Home » Genomics, Intelligent Design, News, speciation » Researchers: Tuna closer to seahorse than to marlin

Researchers: Tuna closer to seahorse than to marlin

© Melissa Fiene / Fotolia

That’s the outcome of attempting to classify the 150 million-year-old, widely distributed family of spiny fish, which includes most commercial species.

The researchers looked at 10 genes in more than 500 fish species representing most of the families of spiny-rayed fish. They used the genetic data to construct a tree, grouping related families together. They also looked at the pace of evolution — the rate at which new species formed — in different branches, and across the group as a whole.

The tree shows some interesting relationships. For example, tuna are more closely related to seahorses than to swordfish or barracuda. The oddly shaped pufferfishes are related to anglerfish, the only fishes whose bodies are wider than they are deep.
Cichlids, a family that includes about 2,000 species of freshwater fish known for brooding their young in their mouths and a favorite for studies of evolution, are related to the engineer gobies, an obscure family of just two species that live on coral reefs and raise their young in a nest.
Wainwright’s special interest is in the evolution of fish jaws. Fish have two sets of jawbones, an outer jaw and “pharyngeal jaws” in the throat that adapted to different functions. In some fish, the lower pharyngeal jaw is fused into a single solid bone that can be used to crush prey such as shellfish.

Biologists had assumed that this fused jaw had evolved once and then spread into different groups of fish. Instead, the new tree shows that this structure evolved at least six times in different groups of fish.

It just doesn’t seem like Darwin’s mechanism (natural selection acting on random mutation) should be yielding results like this. No one would have predicted it. No one did, in fact.

We really don’t know how evolution happens.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Researchers: Tuna closer to seahorse than to marlin

  1. So, according to Darwinists tunafish are now more closely related to Seahorses than barracudas?,,

    Seahorses Advice (Beginners Aquarium Guide)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIaXmJFBSOQ

    Dang, by that no holds bar reasoning in molecular phylogenetics, I bet I can make a plausible sounding connection from real horses to Seahorses without raising too much of an eyebrow! :)

  2. But… But… God would not have made it that way, convergent evolution happened, punctuated equilibrium happened and obviously these scientists are liars for Jesus. Lastly I’m certain that there is uncertainty about the certainty of these results. You all know Darwin’s stuff can do anything, just give it a chance and some time…. come now at least one more time, please….

  3. GIVE CHANCE A CHANCE!!!!

  4. of related interest on fish:

    Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video and notes
    http://vimeo.com/30932397

    Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Arthur Jones – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    The fish-like creature was hardly more than an inch long, but its discovery in the rocks of southern China was a big deal. The 530-million-year-old fossil, dubbed Haikouella, had the barest beginning of a spinal cord, making it the oldest animal ever found whose body shape resembled modern vertebrates. In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, Jun-Yuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish “will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.” ,,, “Neo-Darwinism is dead,” said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first fishlike impressions of Haikouella five years ago.
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    picture – 550 million year old fossil fish – “Most major animal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record 550 million years ago, but vertebrates have been absent from this ‘Big Bang’ of life. Two fish-like animals from Early Cambrian rocks now fill this gap.”
    “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China” – Nov. 1999
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/cambrianfish.jpg

    a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
    b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
    c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.

    Different ‘kinds’ of fish are surprisingly unchanged in the fossil record and show no evidence of transitioning between the different ‘kinds’. Here is an example of the flying fish that has remained unchanged since it first appeared in the fossil record:

    Flying Fish Fossil – pictures of 95 million year old fossil
    http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fi.....toides.htm

    Flying Fish in the Darwin Magic Show – November 6, 2012
    Excerpt: The BBC News reports the discovery of an “exceptionally preserved” fossil of a flying fish in Middle Triassic strata from China, dated 235-242 million years ago. Nothing in the data or pictures would lead an impartial observer to conclude unguided Darwinian evolution produced this fish. The artist reconstruction shows a beautifully adapted fish with fins outstretched to glide over the water, as modern flying fish do.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66051.html

    As, Dr. Authur Jones, who did his PhD on Cichlids, finds no ‘blending’ between kinds of fish in the fossil record.

    Cichlid Fish – Evolution or Variation Within Kind? – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids

    What is Speciation? (Cichlids) – July 2012 – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_12-07_00

    Of related note:

    “The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).—-(surprising implication of the study?)—- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages”

    Research on stickleback fish shows how adaptation to new environments involves many genes – April 2012
    Excerpt: A current controversy raging in evolutionary biology is whether adaptation to new environments is the result of many genes, each of relatively small effect, or just a few genes of large effect. A new study published in Molecular Ecology strongly supports the first “many-small” hypothesis.,, “I suspect that as more and more studies use these methods, the tide of opinion will swerve strongly to the view that adaptation is a complex process that involves many genes spread across diverse places in the genome,” says Prof. Hendry.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....genes.html

  5. Now that sounds utterly wonderful, bornagain77. What the Calgary Stampede really needs is aquatic events. But we must breed bigger seahorses, starting now. (O’Leary)

  6. LOL News, Calgary stampede :) ,,, This type of stuff coming from Darwinists really makes you wonder if these guys saying and writing this stuff are snickering amongst themselves as they write it saying something to the effect, ‘look at this one I’m selling them today, bet you can’t top that’

  7. So this guy is particularly interested in fish jaws. And his evaluation of the evidence unexpectedly – as always – resulted in the jaw evolving independently at least 6 times!

    If evolutionists were to do such a study on each individual gene, I think we would have so many different genetic trees that we would be lost in a deep forest with no hope of ever finding your way out.

    I don’t know if I have ever seen a genetic tree that does not have to rely on convergence to explain the evidence.

    How can we honestly say this particular tree supports common descent?!!

    In fact, when we look at the forest of different genetic trees, how can we come up with the idea of common descent at all?

    If we had these trees first – before the theory came out – would common descent ever have been a valid interpretation of the evidence?

    Personally, I doubt it, but who knows? Far be it from me to be able to predict how people interpret evidence. Worldview plays such a strong role in our interpretations.

Leave a Reply