Whale,human, lizard and bird have same ancestral tetrapod, they say, apparently by mutation that made those changes little by little in those organisms. Bird-lizard--whale-human. All with the same ancestor. Say evolutionists. I no longer believe it happened by mutational forces ("natural attraction" in some cases). If you believe that, ok, so be it. Nothing scientists can say shows in reality this actually happened. But you take care, thanks again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you for mentioning this. It is said by those particular evolutionary scientists that humans and whales, lizards and birds, all came from the same ancestor. Similar to cousins and a grandfather.

As the genetics of these clades demonstrate, as well as supported by comparative anatomy, morphology, the fossil record and their geographic distribution. Yes.

So they're connected by the evolutionary descent of mutations according to believers in evolution.

Actually, even regardless of how evolution works.
That these species share ancestors is a genetic fact as much as it is a genetic fact that you and your biological siblings and cousins share biological ancestors.

This is the part that you keep overlooking. The genetic evidence.

Whale,human, lizard and bird have same ancestral tetrapod, they say, apparently by mutation that made those changes little by little in those organisms. Bird-lizard--whale-human. All with the same ancestor.

As demonstrated by genetics, yes.

Say evolutionists.

No. Says DNA.

I no longer believe it happened by mutational forces ("natural attraction" in some cases).

"natural attraction"? lol
Yeah, you "understand" the theory

If you believe that, ok, so be it. Nothing scientists can say shows in reality this actually happened. But you take care, thanks again.

DNA shows it happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

As the genetics of these clades demonstrate, as well as supported by comparative anatomy, morphology, the fossil record and their geographic distribution. Yes.



Actually, even regardless of how evolution works.
That these species share ancestors is a genetic fact as much as it is a genetic fact that you and your biological siblings and cousins share biological ancestors.

This is the part that you keep overlooking. The genetic evidence.



As demonstrated by genetics, yes.



No. Says DNA.



"natural attraction"? lol
Yeah, you "understand" the theory


DNA shows it happened.

There truly is nothing beyond conjecture to conclude that DNA similarities mean evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There truly is nothing beyond conjecture to conclude that DNA similarities mean evolution.

Try using that as a "defense" if you ever find yourself in court when a DNA test demonstrates some person is a close family member of yours (like a sibling or cousin or what-have-you) in some inheritance conflict case.

See what happens.



It's amazing how you keep claiming you understand evolution while being apparently so flippin' ignorant on DNA / genetics in general.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To @gnostic -- not even going to argue with you about this any more. Or discuss "clades" as if they morphed from one form or species to another, etc. birds/lizards/plants, etc. Maybe one cell, maybe two, maybe more, etc. Have a good one, take care...

Sounds like you should be giving it a good read since you still don't seem to understand what a clade even is, or that creatures don't "morph" into completely different creatures. I'm not sure how that's possible at this point, but here we are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There truly is nothing beyond conjecture to conclude that DNA similarities mean evolution.

Not truly. Just in your mind. You've put up a roadblock to understanding this stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There truly is nothing beyond conjecture to conclude that DNA similarities mean evolution.

That poster just demonstrated otherwise to you.
And yet you repeat your mantra and tell us you don't have your head buried in the sand.
Mmkay.

 

[Wes Bailey]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

Simple watch the videos on https://www.reddit.com/r/dragoNgiants/top/?t=all and you can see with you own eyes evolution is hogwash at best... just need your eyes and logic... also we can change the size of any life form in lab condition and we can observe it in action today... we don't need a time line that is so long by the time we can observe evolution again the sun will eat the earth... pretty convenient if you ask me

 

[Valjean]

And what that shows, is that humans and birds have a common tetrapod ancestor, just like we have been telling you. Not that one evolved from the other, like you implied.

If she just traced the species in question back to the common ancestor, with her finger on the cladogram, she would see what descended from what, and what didn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

If she just traced the species in question back to the common ancestor, with her finger on the cladogram, she would see what descended from what, and what didn't.

She would?

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue.

The LUCA are based on biochemical and molecular studies of the current, living species of organisms (eg molecular clock of DNA), not on fossils.

In most cases, you cannot extract DNA or RNA where organisms have become "fossilised"…only more recent fossils might still contain DNA, so the older the fossils, the less likely any DNA sequence or protein sequence will be preserved.

When organisms died, DNA & RNA would breakdown eventually…disintegrating, as more time passed. DNA would be lost before organisms have been fossilised.

The only ways that I know of DNA being preserved longer and be viable for testing, if the organisms, eg animals, have been frozen dried from permafrost. Such as the mammoth discovered, where the dna were preserved and intact, even after 52,000 years. But such discoveries of ancient DNA are rare.

as I said, LUCA is less about fossils, and more about finding when divergence have occurred by testing nucleotide sequences and amnio acid sequences of proteins, from living organisms. The molecular clock of divergence between humans and chimpanzees around about 6 to 7 million years.

As to the diagram you posted from the webpage, you are misreading & misinterpreting the diagram, thinking humans evolving from birds, only reinforced everyone’s impressions of your apparent ignorance on the subject of LUCA, and of Evolution in general.

I seriously don’t see why you are so insistent of being wrong and being science-illiterate?

The idea of one LUCA for all life on earth to have emerged (evolved) from then mutations or whatever borders on the fantastical. That's how I look at it now the more I examine what science says about evolution.