An Evolutionary Discovery That “Literally Changes the Textbook”

Gar Brain

Behold, the gar’s brain. In this microscope image, the brain’s left hemisphere fluoresces green and the right glows magenta. Yet, at the bottom of the image, nerves of both colors can be seen connecting to both hemispheres. This shows that both of the gar’s eyes are connected to both sides of its brain, like a human’s eyes are. Credit: Reprinted with permission from R.J. Vigouroux et al. Science 372:eabe7790 (2021)

MSU’s expertise in fish biology, genetics helping researchers rewrite evolutionary history and shape future health studies.

The network of nerves connecting our eyes to our brains is sophisticated and researchers have now shown that it evolved much earlier than previously thought, thanks to an unexpected source: the gar fish.

Michigan State University’s Ingo Braasch has helped an international research team show that this connection scheme was already present in ancient fish at least 450 million years ago. That makes it about 100 million years older than previously believed.

“It’s the first time for me that one of our publications literally changes the textbook that I am teaching with,” said Braasch, an assistant professor in the Department of Integrative Biology in the College of Natural Science.

Spotted Gar Fish

The eyes of this spotted gar are connected to its brain in a way that’s both ancient and human-like. Credit: Courtesy of Ingo Braasch

This work, published online in the journal Science on April 8, 2021, also means that this type of eye-brain connection predates animals living on land. The existing theory had been that this connection first evolved in terrestrial creatures and, from there, carried on into humans where scientists believe it helps with our depth perception and 3D vision.

And this work, which was led by researchers at France’s Inserm public research organization, does more than reshape our understanding of the past. It also has implications for future health research.

Studying animal models is an invaluable way for researchers to learn about health and disease, but drawing connections to human conditions from these models can be challenging.

Zebrafish are a popular model animal, for example, but their eye-brain wiring is very distinct from a human’s. In fact, that helps explain why scientists thought the human connection first evolved in four-limbed terrestrial creatures, or tetrapods.

Brett Racicot, Ingo Braasch, and Andrew Thompson

Ingo Braasch (center) poses in 2019 with members of his team, gar facility manager Brett Racicot (left) and postdoctoral associate Andrew Thompson (right), holding spotted gar grown at MSU. Credit: Courtesy Ingo Braasch

“Modern fish, they don’t have this type of eye-brain connection,” Braasch said. “That’s one of the reasons that people thought it was a new thing in tetrapods.”

Braasch is one of the world’s leading experts in a different type of fish known as gar. Gar have evolved more slowly than zebrafish, meaning gar are more similar to the last common ancestor shared by fish and humans. These similarities could make gar a powerful animal model for health studies, which is why Braasch and his team are working to better understand gar biology and genetics.

That, in turn, is why Inserm’s researchers sought out Braasch for this study.

“Without his help, this project wouldn’t have been possible,” said Alain Chédotal, director of research at Inserm and a group leader of the Vision Institute in Paris. “We did not have access to spotted gar, a fish that does not exist in Europe and occupies a key position in the tree of life.”

To do the study, Chédotal and his colleague, Filippo Del Bene, used a groundbreaking technique to see the nerves connecting eyes to brains in several different fish species. This included the well-studied zebrafish, but also rarer specimens such as Braasch’s gar and Australian lungfish provided by a collaborator at the University of Queensland.

In a zebrafish, each eye has one nerve connecting it to the opposite side of the fish’s brain. That is, one nerve connects the left eye to the brain’s right hemisphere and another nerve connects its right eye to the left side of its brain.

The other, more “ancient” fish do things differently. They have what’s called ipsilateral or bilateral visual projections. Here, each eye has two nerve connections, one going to either side of the brain, which is also what humans have.

Armed with an understanding of genetics and evolution, the team could look back in time to estimate when these bilateral projections first appeared. Looking forward, the team is excited to build on this work to better understand and explore the biology of visual systems.

“What we found in this study was just the tip of the iceberg,” Chédotal said. “It was highly motivating to see Ingo’s enthusiastic reaction and warm support when we presented him the first results. We can’t wait to continue the project with him.”

Both Braasch and Chédotal noted how powerful this study was thanks to a robust collaboration that allowed the team to examine so many different animals, which Braasch said is a growing trend in the field.

The study also reminded Braasch of another trend.

