proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Great! Challenge Accepted! Show me a phylogenetic tree of cars/planes and I'll show you why your analogy doesn't work - we'll sort this rubbish out once and for all.

I'd love to see a creationist actually attempt this. And more importantly, try to create multiple trees based on independent characteristics of a particular group of objects and see if they get any convergence whatsoever.

Of course, I don't think any creationists here know how to go about creating a phylogenetic tree so I doubt it will ever happen. Even though there is loads of free software and it's not terribly difficult to do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From Gray wolf - Wikipedia :

"The gray wolf or grey wolf (Canis lupus),[a] also known as the timber wolf[3][4] or western wolf, is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America. It is the largest extant member of its family, with males averaging 43–45 kg (95–99 lb) and females 36–38.5 kg (79–85 lb).[6] Like the red wolf, it is distinguished from other Canis species by its larger size and less pointed features, particularly on the ears and muzzle.[7] Its winter fur is long and bushy and predominantly a mottled gray in color, although nearly pure white, red, and brown to black also occur.[4] Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognises 37 subspecies of C. lupus.[8]"​

If we follow this to: Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia , we find among the various sub-species,
we find this under Domestic Dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris) :

"The dog is a divergent subspecies of the gray wolf and was derived from a now-extinct population of Late Pleistocene wolves.[18][37][38] Through selective pressure and selective breeding, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioral and morphological variation than any other land mammal.[39]"
​

Then, it's a short step to genetically map out the connection between that and the Poodle, a layman's summary (with pretty, easy to understand pictures for those challenged by big sciency words and ideas): A Simple Chart Shows How Dogs Today Evolved From A Wolf

All these articles are for the unwashed masses, but links to the peer reviewed science to back them up are on these pages - if you have difficulty locating and clicking the link to them, I can do that for you, so just let me know if you have issues.

I did answer your question, so as explained again, Poodles are in fact Wolves through ancestry, just as you're an Ape through ancestry. and a Placental Mammal through ancestry, and a Synapsid, and an Anmiote, and a Vertibrate, and a Eukaryote, etc.

Technically, Yes. Aren't you aware of Tiktaalik? You know, the transitional life form between fish and all air-breathing land animals?

We were never bacteria. Although, we do have mitochondria, which is a co-opted prokaryotic cell that was most likely bacteria, so I guess we could say that bacteria are an essential makeup of all Eukaryotes?

So then fish have fur, since bears were once fish, and therefor still are. Invertebrates have vertebrates since we came from fish, which came from invertebrates, and still are. Hey, it’s your reasoning, not mine.

You can’t have it both ways.

And your article lists dogs as subspecies, not the same thing as a species. Your inability to recognize this, is why you have problems correctly defining finches that are mating right in front of the researchers noses.

Or problems understanding that Neanderthal, who mated with some type of human, is simply another subspecies of human, not a separate species.

You have a species problem precisely because you can’t follow the definitions.

I am my fathers son, I am not my father. We are both the same species.

If you want poodles to be the same as wolves, then you need to reclassify them not as a subspecies, but as the same species as wolves. Then they would be the same, not merely distantly related.

Or are you subscribing to the idea that maybe Asians and Africans are subspecies? Or maybe my cousin 5 times removed is a different subspecies? Funny how what applies to animals never applies to humans, even if we are but animals. It’s almost as if they treat us as a special creation....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'd love to see a creationist actually attempt this. And more importantly, try to create multiple trees based on independent characteristics of a particular group of objects and see if they get any convergence whatsoever.

Of course, I don't think any creationists here know how to go about creating a phylogenetic tree so I doubt it will ever happen. Even though there is loads of free software and it's not terribly difficult to do.

Exactly! How do you sort this tree out? Number of wheels? Paint colour? Radio type? There's a thousand different things you might possibly make a tree out of and none of them would match up with the others - Exactly like you wouldn't ever see in a phylogenetic tree of life based on the product of evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dinosaur fossils have been found that feathers, showing ancestry for birds. Additionally, some modern birds have skulls almost identical, except in size, to some dinosaurs, again showing evolution at work.

Evolution predicts common ancestry, from the first rudimentary living organism, to today's complex life.

As an aside, evolution does not depend on G-d or a designer. However, neither does it deny that G-d or an intelligent designer exists. Evolution is about how and what; Religion is about who. Belief in G-d and science are not in conflict. What does conflict is science and certain religious beliefs, that not all the Abrahamic religions accept.

