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.
What about those examples that don't fit?
Can you give me five examples of this?
Because there is no mechanism for wholesale lateral gene transfer in vertebrates.Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.
While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.
I'm all ears.
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 . . .
Again, this is the exact method used by evolutionists when they discuss potential falsification of their theory. Evolutionists imagine a hypothetical find and then assert what their response would be to this hypothetical find. From this thought experiment they claim to demonstrate support for the theory...
This is exactly what I want to hear as well. You have made a very good argument for your point and all they are doing is saying that it wouldn't be addressed in that way but no reasons are given for that denial.
Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.
While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.
I'm all ears.
I'm not aware of any that don't fit. Please give me a specific example and I'll look into it though.What about those examples that don't fit?
Good! It's always good to establish common ground. We've established that two subpopulations of a species can become reproductively isolated as a result of natural changes in the genetic code of the species. (in short, speciation). This provides us with a way forward to work further into the logic of the argument.This is widely accepted by creationists as well.
Absolutely!Can you give me five examples of this?
Because there is no mechanism for wholesale lateral gene transfer in vertebrates.
Because convergent evolution results only in surface similarities, not underlying genetic sequence.
Because convergent evolution produces analogous structures, not homologous structures.
We aren't shouting at you, we are explaining what evolution actually says.
And I have clearly never suggested such a mechanism would be invoked.
Here's the thing, shared genetics are resolved by positing inheritance from an imaginary common ancestor. In the case of convergence of bat wings with similar underlying genetics, it would be argued that both lineages already possessed the genes before the split, and these genes were then similarly "recruited" for bat wing organization in multiple lineages. Thus there is no need to invoke convergence of the genes themselves.
Evolutionists can't definitively identify a homologous structure.
Imagine if the same argument were made in a court of law. The prosecution presents multiple pieces of consilient forensic evidence. Fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, fibers . . . all of it can be confidently tied to the suspect. In response, the defense attorney argues that if all of those forensic results were different that they would still try to tie it to his suspect. Since the forensic evidence is not falsifiable, the defense argues, then none of the forensic evidence should be allowed.
Would you buy this argument?
How would an ancestral population to both bats and primates have those genes, and have every other mammal completely drop those genes without even a degraded version remaining? No, it isn't possible to square that circle. We've been over this.And I have clearly never suggested such a mechanism would be invoked.
Here's the thing, shared genetics are resolved by positing inheritance from an imaginary common ancestor. In the case of convergence of bat wings with similar underlying genetics, it would be argued that both lineages already possessed the genes before the split, and these genes were then similarly "recruited" for bat wing organization in multiple lineages. Thus there is no need to invoke convergence of the genes themselves.
source? I've never seen something that outlandish ever proposed.And yes similar types of explanations are routinely invoked in the literature.
Actually we can. The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures. For example, human limb development in a general sense is controlled by TBX genes. Animals with homologous structures will also have limb development controlled by these genes. A cow has TBX genes that trigger limb development.Evolutionists can't definitively identify a homologous structure. Traits are labeled homologies ad-hoc by whether or not they resolve a phylogenetic model. A trait can be a homology one day and a homoplasy the next.
Not even close.I think I'm explaining to you what evolution actually says.
Indeed, in a legal situation, if it could be shown that multiple pieces of "evidence" could be significantly different and yet still alleged to be linked to the suspect, then this would reveal that it was never confirming evidence to begin with, but merely an illusion cooked up by the prosecution team.
And that's why you're dancing around and kicking up dust to try and prevent me from exposing just that with regards to evolution. Because this gets at the very heart of what evolution theory actually is. You hate that to be revealed.
How would an ancestral population to both bats and primates have those genes, and have every other mammal completely drop those genes without even a degraded version remaining? No, it isn't possible to square that circle. We've been over this.
source? I've never seen something that outlandish ever proposed.
Actually we can. The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures. For example, human limb development in a general sense is controlled by TBX genes. Animals with homologous structures will also have limb development controlled by these genes. A cow has TBX genes that trigger limb development.
By "if it could be shown", do you mean "if some crackpot can make the claim on an internet forum"?
It would seem to me that all the defense attorney needs to do is make the same argument you are making by simply creating a fantasy world.
All you have done is reveal your inability to cope with reality.
you explained how you thought scientists would respond. I explained why you were wrong.You're jumping around. I was addressing your claim that evolutionists would have to invoke convergent genes for convergent anatomy. I explained why they wouldn't. You dodged.
Source? I'm not even sure what you mean by "recruitment"You've never seen "recruitment" of the same genes for similar purposes in multiple lineages as an evolutionary explanation?
What? That altered proteins can be used for things that the ancestral protein wasn't used for? That isn't a problem, that's a feature.You're wrong. There are many examples of assumed homologous anatomy being organized by non-homologous genes, and homologous genes producing non-homologous anatomy. Here we see again that Evolution can completely fail predictions yet still the data is accommodated.
When is homology not homology? -Wray, Abouheif 1998
Although genes have specific phenotypic consequences in a given species, this functional relationship can clearly change during the course of evolution. Many cases of evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous morphological features are now known. These dissociations have interesting and important implications for understanding the genetic basis for evolutionary change in morphology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914205
This is referred to as the "Homology Problem". It's been known by evolutionists since the 1970's yet the public is never made aware of it, for obvious reasons.
What? That altered proteins can be used for things that the ancestral protein wasn't used for? That isn't a problem, that's a feature.
The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures.
This is referred to as the "Homology Problem". It's been known by evolutionists since the 1970's yet the public is never made aware of it, for obvious reasons.
Yes, the obvious reasons being that it's highly complex and the conclusions thereof are not particularly meaningful for the general public
Refuted? Do you have any idea how many times we've had to correct creationists who try and argue that novel functions are impossible by pretending that novel function requires a brand new gene rather than alteration of an existing one? There's a whole Talkorigins thing on that:It's amazing how you guys can be totally refuted and you just dance around it like it didn't happen. You're now taking the failure of your evolutionary prediction and claiming it as a feature. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just absorb anything into your blob like theory.
Let's look at that again.
"Many cases of evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous morphological features are now known."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914205
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?