Are there transitional fossils?

[PsychoSarah]

i actually assume (for the sake of the argument) that you are right at every point in your claims. some of your points may be actually true. but the problem is that i need more data to confirm (data that i dont think we have) this so i just skip this and focus on the main point. and the main point is that if we consider the natural selection then the whole calculaion is meaningless.

Negatory, natural selection can result in similar genes, perhaps, but your argument is founded on the idea that entirely identical sequences could arise in analogous locations within separate lineages so frequently as to give the illusion that separate lineages are actually related. And we have seen many instances of very similar phenotypes arising from very different genes, so your conclusion that natural selection could reasonably be expected to result in consistently identical genes in separate lineages falls flat.

If you can't even demonstrate that 100 identical base pairs can arise in separate lineages, you can't even begin to consider convergent genes to be a reliable explanation for such widespread genetic similarity among all mammals. So, either admit that there is no evidence supporting your position, or actually find an example of 100 identical base pairs arising in separate lineages. Not amino acids, not sprinkled throughout the genome, 100 identical base pairs in a row.

Some of my points MAY be true? That's not something you can leave wishy washy; either openly agree or disagree.

 

[xianghua]

Negatory, natural selection can result in similar genes, perhaps, but your argument is founded on the idea that entirely identical sequences could arise in analogous locations within separate lineages so frequently as to give the illusion that separate lineages are actually related. And we have seen many instances of very similar phenotypes arising from very different genes, so your conclusion that natural selection could reasonably be expected to result in consistently identical genes in separate lineages falls flat.

If you can't even demonstrate that 100 identical base pairs can arise in separate lineages, you can't even begin to consider convergent genes to be a reliable explanation for such widespread genetic similarity among all mammals. So, either admit that there is no evidence supporting your position, or actually find an example of 100 identical base pairs arising in separate lineages. Not amino acids, not sprinkled throughout the genome, 100 identical base pairs in a row.

Some of my points MAY be true? That's not something you can leave wishy washy; either openly agree or disagree.

but if we involve natural selection there is no problem to get the same sequence. so where is the problem?

And we have seen many instances of very similar phenotypes arising from very different genes

but those cases are the minority rather than the rule. since convergent evolution base on non silimar sequence this is actually beging the question (if the sequnce is different then this is the r esult of convergent and if its very similar its the result of common descent). its not objective but sobjective.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but if we involve natural selection there is no problem to get the same sequence. so where is the problem?

-_- Natural selection won't result in identical sequences in analogous locations, because genes don't have to be identical or in analogous locations in order to have the same basic function. Especially not when you factor in alternative splicing and introns. That is, how genes work doesn't allow for natural selection to result in identical genes forming in independent lineages. Unless they are very, very short genes, then they could even form by chance.

Clearly, you've observed for yourself, as you tried to find examples of 100+ base pairs being identical in independent lineages, that there IS a problem in getting the same sequence. If there wasn't, just because of the shear number of organisms, we'd observe it. But we don't. You certainly haven't seen an example, because you would have surely posted it here. Why claim an event is common enough to make a difference when you can't even find a single example of it? The minimum length of a sequence used to compare lineages for possible shared ancestry is 400 base pairs, and you can't even find an example that is a 4th of that length. How could convergent sequences possibly interfere with genetic evidence for shared descent when the longest ones we find aren't even a 4th of the length of the smallest sequences we use?

but those cases are the minority rather than the rule. since convergent evolution base on non silimar sequence this is actually beging the question (if the sequnce is different then this is the r esult of convergent and if its very similar its the result of common descent). its not objective but sobjective.

Dude, what happened to your spelling here? I'm concerned that you may have had a minor stroke.

Convergent evolution in and of itself is not common on the genetic level for the precise reasons I have given before; natural selection doesn't select for IDENTICAL sequences, because unless the gene in question consisted solely of methionine, an identical protein product can easily be produced from a gene with a different sequence. By the way, I don't know of any genes which consist only of methionine.

The only reason that the dolphin and bat convergent gene was focused on was because of the shared trait of echolocation evolving in independent lineages. The only reason the lamprin one was noticed was because of the fact that it occurs repeatedly in every gene compared and seems to give those proteins a specific property. Most of the time when we compare different lineages that happen to share similarly specialized traits, the genes AREN'T convergent.

