Are there transitional fossils?

[PsychoSarah]

Yes like Darwin's family and followers the Nazis interpreted his works as implying "Darwinism" and they supported Euthanasia

-_- euthanasia is different than genocide. It is "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma." Most of the people Hitler had killed weren't suffering from such conditions (though it is worth noting that the severely ill and disabled were the first victims). Additionally, death via gas chamber wasn't painless, nor was the slow death of dying from the conditions in the concentration camps.

Also, poor interpretation of a scientific theory is the fault of the people, not the theory itself. This also goes with utilizing it for misdeeds and evil ends.

, abortion for non-Germanic women

Nazi only; in other countries, it is worth noting that many of the feeble minded were sterilized for a time period in the early 1900s. However, I do not think forced abortions were a common practice in most countries.

, genetic manipulation

-_- how would they support genetic manipulation BEFORE genes were discovered, aside from in a very loose sense? I know Mengele was trying to make eye color change, but it was through chemicals, not gene manipulation.

, government control of education and children

Name a country worth living in where the government doesn't provide any public schools.

, and more...the idea of categorizing types of humans came from The Descent of Man and they took this to an extreme...Slavs and Lithuanians were treated as servant class (some had to work in concentration camps and please I personally knew some of them)

I trace categorizing different "races" of humans as different species or subspecies back to Linnaeus himself in 1735. Decent of Man was published over 100 years later. Furthermore, if you actually read the book, Darwin compares the ideas that human races are different species and the same species, and concludes that human races are, in fact, THE SAME SPECIES. "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed",[22] and concluded that the stronger evidence was that they were not different species.[23]

I don't doubt the racist practices you describe. My doubt is that any of Darwin's work is responsible for it.

, people of African descent were closest to apes and 1000s of males were castrated based on this belief ...German women were subject to government obligation to have babies for the Reich...yeah this is real Christian...

-_- it is not your place, nor my place, to state what makes someone a "real Christian". However, from my perspective, anyone that believes in the Christian god and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is a Christian. Anything else is just extra, really. However, the bible clearly states that certain peoples are lesser to others, if you bother to read it. Yet, I don't blame the bible for racism. People are free to make up their own minds, and their views are not dependent upon what books they read. I hold people accountable, not books. Can the environment be an influence? Of course it can, but I highly doubt a single text alone would be enough to make someone currently non-racist become racist. You have consistently failed to identify where evolution was a direct cause of any of these social ills you associate with it. Now, address this question or don't even address the rest of my post: if evolution inherently implies racism, why are the people most educated in it not more likely to be racist than, say, an accountant?

 

[pshun2404]

Sarah did you really say "- euthanasia is different than genocide. It is "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma."?

Listen I am not against the idea that if a person dying in excruciating pain wants to go out with a bot of dignity OR if a comatose patient after some time is left in the hands of their maker rather than being kept alive artificially alive on machines. Almost everyone would agree with this.

The problem is the T-4 Euthanasia program promoted a slow and painful starvation and death by thirst (which we soften for the American masses by calling it "non-assisted living"). Robert Wendel in Oregon and Terri Shivo in Florida...neither in a coma....neither "brain dead"...in what the media called "MERCY" they were locked in a room with no human contact until they were literally starved to death...starvation is very slow....very painful and worst of all though Shivo could not choose Wendel could and did not want to die...but as a ward of the State the choice was not his (it took him 22 days of non-assisted living to finally die)...Shivo also had the State decide her fate...

So as I said in paragraph one IF IT were really about what this proposes then that would be one thing but it is not...it is political and it is about the State being able to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. In Germany not only the dying but the handicapped, the mentally retarded, the elderly and others were State determined to be eliminated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah did you really say "- euthanasia is different than genocide. It is "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma."?

Yes. Furthermore, unlike genocide, euthanasia doesn't target a specific group, such as by ethnicity or religion, to eradicate them. They aren't the same thing, and never have been the same thing.

Listen I am not against the idea that if a person dying in excruciating pain wants to go out with a bot of dignity OR if a comatose patient after some time is left in the hands of their maker rather than being kept alive artificially alive on machines. Almost everyone would agree with this.

You'd be amazed at how many people oppose it. I am amused that you assumed that I am in favor of any euthanasia, though. My contention with you regarding genocide and euthanasia the same was a matter of their definitions being distinctly different, not because I support one and condemn the other.

The problem is the T-4 Euthanasia program promoted a slow and painful starvation and death by thirst (which we soften for the American masses by calling it "non-assisted living").