“We’re finding more and more that many things that we thought evolved relatively late are actually very old,” Braasch said, which actually makes him feel a little more connected to nature. “I learn something about myself when looking at these weird fish and understanding how old parts of our own bodies are. I’m excited to tell the story of eye evolution with a new twist this semester in our Comparative Anatomy class.”

Reference: “Bilateral visual projections exist in non-teleost bony fish and predate the emergence of tetrapods” by Robin J. Vigouroux, Karine Duroure, Juliette Vougny, Shahad Albadri, Peter Kozulin, Eloisa Herrera, Kim Nguyen-Ba-Charvet, Ingo Braasch, Rodrigo Suárez, Filippo Del Bene and Alain Chédotal, 9 April 2021, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.abe7790

67 Comments on "An Evolutionary Discovery That “Literally Changes the Textbook”"

  1. Scott Mendelson | April 10, 2021 at 9:45 am | Reply

    I assume they have ruled out evolutionary convergence to explain how advantages of bilateral visual input led to this development in less ancient progenitors of gars.

  2. Luv the scientific articles and new discoveries

  3. 100 ds of millions of years of evolution… Why would fish stay fish. Why not evolve into sentient beings as ourselves. Strange that we, out of Millions of species, are the only sentient ones. Why?

  4. Tom,what makes you think that we are the only sentient beings? Truth is we ain’t that special.

  5. Babu G. Ranganathan | April 11, 2021 at 6:44 am | Reply

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    THE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION

    ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION (micro-evolution or evolution within biological “kinds”) is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution across biological “kinds,” (such as from sea sponge to human). All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes. For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible.

    The genes (chemical instructions or code) for a trait must first exist or otherwise the trait cannot come into existence. Genes instruct the body to build our tissues and organs. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

    Evolutionists believe that, if given millions of years, accidents in the genetic code of species caused by the environment will generate entirely new code making evolution possible from one type of life to another. It’s much like believing that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, can turn the novel into a book on astronomy! Not to worry. We’ll address the issue of “Junk DNA” in a moment.

    WHAT ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION? Natural selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations. It can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.

    HOW COULD SPECIES HAVE SURVIVED if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully integrated and functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds!

    NEW SPECIES BUT NOT NEW DNA: Although it’s been observed that new species have come into existence, they don’t carry any new genes. They’ve become new species only because they can’t be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological “kind” allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological “kind” (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).

    Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza’s extensive research points to a better explanation than natural selection for variation and adaptation in nature. Dr. Guliuzza explains that species have pre-engineered mechanisms that enable organisms to continuously track and respond to environmental changes with system elements that correspond to human-designed tracking systems. This model is called CET (continuous environmental tracking). His research strongly indicates that living things have been pre-engineered to produce the right adaptations and changes required to live in changing environments. It’s much like a car that’s been pre-engineered so that the head lights turn on automatically when day changes to night.

    What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it’s only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce.

    Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes – not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn’t affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children’s hair. So, even if an ape or ape-like creature’s muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.

    What about the new science of epigenetics? Epigenetics involves inheritable factors which can turn already-existing genes on, but epigenetics doesn’t create new genes.

    Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations. Mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by nature (i.e. environmental radiation), are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. Even if a single mutation is not immediately harmful, the accumulation of mutations over time will be harmful to the species resulting in extinction. At very best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species.

    All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully formed, and fully functional. This is powerful evidence that all species came into existence as complete and fully formed from the beginning. This is only possible by creation.

    God began with a perfect and harmonious creation. Even all the animals were vegetarian (Genesis 1:30) in the beginning and did not struggle for survival nor kill and devour each other. Macro-evolutionary theory does not begin with a perfect and harmonious creation as the Bible states. The Bible and macro-evolutionary theory cannot both be true.

    All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human).

    There has never been unanimous agreement among evolutionary scientists on ANY fossil evidence that has been used to support human evolution over the many years, Including LUCY.

    The actual similarity between ape and human DNA is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Only a certain segment of DNA between apes and humans was compared, not the entire DNA genome.

    Also, so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk. Although these “non-coding” segments of DNA don’t code for proteins, they have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they’re not “junk”). Also, there is evidence that, in certain situations, they can code for protein.

    ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? (Internet article by author)

    Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (This site answers many arguments, both old and new, that have been used by evolutionists to support their theory)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

  6. Babu I am not one to knock another’s beliefs but urs r prehistoric in complexity and rationality

  7. Not possable because the world is only 6000 years old.

  8. Happy Easter Christ has risen, Alleluia!

  9. Shannan Manasco | April 11, 2021 at 10:03 am | Reply

    Very interesting stuff you’re telling us. Hopefully this means maybe we can rule out cancer diabetes what have you in our future, at least we can see it with two eyes,just like the gar!

  10. @Babu: “The Bible and macro-evolutionary theory cannot both be true.” Correct! Turns out, the stories written over thousands of years by hundreds of people are not, in fact, real.

  11. Jerry Hernandez | April 11, 2021 at 12:06 pm | Reply

    I really enjoy the comments, yes including the ones who do not understand evolution. These people are able to learn. What I cannot stand is those who use science speak to proselytizing their faith in a diety of which they cannot prove exists. For example, Babu Ringing his own dingaling looking for validation for his ignorance.

    Tom; we are not the only sentient beings on this planet. Whales, dolphins, the Octopus. On land Elephants and Dogs to name a couple. Sentient life is able to feel and be aware of its own existence. Many animals do. As for fish evolving into sentient life it vary well may be possible. Sharks are just now being rediscovered as inquisitive and sentient. Their genome is millions of years old as well. Homonids have been evolving for about 2 million years. But humans have only been around for 150,000 to 200,000 years. Everything on earth has adapted and evolved together as one planet.

  12. not a bible thumper | April 11, 2021 at 12:26 pm | Reply

    Ignore Babu, he is wrong on so many levels. for starters, it’s chimpanzees and bonobos we are genetically closely related to, not aps. Humans and apes share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from apes. oh and the genomes have been fully sequenced. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_macaque#Genome_sequencing

  13. Herman (Dusty) Rhodes | April 11, 2021 at 2:00 pm | Reply

    Where did “Chance” get it’s laws of physics?

  14. To Babu..Thank you for your perfect answer! Creation is so much more believable. Ty

  15. It really takes a tremendous amount of blind faith (all puns intended) to believe you evolved from a fish… But ok, I won’t cast any doubts toward your religion…

  16. @ Scott Mendelson. As I understood it…the study did not necessarily excluded convergence nor did it set out to establish convergence of this trait. This study established that the evolution of visual nerves to the brain as seen in many terrestrial animals evolved a lot sooner that previously thought. This trait could have very well been extremely advantageous that it may have evolved several different times…which in of itself is quite intriguing and does warrant its own study, but I don’t believe that was the goal of this body of work. The groundwork for additional inquiries, however, has been laid.

  17. Tiffany Nelson | April 11, 2021 at 4:17 pm | Reply

    This is the most amazing story I have read and this is ultimately life changing. Think of Helen Keller!

  18. Hooman mammal | April 11, 2021 at 4:35 pm | Reply

    Well, considering it makes more sense for life to have evolved on land and then migrate into the sea it’s fairly plausible that eyes started on land and were kept during the seaward transition. The ocean is a horrible place for emerging life. It’s certainly possible that relatively soon after life began it migrated to the sea, but unprotected dna doesn’t care much for water in vast quantities. Not that I know much beyond that.

  19. Ray Tewksbury | April 11, 2021 at 6:53 pm | Reply

    It’s ridiculous to think that millions of species have evolved from primordial soup in hundreds of millions of years when we don’t have one example of macroevolution in 4000 years of recorded history. It’s also the maximum possible insult to our super-intelligent, incredibly loving Creator, Who made all life forms perfectly suited to their various environments from the very beginning. ‘Evolution’ is one of the biggest deceptions ever foisted upon the human race.

  20. Aaron Rastus Sanders | April 11, 2021 at 9:38 pm | Reply

    Babu R. Explains it all quite clearly. The idea of evolutionary macro occurrences is akin to the idea of flipping a two sided coin, not calling “heads” or “tails” and expecting a “middle section” or “belly” of the coin to appear. While it may land on its edge in a one in a trillion shot or “middle”, it lacks the ability or production of itself to become an actual “mid-section” or true variation in the only two possible outcomes, I.e. heads/tails. That’s breaking how genetics works down as simply as you can. Or this…

    If I were to take plastic, rubber, metals, silicon, glass, graphene, gold, silver (more metals) and place them in an environment where it once existed as a computer, around a lot of intelligent influence (perhaps humanoids walked around it and trampled it or examined it over millions of years), heat, cold, pressure, good times and bad for the elements all occured… What was formerly perhaps a Panasonic “Toughbook” that was all but destroyed by an act of God or man with still some limited functionality would be able to intelligently rearrange itself (over millions of years) back into some sort of viable entity, not just a computer without intelligent direct help, but it turned itself into a CYBORG. It’s just not possible. Even though these components aren’t for the the most part, DNA derived, it is the same principles. These mutations, changes, are just not there to occur without direct outside influences to change or create them, BECAUSE their information (i.e. DNA/RNA in living organisms( does not possess that capabilty. Sure, we can CRISPR all kinds of nasty things up and we have as humans. Look at the Covid virus. Proven fact (a CRISPR edited entity)… Or any biological binary agent or body part you please, but you MUST HAVE the original source code! We have plenty of examples. What’s funny is how much we still need nature (the source code) in development of these super simple and or complex organs/organisms to get the effect we want… There are a lot of deeper more sinister applications and meaning what I am saying behind this but I’m sure most are aware of what all that implies. The principles remain the same. You can’t create something completely different and new out of something old, not even with stem cells, you need the genetic info of the original “software”. You can’t for intelligence and execution code to do something else without altering and creating all new information like with CRISPR (YOU’VE GOT TO HAVE THAT OTHER CODE) That takes intelligence, not heat, water, time, wishful thinking. DNA and RNA don’t work that way, just like computer programming, you need original thought and command instructions to create. Nature can’t mutate a fish into a gopher into a bird into a humanoid. Sorry, not possible. Anyone with a high level intelligence should be able to look at the data and extrapolate that quite easily. Because we know how many scientists from hundreds of years ago brought forth concepts, theories, laws that remained totally applicable to this day… VERY FEW.

    • Seriously man, seek help.

      • Isaiah 63:7 NLT
        I will tell of the LORD’s unfailing love. I will praise the LORD for all he has done. I will rejoice in his great goodness to Israel, which he has granted according to his mercy and love.
        NLT: New Living Translation
        Share
        Read Full Chapter
        Download The Bible App Now
        Bible App
        Download the Bible App for Kids
        Bible App for Kids
        Compare Different Versions of this Verse
        Free Reading Plans and Devotionals related to Isaiah 63:7
        HUMAN(KIND): A 5-Day Devotional on Kindness Isaiah 63:7 New Living Translation
        HUMAN(KIND): A 5-Day Devotional on Kindness

        All the Feels: Take Charge of Your Feelings (Instead of the Other Way Around) Isaiah 63:7 New Living Translation
        All the Feels: Take Charge of Your Feelings (Instead of the Other Way Around)

        Countdown to Christmas Isaiah 63:7 New Living Translation
        Countdown to Christmas

        Daily Bible Reading — Sustained by God’s Word of Joy Isaiah 63:7 New Living Translation
        Daily Bible Reading — Sustained by God’s Word of Joy

        English (US)

  21. Aaron Rastus Sanders | April 11, 2021 at 9:54 pm | Reply

    So, when people say the idea that life was created without intelligent influence, I want you to explain in detail how that happens. Since the idea that life was NOT created with intent and intelligent influence from nothing, and our ideas are “archaic”. Explain to us how it occurred, since I’ve had the same biological and evolutionary classes as you I’m assuming, convince us that your scientific method–like evolution(that Completely goes against how we clone organisms and organs or alter them with ultra modern scientific techniques today) works, exactly…?

  22. Aaron Rastus Sanders | April 11, 2021 at 10:34 pm | Reply

    This article only goes to prove our point. Millions of years and it reminded the same… Odd, shouldn’t it (gars eyesight in this case) have changed/adapted/evolved in some noticable manner? Like development of night vision, infrared? The vision of an eagle under water? It’s things like this that tell you everything. It didn’t reach it’s evolutionary peak hundreds of millions of years ago and decided to remain constant. These ideas goes against everything evolutionary theories represent. Why would some species who are hardly sentient beings have their DNA decide to cease it’s revolutionary evolutionary super duper sloooow change??? IT WOULDN’T. IT CAN’T. This goes against the idea of “evolution”. DNA can no more change itself without actually outside intelligent, deliberate intent than me with both arms blown off tie my shoes with imaginary arms I once had… I’m not trying to belittle anyone or their pseudo-intellectually purchased delusion but the facts prove otherwise in what we’ve done to improve and advance upon reality with real genetic manipulation/creation. We can grow female reproductive organs and put them successfully inside young women who were born with organs that were not fully developed. With their own tissues! We’ve done it for years! They are fully functional, accepted by the patients body and work beautifully (by all scientific means) what humans have accomplished in organ growth and transplantation COMPLETELY eliminates the need for donated organs… Guess what? That ruins enormous profit margins and excuses for totalitarian regimes to imprison and harvest an entire people group. We know scientifically without a doubt that evolution is an outdated, antiquated, stupid idea. Because of our ability to use, manipulate and alter ALL genetic codes of ALL organisms. We know this stuff wasn’t created by enviromental accident or influence over billions of years. Do you think the humans who use this technology and where we learned much of it from came from “happenstance” or “chance”? You’re braindead. You’re living in the dark ages of Darwin. Get a real education and job. I can’t deal with this level of stupid anymore. Go get an ATS level security clearance with the government and attend some real universities. Not one that tells you “Eugenics is cool” i.e. “man is better if dead, you should be Communist, you evolved from an ape, whites are racists and inherently evil, the Jews ruined everything, the Earth is doing from climate change because of man”. Whatever lying b.s. they shove down your throat that goes against actual facts in the papers, interviews, books of the people who tell you these BRAINWASHED ideologies. Anyway, I went there. Most of you will die in a stopper of delusion and that’s okay, it’s necessary that many couldn’t actually think for themselves with the brains God gave them. Bring deceived by Big Brother and not let into “THE Club” will disappoint a whole lot of losers who otherwise never would of done any better in the first place. At least then, you can remain a “useful idiot”, eater, breeder, window licking mainstream mouth breather. I don’t love you any less.

  23. I’m amazed at how many insane people blabber about their magical being pooping matter into existence and somehow claiming it is more beliaveble than peer reviewed studies. Big f**ing yikes.

  24. @Aaron Rastus Sanders, you forgot your medication today.

  25. I honestly don’t understand how all the complexities of the human body or of the
    other beings can be explained without a Divine creator did they come about by things bumping up against each other over the eons of time ?

  26. Ray …. no signs of evolution at all? Fail to see as you don’t look? Maybe as you eat your chicken nuggets and think about how they came to be in the house with magic lights and water with no stream…. get your head out of the sand and just for a second listen to something you don’t say yourself. No one is saying you have to toss aside God but look at the facts. We as humans have evolved or do you still all wash in the same tube on only Sundays? Human intelligence is a clear and blinding light of evolution and I would debate it is Marco not Micro my dude.

  27. Forgive me for chiming in on this topic be that it may it is truly a fascinating yet very debatable subject nonetheless, I see many supporting arguments on BOTH sides which leads me (as well as others) towards the same conclusion…WE DO NOT TRULY KNOW NOR UNDERSTAND, AT THIS TIME, WHAT IS TO BE AND WHAT IS TO COME. Only that time, as always, will produce answers. One may simply see the facts before us and stipulate a possibility of how we as humans came to be. Now as far as the “God participation” for humanity let me first explain a little about me..I am a former teacher of the “word of God” a minister if you will and mark my words to be true for all those who choose to believe God had anything to do with this…GOD LEFT HUMANITY A VERY VERY LONG TIME AGO and was ready to wipe out our existence entirely. Another issue to which I would be glad to debate with anyone..just make sure YOU are prepared to answer. So respectfully in this, as well as future scientific discoveries, God has nothing to do with it at all. Facts are facts plain and simple.

  28. Wow some interesting comments. So for those of you who don’t believe in evolution what do you believe in? If you say god then how can a magic man in the sky be more believable? Is he just one day going to return to earth at beyond light speed? I honestly can’t see that lol.

  29. Religion is funny not just the ones we are allowed to bash without ridicule I was a Christian but man once you look at it with a critical eye my god what a bunch of crazy made up sh*t written during a time when people thought mass sacrifices controlled the weather

  30. This is incredible! It is so amazing how our Earth and all its inhabitants are on a cycle together. We need each piece to create the whole! Thank you to scientists, as the world would be so secluded without you guys!