 

[xianghua]

-_- Natural selection won't result in identical sequences in analogous locations, because genes don't have to be identical or in analogous locations in order to have the same basic function. Especially not when you factor in alternative splicing and introns. That is, how genes work doesn't allow for natural selection to result in identical genes forming in independent lineages. Unless they are very, very short genes, then they could even form by chance.

Clearly, you've observed for yourself, as you tried to find examples of 100+ base pairs being identical in independent lineages, that there IS a problem in getting the same sequence. If there wasn't, just because of the shear number of organisms, we'd observe it. But we don't

we actually do. most genes are the result of convergent events. but not by evolution but by convergent design. so its only an assumption that those genes are the r esult of common descent.

natural selection doesn't select for IDENTICAL sequences

not in this case:

Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution


"We estimate that ≈44 of 113 predicted convergent changes distributed across all 13 mitochondrial protein-coding genes are expected to have arisen from nonneutral causes—a remarkably large number. Combined with strong previous evidence for adaptive evolution in snake mitochondrial proteins, it is likely that much of this convergent evolution was driven by adaptation"

as i said: natural selection is a magic word. and there is no big different between amino acid and genetic level in terms of probability.

 

[PsychoSarah]

we actually do. most genes are the result of convergent events. but not by evolution but by convergent design. so its only an assumption that those genes are the r esult of common descent.




not in this case:

Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution


"We estimate that ≈44 of 113 predicted convergent changes distributed across all 13 mitochondrial protein-coding genes are expected to have arisen from nonneutral causes—a remarkably large number. Combined with strong previous evidence for adaptive evolution in snake mitochondrial proteins, it is likely that much of this convergent evolution was driven by adaptation"

as i said: natural selection is a magic word. and there is no big different between amino acid and genetic level in terms of probability.

Give an example of 100 base pairs being identical in a row in independent lineages or drop your claim. How many times do I have to tell you that similar is not the same? Same is your claim, because if it isn't the same, then genetic evidence for common ancestry would still be valid.

This is the last time I am asking; 100 or more identical base pairs in the row, or admit there is no evidence that your hypothetical suggestions are possible in any regard.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This is the last time I am asking; 100 or more identical base pairs in the row, or admit there is no evidence that your hypothetical suggestions are possible in any regard.

I predict he will ignore your request and keep posting the same stuff over and over.

 

[xianghua]

Give an example of 100 base pairs being identical in a row in independent lineages or drop your claim. How many times do I have to tell you that similar is not the same? Same is your claim, because if it isn't the same, then genetic evidence for common ancestry would still be valid.

This is the last time I am asking; 100 or more identical base pairs in the row, or admit there is no evidence that your hypothetical suggestions are possible in any regard.

what is the problem? almost any gene between human and chimp.

 

[Tayla]

the question of transitional fossils

Of course there are transitional fossils.

 

[xianghua]

Of course there are transitional fossils.

so please tell me were all the missing links between 2 pairs of legs and about 30 of this oldest myriapod?:

(image from Introduction to the Myriapoda)

 

[Speedwell]

so please tell me were all the missing links between 2 pairs of legs and about 30 of this oldest myriapod?:

(image from Introduction to the Myriapoda)

No such thing. The basic body plans were established before that.

 

[Brightmoon]

Myriapods ( millipedes and centipedes) have a basic body plan of repeated segments . Which is why they have a lot of legs . A lot of organisms show those repeating segments, even humans with our ribs and even with our vertebrae. The limb formation genes aren’t turned on in every segment which is why vertebrates have only 4 limbs and insects have only 6 and snakes have none.

 

[Brightmoon]

There is a 4 winged fly genetic experiment that duplicates a body segment so instead of having 2 wings and 2 halteres, It has 4 wings . Halteres are sorta counterweights for the wings.

 

[PsychoSarah]

what is the problem? almost any gene between human and chimp.

-_- are you seriously going to call our genetic cousins an "independent lineage"? Because they aren't considered to be that. You know that. Heck, all your other attempts at examples of shared genes between independent lineages have actually been genes (sections of them, anyways) which COULDN'T have feasibly been the result of shared ancestry between the two groups. Humans and chimps split from each other a about 13 million years ago. In order for one to determine a gene was the result of independent mutations between these two groups, it couldn't be identical in terms of base pairs and/or position within the genome. You make it harder for yourself by choosing organisms this closely related, because any gene shared between them which is entirely identical could feasibly be a product of shared ancestry. Your ideal genes should be like a gene relating to hair formation shared between humans and a strawberry; the more distant the organisms are, the less feasible it is for an entirely identical gene to be shared between them. -_- the strawberry thing was just an example, by the way; strawberries don't have such genes.

