Common Design and Phylogenies

[TagliatelliMonster]

first: among mammals there is also variety of eyes. even when they share a commondescent. so not all eyes shared an identical features.

There are differences within the same lineages, yes. But these differences aren't violations of the nested hierarchy within the lineage. The point exactly.

so back to my question: where is the limit? 10 shared nucleotides? 20? 100? also in a lot of case we cant get the DNA from the fossils, and scientists still claim for convergent evolution by testing morphological traits only.

Nested hierarchies exist in both genotypes as well as phenotypes.
Which is another reason why evolution is such a strong and solid theory...

You can map out a "family tree" independendly based individual genes, sequences of dna, entire dna strings, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species,...
And end up with the same family tree.

true. i refer to the kind of fur that dogs and cats have.

Which is hair.

 

[Loudmouth]

first: among mammals there is also variety of eyes. even when they share a commondescent. so not all eyes shared an identical features.

All mammal eyes are a modified version of the eye shared by all vertebrates. All mammals have a backwards facing retina just like all other vertebrates do, as one example.

so back to my question: where is the limit? 10 shared nucleotides? 20? 100? also in a lot of case we cant get the DNA from the fossils, and scientists still claim for convergent evolution by testing morphological traits only.

The limit is defined as the same mutation occurring randomly in two populations. As an example, the haploid human genome is 3 billion bases, and each person is born with about 50 mutations. The chances of two people being born with the same mutations is astronomical (3 billion to the 50th power). The chances of them being born with one mutation in common is much higher than having all the same mutations, but still much less than being born with 50 different mutations.

When you are talking about 3 billion bases, the chances of a mutation occurring at the same spot is much, much, much less than mutations occurring at different locations. Therefore, divergence will occur with only rare occasions where the same mutation is fixed in two populations independently. A much larger problem for constructing phylogenies is a mutation occurring twice at the same base since many phylogenetic methods use parsimony as a rule (they assume that a difference between two genomes is due to a single mutation).

true. i refer to the kind of fur that dogs and cats have.

Our closest relatives would be our fellow apes, so fur like an ape would seem to be more appropriate.

 

[xianghua]

"You can map out a "family tree" independendly based individual genes, sequences of dna, entire dna strings, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species,...
And end up with the same family tree."



not exactly:

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."


or...

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

 

[Loudmouth]

"You can map out a "family tree" independendly based individual genes, sequences of dna, entire dna strings, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species,...
And end up with the same family tree."



not exactly:

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."


or...

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

What you seem to be missing is that these are tiny adjustments to very deep nodes. This is expected from evolutionary processes and spotty surveys of both anatomy and genetics.

What you don't see is sharing of genes between widely different animals. We don't see exact copies of jellyfish genes in mammals, as one example. We don't see massive violations of a nested hierarchy throughout the animal kingdom like we should see if intelligent design is true.

 

[xianghua]

When you are talking about 3 billion bases, the chances of a mutation occurring at the same spot is much, much, much less than mutations occurring at different locations. "-

so where is the convergent limit? in about 10 shared mutations in a two different groups? 20? 50? we need to set such a limit to distinguish between a convergent case and an analog one. otherwise it will be meaningless.

 

[Loudmouth]

so where is the convergent limit? in about 10 shared mutations in a two different groups? 20? 50? we need to set such a limit to distinguish between a convergent case and an analog one. otherwise it will be meaningless.

Fig 3 of this paper might be helpful:

https://services.math.duke.edu/~rtd/reprints/paper110.pdf

They were looking at mitochondrial DNA which may differ from autosomal DNA slightly, but from what I can see homoplasies are about 5-10% of all changes for a 20% overall difference. That is, of 2,000 differences about 100-200 are convergent.

 

[xianghua]

Fig 3 of this paper might be helpful:

https://services.math.duke.edu/~rtd/reprints/paper110.pdf

They were looking at mitochondrial DNA which may differ from autosomal DNA slightly, but from what I can see homoplasies are about 5-10% of all changes for a 20% overall difference. That is, of 2,000 differences about 100-200 are convergent.

so the limit of convergent evolution is about 10% for a tipical gene (even with strong selection)?

 

[Loudmouth]

so the limit of convergent evolution is about 10% for a tipical gene (even with strong selection)?

It is a sliding scale. Homoplasies increase with evolutionary distance, as the figure in the paper showed. As time passes the chances of the same mutation occurring at the same position increases.

 

[xianghua]

View attachment 171964



And just for my own clarity, is this a bird or a dinosaur:

View attachment 171965

its a kind of bird probably. what about the fossils that arent in the same place that evolution predict to be in the bird evolution?

 

[loveofourlord]

its a kind of bird probably. what about the fossils that arent in the same place that evolution predict to be in the bird evolution?

like what?

 

[xianghua]

like what?

protoavis for instance:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

 

[joshua 1 9]

I would like a creationist who proposes that shared features are the result of common design

Evolution is as good of a explanation as any for how God created.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Testable creationist ideas always fail,

Really that is a bit of a bold statement to make. Do you think that theistic evolution is a failure also?

 

[Speedwell]

Really that is a bit of a bold statement to make. Do you think that theistic evolution is a failure also?

No. Theistic evolution is generally framed as an unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really that is a bit of a bold statement to make. Do you think that theistic evolution is a failure also?

How would you test it? If you can't test it then it is not in the realm of the sciences and it fails by definition.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How would you test it?

We have to have checks and balances in life. In general we check our understanding of the Bible with Science. We check our understanding of Science with the Bible. With science we have evidence and that evidence has to be properly understood. With religion we have the Bible and the Bible has to be properly understood and interpreted. That is why atheistic evolution has no value because there are no checks and balances to verify your interpretation of the evidence you have to work with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have to have checks and balances in life. In general we check our understanding of the Bible with Science. We check our understanding of Science with the Bible. With science we have evidence and that evidence has to be properly understood. With religion we have the Bible and the Bible has to be properly understood and interpreted. That is why atheistic evolution has no value because there are no checks and balances to verify your interpretation of the evidence you have to work with.

Did you just say that we should test scientific models, not by testing them against actual reality through experiment, but rather by seeing if it can be rhymed with the bible stories?

Owkay then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have to have checks and balances in life. In general we check our understanding of the Bible with Science. We check our understanding of Science with the Bible. With science we have evidence and that evidence has to be properly understood. With religion we have the Bible and the Bible has to be properly understood and interpreted. That is why atheistic evolution has no value because there are no checks and balances to verify your interpretation of the evidence you have to work with.

Sorry but that is just nonsense. Let me be a bit more specific:

What reasonable possible observation would show your idea to be wrong? If you can't answer that you have no test.

 

[pitabread]

We check our understanding of Science with the Bible.

Uh, why? Last time I checked, the Bible wasn't a science textbook.

That is why atheistic evolution has no value because there are no checks and balances to verify your interpretation of the evidence you have to work with.

What the heck is "atheistic evolution"?

 

[Loudmouth]

What the heck is "atheistic evolution"?

It's kind of like atheistic gravity, or atheistic thermodynamics. It is the idea that science looks for natural processes to explain natural phenomenon. Most of us just call it science, but creationists have it in their mind that all scientists are atheists, hence the tag of "atheistic science".