We agree that not all that claim to be of the Abrahamic religions are. Some ignore kind after Kind, even if every fossil ever found of any type remains the same for every fossil found of that type. That even if Asian always remain Asian, African remain African. Now when they mate, yes, we do see variation. Just as Husky always remain Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff. Yes, when the Husky mates with the Mastiff we do indeed observe a change in form.

Now instead of ignoring those apparent gaps in the fossil record, they instead posited that fossil A mated with Fossil B and fossil C was produced, so that there occurred a sudden change in appearance, why one could accept this hypothesis. Understanding of course that as neither Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook, so neither fossil A or fossil B evolved into fossil C. And like the Chinook which remains the same species as the Husky and Mastiff, so fossil C remains the same species as fossil A and B.

Granted, we understand they can not observe the mating that occurred from only a pile of bones, but that is not a liscense to ignore how we currently observe that variation to come about.

So we agree, there is no conflict at all between observation, nor the fossil record and the Bible. But then neither observation, nor the fossil record, nor the Bible evidence any evolution whatsoever....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Exactly! How do you sort this tree out? Number of wheels? Paint colour? Radio type? There's a thousand different things you might possibly make a tree out of and none of them would match up with the others - Exactly like you wouldn't ever see in a phylogenetic tree of life based on the product of evolution.

Intelligent designer - blue paint - four wheels - cassette - etc.

Intelligent designer - red paint - 18 wheels - CD player - etc.

Intelligent designer - green paint - 6 wheels - Am/FM - etc.

All have in common one designer, whether or not the details may be divergent.

Or heaven forbid we go Intelligent designer - red paint - split there and go - 4 wheels and 6 wheels - split there and go cassette and CD player - etc.

The problem would only lie in whether we followed the deffinition of what constitutes color in this example. So if I ignored my deffinition of red, I could then list shades of red, not as sub-colors of red, but as different distinct colors. Confusion would then reign if color was the defining characteristic.

So if one ignores what species and subspecies are, and lists those subspecies as separate species, confusion reigns....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So then fish have fur, since bears were once fish, and therefore still ate. Invertebrates have vertebrates since we came from fish, which came from invertebrates, and still are.

You can’t have it both ways.

Not sure of your point, what can't we have both ways?

And your article lists dogs as subspecies, not the same thing as a species. Your inability to recognize this, is why you have problems correctly defining finches that are mating right in front of the researchers noses.

Or problems understanding that Neanderthal, who mated with some type of human, is simply another subspecies of human, not a separate species.

You have a species problem precisely because you can’t follow the definitions.

oh, this waffle again - give it up already...

I am my fathers son, I am not my father. We are both the same species.

Agreed.

If you want poodles to be the same as wolves, then you need to reclassify them not as a subspecies, but as the same species as wolves. Then they would be the same, not merely distantly related.

Right, but you do agree then that a Wolf, then Father=>Son/Father=>Son/Father=>Son ~<many generations>~ Father=>Son/Father=>Son to Poodle? Exactly like Wolf, then Father=>Son/Father=>Son/Father=>Son ~<many generations>~ Father=>Son/Father=>Son to Dingo, and for that matter, Arctic Wolf, Mexican Wolf, Arabian Wolf, etc? You know, as if they all shared a common ancestor?

Or are you subscribing to the idea that maybe Asians and Africans are subspecies? Or maybe my cousin 5 times removed is a different subspecies? Funny how what applies to animals never applies to humans, even if we are but animals. It’s almost as if they treat us as a special creation....

We like to treat ourselves differently, though there are a number of qualitative reasons for it - see: https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-human-races-considered-to-be-subspecies for a decent explanation. In short, we don't have subspecies for Dogs either, for the same reason we don't have subspecies of Homo Sapien. Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis) are a subspecies of Homo though, just as the Japanese Wolf is a subspecies of Gray Wolf (i.e. Canis Lupus Hodophilax is a subspecies of Canis Lupus). it seems everything here is in order...

 

[pitabread]

Exactly! How do you sort this tree out? Number of wheels? Paint colour? Radio type? There's a thousand different things you might possibly make a tree out of and none of them would match up with the others - Exactly like you wouldn't ever see in a phylogenetic tree of life based on the product of evolution.

