What do creationists think phylogenetic trees represent?

[AV1611VET]

Do you have anything useful to contribute to the thread?

Any insights into phylogenetics? Any knowledge you wish to impart on the applicability of the study of evolutionary relationships of organism?

No.

 

[xianghua]

But you haven't got an explanation. Just saying "it must have been designed because evolution couldn't have produced it" is not an explanation.

so a robot need a designer isnt a good explanation to how the robot appeared?

 

[xianghua]

Give me one example of a gene being declared lost without any evidence that it was once present.

here:

Nonrandom Gene Loss from the Drosophila miranda Neo-Y Chromosome | Genome Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

"The neo-Y contains 1,805 putative functional and 1,374 nonfunctional genes, the latter of which include genes that were either deleted from the neo-Y or contain internal stop codons and/or frameshift mutations"

And the robot depends on how robotic we're talking. Metal can't forge itself into wires and cogs naturally. But if it was more like an animal with large inorganic components, I could see that being natural. Our tooth enamel is only like 3% organic material.

so an organic robot or a watch doesnt need a designer then? also: proteins also cant forge itself into an organism as far as we know (its need a lots of proteins to do that). so its not so different from a metal robot.

 

[xianghua]

That is the opposite of answering the question.

how? they just dont find those genes. so they claiming for gene deletions. i can give many more examples like this one:

http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics...m/retrieve/pii/S0168952505002878?showall=true

 

[Speedwell]

so a robot need a designer isnt a good explanation to how the robot appeared?

No, it is not. It is not an explanation at all. You need to explain how the design got from the mind of the designer into the robot.

 

[pitabread]

nm

 

[LutheranGuy123]

here:

Nonrandom Gene Loss from the Drosophila miranda Neo-Y Chromosome | Genome Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

"The neo-Y contains 1,805 putative functional and 1,374 nonfunctional genes, the latter of which include genes that were either deleted from the neo-Y or contain internal stop codons and/or frameshift mutations"




so an organic robot or a watch doesnt need a designer then? also: proteins also cant forge itself into an organism as far as we know (its need a lots of proteins to do that). so its not so different from a metal robot.

They said that non-functional genes were found, including deleted genes. They know of those genes because of evidence that they existed. They are not saying that those genes should be there in theory but aren't.

And you are correct, an organic robot or watch does not need a designer if it is organic enough. One could argue that we are essentially robots, and that a circadian rhythm is essentially a watch. The word robot kind of implies that it was built by a different, intelligent being though. And also we HAVE taken raw proteins and made a functioning poliovirus. Considering that poliovirus is more complex than some incredibly basic life (like so basic it can only survive in closed containers because other life would destroy it), I'd say that that's evidence that life could form from non-life.

 

[xianghua]

They said that non-functional genes were found, including deleted genes. They know of those genes because of evidence that they existed. They are not saying that those genes should be there in theory but aren't.

yes they are. see this for instance:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...zoan_Gene_Repertoire_and_Genomic_Organization


"We found 1292 eumetazoan gene families that had detect-
able descendants in anemone and at least two of
the three vertebrates, but that appeared to be
absent in both fruit fly and soil nematode. This
indicates that they were either lost or highly
diverged in both of these model protostomes,
extending the list of such genes found in EST
studies"


so they just dont find those genes and claiming for gene loss or a different selection pressure.

And you are correct, an organic robot or watch does not need a designer if it is organic enough.

i think its an hard claim. and hards claims need hard evidences. i dont think we have hard evidence that a self replicating robot can evolve by a natural process. do you?

 

[LutheranGuy123]

yes they are. see this for instance:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...zoan_Gene_Repertoire_and_Genomic_Organization


"We found 1292 eumetazoan gene families that had detect-
able descendants in anemone and at least two of
the three vertebrates, but that appeared to be
absent in both fruit fly and soil nematode. This
indicates that they were either lost or highly
diverged in both of these model protostomes,
extending the list of such genes found in EST
studies"


so they just dont find those genes and claiming for gene loss or a different selection pressure.



i think its an hard claim. and hards claims need hard evidences. i dont think we have hard evidence that a self replicating robot can evolve by a natural process. do you?

They didn't look for indicators of the genes being lost, nor said that they were lost. They noticed that the genes were absent and gave two idea as to why that may be, one of which is loss.

Also, how does one provide evidence for a hypothetical organism? I say dragons shouldn't be able to fly, but I can't prove that.

 

[xianghua]

They didn't look for indicators of the genes being lost, nor said that they were lost. They noticed that the genes were absent and gave two idea as to why that may be, one of which is loss.

if they absent from the genome then what more do you need? so we have a case where they dont find any evidence for gene loss and they still claiming for gene loss only because their belief in evolution. this is not science.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

if they absent from the genome then what more do you need? so we have a case where they dont find any evidence for gene loss and they still claiming for gene loss only because their belief in evolution. this is not science.

They are claiming that if evolution is true, then there should be evidence of gene loss or evidence of the gene being very highly diverged. They are not claiming that it was lost or that there is evidence of loss. They would have to conduct another study to determine that.