best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

[xianghua]

Because we have evidence that humans evolved over time, instead of suddenly appearing. We also have plenty of evidence that humans share ancestry with other organisms, further giving evidence for humans evolving.

what is your best evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

surprise:

Feather Development Genes and Associated Regulatory Innovation Predate the Origin of Dinosauria | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

so again we can see why evolution cant be falsified.

For crying out loud....
Do you actually read the articles you link to?

Nothing in that article supports your case. Nothing.
Contrary to what you seem to be implying, that article does not identify feather-making genes in mammals.

Neither does it argue against evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what is your best evidence?

Phylogenies

 

[Loudmouth]

surprise:

Feather Development Genes and Associated Regulatory Innovation Predate the Origin of Dinosauria | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

And yet they didn't have feathers. Instead, these genes evolved in the Dinosauria clade and later became responsible for the development of feathers.

so again we can see why evolution cant be falsified.

How is it falsified? How does the evolution of feathers in Dinosauria falsify evolution?

 

[xianghua]

your own words: "We don't find genes for feather development in mammals"

as we can see: this prediction however is false. so again: we cant falsified evolution by finding examples of non hierarchy. or any oher evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

your own words: "We don't find genes for feather development in mammals"

We don't find genes for feather development in mammals. What we find are homologous genes between birds and mammals that only produce feathers in birds because those genes evolved in the bird lineage to produce feathers.

 

[xianghua]

We don't find genes for feather development in mammals. What we find are homologous genes between birds and mammals that only produce feathers in birds because those genes evolved in the bird lineage to produce feathers.

this is not what the paper says:

"Rates of innovation at feather regulatory elements exhibit an extended period of innovation with peaks in the ancestors of amniotes and archosaurs. We estimate that 86% of such regulatory elements and 100% of the nonkeratin feather gene set were present prior to the origin of Dinosauria"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

this is not what the paper says:

"Rates of innovation at feather regulatory elements exhibit an extended period of innovation with peaks in the ancestors of amniotes and archosaurs. We estimate that 86% of such regulatory elements and 100% of the nonkeratin feather gene set were present prior to the origin of Dinosauria"

And notice how it says NOTHING ABOUT MAMMALS!

 

[xianghua]

And notice how it says NOTHING ABOUT MAMMALS!

do you know what "amniotes" means?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

do you know what "amniotes" means?

Do you even know what you're arguing against?

 

[xianghua]

Do you even know what you're arguing against?

do you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

do you?

I do. I'm not sure that you do since you seem to be all over the place with your assumptions on evolution.

 

[xianghua]

I do. I'm not sure that you do since you seem to be all over the place with your assumptions on evolution.

do you know that mammals are also amniotes?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

do you know that mammals are also amniotes?

Yes, what are you getting at??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

do you know that mammals are also amniotes?

Yes I do. Your point?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

this is not what the paper says:

"Rates of innovation at feather regulatory elements exhibit an extended period of innovation with peaks in the ancestors of amniotes and archosaurs. We estimate that 86% of such regulatory elements and 100% of the nonkeratin feather gene set were present prior to the origin of Dinosauria"

What they're saying is that there is an ancient set of genes used to regulate gene expresssion that predate the evolution of feathers and are used in the regulation of feather development. This is either a generically useful set of gene regulators with many applications (a 'flexible toolkit'), or a set of more specific regulators involved in hair-like structures that were to subsequently evolve into feathers in some lineages:

"... the genic and regulatory complement identified in the ancestral archosaur was either a flexible toolkit co-opted in multiple origins of new structures including feathers, or indicates an ancient origin in that clade for filamentous integumentary structures, often called feather precursors, on some part of the body or stage in development more than 100 My before the origin of pinnate feathers in dinosaurs."
​

In other words, it's yet another example of evolution adapting pre-existing genomic facilities to new uses.

 

[xianghua]

In other words, it's yet another example of evolution adapting pre-existing genomic facilities to new uses.

no. in other words- again we see why we cant falsified evolution in any case. and this is also falsified the claim about nested hierarchy.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

no. in other words- again we see why we cant falsified evolution in any case. and this is also falsified the claim about nested hierarchy.

What you just wrote made absolutely no sense. You say that evolution CAN'T be falsified, but then in the next sentence you say that it can.
Do you actually understand ANYTHING about what you are arguing against?

 

[bhsmte]

do you know that mammals are also amniotes?

So what?

 

[bhsmte]

no. in other words- again we see why we cant falsified evolution in any case. and this is also falsified the claim about nested hierarchy.

In a few short words, you just contradicted yourself and exposed yourself at the same time.