Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

an example of two independent lineages having 100+ base pairs in a row that are identical

i know what? lets focus in a single point instead of few at once. it should be more easy to follow. here is again the alx3 case:

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...hordate-evolution-After-the-two_fig2_51478159)

as you can see- we do find such a case and evolutionists "solve" it by convergent loss.

 

[Brightmoon]

That diagram shows gene duplication followed by mutation of one or more of the duplicates . Some of the genes were subsequently lost in a few lineages. So what’s the problem? This happens all the time. This is what happened to the Hox genes they duplicated , some mutated and some were lost.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i know what? lets focus in a single point instead of few at once. it should be more easy to follow. here is again the alx3 case:

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...hordate-evolution-After-the-two_fig2_51478159)

as you can see- we do find such a case and evolutionists "solve" it by convergent loss.

-_- convergent losses of genes are far more common than convergent gene generation because many different mutations can result in a given gene becoming inactive. The fact that the mutations on the genes which render them inactive are not identical, and perhaps also that the inactivation is spotty among organisms in those separate lineages is how we can tell the inactivation wasn't shared by the common ancestor of these organisms. Happens to humans that have non-inherited hemophilia (yes, some people with hemophilia have no family history of it whatsoever, and severe forms of hemophilia can have clotting factors not produced).

Here's a relevant paper on this gene in particular Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene

It's neat that all 3 are missing the gene entirely, but despite similar mutations that resulted in the loss, the lineages are very spotty. This source mentions that zebra finches still have the ALX3 gene, while chickens do not, meaning that the loss had to occur after birds already existed. So, yeah, you haven't found anything that would confuse genomic comparisons being used to establish which groups are more closely related to each other. That is, it is pretty common for distant lineages to lack the same genes. I mean, by default, organisms do not have the majority of genes that have ever existed.

Still waiting on that 100 identical base pairs in a row. You aren't going to distract me from it. Either drop your claim that identical genes can arise in separate lineages so frequently as to interfere with using genes to establish relatedness, or provide actual evidence for it.

For your claim to be true, we'd have to observe organisms that we DON'T consider to be particularly closely related having identical genes which they could not have feasibly retained from their most recent ancestor. Your claim was not based on gene loss, only gene presence, so your attempt to derail our conversation will be as unsuccessful as it is irrelevant. Convergent gene loss is not the same thing as convergent gene evolution, and neither of them are the same as two independent lineages developing identical genes.

 

[xianghua]

-_- convergent losses of genes are far more common than convergent gene generation because many different mutations can result in a given gene becoming inactive. The fact that the mutations on the genes which render them inactive are not identical, and perhaps also that the inactivation is spotty among organisms in those separate lineages is how we can tell the inactivation wasn't shared by the common ancestor of these organisms. Happens to humans that have non-inherited hemophilia (yes, some people with hemophilia have no family history of it whatsoever, and severe forms of hemophilia can have clotting factors not produced).

Here's a relevant paper on this gene in particular Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene

It's neat that all 3 are missing the gene entirely, but despite similar mutations that resulted in the loss, the lineages are very spotty. This source mentions that zebra finches still have the ALX3 gene, while chickens do not, meaning that the loss had to occur after birds already existed. So, yeah, you haven't found anything that would confuse genomic comparisons being used to establish which groups are more closely related to each other. That is, it is pretty common for distant lineages to lack the same genes. I mean, by default, organisms do not have the majority of genes that have ever existed.

Still waiting on that 100 identical base pairs in a row. You aren't going to distract me from it. Either drop your claim that identical genes can arise in separate lineages so frequently as to interfere with using genes to establish relatedness, or provide actual evidence for it.

For your claim to be true, we'd have to observe organisms that we DON'T consider to be particularly closely related having identical genes which they could not have feasibly retained from their most recent ancestor. Your claim was not based on gene loss, only gene presence, so your attempt to derail our conversation will be as unsuccessful as it is irrelevant. Convergent gene loss is not the same thing as convergent gene evolution, and neither of them are the same as two independent lineages developing identical genes.

you asked for "two independent lineages having 100+ base pairs in a row that are identical". so i gave you the same gene in two independent lineages.

-_- convergent losses of genes are far more common than convergent gene generation because many different mutations can result in a given gene becoming inactive. The fact that the mutations on the genes which render them inactive are not identical, and perhaps also that the inactivation is spotty among organisms in those separate lineages is how we can tell the inactivation wasn't shared by the common ancestor of these organisms. Happens to humans that have non-inherited hemophilia (yes, some people with hemophilia have no family history of it whatsoever, and severe forms of hemophilia can have clotting factors not produced).

Here's a relevant paper on this gene in particular Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene

It's neat that all 3 are missing the gene entirely, but despite similar mutations that resulted in the loss, the lineages are very spotty. This source mentions that zebra finches still have the ALX3 gene, while chickens do not, meaning that the loss had to occur after birds already existed. So, yeah, you haven't found anything that would confuse genomic comparisons being used to establish which groups are more closely related to each other. That is, it is pretty common for distant lineages to lack the same genes. I mean, by default, organisms do not have the majority of genes that have ever existed.