-_- even then, the patients were deemed "incurably sick". Additionally, the "death via thirst" is generally reserved for comatose patients and the brain dead. Of course, sanatoriums in the 1940s were complete hell holes, in and outside of Germany. However, the primary means of killing people for this reason was via gas, and people from all sorts of backgrounds were killed for a variety of disabilities and mental conditions. I suppose you could try to consider it a "genocide of the infirm", but quite a few disabled people were spared, such as amputees. There's no clear cut group targeted for elimination here.

Robert Wendel in Oregon and Terri Shivo in Florida...neither in a coma....neither "brain dead"...in what the media called "MERCY" they were locked in a room with no human contact until they were literally starved to death...starvation is very slow....very painful and worst of all though Shivo could not choose Wendel could and did not want to die...but as a ward of the State the choice was not his (it took him 22 days of non-assisted living to finally die)...Shivo also had the State decide her fate....

You mean "Terri Schiavo"? She was in a persistent vegetative state. I can't find anything on this "Robert Wendel" you mentioned. Furthermore, the people that die this way die of thirst, which takes about 3 days (though, often shorter as comatose people tend to be in poor health). Not from starvation.

So as I said in paragraph one IF IT were really about what this proposes then that would be one thing but it is not...it is political and it is about the State being able to decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

I know that in the Terri Schiavo case, it was an issue of her husband and her parents conflicting on what should be done, and her not naming who should take care of her health choices in the result of a persistent coma or brain death. People that actually name their preference before they are afflicted will have their will met to the best of medical ability. Hence why there isn't a massive clearing out of comatose patients periodically. There only time the "state" decides would be if there are no next of kin and no named preference for the individual or named person to make health decisions for them.

In Germany not only the dying but the handicapped, the mentally retarded, the elderly and others were State determined to be eliminated.

Elderly to a small extent. After all, there wasn't an age limit for Nazi Germany citizens. The old weren't forced out of homes and into labor camps on a regular basis. It is worth noting that the severely handicapped were the first victims of gas chambers. However, the elimination of all the handicapped was not a goal. Let's not forget political dissidents and homosexuals were also gassed and forced into work camps.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes. Furthermore, unlike genocide, euthanasia doesn't target a specific group, such as by ethnicity or religion, to eradicate them. They aren't the same thing, and never have been the same thing.

Yeah he was a pretty bad guy and he had both going on...

 

[pshun2404]

You mean "Terri Schiavo"? She was in a persistent vegetative state. I can't find anything on this "Robert Wendel" you mentioned. Furthermore, the people that die this way die of thirst, which takes about 3 days (though, often shorter as comatose people tend to be in poor health). Not from starvation.

No Sarah Terri (and I am not judging who should have gotten the call) was definitely NOT in any kind of vegetative state (and thus the parental argument against the judge making this decision)...she lit up like a lamp when her parents entered and responded like a toddler with excitement to balloons (especially red ones) gobbled chocolate, and more...

the continually repeated propaganda of the case was that she was brain dead but that was a lie (its called the Geobbels effect)...

Sorry you never heard of the Wendel case (a very early Oregon trial run to test a proposed bill) there were a few others I can remember, but all of them (Terri included) were assigned "non-assisting living" as the form of "mercy" and were left void of human contact to starve to death...sorry it is true...

 

[pshun2404]

Elderly to a small extent. After all, there wasn't an age limit for Nazi Germany citizens. The old weren't forced out of homes and into labor camps on a regular basis. It is worth noting that the severely handicapped were the first victims of gas chambers. However, the elimination of all the handicapped was not a goal. Let's not forget political dissidents and homosexuals were also gassed and forced into work camps.

Oh, elderly Aryans were not the focus trust me on that one...just like how Aryan women could not get abortions (have babies fir the Reich) while Pols and Slavs (and of course Jews) got more than their fair share even without consent.

We agree he was scum so maybe we can move on...

 

[xianghua]

If you found mammals prior to amphibians or fish, it would be a major battleground and the theory of evolution would likely collapse. But take for example those tetrapod tracks found 15 or so million years before tiktaalik. The difference in time (15 my) is so fine that the discovery, while it raises peoples brows, isnt something heavily disputed or fought over, because it isnt a significant enough change that could not be reconciled by either field.

not at all. again: we can claim for convergent evolution. if the first tetrapod was about 500 my we can claim that tetrapods evolved twice. very simple.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

not at all. again: we can claim for convergent evolution. if the first tetrapod was about 500 my we can claim that tetrapods evolved twice. very simple.

