Did the eye evolve?

[tas8831]

i dont think so. the felidae family contain about 40 species of cats. but as you can see in this figure, most of them can interbreed with othehr species:

this is why "kind" is more close to the family level rather than the species one. (taken fron my other discussion)

Post hoc rationalizations are just awesome.

 

[tas8831]

so if both parrot and human were also shared the same genes in this trait you will say that evolution is false?

Parrots and humans do not both have wings.
Wings and human forelimbs are homologous, however, so there should be some shared 'programming' genes.

What about robot penguins and Volkswagons?

 

[tas8831]

and still they cant mimic human speech. but a parrot can.

But can robot penguins?

 

[tas8831]

what are you talking about?

So you accept that all sorts of evolution occurs, just with arbitrary - sorry, Scripture-based - constraints?
So, please document the mechanisms behind these constraints.

 

[Shemjaza]

so if both parrot and human were also shared the same genes in this trait you will say that evolution is false?

If they were identical in parrots and humans but different in other primates and birds, then yes that wouldn't be possible in evolution.

But that isn't the case.

 

[Shemjaza]

Does this look familiar?

Evolution is paganism with a scientific explanation.

Hey look! It's a made up story from a religious person... and another made up story from a religious person!

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey look! It's a made up story from a religious person... and another made up story from a religious person!

You don't see the connection?

 

[Shemjaza]

You don't see the connection?

I can see it, but given that one is a caricature/strawman from an evolution opponent it renders the "clever" comparison useless.

 

[Kylie]

https://www.quora.com/How-do-complex-traits-evolve-through-natural-selection

 

[Kylie]

You don't see the connection?

The connection between religious people and made up stories?

 

[xianghua]

If they were identical in parrots and humans but different in other primates and birds, then yes that wouldn't be possible in evolution.

not realy. we can claim in this case for convergent evolution at the genetic level or we can claim that other primates loss their ability to speak. no problem for evolution here.

 

[Shemjaza]

not realy. we can claim in this case for convergent evolution at the genetic level or we can claim that other primates loss their ability to speak. no problem for evolution here.

Just false.

What you are describing is mathematically impossible given the known mechanisms of mutation.

 

[Kylie]

not realy. we can claim in this case for convergent evolution at the genetic level or we can claim that other primates loss their ability to speak. no problem for evolution here.

I suspect that you don't know what convergent evolution actually means. Could you explain in your own words what you think it means?

 

[xianghua]

What you are describing is mathematically impossible given the known mechanisms of mutation.

so give me your calculation please. thanks.

 

[Shemjaza]

so give me your calculation please. thanks.

1) There are many thousands of differences between the genetic structures that generate feathers, reptile scales, fish scales and mammal hair.
2) There are merely dozens of mutations per reproduction.
3) This means to get a specific genetic structure a significant number of random mutations must happen in a similar order to get the same phenotype and genotype.

 

[xianghua]

1) There are many thousands of differences between the genetic structures that generate feathers, reptile scales, fish scales and mammal hair.
2) There are merely dozens of mutations per reproduction.
3) This means to get a specific genetic structure a significant number of random mutations must happen in a similar order to get the same phenotype and genotype.

again: where do you see any problem? here is a similar case:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

“These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,”

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Post hoc rationalizations are just awesome.

Or just ignoring scientific definitions post hoc....

Species - Definition and Examples | Biology Dictionary

"A species is a group of organisms that share a genetic heritage, are able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are also fertile."

species | Definition, Types, & Examples

"Species, in biology, classification comprising related organisms that share common characteristics and are capable of interbreeding."

species | Definition of species in English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."

species Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"biology a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"

Species definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"A species is a class of plants or animals whose members have the same main characteristics and are able to breed with each other."

Definition of SPECIES

"a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding"

the definition of species

"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

again: where do you see any problem? here is a similar case:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

“These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,”

Or convergent design during creation????

You forgot this quote...

"Rokas says that a statistical test of the kind used in the new analysis to check whether evolution has specifically favored particular genetic sequences has been shown to throw up many false positive results."

But not this time, right?????

 

[xianghua]

Or convergent design during creation????

of course. its actually was a counter example for shemjaza. i actually support id. by the way, if i didnt told you this: as a general note: english isnt my native so i dont understand some words here and there in general.