I am disappointed in you, because I don't even think you yourself believe this to be a valid line of investigation. If you actually did, you wouldn't have made a point to compare more dissimilar lineages in your prior examples. You previously were at least attempting to be scientifically legitimate before, citing sources, etc. You're not even trying anymore.

 

[xianghua]

No such thing. The basic body plans were established before that.

but where are all the missing links between 2 pairs and 20-30? where are all those fossils?

 

[xianghua]

-_- are you seriously going to call our genetic cousins an "independent lineage"? Because they aren't considered to be that. You know that. Heck, all your other attempts at examples of shared genes between independent lineages have actually been genes (sections of them, anyways) which COULDN'T have feasibly been the result of shared ancestry between the two groups. Humans and chimps split from each other a about 13 million years ago. In order for one to determine a gene was the result of independent mutations between these two groups, it couldn't be identical in terms of base pairs and/or position within the genome. You make it harder for yourself by choosing organisms this closely related, because any gene shared between them which is entirely identical could feasibly be a product of shared ancestry. Your ideal genes should be like a gene relating to hair formation shared between humans and a strawberry; the more distant the organisms are, the less feasible it is for an entirely identical gene to be shared between them. -_- the strawberry thing was just an example, by the way; strawberries don't have such genes.

I am disappointed in you, because I don't even think you yourself believe this to be a valid line of investigation. If you actually did, you wouldn't have made a point to compare more dissimilar lineages in your prior examples. You previously were at least attempting to be scientifically legitimate before, citing sources, etc. You're not even trying anymore.

i actually choose this example to show you the circular reasoning behind it. if we assume that identical sequence is the result of common descent and non identical is the result of independent mutations then its just a circular reasoning. by the way: we have cases where we can find similar sequence between two far species (but not in some species between them) and even in such cases evolutionists argue for rapid change in those species between them or gene loss. see how easy it is to explain anything we can find even without convergent evolution?

 

[xianghua]

Myriapods ( millipedes and centipedes) have a basic body plan of repeated segments . Which is why they have a lot of legs . A lot of organisms show those repeating segments, even humans with our ribs and even with our vertebrae. The limb formation genes aren’t turned on in every segment which is why vertebrates have only 4 limbs and insects have only 6 and snakes have none.

but again: where are all the missing links of this myriapod?

 

[Brightmoon]

If I did this correctly, right here

 

[Brightmoon]

Myriapods are arthropods by the way

 

[Speedwell]

All just rhetoric intended to paint the theory of evolution as unfalsifiable, in order to put it on the same epistemological footing as ID.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i actually choose this example to show you the circular reasoning behind it. if we assume that identical sequence is the result of common descent and non identical is the result of independent mutations then its just a circular reasoning.

Nope, because all evidence for evolution HAS to agree. Evolutionary timelines make it essentially impossible for bats and whales to have developed echolocation as a result of it being a trait of their most recent common ancestor. This is because their most recent common ancestor predates the appearance of echolocation by many years.
There are tons of branches in between bats and whales without echolocation, as well as lacking any remnants of the genes relating to it, so it is very easy to tell that the echolocation trait is too recent in both lineages to be a result of shared ancestry.

In contrast, chimpanzees and humans are the most closely related "cousin" species for each of them, meaning that there isn't nearly as much to compare to when it comes to the appearance of traits.

But hey, since you seem to think entirely independent lineages should be capable of independently having identical genes at random, where is the strawberry randomly with a gene for developing hair? From your arguments, that should be just as likely to happen as humans and chimps sharing identical genes.

by the way: we have cases where we can find similar sequence between two far species (but not in some species between them)

Similar is not the same, and you still haven't given a 100+ identical base pair example. There's only 4 different bases in DNA and all genes start with ATG, so some similarities are a given. Plus, you don't even bother to give an example of any sort in this post.

and even in such cases evolutionists argue for rapid change in those species between them or gene loss.

I want a source for your claims, because you can't even find an example of two independent lineages having 100+ base pairs in a row that are identical, let alone entire genes (genes can be very small, but none of the examples you have given have been entire genes or even comparing genes of similar length). So what needs explanation exactly?

see how easy it is to explain anything we can find even without convergent evolution?

I have no idea what you think you are referring to that isn't convergent evolution in this post. Just because you don't state it by name doesn't mean you aren't describing events that would fall under it. Describing without any sources or detailed examples, I might add.