I think whether or not trees would converge around manufacturers would be the most interesting thing to see. Aside from manufacturer badges, would it be possible to deduce manufacturers just based on other characteristics?

This is the sort of thing that would be the most interesting for creationists to demonstrate, since they make such a big deal about "common design" and arguing that everything is the result of a singular designer. But could such an analysis actually distinguish designers? I doubt it, but it might be fun to see nonetheless.

But again, I wouldn't hold my breath for creationists to ever undertake this.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Intelligent designer - blue paint - four wheels - cassette - etc.

Intelligent designer - red paint - 18 wheels - CD player - etc.

Intelligent designer - green paint - 6 wheels - Am/FM - etc.

All have in common one designer, whether or not the details may be divergent.

Or heaven forbid we go Intelligent designer - red paint - split there and go - 4 wheels and 6 wheels - split there and go cassette and CD player - etc.

So, would you agree then that something that explains everything, explains nothing? For example,

Intelligent designer - yellow paint - 2 wheels - dolby 7.1 surround sound quad-channel fibre amplified blu-ray - etc.

this also fits into your mono-level tree of everything, as does a house, asteroids, the sun, my daughter's painting, a pencil, The Q.E.II Cruise Ship, etc. Nothing cannot fit into this paradigm because it is explained by this catch-all that explains everything. It's therefore useless for anything. For example,

Why do planets orbit the sun? Intelligent Designer.
What causes Lightning and Thunder? Intelligent Designer.
How did Earth and our solar system come about? Intelligent Designer.
What causes disease? Intelligent Designer.
Why do flowers bloom in spring? Intelligent Designer.​

So, where do you go from there? What useful info can we draw from this? Why, Let's Pray to the Intelligent Designer and hope it rewards us in some unknown, immeasurable way sometime later...(?) Unfortunately, this method is still used by many in the civilised world, I remember seeing an American lady contract ebola in Africa, was rushed back to the US under medical emergency, where doctors, nurses and medical staff treated her for a week or more, treating her with ground-breaking vaccines and other pioneering treatments borne of the scientific method, only to greet the Press on her recovery thanking her God she recovered.... really?? I wonder if she thanked her God for giving it to her in the first place...

Conversely, by *Not* assuming any 'intelligent designer', we've been able to make progress in the sciences in great strides over the past 400 years or so since defining and employing the scientific method. Though not perfect, this has by far given us more to humanity and civilisation than any religion (or gods, etc) ever have. We live longer, eat better, survive catastrophic diseases like ebola with much more resilience, etc. We are literally better off in every measurable aspect than the pre-scientific method era.

The problem would only lie in whether we followed the deffinition of what constitutes color in this example. So if I ignored my deffinition of red, I could then list shades of red, not as sub-colors of red, but as different distinct colors. Confusion would then reign if color was the defining characteristic.

So if one ignores what species and subspecies are, and lists those subspecies as separate species, confusion reigns....

If applied to this non-sensical scenario, I might agree. In evolution though, any distinction between subspecies and species is literally a matter of time. This area is a grey middleground precisely because Evolution is a branching tree of life forms that diverge continuously to form these ongoing expanding array of unique species. Initial divergence might still see these subspecies interact on a limited scale, but if these divergent populations stay mostly separated, they will eventually speciate and you eventually get your new species. With your 'Intelligent Designer' tree of 'life' above, where are all the branches? How do they fit into a branching tree past Level 1? I guess I'm missing the obviousness, but there's nothing there like evolution... This is why it fails.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not sure of your point, what can't we have both ways?

oh, this waffle again - give it up already...

Agreed.

Right, but you do agree then that a Wolf, then Father=>Son/Father=>Son/Father=>Son ~<many generations>~ Father=>Son/Father=>Son to Poodle? Exactly like Wolf, then Father=>Son/Father=>Son/Father=>Son ~<many generations>~ Father=>Son/Father=>Son to Dingo, and for that matter, Arctic Wolf, Mexican Wolf, Arabian Wolf, etc? You know, as if they all shared a common ancestor?

Yet you won’t accept we are still fish, and therefore you have seen a fish with hair and legs too. Your falsifying condition. If a poodle descended from a wolf is still a wolf, then a man descended from a fish is still a fish. Every one of your falsifying conditions have been met by your own claims.

