Macroevolution:

[Kylie]

you are welcome to believe it. but it's only a belief.

If it's just a belief, why is there evidence for it?

 

[xianghua]

Which gene are you talking about?

many genes in many cases. if your prediction is true then we should not find such cases. correct?

 

[xianghua]

Scientific theories are useful because "anything is possible" isn't a true statement.

we are talking about the past. you cant exclude anything when it come to the fat past. on the same basic that we dont know how many biological systems evolved.

-_- the first tetrapod fossil doesn't predate fish

where i said otherwise? im talking about the first fishpods. they arent appeared in the correct order.

Then why do we share genes with fish when there is no physiological necessity to it?

because we do shared with them many biological functions.

 

[xianghua]

And you are unwilling to follow on from that to figure out for yourself how powered flight can follow?

BTW, I showed how powered flight could result in this post. And Speedwell went into more detail about the same topic in this post.

he welcome to believe that its possible. even according to him is just on theory.

Hahahahahahaha

Show me an example of this.

what about a car in a tornado?

 

[Kylie]

he welcome to believe that its possible. even according to him is just on theory.

You have not shown how it is impossible or even implausible.

what about a car in a tornado?

And you call that gliding, do you?

 

[Loudmouth]

many genes in many cases. if your prediction is true then we should not find such cases. correct?

Incorrect, as you have been told before. We would expect evolutionary processes to produce a limited number of violations of a nested hierarchy, but those should be vastly outnumbered by genes that follow the predicted hierarchy. That is why we talk about a phylogenetic signal which refers to the overall weight of the evidence. We do expect a limited amount of noise, but the signal should vastly outweigh the noise.

 

[xianghua]

Incorrect, as you have been told before. We would expect evolutionary processes to produce a limited number of violations of a nested hierarchy, but those should be vastly outnumbered by genes that follow the predicted hierarchy. That is why we talk about a phylogenetic signal which refers to the overall weight of the evidence. We do expect a limited amount of noise, but the signal should vastly outweigh the noise.

but this is not what you said here:

"For example, multiple species with three middle ear bones and feathers, or hair and forward facing retinas. At the DNA level, finding mammals with exact copies of jellyfish genes not found in reptiles would falsify evolution."

so if we will find 2 far species with genes for trait x that could not be found in several species between those species- then evolution is false. and we indeed found such cases.

 

[PsychoSarah]

we are talking about the past. you cant exclude anything when it come to the fat past. on the same basic that we dont know how many biological systems evolved.

Uh, the possibilities of the future are limited as well. All imaginable events are not possible. For example, no matter how many tries I give it, I will never drop a pencil and have it do anything aside from fall. But I can certainly imagine plenty of impossible events that could follow dropping it, such as the pencil writing Shakespeare's Julius Caesar all by itself.

where is said otherwise? im talking about the first fishpods. they arent appeared in the correct order.

Age of the tetrapod tracks mentioned in the National Geographic "article": 395 million years old.
Age of the oldest lobe finned fish fossil ("fishpod"): 418 million years old.

This is why we don't use National Geographic as a reliable source for scientific discoveries.

because we do shared with them many biological functions.

Irrelevant, the redundancy of codons eliminates any functional necessity to having the same genes as other organisms. Furthermore, genes don't have to be in precisely the same location or in the same number to retain basic function.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You never met anyone who said:

"Ya. Eyes a Christyin at one time, but ah had questyins mah paster couldn't ansor, and he throwed me out the cherch!"

Never heard of anyone getting thrown out of a church for asking perfectly appropriate questions the pastor just couldn't answer. The closest to that I have heard of is students at religiously affiliated schools getting punished for asking "too many" or "stupid" questions that challenged the bible or some other religious text.

 

[Kylie]

but this is not what you said here:

"For example, multiple species with three middle ear bones and feathers, or hair and forward facing retinas. At the DNA level, finding mammals with exact copies of jellyfish genes not found in reptiles would falsify evolution."

so if we will find 2 far species with genes for trait x that could not be found in several species between those species- then evolution is false. and we indeed found such cases.