Except we can't.
And you seem to really just be going to every single thread on Creation & Evolution and just going "No, you're wrong." Why?

 

[xianghua]

ok sarah. lets go a step by step in every point you have mention to stay in focus. first:

We've all seen this argument before, and I know for a fact that people on this site, myself included, have shown you its flaws. How stupid/forgetful do you think I am? I'm not going to humor you on a debate topic that you abandon every time people defeat you. In any case, this argument isn't evidence for anything except the stubbornness of some creationists in insisting on using it.

as far as i remember you said that such a watch(with a living traits like self replication) can evolve under some circumstances (a selection pressure and so on). so basically you agree that such a watch will not be evidence for design (correct me if im wrong here). and if its true then the burden of proof will be in the evolutionery side in this case. do you agree or disagree?

-_- your first statement is entirely false, and you have yet to support the idea that, say, a rabbit fossil could be found in a Cambrian rock layer and be legitimate, and yet evolution wouldn't be disproven. I am 1 semester away from being a part of the scientific community that makes these types of calls, and I am telling you that you are wrong. If you refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that I have more knowledge on this subject than you do, or to even provide a legitimate source for your claim, I will refuse to acknowledge this empty claim you keep making. Empty claims have no place in debates; they belong in the trash.

lets say that we have found a 400 my old rabbit fossil. what is the problem to consider it as a product of a convergent evolution? can you show me why this is so impossible?

Convergent evolution makes outward appearance and function similar. Not genetics or, say, skeletal structure.

not always true:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Research

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

not at all. again: we can claim for convergent evolution. if the first tetrapod was about 500 my we can claim that tetrapods evolved twice. very simple.

You lost this conversation like a month ago. Not sure why youre still rambling...

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok sarah. lets go a step by step in every point you have mention to stay in focus. first:
as far as i remember you said that such a watch(with a living traits like self replication) can evolve under some circumstances (a selection pressure and so on). so basically you agree that such a watch will not be evidence for design (correct me if im wrong here). and if its true then the burden of proof will be in the evolutionery side in this case. do you agree or disagree?

-_- I said that, hypothetically, conditions could exist that would promote the trait of the ability to tell time very well in organisms. That's not the same as a biological organism only able to tell time, or being able to tell it the same way a watch does. I don't want you to get the impression that under evolutionary conditions a pocket watch made of flesh is plausible. You know how some people have a better sense of time than others? There could be natural selection pressures which result in people with a poor sense of time dying, resulting in only people with a good sense of time surviving, and over time the future human population in said scenario would consist almost entirely of people that could keep track of time very well without clocks. I highly doubt any living organism could exist which just tells time and nothing else.

So, if your "biological watch" benefits from being able to tell time, and has other activities such as obtaining food or photosynthesizing, reproducing... you know, basic life activities, then there would be no reason to assume it was designed. No "biological watch" like this is going to look exactly like a watch we make, though, or function exactly the same. Also, burden of proof in what? "Possible" in evolution doesn't mean it can be guaranteed, even through artificial selection. Since no natural environments we know of exist that would promote precisely being able to tell time without using tools, there's no reason to even try to explain how such a hypothetical trait could develop NATURALLY. I only gave a hypothetical environment that could promote such a trait to humor you. Like I have said before, your entire premise of the "biological watch" was garbage to the core.

lets say that we have found a 400 my old rabbit fossil. what is the problem to consider it as a product of a convergent evolution? can you show me why this is so impossible?

-_- you just said it was a rabbit, so by definition, it isn't a result of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution doesn't produce identical organisms, just organisms that are superficially similar. The bones of your "convergent fossil" wouldn't match up to those of a modern rabbit if they were a product of convergent evolution. Furthermore, since the oldest amphibian fossil is from 368 million years ago, a tetrapod resembling a mammal, even superficially, wouldn't make evolutionary sense. Plus, convergent evolution is a matter of SIMILAR environments causing the independent evolution of one species in each to superficially resemble each other and likely fill a similar ecological niche. The environment of 400 million years ago was nothing like the environment which produced rabbits some 35 million years ago. Not to mention that, like reptiles, amphibians cannot keep up sustained movement like mammals can, so a rabbit like body plan wouldn't even benefit an amphibian (which is the closest thing to a mammal that could have even possibly existed 400 million years ago, although the oldest amphibian fossil is 368 million years old. In fact, you are suggesting that a tetrapod resembling a modern animal evolved BEFORE ANY OTHER TETRAPOD, in an environment entirely alien to what produced rabbits).

