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.
But they are not morphologically and genetically identical, which is what it would take to disprove evolution. All that the similarity shows is convergent evolution.so what? they are still very similar.
But the odds are much against it. In the case of the wing, the pterosaur wing evolves from a limb which is morphologically and genetically different than the limb of the bat's precursor mammal. Aerodynamic considerations involved in selection might be expected to result in a wing which is to the untrained observer superficially similar to the bat's wing (although in this instance the differences are sufficient even for an amateur to notice) but the underlying genetics will betray the similarity. The starting points of the limb-wing transition are too different genetically.did you forgot natural selection? if one sequence can evolve once it can evolve twice.
But the odds are much against it. In the case of the wing, the pterosaur wing evolves from a limb which is morphologically and genetically different than the limb of the bat's precursor mammal.
I'm not really sure what your point is. Convergent evolution is the development of similar morphologies from different genetic starting points. Similar morphologies do not imply similar genetics.first; how do you know? do you have any sequence of a pterosaur wings to compare?
secondly: thye are similar too. so maybe they was similar also in the genetic level. the dorsal fin of both dolphin and ichthyosaur are similar too. so how do you know thta they not evolved by a convergent evolution in the genetic level?
I'm not really sure what your point is. Convergent evolution is the development of similar morphologies from different genetic starting points. Similar morphologies do not imply similar genetics.
It's not a "rule," it's just extremely unlikely. The reptile genome is not the same as the mammal genome. Why should we assume that if the reptile and the mammal both develop their forelimbs into winglike structures, the underlying genetics should be similar? Even if the morphological structure was very similar (which in this example is decidedly not the case) there would be no reason for that assumption. It's not like they both ordered their wings from the same catalog. They each had to build their wings from material already on hand, and the starting materials were very different.what do you mean by "different starting points"? there is any rule in evolution that saying we cant get the same sequence by a convergent evolution?
so lets assume that we found them to be similar also in the genetic level. why it will falsified evolution?It's not a "rule," it's just extremely unlikely. The reptile genome is not the same as the mammal genome. Why should we assume that if the reptile and the mammal both develop their forelimbs into winglike structures, the underlying genetics should be similar? Even if the morphological structure was very similar (which in this example is decidedly not the case) there would be no reason for that assumption. It's not like they both ordered their wings from the same catalog. They each had to build their wings from material already on hand, and the starting materials were very different.
So what was your point?
Because of the extreme unlikelihood of it happening. Except for a very, very simple structure where the options for possible genetic underpinning were few (and I can't even think of an example--it would have to be in a simple, single celled organism) it would be all but impossible. For a complex winglike structure there are so many locations in the genome that could or could not be involved and so many possibilities at any of the locations for producing similar structures that even if the structures were morphologically very similar, the odds of the genetics being similar are so vanishingly small as to be entirely negligible. I mean, even if you wound the clock back and let the bat evolve again, and it did evolve identical wings again, the chances of the underlying genetics being the same wouldn't be very good. You could imagine how unlikely it would be if you were starting from two entirley different genomes.so lets assume that we found them to be similar also in the genetic level. why it will falsified evolution?
Even if you destroyed evolution right now it would not bring you one iota closer to there being a God.so lets assume that we found them to be similar also in the genetic level. why it will falsified evolution?
Nor an AV1611VET, nor a Stamp, nor a consol, nor a ...Even if you destroyed evolution right now it would not bring you one iota closer to there being a God.
Creationists fooling themselves into believing that evolution is the enemy are only wasting their time, creationism is their enemy and always has been, that's my point.Nor an AV1611VET, nor a Stamp, nor a consol, nor a ...
In other words, what's your point?
Good point.Creationists fooling themselves into believing that evolution is the enemy are only wasting their time,
did you forgot natural selection? if one sequence can evolve once it can evolve twice.
ok. so first; if its only similar to bat wings, this case will also falsified evolution?Because of the extreme unlikelihood of it happening. Except for a very, very simple structure where the options for possible genetic underpinning were few (and I can't even think of an example--it would have to be in a simple, single celled organism) it would be all but impossible. For a complex winglike structure there are so many locations in the genome that could or could not be involved and so many possibilities at any of the locations for producing similar structures that even if the structures were morphologically very similar, the odds of the genetics being similar are so vanishingly small as to be entirely negligible. I mean, even if you wound the clock back and let the bat evolve again, and it did evolve identical wings again, the chances of the underlying genetics being the same wouldn't be very good. You could imagine how unlikely it would be if you were starting from two entirley different genomes.
It would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But I am not interested in continuing this discussion unless you tell me what you point is.ok. so first; if its only similar to bat wings, this case will also falsified evolution?
secondly: where is the limit of convnergent evolution in the genetic level? in about 10 convergent mutations? 20? 50? where is the limit that you will say that evolution have been falsified?.
His point is to feel that he is arguing his case, he's not but feels justified as long as you keep replying to his rhetoric.But I am not interested in continuing this discussion unless you tell me what you point is.
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?