Macroevolution:

[xianghua]

. You get the same hierarchy if you group species by the presence of hair, amnion, three middle ear bones, feathers, backbones, etc.

not in many cases. many traits break the hierarchy, and when that happened they just call it convergent evolution or gene loss. so your claim about "fantasy world" is a fantasy by itself.

 

[xianghua]

-_- convergent evolution is determined via genetics and body structure.

not always. many fossil doesnt contain any DNA. and scientists still claiming for convergent evolution base on morphology.

Cars don't have genes.

even if they had they still cant evolve naturally.

Furthermore, concerning cars with jet parts, they can't exist BEFORE jets do. Transitions lose their meaning if the time frame of their existence doesn't start in between the time frame of the existences of the subjects they are supposed to be a transition for.

exactly like those tetrapod tracks:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ack-the-invasion-of-land-by-18-million-years/

Vehicles can't evolve because they aren't alive, they don't have genetic material, they don't reproduce.

as i said above: it doesnt matter because even if we have found a self replicating car with dna it will not prove any evolution.

 

[xianghua]

That's not convergent design. That is homologous design.

You lack a nested hierarchy.

you can call it anything you want. i already explained why even a case with a real hierarchy will not prove any evolution.

 

[xianghua]

If we can find a car with a parachute and a plane with a parachute, then all planes and all cars should have a parachute. They don't.

by the same criteria if we found a gene in a species A and a species F we should also find it in a species C. but in many cases we doesnt find it:

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v17/n7/full/nrg.2016.39.html?foxtrotcallback=true

so here it again your non-hierarchy even in living things.

 

[xianghua]

But then we learn that we can look inside the wings and see how they are constructed. Perhaps they are constructed very differently?

in this c ase we can just call it "adaptation".

We know that the eye has developed multiple times.
How Humans And Squid Evolved To Have The Same Eyes

no. it's only a belief.

 

[xianghua]

No, that's not what I'm saying.
The ancestor of the species between them could have lost the gene somewhere between the gene evolving and the present.

right. we can find many cases without an hierarchy. so if hierarchy is evidence for a comon descent then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

What I'm saying is that you can't have a shared trait on a branch where it did not evolve in.
An population develops hair. Hair should only show up in the descendants of that population.

if we will find a reptile with hair they will claim for convergent evolution. simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

not in many cases. many traits break the hierarchy, and when that happened they just call it convergent evolution or gene loss. so your claim about "fantasy world" is a fantasy by itself.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

you can call it anything you want. i already explained why even a case with a real hierarchy will not prove any evolution.

Why not? If the distribution of features matches what evolution would produce, then why isn't that evidence for evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

if we will find a reptile with hair they will claim for convergent evolution. simple.

But we don't find reptiles with hair. You can't invent fantasies, and then claim that these fantasies falsify the theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the distribution of features matches what evolution would produce,

After how man tries?

 

[DogmaHunter]

right. we can find many cases without an hierarchy. so if hierarchy is evidence for a comon descent then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

Ow my...

A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?

I told you what would break it:
- a mammal with feathers
- a reptile with an inner-earbone
- ...

if we will find a reptile with hair they will claim for convergent evolution. simple.

I suggest you learn what all these terms that you are using actually mean in context of evolution.

It's quite disturbing to see how ignorant, yet confident you are.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ow my...

A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?

I told you what would break it:
- a mammal with feathers
- a reptile with an inner-earbone
- ...

Actually, reptiles have a single inner ear bone and three lower jaw bones. Mammals have three middle ear bones and a single lower jaw bone.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ow my...

A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?

You're making the mistake of thinking that Xianghua actually pays any heed whatsoever to anything that might contradict what he says.

 

[AV1611VET]

I told you what would break it:
- a mammal with feathers
- a reptile with an inner-earbone
- ...

Nah.

Scientists would just coin a term for it on paper and include it in their paradigms.

Like: monotreme, cryptid, transitional ...

 

[xianghua]

Examples?

here the suppose hierarchy is falling apart:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only

Why not? If the distribution of features matches what evolution would produce, then why isn't that evidence for evolution?

even if we will find it in vehicles?

 

[lesliedellow]

here:


View attachment 206794

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only

the suppose hierarchy is falling apart.

No it isn't. It would only do so if the similarities had a genetic basis

 

[xianghua]

Ow my...A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?

I told you what would break it:

and we indeed found such cases. as you can see in my example to loudmouth:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only

 

[lesliedellow]

here the suppose hierarchy is falling apart:


View attachment 206794

Congratulations. You have just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Loudmouth]

here the suppose hierarchy is falling apart:

How is it falling apart?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nah.

Scientists would just coin a term for it on paper and include it in their paradigms.

Like: monotreme, cryptid, transitional ...

Your fantasies are not evidence.