Re: News: Flatfish evolution was neither fluke nor turbot-charged.

On Jul 17, 12:54 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 17 Jul, 15:10, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Jul 17, 12:57 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 17 Jul, 08:04, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 16, 4:51 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15 Jul, 19:51, Zaius <cr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 11:17 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's a link to images of the skull of Heteronectes chaneti . Tell us
which bones you think are not ossified.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7201/fig_tab/nature07108_F...

Since you have only a partially preserved neurocranium in the left
hand image. It amazes me how you are so sure they are.
Perhaps you could explain.

Anyhoo. Why your at it. Could you please explain how "Matt" has ruled
out possible "arrested development", of these fossils.

Most of the points I have brought up already, but here is an actual
abstract paper on the subject.

Have a read, and tell me how "Matt" eliminated the possibility of all
of these common developmental defects, in a 200 million year old
fossil.

1) None of the conditions you have listed are common developmental
defects.

Yes they are.

Endocrine disorders: How many people do you know who have endcrine
disorders which have led to a gross asymetry of the whole skull?

Paul McCartney has an endocraine disorder.

They don't always lead to "gross deformation". In this case,
(flatfish) it would be simply a disorder of the signalling process
that prevents the eye from fully migrating. This is common in
flatfish.

Craniosynostosis: affects about one in 2000 infants, and does not lead
to the gross asymmetry of the whole skull.

You have it backwards.

Normal growth causes asymetry in flatfish.
"Arrested development" leaves the skull symetrical.

FGFRs mutations: (which might in any case be part of the evolutionary
mechanism which led to the asymmetry of these fish) which cause gross
asymmetry of the face (let alone the skull) are "extremely rare".

According to every source I can find (not that it's worth bothering
much) any such condition which would lead to gross asymmetry of the
skull is extremely rare.

You have it backwards again.

You're making things up again.

No honestly you do.

2) All the fish in the population show the same (or chiral)
morphology.

If you mean in the fossils that are in Matts paper, then you are
mistaken again.

No, I'm not. They share the same skull morphology - i.e. the
incomplete migration of one eye to the "wrong" side of the skull.

You mean the migration was "arrested".

3) Heterochrony is a significant element of evolutionary mechanisms in
any case, so genetically mediated developmental "defects" are simply
another way of adding variation to the gene pool.

"defects" occur in all taxa, all popuilations, in all ages. Matt has
not ruled out the possibility these 3 specimens were defects.

We've gone through this: There are twelve specimens.

There are more than 12. Most were for comparison. He has 3 so called
(confirmed) specimens.

If you have a better explanation for the evidence feel free to offer
it, but as all you have demonstrated so far is ignorance of the
subject coupled with a dogmatic refusal to learn I'm not going to hold
my breath.

There is no evidence.

So what are the 12 fossils in that case?

Iv'e told you.

All you have is 3 fossils.

No, we have 12 fossils.

You actually have thousands. But so what. About 12 or so were used in
the paper, most showed comparison markers. He has 3 that he thinks are
in a stunted developmental state..

We've been through this counting them one by
one. I've even listed the specimen numbers for you.

No you didnt, someone else did. theye left a few out. A closer
examination and about a gazillion quotations shows he thinks there are
3 confirmed cases.

Of which Matt claims
have incomplete migration of the eyes.

This incomplete migration is a common defect in many fish today, and
yesterday.

What nonsense! You're making things up again, which is a very bad
habit of yours. Some people might call it lying

So all the disorders that prevent eye migration are illusionary? Did
you even read the paper I showed you?

To quote from the paper: "First, all individuals of Amphistium and
Heteronectes are an order of magnitude longer than the size at which
eye migration begins in most living flatfishes (between 10mm and 15
mm)3.

1) There is no way of knowing the "standard size" of flatfish at the
date of these fossils.
2) That same effect can be found in live flatfish today.

There is no indication that primitive flatfishes might have
metamorphosed at larger body sizes, because the eye passes over the
dorsal midline at 13 mm in the anatomically conservative Psettodes22.
Second, unlike living flatfishes in even the late stages of eye
migration4'5'7, Amphistium and Heteronectes have completely
mineralized skulls, with all component ossifications present. Third,
the consistent morphology of all Amphistium specimens—which show
identical degrees of asymmetry despite ranging in size between 103 mm
(MNHN 10878b/Bol87) and 200mm (BMNH P.16138) in standard length—
indicates this is the adult arrangement."

All that implies is that the fish (assuming the size of flatfish is
constant through time) may have suffered a developmental disorder.

I asked you to explain "how" he ruled this out, and you haven't. I am
still waiting.

You mean you want me to explain how he ruled out something you have
just invented - i.e.

No, I am asking why he hasn't ruled out such an obvious point.

Or if he has, could you show me how he did it?

that "incomplete migration is a common defect in
many fish today"? Why on earth should anyone waste their time trying
to rule out something which is the invention of a dogmatically
ignorant creationist who has demonstrated an inability to count, let
alone reason?

I didnt invent "arrested development", its a common defect.

If he chooses to ignore the fact that a flatfish born today can
exhibit all the characteristics of his 3 fossils. Thats not my
problem. Just illustrates his lazy attitude to detail.

Still, it's entertaining to watch you try to lie your way out of the
hole you've dug for yourself. Do you honestly think that anyone is
fooled by this nonsense?

Lie? If you choose to ignore the links, thats upto you. But how can I
lie about a paper describing a common condition of flatfish?
Hole?
Fooled?

The only fool would be the one who ignores the evidence.

If you can show me how & why Matt ruled out the possibilities that I
have shown I will concede.

You could save yourself some time if you just wrote, " Hi! I'm an
Epistemological nihilist!"

.

Relevant Pages