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.
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?
Just like your dolphins with gills would.Except monotremes fit perfectly into the nested hierarchy that evolution predicts, don't they?
Tiktaalik is a "proof of concept", not a part of the direct lineage between fish and amphibian.
Eyes have evolved independently in lineages hundreds of times. Each time, the genes are not the same, nor is the structure exactly the same.
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? .
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.so my car into jet fighter is also a "proof of concept".
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.many animals eyes arent the same too. and yet you will agree that they shared a common eye. so there isnt an objective conclusion.
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?are you aware that squid is actually a colorblind?
here is one example of the alx3 gene: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:
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.
what is the different between a dolphin with gills and a dolphin with an electric organ?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?
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?
Australia and NZ are interesting. Their wildlife supports the theory of evolution, and is a puzzle if you think god created creatures fully formed.Either that, or a new category of animals will be created for it: like "montreme" or "cryptid."
Only on paper.
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.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.
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.
You got better answers?Make it up as you go along.
Um ... I missed the answers in there somewhere.Yeah.
Look at reality. Form a hypothesis. Gather data to test the hypothesis. Reject the hypothesis if the data disagrees with the hypothesis.
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.Sorry, but myths are no answer. You need to explain the problem that your myth gives us.
You got better answers?
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?