All species of bats are more genetically similar to pigs than to pigeons. If the reverse were true, even for 1 species, the tree of life would be uprooted.
Upvote
0
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.
All species of bats are more genetically similar to pigs than to pigeons. If the reverse were true, even for 1 species, the tree of life would be uprooted.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.
please name the gene that is conserved that way. I've seen such a claim by Duane Gish (of Gish Gallop fame) claiming such sequences exist for bullfrogs and chickens. The bullfrog one was ultimately traced back to a clear joke about distinguishing a frog prince from a regular frog sans kissing. The chicken example wasn't even given that much defense.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.
All species of bats are more genetically similar to pigs than to pigeons. If the reverse were true, even for 1 species, the tree of life would be uprooted.
In the past ONE evolutionist (we assume) proposed an alternate tree much closer to the present tree than i was discussing. I tree which I'd say would be at the very edge of what would be considered a reasonable accommodation. Such a specific type of wing evolving twice would certainly strain my credulity and is certainly a vastly larger departure from existing models than anything else I know of.Speaking of bats...
In the past, Evolutionists have debated whether all bats are part of one group, or if some 'bats' are more closely related to primates and independently evolved bat wings.
Wings or Brain? Convergent Evolution in the Origin of Bats - Pettigrew 1991
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/SPwingsorbrain.pdf
While such a finding would uproot the model of bat phylogeny, we can see that Evolution theory would easily absorb such discordant data.
We can extrapolate this idea to see that major discrepancies in numerous animal trait patterns could be 'resolved' by invoking convergent evolution.
But let's follow this logic through. We have a scientist forwarding a theory that would probably pose serious issues for evolution.
As has been said in this thread many times, there are things the theory can absorb with minor revisions (such as new understanding of when the ancestors of raccoons split from other members of carnivora), others that it can't (mammals, like bats, being more genetically similar to avians than other mammals). The bat thing straddles that line. It strains credulity that a bat wing could evolve twice so similarly. We don't have any evidence of wings that similar ever appearing independently of one another. Whether such a shock could be absorbed while maintaining our current model generally is dubious, despite your claims to the contrary.But it wouldn't, that's the point. It would be accommodated as an unexpected discovery of what evolution did.
It strains credulity that a bat wing could evolve twice so similarly. We don't have any evidence of wings that similar ever appearing independently of one another. Whether such a shock could be absorbed while maintaining our current model generally is dubious, despite your claims to the contrary.
Uh... No. Try again. There is actually a reason why certain genes tend to be more or less conserved. I'll give you a hint: it's why fairly useless non-coding regions are not well-conserved, while the gene that create proteins responsible for the nucleosome structure of the chromosomal fiber in eukaryotes are.Because evolution/natural selection did it. That is always the "explanation" for unexpected molecular patterns.
Uh... No. Try again. There is actually a reason why certain genes tend to be more or less conserved. I'll give you a hint: it's why fairly useless non-coding regions are not well-conserved, while the gene that create proteins responsible for the nucleosome structure of the chromosomal fiber in eukaryotes are.
Yes, and there tends to be a reason why individual mutations to particular sections of the genome are selected for or against more or less consistently throughout the tree of life. Why would that be?Yes, as I said, it's called natural selection. That's what conservation means. It was either conserved by being selected for, or non-conserved by being selected against and/or neutral drift.
You don't have a shred of actual scientific criteria to say bat-like wings couldn't evolve multiple times independently, and such a thing was actually proposed by evolutionists without any counter-claim of this level of convergence being impossible. (which couldn't be claimed even in principle)
It only "strains credulity" until it is realized that such a level of convergence is the only way to harmonize evolution theory. At that point it becomes accepted as self-evidently true.
Yes, and there tends to be a reason why individual mutations to particular sections of the genome are selected for or against more or less consistently throughout the tree of life. Why would that be?
Speaking as someone with a degree in biology, it would strain MY credulity.
If you know someone with any formal education in the matter who could easily accept such a proposition, perhaps you should speak to them directly. As long as you are speaking to me, I'd have an issue with such a situation under the current model.
Given those two options, I don't know where I'd fall. As I said, that one falls on the very edge of what could theoretically be possible. The fact that such a disruptive theory could be forwarded, taken seriously, and explored, undermines your argument substantially.I'm sure you would... the problem is that you can't give us any scientific criteria supporting your reservations on the limitations of "convergent evolution"... it's just sort of a vague expectation.
Put simply... if you were faced with two possible explanations... A) Bat-like wings/morphology evolved twice, or B) Common Descent is Disproven... what do you think the choice of the evolutionary community is going to be? It's a no-brainer...
You're wrong. Try again.
Given those two options, I don't know where I'd fall. As I said, that one falls on the very edge of what could theoretically be possible.
The fact that such a disruptive theory could be forwarded, taken seriously, and explored, undermines your argument substantially.
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.
I wonder how many times it must be repeated on this forum that mere "similarity" is not the same as "nested hierarchy", before it is actually understood and remembered.
BTW: we are back to you imagining a hypothetical find, the likes of which we have NEVER discovered, and are then imagining what the response of biologists would be, followed by an attack on those imagined responses. And you use that as an argument against what is regarded as one of the most solid theories in all of science.........
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?