We like to treat ourselves differently, though there are a number of qualitative reasons for it - see: https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-human-races-considered-to-be-subspecies for a decent explanation. In short, we don't have subspecies for Dogs either, for the same reason we don't have subspecies of Homo Sapien. Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis) are a subspecies of Homo though, just as the Japanese Wolf is a subspecies of Gray Wolf (i.e. Canis Lupus Hodophilax is a subspecies of Canis Lupus). it seems everything here is in order...

There is no reason for it. Either we are just evolved animals like every other animal, and therefore subject to the same classification system, or we are not.

So if song patterns and feather color is good enough for birds, then language and skin color is good enough for human classification? And if not good enough for humans, then it certainly is not good enough for any other animal either?

Finches have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. The fact that they haven’t been isolated at all doesn’t seem to bother them.

I thought you all didn’t want to talk about bottlenecks and reduction in genetic variability, now you want to use it as an excuse?

And there we go with coloration, yet birds that ranges overlap yet have different colors have been classified as separate species.

Were they actually consistent they might have a claim. As it is you can’t refuse to classify humans as subspecies, or separate species for that matter because they can interbreed, then turn right around and classify finches as separate species when they interbreed. Their lack of consistency to apply to humans what they do to other species takes away any merit to their claims.

 

[xianghua]

Under design, you don't have that same "common genome" starting point for different species.

we dont even need this. under the design model we only need to take several genes and check their conservetion. if we will take a gene x and we will see that this gene is conserve among several species compare to other genes, then we can conclude that this gene has an important rule.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, would you agree then that something that explains everything, explains nothing? For example,

Intelligent designer - yellow paint - 2 wheels - dolby 7.1 surround sound quad-channel fibre amplified blu-ray - etc.

this also fits into your mono-level tree of everything, as does a house, asteroids, the sun, my daughter's painting, a pencil, The Q.E.II Cruise Ship, etc. Nothing cannot fit into this paradigm because it is explained by this catch-all that explains everything. It's therefore useless for anything. For example,

Why do planets orbit the sun? Intelligent Designer.
What causes Lightning and Thunder? Intelligent Designer.
How did Earth and our solar system come about? Intelligent Designer.
What causes disease? Intelligent Designer.
Why do flowers bloom in spring? Intelligent Designer.​

​

Well they certainly don’t know.

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says

Why all we knew about planets is wrong

But let’s just ignore that and continue on anyways as if it was correct! Right?

So, where do you go from there? What useful info can we draw from this? Why, Let's Pray to the Intelligent Designer and hope it rewards us in some unknown, immeasurable way sometime later...(?) Unfortunately, this method is still used by many in the civilised world, I remember seeing an American lady contract ebola in Africa, was rushed back to the US under medical emergency, where doctors, nurses and medical staff treated her for a week or more, treating her with ground-breaking vaccines and other pioneering treatments borne of the scientific method, only to greet the Press on her recovery thanking her God she recovered.... really?? I wonder if she thanked her God for giving it to her in the first place...

Conversely, by *Not* assuming any 'intelligent designer', we've been able to make progress in the sciences in great strides over the past 400 years or so since defining and employing the scientific method. Though not perfect, this has by far given us more to humanity and civilisation than any religion (or gods, etc) ever have. We live longer, eat better, survive catastrophic diseases like ebola with much more resilience, etc. We are literally better off in every measurable aspect than the pre-scientific method era.

If applied to this non-sensical scenario, I might agree. In evolution though, any distinction between subspecies and species is literally a matter of time. This area is a grey middleground precisely because Evolution is a branching tree of life forms that diverge continuously to form these ongoing expanding array of unique species. Initial divergence might still see these subspecies interact on a limited scale, but if these divergent populations stay mostly separated, they will eventually speciate and you eventually get your new species. With your 'Intelligent Designer' tree of 'life' above, where are all the branches? How do they fit into a branching tree past Level 1? I guess I'm missing the obviousness, but there's nothing there like evolution... This is why it fails.

So in other words you really don’t have a clue, and all your claims are just grey areas with arbitrary selections that don’t really prove anything. Right? Since it’s so grey anyone can say about anything they want.

That about sum it up?

 

[xianghua]

Show me a fossilised fish with fur, then we can talk.

i dont need to. i only showed why such a fossil will not falsify evolution.

