Macroevolution:

[Loudmouth]

the fact that the authors conclude that it may be the result of convergent loss prove that even according to evolution theory there is no problem with non-nested hierarchy.

It wouldn't be a non-nested hierarchy if there was a loss in those lineages.

Added in edit:

It is also worth mentioning that the authors concluded that the neural systems evolved independently:

"Although two distinct nervous systems are well recognized in ctenophores, many bilaterian neuron-specific genes and genes of ‘classical’ neurotransmitter pathways either are absent or, if present, are not expressed in neurons. Our metabolomic and physiological data are consistent with the hypothesis that ctenophore neural systems, and possibly muscle specification, evolved independently from those in other animals."
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13400.html

so your claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution isnt true even by the experts in the field. but you are welcome to believe that it's false.

The experts in the field are the ones who claim that the nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution:

"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."

Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.

 

[Loudmouth]

so your evidence is a "missing link"? are you aware that a tetrapod track fossil found to be eariler then this fish?:

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

Are you aware that transitional and ancestral are two different things?

 

[stevil]

so your evidence is a "missing link"? are you aware that a tetrapod track fossil found to be eariler then this fish?:

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

All these discoveries are very exciting. Trying to piece together the mysteries of the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think that the scientific community have an agenda that goes beyond empirical based discovery?

Yes ... but subconsciously.

 

[AV1611VET]

I found that post quite funny.

For the record, here's the entire post: Evolution is the philosophy of Witchcraft and can lead to Atheism

You may find it enlightening (or adjective of your choice).

 

[xianghua]

All these discoveries are very exciting. Trying to piece together the mysteries of the past.

no. they just showing us that this suppose missing link is not even in the correct geological time. so tetrapods appearing first, then their suppose missing links between tetrapods and fishes.

 

[xianghua]

It wouldn't be a non-nested hierarchy if there was a loss in those lineages.

incorrect. if we found the same gene in 2 far species but not in some species between them- there is no hierarchy as you claimed.and we indeed found such cases.

bottom line- we found non-hierarchy. and if hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non-hierarchy should be evidence against it. simple as that.

 

[Jimmy D]

no. they just showing us that this suppose missing link is not even in the correct geological time. so tetrapods appearing first, then their suppose missing links between tetrapods and fishes.

This is starting to grate now. This has been explained to you MULTIPLE times, yet you still persist, you are either lying or not very bright. Consider yourself on ignore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Is just a theory.
2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.
3. Is anathema to the Bible.
4. Cannot be observed.
5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.
6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.
7. Is a lie of the Devil.
8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.
9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.

10. is consistently misrepresented and lied about, as points 1 to 9 clearly demonstrate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are a variety of dogs but no dogs jumping to other species never to return.

If that would happen, evolution would be falsified.

No Poodle is on a one way trip to becomming a cockroach and it is nonsense to suppose such things.

Idd. It's also nonsense to pretend that evolution actually works that way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

maybe somone dont have any money? maybe it were better then our own watches? anything is possible.

Scientific theories are useful because "anything is possible" isn't a true statement. Furthermore, "someone don't have money" as a reason to breed a species for telling time? Do you not understand how much time and money has to go into breeding organisms to be useful to humans? A living watch would cost magnitudes more than a metal wristwatch. Furthermore, we already have watches accurate within minuscule fractions of a second; even if artificial selection could reasonably produce a "watch" more accurate than those, the effort isn't worth it.

true. as we know that the first tetrapod predate it's suppose ancestor. at least according to the fossils we have.

-_- the first tetrapod fossil doesn't predate fish, I've already told you that. All the fossil you mentioned did was predate the previous "oldest tetrapod fossil".

as we know that humans didnt come from fishes.

Then why do we share genes with fish when there is no physiological necessity to it?

 

[Loudmouth]

incorrect. if we found the same gene in 2 far species but not in some species between them- there is no hierarchy as you claimed.and we indeed found such cases.

Which gene are you talking about?

 

[PsychoSarah]

For the record, here's the entire post: Evolution is the philosophy of Witchcraft and can lead to Atheism

You may find it enlightening (or adjective of your choice).

I don't actually know any atheists that are atheists because of evolution itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't actually know any atheists that are atheists because of evolution itself.

You never met anyone who said:

"Ya. Eyes a Christyin at one time, but ah had questyins mah paster couldn't ansor, and he throwed me out the cherch!"

Paul warned about those kinds.

 

[lesliedellow]

If that would happen, evolution would be falsified.

Don't creationists get tired of forever posting the same old twaddle?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't creationists get tired of forever posting the same old twaddle?

About as much as Jesus got tired of showing He was the Messiah.

 

[lesliedellow]

About as much as Jesus got tired of showing He was the Messiah.

Jesus wasn't talking 24 carat nonsense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Don't creationists get tired of forever posting the same old twaddle?

Apparently not. It's all they have.

 

[bhsmte]

Don't creationists get tired of forever posting the same old twaddle?

They really have no choice, when the hole has been dug that deep.

 

[Kylie]

as far as i remember, you showed that a car can evolve into a gliding one. not an airplane.

And you are unwilling to follow on from that to figure out for yourself how powered flight can follow?

BTW, I showed how powered flight could result in this post. And Speedwell went into more detail about the same topic in this post.

even a regular car can glide in some situations.

Hahahahahahaha

Show me an example of this.