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.
That's not a test. The ERV's could be quite scrambled from their present state and be easily accommodated by invoking incomplete lineage sorting.
I never said that it could accommodate completely different results.
Then publish that paper and establish that this falsification criteria is non-viable. For some reason, I doubt you'll make it past peer review, as this seems like an extremely simplistic ad-hoc justification.
You're really shooting yourself in the foot here, as the strength of a theory is typically based on a hypothetical discovery of what you imagine would potentially falsify the theory.
Evolutionists str constantly bring up hypothetical scenarios that they claim would disprove the theory.
I guess no more ranting about hypothetical "Cambrian rabbits", then?
Yes. Many things could potentially disprove the theory. Many things indeed.
Yes, it is also true that these things are never found in reality.
See, to examine this claim, we have to be able to discuss these potential/hypothetical discoveries and how evolution theory would either accommodate or be falsified by them. Do you understand?
Do you now understand why you were wrong for chastising me for discussing those hypothetical discoveries?
I understand it just fine. The problem is that you, a complete layperson, are making a whole lot of really quite baseless assumptions about how this would work and what the response would be.See, to examine this claim, we have to be able to discuss these potential/hypothetical discoveries and how evolution theory would either accommodate or be falsified by them. Do you understand?
How did you determine that they didn't acquire them by common descent?
What pattern of DNA homology does common design predict in this situation, and why? These genes are found in vocal birds, humans, and chimps. What does common design predict when we compare their DNA sequence, and why?
And?
How does this answer the question?
Why would matching DNA sequence and morphological phylogenies point to common design instead of common ancestry? Please explain.
I understand it just fine. The problem is that you, a complete layperson, are making a whole lot of really quite baseless assumptions about how this would work and what the response would be.
But it could, without a doubt, by invoking incomplete lineage sorting. This is already invoked for human,chimp,gorilla dna inconsistencies.
Your ignorance of this is not a defense.
I didn't, the researchers did.
The chimps do not have the 50 gene specialization humans and vocalizing birds do. I explained why it is more in line with common design.
This ability is acquired independently and is very specialized which points more to a common design.
The research shows that the brain circuits for this complex trait was very limited in which it could have evolved from a common ancestor.
I don't think you'll find one as biologists are well aware that many different conflicting ERV patterns could be explained by invoking incomplete lineage sorting.
It is predicted that the majority of genetic markers will produce the expected nested hierarchy
The problem is evolution theory expects too many substantially different nested hierarchies.
I suspect you concede this point in the case of your prior ERV example, as you've now retreated from it back into a fog of ambiguity and typically vague evolutionary claims.
No, it could accommodate a specific kind of different result, but could not accommodate other changes. For example, if we saw a prokaryote vertebrate, there is no way for the system to incorporate that. Such a find would turn our understanding of the past on it's head.So you believe that nested hierarchy was tested but at the same time you admit it could accommodate completely different results. That sums up the point of this thread nicely.
No, it could accommodate a specific kind of different result, but could not accommodate other changes. For example, if we saw a prokaryote vertebrate, there is no way for the system to incorporate that. Such a find would turn our understanding of the past on it's head.
For DNA sequence, a substantially different phylogeny would have a chicken and human gene that was 99% similar and only 60% similarity for the chimp paralog. There is absolutely nothing like that seen in genomes. Not even close.
You mean your theory predicted that two similar looking mammals will be more similar to each other than either is to a chicken? Amazing.
Also, Evolution could accommodate that discordance by just having the gene similarly conserved in human, chimp, and chicken lineages until the human-chimp split. At which point the gene becomes rapidly non-conserved in the chimp lineage over 6+ million years, while the conservation (similarity) remains stable in human and chicken lineages.
Why are genes more or less conserved?
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?