Even if cars and planes did reproduce in some fantasy scenario in your head, it does nothing to disprove evolution here in reality.

actually it did, since a car will never evolve into an airplane.

Great! Challenge Accepted! Show me a phylogenetic tree of cars/planes and I'll show you why your analogy doesn't work - we'll sort this rubbish out once and for all.

here is one of toys:

vechiales phylogeny - Google Search:

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Under design, you don't have that same "common genome" starting point for different species.

Why not?

Your life started with the same “Dust” mine did.....

As a matter of fact billions of microbes each evolving separately is a greater hurdle for you than mine is. For us to share ancestory all the way to that first microbe, only it’s decendants survived throughout the ages. With every new mutation requiring all others to go extinct. Creating bottleneck after bottleneck.

Are you proposing that all life came from one solitary microbe? It’s the only way you get ancestory.....

I feel your pain, mine started with one too, which was split to make two...

It’s that all genetic material was created from that same Dust that confuses you into thinking it’s shared ancestory.

 

[pitabread]

we dont even need this. under the design model we only need to take several genes and check their conservetion. if we will take a gene x and we will see that this gene is conserve among several species compare to other genes, then we can conclude that this gene has an important rule.

You have no basis for determining genetic conservation with independently designed genomes. At best you could determine similarity. But similarity is not the same thing as evolutionary conservation.

Genetic conservation rests on the basis of a common genome as a starting point.

What you're really suggest is using all the same assumptions as as biological evolution but just calling it the "design model" instead. So what good is design if it doesn't offer anything different?

edited to add:

In fact, it would be very easy to compare these two scenarios.

Under evolution, you could make up a random starting genome and assign relative weighted importance to different regions. Then apply basic evolutionary mechanisms mutation + selection (based on weighted importance) and have it diverge into half a dozen extant genomes. Then you could do a genomic comparison to see if conserved regions were identifiable.

Under the "design model", you would start with a half dozen random genomes from the outset. You would also assign relative weighted importance to different regions and then have them undergo a similar process of mutation + selection. Then at the end see what a similar genomic comparison would yield.

 

[xianghua]

You have no basis for determining genetic conservation with independently designed genomes. At best you could determine similarity. But similarity is not the same thing as evolutionary conservation.

incorrect. let me ask you this: if we will take a protein sequence and we will see that this protein is identical between a mouse, human and a fish. do you agree that this gene has an important rule compare with other proteins that arent so similar among those species?

 

[pitabread]

incorrect.

Dissimilar sequences could also be evolutionary conserved. If you were starting with independent genomes, you would have no idea which sequences were created to be identical versus those which were created to be dissimilar, yet still be functionally important.

Under evolution, conserved sequences can still show variation, but that variation is relative to overall neutral evolutionary change in the genomes. And the reason we can test this is because we are starting from a common genomic ancestor.

With independently created genomes that entire basis goes out the window.

let me ask you this: if we will take a protein sequence and we will see that this protein is identical between a mouse, human and a fish. do you agree that this gene has an important rule compare with other proteins that arent so similar among those species?

First, the prior paper I linked and the discussion about it was based on regulatory sequences, not protein-coding sequences. So you're changing the scenario.

Now, if we find a highly conserved gene sequence among a mouse, human and fish, we would likely conclude that it has functional importance and therefore evolutionary conservation. And there are ways this could be tested.

When it comes to independently created genomes, however, we would have no idea. A designer could conceivably create identical yet unimportant sequences between different species. Likewise, they could create highly important yet highly dissimilar sequences as well. We really have no basis for telling which is which.

If a designer created a bunch of identical yet unimportant sequences, how would you know?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have no basis for determining genetic conservation with independently designed genomes. At best you could determine similarity. But similarity is not the same thing as evolutionary conservation.

Genetic conservation rests on the basis of a common genome as a starting point.

What you're really suggest is using all the same assumptions as as biological evolution but just calling it the "design model" instead. So what good is design if it doesn't offer anything different?

edited to add:

In fact, it would be very easy to compare these two scenarios.

Under evolution, you could make up a random starting genome and assign relative weighted importance to different regions. Then apply basic evolutionary mechanisms mutation + selection (based on weighted importance) and have it diverge into half a dozen extant genomes. Then you could do a genomic comparison to see if conserved regions were identifiable.