Please give examples of this, specifying what species they are, what the change is, and demonstrate that it is not found in species in between.

 

[xianghua]

Age of the tetrapod tracks mentioned in the National Geographic "article": 395 million years old.
Age of the oldest lobe finned fish fossil ("fishpod"): 418 million years old.

but the tiktaalik suppose to appeare before the first tetrapod, and yet we found him after the first tetrapod. like my car into airplane example: the first flying car appeared after the jet fighter.

Irrelevant, the redundancy of codons eliminates any functional necessity to having the same genes as other organisms.

what? if both fish and human need eyes then they both sould have genes for eyes. and indeed they have.

 

[xianghua]

Please give examples of this, specifying what species they are, what the change is, and demonstrate that it is not found in species in between.

i will try to bring such a case. but do you agree that such a case will falsified evolution?

 

[Kylie]

i will try to bring such a case. but do you agree that such a case will falsified evolution?

If you can show that such a case is not an example of convergent evolution.

I mean, you show me dolphins and sharks and claim that since they both have similar shapes that they have the same trait, despite dolphins evolving from creatures without that trait, then I'm not going to buy it.

 

[xianghua]

If you can show that such a case is not an example of convergent evolution.

but in any case you can claim for convergent evolution as solution. so how we can falsified evolution in such a case? so or so: that was loudmouth criteria.

 

[Kylie]

but in any case you can claim for convergent evolution as solution. so how we can falsified evolution in such a case? so or so: that was loudmouth criteria.

Because there will be differences.

We see sharks and dolphins have similar body shapes. That's convergent evolution.

But dolphins with gills would falsify evolution.

Show me something that would fit into the "dolphins with gills" category. I will accept that as falsification of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me something that would fit into the "dolphins with gills" category. I will accept that as falsification of evolution.

Either that, or a new category of animals will be created for it: like "montreme" or "cryptid."

Only on paper.

 

[xianghua]

Show me something that would fit into the "dolphins with gills" category. I will accept that as falsification of evolution.

in that case you can claim for convergent evolution again (gills evolved twice). here is one case that can fit to this criteria:

Sequencing electric eel genome unlocks shocking secrets

“It’s truly exciting to find that complex structures like the electric organ, which evolved completely independently in six groups of fish, seem to share the same genetic toolkit"

evolution is false now?

 

[PsychoSarah]

but the tiktaalik suppose to appeare before the first tetrapod, and yet we found him after the first tetrapod. like my car into airplane example: the first flying car appeared after the jet fighter.

Tiktaalik is a "proof of concept", not a part of the direct lineage between fish and amphibian. Transitional fossils are always demonstration of concept. To be a transitional fossil is to have intermediate traits between two different groups (in this case, fish and amphibians), not to be a literal ancestor of all amphibians (or any other modern organisms). I am 100% certain people have explained that to you before.

what? if both fish and human need eyes then they both sould have genes for eyes. and indeed they have.

Eyes have evolved independently in lineages hundreds of times. Each time, the genes are not the same, nor is the structure exactly the same. Why would they be pointlessly the same in humans and fish? Not only this, but why would a designer give squids such a better basic eye design than humans and fish? We have so many blind spots because our eyes are essentially backwards, with light having to go through our eyes to reach the retina that actually sends the information off to the brain, and, as a result, producing a huge blind spot where the optic nerve is. Squids don't have this problem, so why do we if the designer of both is supposedly the same being?

You overestimate how similar genes have to be in order to produce structures with the same basic function.

 

[Loudmouth]

so if we will find 2 far species with genes for trait x that could not be found in several species between those species- then evolution is false. and we indeed found such cases.

If there were multiple such examples for homologous traits, this would falsify evolution. The problem is that you keep citing analogous traits, not homologous traits.

 

[Kylie]

Either that, or a new category of animals will be created for it: like "montreme" or "cryptid."

Only on paper.

Except monotremes fit perfectly into the nested hierarchy that evolution predicts, don't they?