  31. Occam's Hammer | April 12, 2021 at 7:22 am | Reply

    The theory that aliens seeded our planet with highly adaptable genetics for the purposes of terra forming makes more sense than the Bible. So if you want to cast your eyes skyward for some higher intelligence to come and save us all… At least we know for a fact that aliens exist.

  32. Save your breath and time fellow conservatives and Christians, the DNC makes science say whatever they can sell. This is not our fight. Let the idiotic sheeple that get information from CNN and NBC have this forum. They dont deserve our attention.

  33. We’re not the only sentient beings at all Tom.

  34. Wow! A lot of very hurt people here. I truly am sorry that some of you have been so hurt in life that you, with itchy ears, search for and cling to fairytales in order to make sense of a world that continues to produce after its own kind. One holds a diety in high esteem and another holds theory. Neither can be seen and the proof of both is subjective. Or is it? You will never understand the how until you reconcile that the effect has a cause and the “cause” can not naturally cause itself.

    Simply,wow!!! I wish I had your type of blind faith.

    P.S.
    @ the “former teacher…” Capitalize “Word.” It’s proper. I’m sure you already knew that. If you don’t then don’t pretend. It confuses those who think you know better.

  35. Jinger Pulkrabek | April 12, 2021 at 4:30 pm | Reply

    Is this the new species of religious troll, sent to discredit science?

  36. Eartha Kitts | April 12, 2021 at 4:37 pm | Reply

    Congratulations to Andrew, Ingo and the other guy who’s name is cut off in the article!
    The scientists behind the curtains finding some real truths about the world! Nice work fellas!

  37. Eartha Kitts | April 12, 2021 at 4:41 pm | Reply

    Once I posted the ads moved! Thanks Brett! You guys are doing great work!
    An interesting read!

  38. Babu: ‘accidents’ as the result of natural and environmentally influenced mutations – yes, of course! However, you’ll only know if those amino acids/nucleotide sequences/alleles were encoded for if they were selected by nature. That is to say, the resulting physical manifestation gave the life form an advantage in survival and breeding.

  39. Leon Carlisle | April 13, 2021 at 6:11 am | Reply

    We all evolved from a one cell organism….ferns and algea..not fish not apes when the meteor wiped out tje dinosaurs the meteor carried a one celled organism and that’s how life formed

  40. @Dusty. Physics results in chance. Everything we are is chance. Dumb luck and a great deal of time resulted in the only stable, A to B concept which underlies all of spacetime.

    Entropy. It is really a wonder that creationists are so stubborn about celebrating or disgusting, inefficient flesh, which exists only to replicate and consume, and for them, to be puppy dog slaves worshiping an abuser.

    If a God made anything, and made it absolutely perfect, you need to look no further than the stars. They are far more perfect than we can ever be.

    Original sin doesn’t explain anything because it didn’t even make sense. If they were perfect in creation, then there is no way they could understand how to disobey an order, or be worried about it. But I guess that’s just the first time the religious decided to victim blame so whatever.

  41. Baby R you used other research, then added your own 6000 year theory. Dishonest, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/brochures-and-booklets/was-life-created-lc DA

  42. The problem with evolution is we do not grow a extra arm to evolve from the simplest from to a complicated one but loose what is not needed therefore it is devolving. Man is ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of truth

  43. Good 1st step, but they should not rely on one species. Another organism that would be an interesting anatomical/ physiological comparison to the gar would maybe be a coelocanth, another living fossil fish.

  44. @Hellno There’s an old joke about human arrogance. One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity didn’t need God. So one day one of the elected scientists walked up to God and told him, “God, we’ve decided we no longer need you. We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things. So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?”
    God listened patiently and kindly replied after the scientist was done talking, “Very well. How about before I go, we have a human-making contest?”
    The scientist says, “Sure, we can do that, no problem!”
    “But,” God added, “We’re going to do this just like I did in the old days with Adam.”
    The scientist nodded and reached down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged his finger at him and said, “No, no. Put that down and go find your own dirt.”

  45. Babu, thanks for the reminder/lesson on science. The beauty of science, in any branch, when studied honestly, objectively, is it will lead you to the Creator.

  46. Thats amazing. And hell if them guys need gar i live in Kentucky and catch them all the time

  47. Occam’s hammer is most likely right here. Humans are not a product of new chance but they are also not the product of some omnipotent deity either. I believe human life did not originate on earth.

