Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, you did. You accused scientists of using a "rescue device" which implies that they are inventing mechanisms to save their hypothesis.
Again, we're talking about the entire placental mammal group.. from humans to armadillos.... And you're calling that a "small number" of branches? Relative to what?
And this is where your argument breaks down. It isn't the whole tree.
No need to be cryptic. Please elaborate. Present an argument.
Does the tree have armadillos being the closest relatives of humans?
Questions like these tell me that you don't understand what is being discussed.
Do you understand that this is not a comment on overall genetic similarity but on the pattern of "homoplasy-free" genetic markers?
Do you understand why evolutionary systematists add significant weight to these types of traits when inferring common descent relationships?
Does the tree have armadillos being the closest relatives of humans?
Added in edit:
Just to reiterate what sfs wrote earlier:
"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."
In the example you are using, you have only shown inconsistencies in three nodes out of the thousands in the mammal group,
and they are very deep nodes at that. You haven't shown that the "entire placental mammal group" is in disarray. Just 3 nodes. That's it.
For example, where in that study do they produce a phylogeny for primates?
Why didn't you address my response to what sfs wrote?
Do you understand that the nodes are only inferred (imaginary data points) and the data actually is drawn from all those thousands of mammals?
The "3 nodes" represents the whole placental mammal group.
Because it makes the same mistakes over and over and over. You keep pretending as if there are only 3 nodes in the mammal clade.
And yet you only focus on 3 nodes.
And you still get it wrong.
What are you talking about? The "3 Nodes" model is based entirely off of prior phylogenetics studies of supposed placental mammal divergences.
Honestly I think you are just making stuff up in the hopes that it looks like you're offering counter-points, because your responses make no sense at all.
Uh huh. You just can't explain what or how.
Again, you are focusing on just 3 nodes out of thousands.
Just to reiterate what sfs wrote earlier:
"Only if the inconsistencies occur only between a small number of branches -- as in the actual case you presented. If the organisms didn't fall into an overall tree pattern, you could not accommodate the data with ILS. That's what you got wrong before, and repeating your error doesn't improve it."
And I responded to sfs 3 pages ago:
Yet I have shown the very character traits used by evolutionists to construct such a tree pattern can be in major conflict and still be accommodated. That was the whole point of my argument, so your counter-reasoning here is circular.
As sfs has tried to tell you, we would expect IFS and other factors to create conflict on a limited number of branches, such as the 3 out of thousands that you have pointed to.
Your position makes no sense.
For some bizarre reason you say you only expect ILS to operate on a limited number of nodes.
Obviouisly not, since this entire thread is discussing ILS seen in the ape lineages. At one time, the species that formed the base of the placental mammal tree were just as closely related as gorillas, chimps, and humans.
At the same time, no genetic data based on a limited number of markers shows that armadillos are more closely related to humans than chimps are. Why do you think that is?
and the embarrassing thing for evolutionists is that primate genetic patterns could be in total disarray and still accommodated by evolution.
Wow... Sadly, grasping at these types of straws is the most Evolutionists really have to offer....You may as well ask why humans are more genetically similar to armadillos than barnacles... obviously because the former has more similar body plan.
Now, again, here's the funny part. If humans were more genetically similar to Armadillos (or members of the Xenartha order in general),
They are not in total disarray. Can you show how humans have multiple genetic markers that are more similar to baboons than chimps?
That simply doesn't work. Talkorigins has a good analogy:
As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer languageBasic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programsit is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
There is simply no reason why you would need such large amounts of molecular similarity to produce similar morphology, much less similar transposons.
But they aren't. That is the point being made. You can pretend that the evidence isn't what it is, but scientists deal with the real evidence, not the evidence you make up.
You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter whether they do or don't. Evolution would accommodate either scenario. So why on earth are you claiming one scenario as some kind of vindication? It's because you don't know what you're talking about.
Ah, another disciple of Theobald, and TalkOrigins, your online bible.
If you or Theobald had thought about your argument for five minutes you would realize your error.
Yes the functions of computer programs can potentially be written many different ways. But what happens when the same software engineer writes similar program variations? Answer? The code will almost always look very similar.
It's really that simple, but of course neither you nor Theobald will ever be able to accept it. All your arguments hinge on twisted reasoning.
See above: You simply don't understand that Evolution theory equally predicts the scenarios you claim would refute Evolution. You made that glaringly obvious with your baboon/chimp comment.
Genetics and the fossil record have to MATCH, and no amount of data collection is going to change what either source is capable of depicting.
You're wrong. Inconsistencies with the fossil record can be blamed on nature.
The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified. If bird-like dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds they should, then, be older than birds, but Archaeopteryx is 155 million years old, while the very bird-like Deinonychus is 35 million years younger. This idea is sometimes summarized as "you can't be your own grandmother"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_(paleontology)
When looking back at extinct organisms, there are some groups of organisms (or lineages) that have gaps in their fossil records. These organisms or species may be closely related to one another, but there are no traces in the fossil records or sediment beds that might shed some light on their origins.
Ghost lineage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These two explanatory devices refute your notion of the supposed rigidity of the fossil record as a golden standard to measure against phylogeny.
I could bring up other examples, like evidence of advanced tetrapod traits that have been discovered tens of millions of years before the time evolutionists previously believed primitive tetrapods evolved.
An evolutionary narrative is an amorphous fog that settles around the data.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?