Why don't you do a little research instead of blathering?
Lungs started out as a single lung attached to a buccal pump. Amphibians still use this system.
Reptiles can go for a long time without breathing because they have a partitioned lung.
Our system of alternate compression and expansion ("bellows") developed in dinosaurs.
Developmentally, Hox genes are involved in lung bud formation just like they are in body segmentation. Other lung genes include TTF-1, GATA-6, Fox-a2,f1,and j1, FGF-10, BMP-4, and Twist2.
The respiratory system, which consists of the lungs, trachea and associated vasculature, is essential for terrestrial life. In recent years, extensive progress has been made in defining the temporal progression of lung development, and this has led ...
I get it fine. Lungs EVOLVED from need, because organisms with lungs have survival advantages. Any organism that can breathe and mate on land can escape the sharks and other ocean dwelling predators. Land is a fertile biological niche. Organisms can enter the water to feed, and then leave the water when they require safety.
You don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around the numbers.
How many fish do you think there are in the ocean?
Answer: if each fish weighed 10 pounds, there would be 2 trillion of them.
And "most" fish (the vast majority) are nowhere near 10 pounds, they're tiny little things. Sardines weigh a couple of ounces.
But let's use 2 trillion to be generous. The numbers say that each fish has an average of 400 hereditary genetic mutations during its lifetime. That means the probability of 2 fish having identical mutations is 99.999999999 %.
For all practical purposes, that equals 100%. EVERY GENERATION will have at least two identical mutations.
If instead of fish we're talking bacteria, the numbers changes from 2x10^12 to 4x10^23.
So your likelihood becomes 99.99 with 21 more 9's after it. And your average number of identical.mutations per generation becomes about 10^15, which is 1000 trillion.
That's why it's called combinatorial EXPLOSION. In simple terms the key word is "redundancy". Do the math. If you have 1000 coins and you flip each one, what are the chances of getting 500 identical heads? You can look up the answer on Google. AI is good for stuff like that.
If that doesn't work, here are some links to help you:
Find the number of ways of choosing r unordered outcomes from n possibilities as nCr (or nCk). Combinations calculator or binomial coefficient calcator and combinations formula. Free online combinations calculator.
The number of combinations n=10, k=4 is 210 - calculation result using a combinatorial calculator. Combinatorial calculator - calculates the number of options (combinations, variations ...) based on the number of elements, repetition and order of importance.
For comparison, in human beings the DNA self-repair mechanisms are extensive and highly developed, and there are still on the average 60-70 new hereditary genetic mutations per person per generation.
Also in humans, mating is generally restricted to 1-5 pairs during a lifetime ,(on average), which is not true of fish.
So in HUMANS, the probability.of two individuals with identical genetic mutations mating, is much smaller.
However humans have other DNA behaviors that bring the probability back up. For instance there are unexpressed recessive alleles. This is why we recently had a black couple give birth to a blonde haired blue eyed baby. Those alleles can be hidden for generations, maybe thousands of years.
This is why the TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS are so important. They determine which genes are expressed at what time and for how long. Black skin color is determined by a molecule called melanin. To express it in the ectoderm (skin) it has to be activated in a fetal stem cell and all the progeny of that cell. If it isn't activated in the single stem cell at the right time, you get a white baby.
But melanin is all over the place, not just in the skin. For example it's in the brain, in an area called "substantia nigra" in the brain stem (which is one of the areas involved in Parkinson's later in life). So the SAME genes for melanin, is expressed in a different stem cell at a different time.
Melanin is also in the hair, eyes, inner ear, and adrenal glands. You don't need a mutation in melanin to change those, all you need is a mutation in one of 8 different stem cell TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS. You have an 8x greater chance of "at least one" of those changing, than melanin itself changing.
Humans have specific genetic mechanisms that deal with nothing but protecting and repairing the DNA of TRANSCRIPTION factors. The E2F1 gene is an example. It coordinates stem cell transcription repair by recruiting repair proteins.
And we also have transcription factors for the repair mechanisms themselves, like AP-1.
You can find all this stuff on Google. For a scientific overview you can start here:
DNA repair is the first barrier in the defense against genotoxic stress. In recent years, mechanisms that recognize DNA damage and activate DNA repair functions through transcriptional upregulation and post-translational modification were the focus ...