So, the situation is missing the natural selection pressures as well as many of the mutations that came much later to produce rabbit-like organisms. Convergent evolution doesn't apply to dissimilar environments. I'd bet that a 75 kg flat rock would win in a race against a horse in its prime over finding any fossil remotely rabbit-like that's 400 million years old.

not always true:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
-_- I literally said the genes are not IDENTICAL in convergent evolution. Their protein products could very well be identical in function, though it would be exceedingly unlikely that said proteins would be entirely identical. Similar and identical do not mean the same thing, and minor differences don't prevent identical function. A marsupial mole and more familiar mole species get around digging with their claws, but that doesn't mean that the genes which produced their similar looking bodies are EXACTLY THE SAME. For genes to be exactly the same, they have to be at identical chromosome locations and generally have the same base pairs. So called "convergent genes" are never exactly the same as each other. If they were, then we wouldn't consider them "convergent", but rather as the result of shared ancestry between the organisms being compared. By definition, in order to ever consider genes "convergent", they have to have some degree of difference. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to tell them apart from genes that result from shared ancestry at all.

Removed other sources due to redundancy in your misunderstanding of what convergent evolution is and how it is distinguished from organisms being more closely related to each other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

not at all. again: we can claim for convergent evolution. if the first tetrapod was about 500 my we can claim that tetrapods evolved twice. very simple.

-_- that wouldn't make sense, considering 500 million years ago is at the old end of the dating range for the oldest vertebrate fossils.

 

[Speedwell]

as far as i remember you said that such a watch(with a living traits like self replication) can evolve under some circumstances (a selection pressure and so on). so basically you agree that such a watch will not be evidence for design (correct me if im wrong here). and if its true then the burden of proof will be in the evolutionery side in this case. do you agree or disagree?

Why should it be on the evolutionary side? You are the one trying to show the presence of design in natural objects. The burden of proof remains with you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You lost this conversation like a month ago. Not sure why youre still rambling...

Perhaps xianghua could just write a computer program to post the refuted bilogical watch argument ad naseum all over this forum.

 

[Jimmy D]

-_- I said that, hypothetically, conditions could exist that would promote the trait of the ability to tell time very well in organisms. That's not the same as a biological organism only able to tell time, or being able to tell it the same way a watch does. I don't want you to get the impression that under evolutionary conditions a pocket watch made of flesh is plausible. You know how some people have a better sense of time than others? There could be natural selection pressures which result in people with a poor sense of time dying, resulting in only people with a good sense of time surviving, and over time the future human population in said scenario would consist almost entirely of people that could keep track of time very well without clocks. I highly doubt any living organism could exist which just tells time and nothing else.

So, if your "biological watch" benefits from being able to tell time, and has other activities such as obtaining food or photosynthesizing, reproducing... you know, basic life activities, then there would be no reason to assume it was designed. No "biological watch" like this is going to look exactly like a watch we make, though, or function exactly the same. Also, burden of proof in what? "Possible" in evolution doesn't mean it can be guaranteed, even through artificial selection. Since no natural environments we know of exist that would promote precisely being able to tell time without using tools, there's no reason to even try to explain how such a hypothetical trait could develop NATURALLY. I only gave a hypothetical environment that could promote such a trait to humor you. Like I have said before, your entire premise of the "biological watch" was garbage to the core.




-_- you just said it was a rabbit, so by definition, it isn't a result of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution doesn't produce identical organisms, just organisms that are superficially similar. The bones of your "convergent fossil" wouldn't match up to those of a modern rabbit if they were a product of convergent evolution. Furthermore, since the oldest amphibian fossil is from 368 million years ago, a tetrapod resembling a mammal, even superficially, wouldn't make evolutionary sense. Plus, convergent evolution is a matter of SIMILAR environments causing the independent evolution of one species in each to superficially resemble each other and likely fill a similar ecological niche. The environment of 400 million years ago was nothing like the environment which produced rabbits some 35 million years ago. Not to mention that, like reptiles, amphibians cannot keep up sustained movement like mammals can, so a rabbit like body plan wouldn't even benefit an amphibian (which is the closest thing to a mammal that could have even possibly existed 400 million years ago, although the oldest amphibian fossil is 368 million years old. In fact, you are suggesting that a tetrapod resembling a modern animal evolved BEFORE ANY OTHER TETRAPOD, in an environment entirely alien to what produced rabbits).

