best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

[Loudmouth]

so if i will give you an example of 2 species that shared genes that we cant find in 2 species that suppose to be between them (in the tree) it will falsified evolution according to your criteria?

That is a poor sample size for species having 20,000+ genes.

those are the same genes for both limb and gills development. so i claimed that according to the evolution criteria i can say that shark evolved from a land creature.

False. You can say that sharks and land creatures share a common ancestor, as do all vertebrates. Those genes are shared by all vertebrates.

again- this is not my logic but evolution one (whale have the same genes for legs development- therefore they evolved from a creature with legs).

We don't see sharks giving birth to young that have legs. However, we do find whales that give birth to young with atavistic legs. That's why we say that whales still have genes for making legs, and why it is evidence for evolution.

Atavisms are evidence for evolution because they fit into the nested hierarchy. We don't see offspring from fish that have atavistic feathers. We don't see offspring from sharks that have atavistic mammary glands. We do see cetaceans that have atavistic legs, consistent with their proposed evolutionary history.

 

[xianghua]

They are not limb-making genes.

Sharks aren't on that branch. So they don't have the limb-making genes.

not according to this article:

Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

“The fact that the Sonic hedgehog gene performs the same two functions in the development of gill arches and branchial rays in skate embryos as it does in the development of limbs in mammal embryos may help explain how Gegenbaur arrived at his controversial theory on the origin of fins and limbs.”

as for the nested hierarchy- see my comment to loudmouth

 

[xianghua]

That is a poor sample size for species having 20,000+ genes.

so we can find genes that are shared between 2 far species (and not between them) or not?

False. You can say that sharks and land creatures share a common ancestor, as do all vertebrates. Those genes are shared by all vertebrates.

i just use the evolutionery logic- that shared genes are evidencee for a commondescent. i can conclude anything i want.

We don't see sharks giving birth to young that have legs. However, we do find whales that give birth to young with atavistic legs. That's why we say that whales still have genes for making legs, and why it is evidence for evolution.

false. those are vestigial flippers:

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

Atavisms are evidence for evolution because they fit into the nested hierarchy. We don't see offspring from fish that have atavistic feathers. We don't see offspring from sharks that have atavistic mammary glands. We do see cetaceans that have atavistic legs, consistent with their proposed evolutionary history.

see above- its not true either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

not according to this article:

Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

Dude.......... read even only the TITLE:

Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

false. those are vestigial flippers:

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

I'm starting to have doubts about your sincerity.
This is again an article that agrees with what we are saying and which in no way supports anything that you are saying.

Are you a Poe?

 

[xianghua]

Dude.......... read even only the TITLE:

do you know what "may" mean? they assume that this is evidence for evolution but it's just an assumption.

I'm starting to have doubts about your sincerity.
This is again an article that agrees with what we are saying and which in no way supports anything that you are saying.

again: just an assumption. what they are realy found was flippers. not legs. its also contradict the claim that some whales born with legs.

 

[Loudmouth]

not according to this article:

Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

“The fact that the Sonic hedgehog gene performs the same two functions in the development of gill arches and branchial rays in skate embryos as it does in the development of limbs in mammal embryos may help explain how Gegenbaur arrived at his controversial theory on the origin of fins and limbs.”

as for the nested hierarchy- see my comment to loudmouth

Genes used for building gills in our ancestors evolved over time to produce limbs in modern tetrapod species. How is this a problem for evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

so we can find genes that are shared between 2 far species (and not between them) or not?

You tell me. Can we?

I can think of two examples, but they are the result of human design.

i just use the evolutionery logic- that shared genes are evidencee for a commondescent. i can conclude anything i want.

Then you don't know how evolutionary logic works. Fish have the less derived body plan, and tetrapods have the more derived body plan. Evolutionary histories go from less derived to more derived.

false. those are vestigial flippers:

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

Did you read the article? They are vestigial legs.

see above- its not true either.

What's not true?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

do you know what "may" mean? they assume that this is evidence for evolution but it's just an assumption.

Even if that's the case (which it isn't), then still the article says the opposite of what you are claiming.

again: just an assumption. what they are realy found was flippers. not legs.

"flippers" with the anatomical structure of limbs.

its also contradict the claim that some whales born with legs.

With "legs".

 

[xianghua]

You tell me. Can we?

I can think of two examples, but they are the result of human design.

so according to your prediction we cant find such a case in nature (only in human design). again: this is your evolutionery prediction. but we do find such cases. so the prediction have been flasified.

Did you read the article? They are vestigial legs.

even the article title is "dolphin with four fins". so you are wrong. you can see it clearly in the picutre:

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

 

[Loudmouth]

so according to your prediction we cant find such a case in nature (only in human design). again: this is your evolutionery prediction. but we do find such cases. so the prediction have been flasified.

What cases?

even the article title is "dolphin with four fins". so you are wrong. you can see it clearly in the picutre:

Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

"Similarly, dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops."
Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

 

[xianghua]

What cases?

this one for instance:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25223/title/Surprises-in-sea-anemone-genome/

 

[Loudmouth]

this one for instance:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25223/title/Surprises-in-sea-anemone-genome/

How does it support your argument?

Do we find an exact copy of a gene (100% identical at the DNA level) shared by a fruit fly species and an anemone that is not shared with other fruit flies species?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so if you will find a car on the ground in a far planet you may not conclude design? ok. but what is the best conclusion: that a car need a designer or the opposite?

The opposite being that it didn't need a designer? I'd have to do more than just look at it to make either conclusion. You do realize that, given that this is an alien vehicle we are talking about, I wouldn't recognize it as a car immediately, even if it looked like a car from our planet, right?

