Macroevolution:

[Kylie]

in that case you can claim for convergent evolution again (gills evolved twice). here is one case that can fit to this criteria:

Sequencing electric eel genome unlocks shocking secrets

“It’s truly exciting to find that complex structures like the electric organ, which evolved completely independently in six groups of fish, seem to share the same genetic toolkit"

evolution is false now?

Care to provide a source that goes into more detail?

From what this says, it is no more surprising to me than bats and birds both developing wings from their forearms. Can you show that the structures are identical in these cases?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except monotremes fit perfectly into the nested hierarchy that evolution predicts, don't they?

Just like your dolphins with gills would.

 

[xianghua]

Tiktaalik is a "proof of concept", not a part of the direct lineage between fish and amphibian.

so my car into jet fighter is also a "proof of concept".

Eyes have evolved independently in lineages hundreds of times. Each time, the genes are not the same, nor is the structure exactly the same.

many animals eyes arent the same too. and yet you will agree that they shared a common eye. so there isnt an objective conclusion.

Why would they be pointlessly the same in humans and fish? Not only this, but why would a designer give squids such a better basic eye design than humans and fish? .

are you aware that squid is actually a colorblind?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so my car into jet fighter is also a "proof of concept".

No, because we know for a fact cars don't reproduce and don't have genetic material upon which mutations can occur. Basically, we know that the mechanism behind changes in car designs is not analogous to how populations change. Heck, I could convert a car into an airplane if I wanted to. You can't convert a bearded dragon into a pigeon.

many animals eyes arent the same too. and yet you will agree that they shared a common eye. so there isnt an objective conclusion.

I disagree with your assertion that I would agree that "they all share a common eye" when I literally said that eyes evolved independently hundreds of times.

are you aware that squid is actually a colorblind?

If you act as if their eyes work like human eyes, then yes. However, squids can detect color, though there is some disagreement on how they and the octopus do so (whether it's through their skin or via the shape of their pupils or both). -_- how would they accurately change their color to match their surroundings if they couldn't distinguish color at all?

Additionally, is colorblindness a problem? Nearly 1/10 male humans are colorblind, it's not much of a detriment.

 

[xianghua]

If there were multiple such examples for homologous traits, this would falsify evolution. The problem is that you keep citing analogous traits, not homologous traits.

here is one example of the alx3 gene:

"The apparent absence of Alx3 in frog, chick, and lizard is intriguing."

"The Alx3 gene was found to be present in all mammalian and fish species for which there was adequate genome coverage (not shown). More surprisingly, we found the Alx3 gene in the zebra finch (T. guttata) genome, located in the appropriate syntenic region"

Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene

evolution suppose to be false now by your own criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

here is one example of the alx3 gene:

View attachment 207622"The apparent absence of Alx3 in frog, chick, and lizard is intriguing."

"The Alx3 gene was found to be present in all mammalian and fish species for which there was adequate genome coverage (not shown). More surprisingly, we found the Alx3 gene in the zebra finch (T. guttata) genome, located in the appropriate syntenic region"

Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene

evolution suppose to be false now by your own criteria.

For that criteria to be met you need to show that the Alx3 sequence does not follow that phylogeny.

 

[xianghua]

For that criteria to be met you need to show that the Alx3 sequence does not follow that phylogeny.

for what? you can see the gene phylogeny above in fig 4 from the article. you asked for homologous genes. this gene is indeed homologous. so evolution is false now or not?

 

[xianghua]

Care to provide a source that goes into more detail?

From what this says, it is no more surprising to me than bats and birds both developing wings from their forearms. Can you show that the structures are identical in these cases?

what is the different between a dolphin with gills and a dolphin with an electric organ?

 

[Loudmouth]

for what? you can see the gene phylogeny above in fig 4 from the article. you asked for homologous genes. this gene is indeed homologous. so evolution is false now or not?

You need to show that the sequence does not follow the phylogeny, and also show that there is no phylogenetic signal when looking at whole genomes.

For example, does the zebrafish have an Alx3 gene sequence that is identical to that of a bird, but two bird species differ by 20%?

 

[stevil]

Either that, or a new category of animals will be created for it: like "montreme" or "cryptid."

Only on paper.

Australia and NZ are interesting. Their wildlife supports the theory of evolution, and is a puzzle if you think god created creatures fully formed.

NZ broke away from the mainland (Gondwana) first (or perhaps was never part of it), before mammals existed. Not that long ago, before humans landed on NZ, the only mammal we had was a bat, it managed to get to NZ because it could fly. We had no rats, mice, stouts, ferrets, weazles, foxes, cats, dogs, no mammals other than the bat. Many of our birds lost the power of flight (because they had no predators and no need to fly). We had Moa (now extinct), kiwi, kakapo, takahe, penguin, weka, three flightless wrens and two adzebills.

Australia broke away from the mainland a bit after that, it had some mammals, especially marsupials and monotremes, but lacked many of the placental mammals such as rats, mice, cats, dogs etc. Many of their marsupials and monotremes managed to survive without these predatorial placental mammals.