You don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around the numbers.
How many fish do you think there are in the ocean?
Answer: if each fish weighed 10 pounds, there would be 2 trillion of them.
And "most" fish (the vast majority) are nowhere near 10 pounds, they're tiny little things. Sardines weigh a couple of ounces.
But let's use 2 trillion to be generous. The numbers say that each fish has an average of 400 hereditary genetic mutations during its lifetime. That means the probability of 2 fish having identical mutations is 99.999999999 %.
For all practical purposes, that equals 100%. EVERY GENERATION will have at least two identical mutations.
If instead of fish we're talking bacteria, the numbers changes from 2x10^12 to 4x10^23.
So your likelihood becomes 99.99 with 21 more 9's after it. And your average number of identical.mutations per generation becomes about 10^15, which is 1000 trillion.
That's why it's called combinatorial EXPLOSION. In simple terms the key word is "redundancy". Do the math. If you have 1000 coins and you flip each one, what are the chances of getting 500 identical heads? You can look up the answer on Google. AI is good for stuff like that.
If that doesn't work, here are some links to help you:
Find the number of ways of choosing r unordered outcomes from n possibilities as nCr (or nCk). Combinations calculator or binomial coefficient calcator and combinations formula. Free online combinations calculator.
The number of combinations n=10, k=4 is 210 - calculation result using a combinatorial calculator. Combinatorial calculator - calculates the number of options (combinations, variations ...) based on the number of elements, repetition and order of importance.
This is the exact same losing argument the Evolutionists make in trying to convince rational people that molecules randomly collided together to make the first cells
The odds against are mathematically insurmountable
This is the exact same losing argument the Evolutionists make in trying to convince rational people that molecules randomly collided together to make the first cells
The odds against are mathematically insurmountable
This is the exact same losing argument the Evolutionists make in trying to convince rational people that molecules randomly collided together to make the first cells
The odds against are mathematically insurmountable
Poor development of wisdom teeth is the result of generational poor nutrition leading to poor bone development, including the jawbones. Mine are well developed and intact due to good childhood nutrition, including plenty of whole milk.
It's hard to say which part of evolution makes the least sense, that inorganic molecules defied the insurmountable odds to assemble the first cells or that fish developed lungs and lived underwater, above water, who can say, until they found a mutant mate to produce offspring
Where did I "invent an answer"? I pointed out that one cannot use the laws of nature to explain why/how laws of nature exist and that - by definition - means one cannot ever construct a scientific explanation. That's not "inventing" an answer it's simply a deduction based on what constitutes a scientific explanation.
Do you think a thing can serve as the explanation for itself? Do you think we can invoke naturalism to construct an explanation for the presence of naturalism?
Every time you speak of the discontinuity of the fossil record, you are using the "God of the gaps" fallacy. If you don't see that you are, you're not a liar, but not intellectually honest either.
But I never once advocated "God" go and recheck my posts. I have simply pointed out that the discontinuity is itself an observable trait of the record, you claim it's only an apparent discontinuity but I disagree and regard it is a true reflection of history, there were no ancestors and so there are no fossils, that's an entirely reasonable interpretation of what we observe - feel free to prove it wrong.
Could be a creator, could be solely natural forces. I'm agnostic here but happy to admit I do not have an answer and distrust anyone who claims they do.
How can natural forces be used to "explain" the presence of natural forces? That amounts to nothing more than saying the explanation for nature is nature. One can take that approach but when one does that they have abandoned scientific explanation. No scientific explanation in any branch of science, ever explains a phenomenon in terms of the phenomenon we are seeking an explanation for.
You asked earlier about paradoxes, now you know what I meant.
Where did I "invent an answer"? I pointed out that one cannot use the laws of nature to explain why/how laws of nature exist and that - by definition - means one cannot ever construct a scientific explanation
You making an authoritative declaration is not worth anything. Trying to hide behind "I pointed out" -- as if lending some sort of authority to what is just your shamanistic declaration -- isn't going to get you anywhere.
You making an authoritative declaration is not worth anything. Trying to hide behind "I pointed out" -- as if lending some sort of authority to what is just your shamanistic declaration -- isn't going to get you anywhere.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