Under the "design model", you would start with a half dozen random genomes from the outset. You would also assign relative weighted importance to different regions and then have them undergo a similar process of mutation + selection. Then at the end see what a similar genomic comparison would yield.

What shared ancestory are you talking about?

Ohhhh, you mean trees which every single one end on some missing common ancestor that doesn’t exist and which is then used to bridge the gap to what went before, until it too end at a missing common ancestor which is used to bridge the gap.....

No, under the evolutionary model we start with half a dozen random genomes not just from the start, but at every mutation event. Your confusing theories, it’s your theory that relies on random events, not mine.

I totally expect to see similarities and differences both. Similarities because all genomic material was created from the same basic components. Differences because each was designed for a different purpose.

It’s you that requires billions upon billions of random mutations, changing the genome at every event, yet continuing to remain basically the same that has a problem. Your projecting your theories problems to another where it doesn’t apply.

Both man and bird genome were created from the same raw materials. But go ahead, using iron for example show me how we get a pot of iron and a pot of copper? This is what you expect from common design, that starting with the same basic materials we somehow have random materials never included in the original. Prove your assumption, start with lead and make a pot of gold......

 

[ruthiesea]

no you cant. since most fossils dont have DNA. so a fish with a fur will be explain by convergent evolution.
so what? even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution. so you are wrong.
this is the point: it doesnt look like a common descent at all. phylogenetic tree is basically a tree of similarity\difference among creatures. we can make the same with vehicles. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Do you have anything scientific to invalidate the Theory of Evolution? As you apparently have very little, if any, knowledge of science, scientists try to invalidate theories, not prove them. Creationists and IDers try to prove their ideas, which have none o the attributes of a theory. That is the number one sign of a pseudoscience.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you have anything scientific to invalidate the Theory of Evolution? As you apparently have very little, if any, knowledge of science, scientists try to invalidate theories, not prove them. Creationists and IDers try to prove their ideas, which have none o the attributes of a theory. That is the number one sign of a pseudoscience.

No, because you ignore the science. Husky mate with Mastiff to produce the Chinook. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. Husky remains Husky, Mastiff remains Mastiff and the Chinook appears suddenly.

And this is why every single type of fossil remains the same for every type of that fossil, and new forms appear suddenly, with no transitional or finely graduated chain linking them.

Instead you ignore how life propagates and new forms appear, despite just like Husky and Mastiff the same occurs for every single animal in existence, including man.

There was no evolution. There are no missing links, just as no links are missing between the Husky and Mastiff to the Chinook.

How can one present the actual emperical evidence when you won’t even consider it?

 

[xianghua]

If you were starting with independent genomes, you would have no idea which sequences were created to be identical versus those which were created to be dissimilar, yet still be functionally important.

again; irrelevant, since we can still know how to detect a conserve sequence. this is the entire point- we can detect a conserve sequence without using evolutionery assumptions.

With independently created genomes that entire basis goes out the window.

see above- its not.

First, the prior paper I linked and the discussion about it was based on regulatory sequences, not protein-coding sequences. So you're changing the scenario.

they are both sequences. so what different doest its make?

Now, if we find a highly conserved gene sequence among a mouse, human and fish, we would likely conclude that it has functional importance

great. so we can do it without evolution. see?

When it comes to independently created genomes, however, we would have no idea. A designer could conceivably create identical yet unimportant sequences between different species. Likewise, they could create highly important yet highly dissimilar sequences as well. We really have no basis for telling which is which.

first; we can find the same in nature. for instance:

Deletion of ultraconserved elements yields viable mice. - PubMed - NCBI

"Ultraconserved elements have been suggested to retain extended perfect sequence identity between the human, mouse, and rat genomes due to essential functional properties. Remarkably, all four resulting lines of mice lacking these ultraconserved elements were viable and fertile, and failed to reveal any critical abnormalities when assayed for a variety of phenotypes including growth, longevity, pathology, and metabolism. These results, while not inclusive of all the possible phenotypic impact of the deleted sequences, indicate that extreme sequence constraint does not necessarily reflect crucial functions required for viability."

so even evolution theory doesnt necessarily predict what you said.

secondy: its very likely that if a gene is conserve among several spcies, it has an important rule even under the design model. otherwise why the other genes arent so conserve? so the logical conclusion is that this gene has an important rule put by the designer.