So, the situation is missing the natural selection pressures as well as many of the mutations that came much later to produce rabbit-like organisms. Convergent evolution doesn't apply to dissimilar environments. I'd bet that a 75 kg flat rock would win in a race against a horse in its prime over finding any fossil remotely rabbit-like that's 400 million years old.



-_- I literally said the genes are not IDENTICAL in convergent evolution. Their protein products could very well be identical in function, though it would be exceedingly unlikely that said proteins would be entirely identical. Similar and identical do not mean the same thing, and minor differences don't prevent identical function. A marsupial mole and more familiar mole species get around digging with their claws, but that doesn't mean that the genes which produced their similar looking bodies are EXACTLY THE SAME. For genes to be exactly the same, they have to be at identical chromosome locations and generally have the same base pairs. So called "convergent genes" are never exactly the same as each other. If they were, then we wouldn't consider them "convergent", but rather as the result of shared ancestry between the organisms being compared. By definition, in order to ever consider genes "convergent", they have to have some degree of difference. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to tell them apart from genes that result from shared ancestry at all.

Removed other sources due to redundancy in your misunderstanding of what convergent evolution is and how it is distinguished from organisms being more closely related to each other.

You've got the patience of a saint!

 

[xianghua]

-_- I said that, hypothetically, conditions could exist that would promote the trait of the ability to tell time very well in organisms.
So, if your "biological watch" benefits from being able to tell time, and has other activities such as obtaining food or photosynthesizing, reproducing... you know, basic life activities, then there would be no reason to assume it was designed. No "biological watch" like this is going to look exactly like a watch we make, though, or function exactly the same. Also, burden of proof in what? "Possible" in evolution doesn't mean it can be guaranteed, even through artificial selection.

when i said burden of proof i mean that the best explanation for the existance of a self replicating\organic watch is that it was designed. im sure that if a watch was found in nature evolutionery scientists where no problem to make explanation to it's suppose evolution. like we have seen with the case with the flagellum (who would guess that a spinning motor can exist in nature or organic gears?).

-_- you just said it was a rabbit, so by definition, it isn't a result of convergent evolution.Convergent evolution doesn't produce identical organisms, just organisms that are superficially similar. So called "convergent genes" are never exactly the same as each other

again: convergent evolution can be seen also in the genetic level. so this claim isnt true:

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Research

"Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation. Unexpectedly, we also found convergence in many genes linked to vision"

also remember that its a 500 my fossil that we are talking about. so we cant even compare it in the genetic level. just by the morhpological traits.

in an environment entirely alien to what produced rabbits).

im sure that evolution can explain how this suppose rabbit evolved under different environment. even today we can find many mammals in many places on earth and under different environment.

 

[HitchSlap]

when i said burden of proof i mean that the best explanation for the existance of a self replicating\organic watch is that it was designed. im sure that if a watch was found in nature evolutionery scientists where no problem to make explanation to it's suppose evolution. like we have seen with the case with the flagellum (who would guess that a spinning motor can exist in nature or organic gears?).





again: convergent evolution can be seen also in the genetic level. so this claim isnt true:

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Research

"Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation. Unexpectedly, we also found convergence in many genes linked to vision"

also remember that its a 500 my fossil that we are talking about. so we cant even compare it in the genetic level. just by the morhpological traits.




im sure that evolution can explain how this suppose rabbit evolved under different environment. even today we can find many mammals in many places on earth and under different environment.

Correct, the ToE explains the diversity and biodistribution of life on earth.

 

[Jimmy D]

when i said burden of proof i mean that the best explanation for the existance of a self replicating\organic watch is that it was designed. im sure that if a watch was found in nature evolutionery scientists where no problem to make explanation to it's suppose evolution. like we have seen with the case with the flagellum (who would guess that a spinning motor can exist in nature or organic gears?).

 

[PsychoSarah]

when i said burden of proof i mean that the best explanation for the existance of a self replicating\organic watch is that it was designed.

Only if you are very literally talking about a pocket watch made of flesh.

im sure that if a watch was found in nature evolutionery scientists where no problem to make explanation to it's suppose evolution.

A literal pocket watch made of flesh that replicates itself? No. An organism that utilizes the ability to tell time in order to improve its chances of survival? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. There are plenty of fossil oddities that scientists currently can't explain, you know. There are some fossils with such unique teeth that, since there is no living organism with teeth remotely like them, we have no idea what those creatures ate. When you go back to your 500 million year old fossil idea, there are organisms from that time period so alien that we can't tell if they are plants or animals, and for some of the animals, which end is the head and which end is the tail. It'd be foolish to think that evolution could explain every single trait in all organisms past and present.

like we have seen with the case with the flagellum (who would guess that a spinning motor can exist in nature or organic gears?).