Still waiting on that 100 identical base pairs in a row. You aren't going to distract me from it. Either drop your claim that identical genes can arise in separate lineages so frequently as to interfere with using genes to establish relatedness, or provide actual evidence for it.

For your claim to be true, we'd have to observe organisms that we DON'T consider to be particularly closely related having identical genes which they could not have feasibly retained from their most recent ancestor. Your claim was not based on gene loss, only gene presence, so your attempt to derail our conversation will be as unsuccessful as it is irrelevant. Convergent gene loss is not the same thing as convergent gene evolution, and neither of them are the same as two independent lineages developing identical genes.

this is again a great example of begging the question. in such a way any case with share gene between two independent lineages can be solve by convergent loss. so we can always claim for convergent loss rather than convergent evolution (even when the data is similar).

 

[PsychoSarah]

you asked for "two independent lineages having 100+ base pairs in a row that are identical". so i gave you the same gene in two independent lineages.

-_- no you didn't; you gave me independent lineages MISSING the same gene, not having a gene that they didn't inherit from a common ancestor. These are not the same thing. Furthermore, all of the ALX genes are depicted in your image as descending from a common ancestor of all these groups, so none of them are the result of independent events.

I think you must be confused about what an "independent lineage" is. This is how one tells that a gene that is the same between Organism A and Organism B COULDN'T have been the result of shared lineage: species more closely related to Organism A don't have the gene or remnants of it, and organisms more closely related to Organism B don't have the gene or remnants of it. Obviously, for this comparison to be made, the organisms in question cannot be more closely related to each other than any other species, which is why I told you comparing humans and chimpanzees was just making life harder for yourself. The more distant these lineages are, the more accurately we could make this determination.

this is again a great example of begging the question. in such a way any case with share gene between two independent lineages can be solve by convergent loss.

-_- no, and I am unsure how you made that conclusion other than your immense desire for the theory of evolution to be unfalsifiable. I feel like you may be just too lazy to actually try to falsify it.

so we can always claim for convergent loss rather than convergent evolution (even when the data is similar).

-_- how does convergent loss result in identical sequences in and of itself? It's not like the other ALX genes were independently formed, so a complete deletion of the ALX3 gene would have resulted in pretty much identical sequences in that area anyways. Allow the following sentences to display my point:

Chicken ancestor: the dog jumped over the log.
Lizard ancestor: the dog jumped over the log.

separate mutations cause the word "jumped" to be deleted in both sentences.

Chicken: the dog over the log.
Lizard: the dog over the log.

The sequences were shared between the lineages to begin with, so of course if the same part is removed from both, they would remain the same. The fact that the sequences are the same is thus meaningless. Think of it this way; for a gene to be independently generated in two or more lineages without being inherited by a common ancestor of those lineages, that means that it has to develop at least 2 times. All evidence indicates that the ALX genes developed only once, just very far back in the past so a lot of different organisms have them. The more ancient the gene and the more important to development it is, the more likely it is for tons of very different organisms to have it.

 

[xianghua]

-_- no you didn't; you gave me independent lineages MISSING the same gene, not having a gene that they didn't inherit from a common ancestor. These are not the same thing. Furthermore, all of the ALX genes are depicted in your image as descending from a common ancestor of all these groups, so none of them are the result of independent events.

I think you must be confused about what an "independent lineage" is. This is how one tells that a gene that is the same between Organism A and Organism B COULDN'T have been the result of shared lineage: species more closely related to Organism A don't have the gene or remnants of it, and organisms more closely related to Organism B don't have the gene or remnants of it. Obviously, for this comparison to be made, the organisms in question cannot be more closely related to each other than any other species, which is why I told you comparing humans and chimpanzees was just making life harder for yourself. The more distant these lineages are, the more accurately we could make this determination.


-_- no, and I am unsure how you made that conclusion other than your immense desire for the theory of evolution to be unfalsifiable. I feel like you may be just too lazy to actually try to falsify it.


-_- how does convergent loss result in identical sequences in and of itself? It's not like the other ALX genes were independently formed, so a complete deletion of the ALX3 gene would have resulted in pretty much identical sequences in that area anyways. Allow the following sentences to display my point:

Chicken ancestor: the dog jumped over the log.
Lizard ancestor: the dog jumped over the log.

separate mutations cause the word "jumped" to be deleted in both sentences.

Chicken: the dog over the log.
Lizard: the dog over the log.

The sequences were shared between the lineages to begin with, so of course if the same part is removed from both, they would remain the same. The fact that the sequences are the same is thus meaningless. Think of it this way; for a gene to be independently generated in two or more lineages without being inherited by a common ancestor of those lineages, that means that it has to develop at least 2 times. All evidence indicates that the ALX genes developed only once, just very far back in the past so a lot of different organisms have them. The more ancient the gene and the more important to development it is, the more likely it is for tons of very different organisms to have it.

ok sarah. since we also discuss about it in another thread i will continue here:

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution