You can't produce the same tree with other morphological characteristics found in automobiles. Instead, you get wildly divergent trees.
You can't produce the same evolutionary tree based off of convergent traits.
In order to get anything close to what we are seeing with automobiles, you would need to have trees where an ostrich is in the same genus as squid instead of with other birds.
Doubtful.
At best, you see small changes in closely related nodes with life. Nothing like the massive divergences seen in automobiles.
.....It only accommodates small changes at closely related nodes. What you have with automobiles is vastly different trees. It isn't even comparable.
The possibility that all of the morphological traits that group Birds in Theropods are superficial similarities would be a major difference, yet an Evolutionary hierarchy could easily sustain this change.
As we know, the hierarchy could also sustain Birds moving even further away from their current nested grouping, and aligned closer with mammals, as Evolutionists have previously suggested. You're in denial about this, but it doesn't change the facts. You want to keep telling yourself these are minor fluctuations at the tips of nodes. That obvious misrepresentation is a symptom of your denial of how pliable evolution's nested hierarchy actually is.
Next you will tell yourself something like "this is all fantasy!" Yet they are real proposals put forth by prominent evolutionists.
Retinal projections? That's it? You have to focus on one tiny thing in a tiny organ?
How complex is the organization particular trait? Do you know? Am I also allowed undefined "That's it?!" freebies?
With automobiles, I am talking about major systems. I am talking about the engines and transmissions. In comparison, it would be like me commenting on the size of the knurls on the radio dial. The fact that you have to go to something so obscure that proves just how hearty the nested hierarchy really is.
That was just one interesting example I happened to recall off the top of my head. There are many others.
And apparent Megabat/Primate similarities are so remarkable that evolutionists seriously considered whether Megabats and Microbats evolved independently of each other. When genetics pushed them closer together, this forced researchers to assume all of those anatomical similarities were a product of convergence.
Evolution of course, could have accommodate either nested hierarchy, that is obvious. Publications of convergent bats never produced a whiff of fear of falsification of the evolutionary hierarchy. This is because there is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent. Major animal groups can be shifted around. You hate that fact.
It can't be labeled as convergent. Nice try.
Why not? Evolutionists can label an undetermined amount of morphology as convergent. There is no specifically defined "maximum allowed convergence". Actually, all of phylogeny is based off of the weak and completely untested assumption that convergence is probably minimal.
And now you find excuses for automobiles not producing a nested hierarchy, even though you previously said that they did fall into a nested hierarchy.
If I recall, that is one of the first points I brought up. Obviously we would expect to find a more harmonious pattern from a single designer than with multiple designers. Is that really that hard to understand? Of course, subscribing to the Biblical Creation point of view, I believe there was a single designer.
INo, they can't. Notice that you haven't produced a cladogram for these features, and shown how it matches your previous cladogram.
Yes, they can. Convergence is a subjective assessment. Evolution theory tells us so.
"Why would species with fur have more similar cytochrome c alleles than species without fur? How do you explain that?"
Where did I say that it was unrelated to fitness? The question is simple. Why do animals with fur have more similar cytochrome c genes as measured by DNA sequence? What in the world does the sequence of cytochrome c genes have to do with fur?
I thought I just answered you. If there are cytchrome c similarities in mammals, I would think that is because they functionally aid mammals.
Maybe you should try attaching an argument to this question instead of just asking it randomly.
Echolocation is not a morphological character or DNA sequence.
Where did I claim it was? Here, try responding to what I wrote:
"Okay, fine, the morphological pattern of limbs is unrelated to the presence of genes involved in echolocation."
That is only at the level of the protein sequence.
I don't know if that's true, but so what if it is? What's your point?
"Systematic analyses of convergent sequence evolution in 805,053 amino acids within 2,326 orthologous coding gene sequences compared across 22 mammals (including four newly sequenced bat genomes) revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci."
That doesn't say there is *only* convergence at the amino acid level. Where do the researchers say there is no convergence at the level of DNA?
from another study I read this:
"
...Altogether our results suggest a strong relation of the strand bias and amino acid sequences
and thus the danger of homoplasious substitutions in taxa that achieved a similar genome
organization independently..."
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ilaterian_mitochondrial_genomes_and_phylogeny
You need to show analyses of the DNA sequence in order for it to be cogent to the conversation.
No I don't. I'm simply describing character relationships. If we arrange a hierarchy based on proteins involved in echolocation, then dolphins and bats group together. Are amino sequences suddenly irrelevant to nested hierarchies when they don't give you favorable results?
You inherit DNA sequences, not protein sequences. Time and again, I have stressed that it is the DNA sequence that matters.
What are you even arguing here? We are discussing character traits in general, not only DNA. And DNA has never been some glorious test of Common Descent like you seem to believe it is. The reason is, as stated, the highly flexible narrative can be re-adjusted to better conform to DNA.
Evolution does not fail that test.
Of course it does. I've demonstrated that fact. Evolution can be arranged in multiple, highly divergent hierarchies. There is obviously no single "objective" hierarchy of common descent. You're in denial about that.