-_- flagella don't literally have motors. They don't work like a car's engine. The comparisons made are aids to understanding by connecting flagella with something more familiar. Furthermore, nature is weird. That some aspects of nature could be considered "beyond human imagination" prior to their discovery is not an argument for design in the slightest. What can occur naturally is not contingent upon the human imagination. In fact, design is actually contingent upon what is imaginable. So if anything, this would be a weak argument AGAINST design, not an argument for it.

again: convergent evolution can be seen also in the genetic level. so this claim isnt true:

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Research

"Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation. Unexpectedly, we also found convergence in many genes linked to vision"

1. Your source has no conclusion at all. Did you not even skim it? By the end, all it advises is further research.
2. Your source doesn't define what a convergent gene is. Believe it or not, this could refer to at least 2 different things. For example, convergent and divergent are used to describe genes that are read from different strands of the DNA (divergent) and the same strand (convergent). That is, it is a reference to gene orientation, not gene content. I forced myself through reading your actual source word for word. In the end, I conclude they were talking about how convergent evolution is noticeable in organisms with the convergent trait having similar genes related to said trait. That's literally no different than what I was stating a convergent gene could be like. I never said that they couldn't be similar. This source never claims that all the "convergent genes" are identical to each other. Rather, that they have portions of sequences that are.
3. Dolphin genome information: Tursiops truncatus - Ensembl genome browser 89
Some bat genome information Myotis lucifugus - Ensembl genome browser 89
Bat Genome Database: A database of Bat Genome
What you can find for bat DNA length and number of genes is that bats generally have significantly shorter DNA than dolphins do. Furthermore, while dolphins have 44 chromosomes, bat species are quite variable in this aspect, though I generally am finding numbers in the high 30s, like 38. These convergent genes aren't going to be in the exact same location as each other. Furthermore, you'll note that the segments compared were as small as 450 base pairs. That's usually going to be just a fraction of a gene. So these "convergent genes" being compared only partly match each other.

I would love for you to find how exactly my definition of "convergent gene" is demonstrated to be wrong according to your source that doesn't even define it. But hey, it doesn't make for an easy read, so maybe I overlooked that part you decided not to quote. I never claimed convergent genes couldn't happen, so your own quote does absolutely nothing for your argument. I claimed that convergent genes aren't identical to each other... unless you are talking about genes oriented on the same side of DNA or something else entirely. But I don't get that impression. I think that you think convergent genes are entirely identical to each other in every regard. But like I said, how would we know these genes were the result of convergent evolution if they were the same as each other? All the organisms compared in your source are mammals, which do share ancestry. In fact, you decided to entirely overlook that sensory genes in all mammals compared, which included humans, were generally quite similar. -_- you also ignore the multiple times this source mentioned potential sources of error and bias in the results, which were quite a bit more than the average paper of this type, and probably why it doesn't have a conclusion beyond "this is enough evidence that this idea should be investigated further".

also remember that its a 500 my fossil that we are talking about. so we cant even compare it in the genetic level. just by the morhpological traits.

I don't need genes to tell me a fossil morphologically similar to a rabbit that is 500 million years old spits in the face of evolution, kicks evolution down, and proceeds to defecate on it. You have no idea how many evolutionary developments that would put before the first vertebrate fossil. In fact, that you think this could be just explained away is just an example of the extent of your ignorance. This hypothetical fossil would have to be a vertebrate that breathed air and could not only walk on land, but had the bone and muscle structure for a highly sophisticated type of locomotion via hopping.

im sure that evolution can explain how this suppose rabbit evolved under different environment.

Not in the water bound environment 500 million years ago. Your certainty doesn't pardon your ignorance on this matter. Tell me, what would this pseudo-rabbit have evolved from?

even today we can find many mammals in many places on earth and under different environment.

-_- sure, but they aren't all the same species that independently evolved in different environments. For example, humans didn't originate on every continent we are currently found living on as independent populations. We originated in a specific environment, then spread to others. You'll notice that organisms that independently evolved superficially similar bodies arose in similar environments. I'm talking about all around similar, not just sharing a singular similar trait, such as bats and dolphins utilizing echolocation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You've got the patience of a saint!

I assure you, I don't. The written word just gives me the means to hide my impatience... to a degree. I've left in a rage quit before, I just rarely type out my frustration and post it in full.