Now since the placental mammals evolved afterwards, they were able to run rampant on much of the world, but not on NZ and Australia because there was a great body of water between these island countries and the rest of the world. It wasn't until humans created boats and traveled the oceans, bringing with them these creatures that these environments were then plagued with these predators.

However, if evolution is false and if god creation is true, then isolated islands wouldn't have been a problem. The god could have created these predators on these isolated islands, no problem. Question: When the god created animals (fully formed) did the god just provide two of each (one male, one female) in the entire world, just to get the ball rolling, or did the god create several of them, spread over the world?
When the flood came, how did Noah gather these creatures up, and how did they then make it back to their homelands after the flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Question: When the god created animals (fully formed) did the god just provide two of each (one male, one female) in the entire world, just to get the ball rolling, or did the god create several of them, spread over the world?
When the flood came, how did Noah gather these creatures up, and how did they then make it back to their homelands after the flood?

1. I don't really know. I believe He created one male and one female of each kind, then blessed them with a type of fertility that would make Nadya Suleman (Octomom) envious; while at the same time leaving inbreed depression scratching its head.

2. When the Flood came, the land consisted of one giant supercontinent at one time, and I believe God brought the animals to the Ark.

3. After the Flood, I believe the animals were teleported to their respective niches, much like Philip was teleported to Azotus in Acts 8.

 

[lesliedellow]

1. I don't really know. I believe He created one male and one female of each kind, then blessed them with a type of fertility that would make Nadya Suleman (Octomom) envious; while at the same time leaving inbreed depression scratching its head.

2. When the Flood came, the land consisted of one giant supercontinent at one time, and I believe God brought the animals to the Ark.

3. After the Flood, I believe the animals were teleported to their respective niches, much like Philip was teleported to Azotus in Acts 8.

Make it up as you go along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. I don't really know. I believe He created one male and one female of each kind, then blessed them with a type of fertility that would make Nadya Suleman (Octomom) envious; while at the same time leaving inbreed depression scratching its head.

Sorry, but myths are no answer. You need to explain the problem that your myth gives us. Until you do you are merely claiming that God lied.

2. When the Flood came, the land consisted of one giant supercontinent at one time, and I believe God brought the animals to the Ark.

Nope, that was several hundred million years ago. Unless you want to claim that God lied again.

3. After the Flood, I believe the animals were teleported to their respective niches, much like Philip was teleported to Azotus in Acts 8.

Magic may be a better answer than Conservipedia once had. They used to try to claim that it was explosions.

 

[Kylie]

what is the different between a dolphin with gills and a dolphin with an electric organ?

One has gills and the other is rocking it on the synth.

 

[Kylie]

Just like your dolphins with gills would.

No they wouldn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Make it up as you go along.

You got better answers?

 

[Kylie]

You got better answers?

Yeah.

Look at reality. Form a hypothesis. Gather data to test the hypothesis. Reject the hypothesis if the data disagrees with the hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah.

Look at reality. Form a hypothesis. Gather data to test the hypothesis. Reject the hypothesis if the data disagrees with the hypothesis.

Um ... I missed the answers in there somewhere.

Is that a fancy way of saying NO, you don't have answers?

 

[stevil]

Sorry, but myths are no answer. You need to explain the problem that your myth gives us.

Personally, I'd love to have a thread which shows the major themes i.e. adaptation to environments, continental shift, migration, shared traits etc and have a side by side explaination, the evolution based explaination up next to the creationist explaination.

It seems mostly we have creationists and evolutionists both looking at the evolution explaination with the creationists being quite good at picking holes or coming up with challenges. But we don't seem to have much exploration or questions and challenges regarding the creationist explainations.

I think it was great that AV1611VET recognised the problem of inbreeding and also the problem of getting the specific animals back to their "homeland" after "the flood" but the answers "god did it" perhaps by teleportation or by suspending the problem of inbreeding, is no where near as satisfactory as the detailed answers any creationists want when picking over the evidence and inductions made within the evolution theory.

To be fair on AV1611VET he doesn't pick over the details of evolution, he just insists on a narrative consistent with his understanding of the bible. Doesn't seem to matter to him if the biblical narrative sounds a little magical, if it's in the bible then it must be true and god's miracles do seem a little bit magical anyway.

But I find xianghua quite interesting in that his/her need to pick on details of evolution theory. (I think it is good to challenge science) so I think this is a good thing. But if one thinks that since we don't 100% know stuff then we must default to a "don't know how, but god can do anything, so god did it" perhaps somehow this argument is compelling to some people, it certainly won't sway an atheist who has a reasonable interest in science. What I would like though is to see xianghua offer his/her narrative on why things look they way they do if god did it. And to use his/her fine tooth comb over that narritive also.

 

[lesliedellow]

You got better answers?

Since I do not read everything in the Bible as history, your problems are not mine.