Other planets have strange weather and environmental formations compared to our own: for example, Saturn has a huge jet stream in the shape of a hexagon, which comes off, at least to me, as something that would be unnatural, but only because no such thing exists naturally on Earth. Natural formations that look like cars would not be impossible by any means; even ones made of metal. This natural rock formation on our planet looks like a cat https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/9f/6d/44/9f6d445128808fb4abb9ad5f3894382e.jpg

To be blunt, there are scenarios in which I would conclude that the "alien car" is a creation of some organism, as well as ones in which I would conclude it to be a natural formation. The best conclusion would depend on the answers to these questions: Does the car have internal, inorganic circuitry? Can I observe the car being formed naturally, or reproduce itself? If there are multiple cars, how similar are they? Is there signs of welding?

Something to consider: If everything is created, you wouldn't be able to distinguish that fact, because there would be no contrast. A random rock would be just as much created as the alien car.

why not? neanderthals are fully humans. of course that they are not identical to modern day human but they all the unique features of humans. they even classified under the homo genus.

You mean the genus homo. Also, that's like saying tigers and lions are the same thing, since they are in the same genus. Or that a chihuahua and a grey wolf are the same thing.

Also, Neanderthals were very different from humans. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/df/3f/6d/df3f6da456c419946e07a6e858b1be02.jpg

What you'll probably notice first (aside from height, which is fairly irrelevant) is that the rib cage is shaped differently. They also have shorter, more robust limbs and fingers. Technically, you could call them human BECAUSE that term applies to all species in that genus, but in common terms, it only refers to the species we belong to. Do you want to call these human? Go ahead, but never claim that they are the same as us. https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1933-main-main-big-1415045921.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/99/2a/32/992a32d3dcc77d5c09737b4e511d2e3b.jpg http://citizen.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2015/09/brother.jpg?x55229

 

[xianghua]

How does it support your argument?

you are kidding, right? this finding means that we can find the same genes in far species but not in some of the species between them= no hierarchy at all.

 

[xianghua]

This natural rock formation on our planet looks like a cat

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/9f/6d/44/9f6d445128808fb4abb9ad5f3894382e.jpg
nice cat

The best conclusion would depend on the answers to these questions: Does the car have internal, inorganic circuitry? Can I observe the car being formed naturally, or reproduce itself? If there are multiple cars, how similar are they? Is there signs of welding?

lets say that all points are very similar to what we have found in nature.

Something to consider: If everything is created, you wouldn't be able to distinguish that fact, because there would be no contrast. A random rock would be just as much created as the alien car.

true. so i speak anly about things that are look very designed.

You mean the genus homo. Also, that's like saying tigers and lions are the same thing, since they are in the same genus. Or that a chihuahua and a grey wolf are the same thing.

true. both can interbreed. so they are in the same family.

Also, Neanderthals were very different from humans.

not too much. and you can see it clearly in your first picture.

 

[Loudmouth]

you are kidding, right? this finding means that we can find the same genes in far species but not in some of the species between them= no hierarchy at all.

What you need is closely related species compared to distantly related species. That's not what you have with this example.

 

[PsychoSarah]

lets say that all points are very similar to what we have found in nature.

Then I would conclude that the alien car was natural, given the evidence.

true. so i speak anly about things that are look very designed.

Saying something looks "more designed" if you think everything is designed is nonsensical. A bicycle is no more designed than a super computer.

true. both can interbreed. so they are in the same family.

They are in the same family, but genus is the lowest (and thus, most narrow) classification Neanderthals and modern humans share with each other. Creatures incapable of interbreeding can be put in the same genus, as well as the same family. In fact, frequent interbreeding is a SPECIES qualification. Interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals was infrequent, as is indicated by the fact that we can easily tell the DNA of the two apart, and there is recent evidence suggesting that many of the hybrid offspring of the two suffered from infertility. I once did the math for the likely number of Neanderthal genes that would be present in the groups of people that experienced the cross-breeding in modern day: it's only between 5-20 genes, which makes for .025-.1% of the genome. And that is assuming every gene that has withstood the test of time was one unique to Neanderthals.

not too much. and you can see it clearly in your first picture.

-_- we can genetically tell they aren't human, their bones were very different. You might as well be suggesting that horses and donkeys are the same thing. And, you ignored the other members of the genus Homo I posted.

Neanderthals didn't even originate from the same part of the planet as ourselves; they are natives of Europe, while our species came from Africa.

 

[xianghua]

What you need is closely related species compared to distantly related species. That's not what you have with this example.

i dont need a closely related species. the non hierarchy can exist in any place between 3 different creatures. closely or not. its breaking the suppose hierarchy. for example: if we will find genes that are shared between bacteria and human but not reptiles- it will break the hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

Saying something looks "more designed" if you think everything is designed is nonsensical. A bicycle is no more designed than a super computer.

true. but there are some levels of complexity of looking design. i guess we both agree that the chance of a nail evolving naturally may be high then the chance of a computer evolveing naturally.

They are in the same family, but genus is the lowest (and thus, most narrow) classification Neanderthals and modern humans share with each other. Creatures incapable of interbreeding can be put in the same genus, as well as the same family. In fact, frequent interbreeding is a SPECIES qualification. Interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals was infrequent,

again: if they can interbreed- then they are in the same "kind".

-_- we can genetically tell they aren't human, their bones were very different. You might as well be suggesting that horses and donkeys are the same thing. And, you ignored the other members of the genus Homo I posted.

there is more variations in the dog family:

NewStat | Dogs skulls show astounding variety in shape

but they are still dogs.