  48. Please, please PLEASE stop using the word ‘literally’. Your article title would have been just fine without it.

  49. If life were “created” by Intelligent Design do you really think that human beings are the best the Creator could do. Talk about design flaws. We are too fragile; easily damaged and infected by deseases. We certainly need a much larger capacity for empathy and kindness. If you were building a human is the current model where you would stop if you were omnipotent. Evolution at least gives us hope we will improve and we have the potential to be a better “Us”.

  50. So, the next time you wash down some fish with a glass of wine, be sure that you just downed one of your ancestors.

  51. Wow, the theory of evolution once again sunk by a broader view. Genetics and looking at all the possibilities shakes up the evolutionary tree again. Complexity is getting older and old making “evolution” a lot harder to explain. What shall we believe in now? Funny, years ago an evolutionist gave us the Eve theory which concluded there were 3 or 4 Eves. Yet this evolutionist showed how stupid she was was, if she had thought she would have realized her findings were a perfect match for Noah’s story of the Bible. I believe in evolutionary entropy, scientists explain why higher order animals don’t devolve into grey goo before eyes? Evolutionary theory is a failure, a pipe dream from the British who like to steal all the Nobel prizes with DUMB SCIENCE.

  52. I hate Atheists | April 16, 2021 at 6:20 am | Reply

    First off you people need to learn to spell. You all look like blabbering idiots talking about theories but can’t spell. And who the heck uses Wikipedia as a reliable source another reason why you all look like idiots. You Atheists are vile humans, you ruin everything. You can’t let anyone be happy you have to ruin it with your existence

  53. I’ve never been so interested in science articles until I saw one about Mars and the blue stuff an now I can’t stop reading them.

  54. Bradley Hodson | April 16, 2021 at 2:19 pm | Reply

    If you don’t believe what I believe, then you are a dummy. Hahaha, look at the free-thinking DUMMY!! . . . Idgaf :*

  55. If the mythological stories were correct, the hero would have returned by now.

    If the science was all there, we could explain it to the imbeciles.

    Just saying.

  56. Absolutely impossible without God nothing becomes something .
    But let go further science in the 1800 s disproved evolution . Louis Pasteur experiment life produced life ..and germ theory ..

  57. man this comment section is a mess. i think this is better than watching twitter comments. to be fair, i dont believe in religion at all, but the whole prehistoric soup to land animals to humans thing never sat right with me you know?

  58. Don’t let this article fool you. That is just Cosmo and Wanda.

  59. I don’t believe in evolution one bit even the simplest of cells is so organized and complex to be attributed to evolution. There has to be an intelligent organized purposeful mind behind all of this… This spell an Intelligent Creator to me and all thinking and reasonable people.

  60. Think of the complex designs of computer and buildings and road networks, aeroplanes. How do you think those persons would feel if we were to believe that these things just evolved. Wouldn’t they see us as stupid? Yet none of these designs no matter how complex can equal or even come close to the design of the body the various work groups of cells carry out daily. Not to mention the many and varied plant and animal life. How can sensible people study these things and give credit to evolution? What is evolution? How does evolution “know” which cell to group together in order to carry out a specific function and to collaborate with other cells in order to sustain life in every organism? That has to be the work of an intelligent Designer. A super intelligent mind has to be behind all of this. All sensible scientists should who have studied these mind boggling things should come to the conclusion that the evidence of intelligent design is too overwhelming to attribute it to mindless evolution. Set pride aside and humble yourselves and acknowledge that there must be A Super-Intelligent Designer. No human was around when these things came about so how can you speak so authoritatively about sonething you came and saw? And you’ve only been around for a few years?

  61. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but BECAME VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be WISE, they became FOOLS,” Romans 1:21-22

  62. Whocaresaboutfish | April 17, 2021 at 12:22 pm | Reply

    Ooooo the arcadians have spoken …more theories from experiments with fish 🐠 …hurry hurry I’m aquaman I dare any of you the forgot you was part fish to get dropped off in the middle of the ocean and survive since you’re so adapted now !!

  63. Jerzy Kaltenberg | April 17, 2021 at 10:48 pm | Reply

    because Lamarque was wrong & evolution is not purposeful

Leave a Reply to Tiffany Nelson Cancel reply

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.