What do creationists think phylogenetic trees represent?

[AV1611VET]

Like the claim that, "God did it but only made it look exactly like evolution did it?"

If God created a spider web in a moment of time, would it look exactly like a spider did it?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If God created a spider web in a moment of time, would it look exactly like a spider did it?

Yep. And I'm happy to concede that it is possible that God made everything two seconds ago and this reply was already started for me and I am just finishing it with the memories of having started it as well as everything I have experienced before that.

But I think it is unreasonable to believe that that is true until it can be demonstrated some how.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

actually we do:

Archaea - Wikipedia

"The evolutionary relationship between archaea and eukaryotes remains unclear. Aside from the similarities in cell structure and function that are discussed below, many genetic trees group the two."

"Complicating factors include claims that the relationship between eukaryotes and the archaeal phylum Crenarchaeota is closer than the relationship between the Euryarchaeota and the phylum Crenarchaeota[73] and the presence of archaea-like genes in certain bacteria, such as Thermotoga maritima, from horizontal gene transfer.[74] The standard hypothesis states that the ancestor of the eukaryotes diverged early from the Archaea,[75][76] and that eukaryotes arose through fusion of an archaean and eubacterium, which became the nucleus and cytoplasm; this explains various genetic similarities but runs into difficulties explaining cell structure.[77] An alternative hypothesis, the eocyte hypothesis, posits that Eukaryota emerged relatively late from the Archaea"

Bacteria and archaea have a method of transferring genes to each other. They exist as a single cell and copy their DNA when they split, such that the offspring keep DNA that they picked up. In multicellular life, the cells responsible for producing gamete would have to have their genes changed to pass on information to offspring. Because our cells don't have that ability, it is impossible. That's why it would poke a big hole in evolution.

so what kind of example will falsified it?

Evolution can't be easily falsified. There are a few things that could really turn it on its head, but it would take a LOT of stuff to completely falsify it. If we take gravity as an example, it was once thought that gravity always pulled things toward Earth at 9.81 m/s/s. When we found that certain areas of high or low elevation had different acceleration rates, we didn't scrap the idea of gravity completely. We just realized that it actually depends on distance from the core and such. In the same way, we have a lot of evidence that we would still have to explain somehow, and finding genes that exist only in giraffes and squid would probably not convince people that there is not a process by which species change over time.

from the a rticle:

“The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that,” says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome. Another chromosome matches the mouse X, Graves and her colleagues report in Genome Research

Monotremes are the earliest to diverge from mammals. It makes sense that they would have some traits that resemble bird traits that other mammals do not have. When the lineage split into the monotremes and the theriiformes, theriiformes developed a slightly different sex chromosome. Monotremes never got this new sex chromosome. Therefore it is more similar to reptilian and bird chromosomes.

maybe this one will be more clear:

"The platypus shares with other mammals four genes associated with the zona pellucida, a gel-like coating that facilitates fertilization of the egg. But it also has two matches for ZPAX genes that had previously been found only in birds, amphibians and fish"-


so basically when we found the same genes from different groups in the same creature- we can claim for convergent evolution or a loss of genes between species.

We believe that a lineage of fish evolved into mammals. It does not contradict the theory of evolution to see a gene that exists in fish to also exist in mammals, UNLESS it doesn't exist in birds, reptiles, and amphibians. And even then, we could check to see if it was lost in all three of those. Now absent evidence of loss in all three we would have a problem, but that isn't the case here.

so evolution cant be falsified then. sorry.






like this one?:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/





see above. we can always claim for any mechanism. known or unknowon.

Again, theories don't get falsified. Evidence causes them to change. If those changes become too extreme, then the theory may be scrapped. For example, we have no proof that the Earth orbits the Sun. It just involves a TON of wild assumptions and improbable scenarios to suggest otherwise.

so you see now that any finding can explain by evolution without any problem to the theory? so your claim about shared DNA between human and snake (but no other snimal)as evidence against evolution is wrong.

Viruses and even bacteria can cause genetic changes in reproductive organs. This study shows that there very well may be horizontal transfer of snake genes in humans. The important thing is that we do have ideas about how it happened in cattle. We can then make assumptions about things and test those assumptions. We can assume, for example, that it should be possible to observe gene transfer through ticks, so we can run a study. If we do observe it, then we can conclude that yes, it is likely that ticks caused this. If we fail to observe it, then we have to look at other ways it could happen. Once we've gotten to the point where we have no idea, that's when we start changing how we think evolution works.

its like claiming that human can get the ability to make a spider web by eating or from a bite of a spider. its need experimental evidence. and they dont have it.

Not that humans can get the ability to spin a web. That involves a lot of specialized organs and changes in anatomy. But if a human gametocyte (the cell that produces sperm or egg) were infected with a virus that had picked up spider DNA, then the offspring off that human would have that spider DNA. In all likelihood it wouldn't even do anything due to lack of other bits of DNA needed to make it work, assuming that it wasn't a strip of non-coding spider DNA to begin with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep.

Honest answers like this are few and far between.

However ...

And I'm happy to concede that it is possible that God made everything two seconds ago and this reply was already started for me and I am just finishing it with the memories of having started it as well everything I have experienced before that.

... you just couldn't leave it at that, could you?

You had to go and invoke Last Thursdayism so as to nullify my point (which isn't going to work).

But I think it is unreasonable to believe that that is true until it can be demonstrated some how.

What's unreasonable? God creating a spider web in a moment of time?

Have you seen my raisin bread challenge: where I demonstrate that God can't even create a loaf of raisin bread without modern educatees yelling, "Deception!"?

 

[xianghua]

We believe that a lineage of fish evolved into mammals. It does not contradict the theory of evolution to see a gene that exists in fish to also exist in mammals, UNLESS it doesn't exist in birds, reptiles, and amphibians. And even then, we could check to see if it was lost in all three of those. Now absent evidence of loss in all three we would have a problem, but that isn't the case here.

it will no make any problem. if we cant find those genes then they will claim that they just lost. simple as that.

If we do observe it, then we can conclude that yes, it is likely that ticks caused this. If we fail to observe it, then we have to look at other ways it could happen. Once we've gotten to the point where we have no idea, that's when we start changing how we think evolution works.

so even if we have no idea we will need to accept evolution?. why if we have a batter explanation like id?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Honest answers like this are few and far between.

However ...... you just couldn't leave it at that, could you?

You had to go and invoke Last Thursdayism so as to nullify my point (which isn't going to work).What's unreasonable? God creating a spider web in a moment of time?

Have you seen my raisin bread challenge: where I demonstrate that God can't even create a loaf of raisin bread without modern educatees yelling, "Deception!"?

I'm illustrating that I'll go beyond just a spiderweb. I will concede that it is possible that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age (just like creating an adult Adam and Eve and animals and plants and light from the stars already reaching Earth etc). I'm happy to concede all that. I won't even stop at conceding that the God of the Bible could be the only special non-spider entity that could create a spider web. Any scenario like that you can come up with is totally possible. I'm just not convinced it is true yet. I can be though. Maybe you'll be the one to convince me! ♥

 

[LutheranGuy123]

it will no make any problem. if we cant find those genes then they will claim that they just lost. simple as that.




so even if we have no idea we will need to accept evolution?. why if we have a batter explanation like id?

Even lost genes leave evidence that they were lost. We can see where they were. We don't just say that they must have been lost.

And if we have no idea how snake genes got into a cow, that won't negate the evidence we do have. Whatever new theory or alterations to existing theories arise, that old evidence must be accounted for somehow.

 

[AV1611VET]

so even if we have no idea we will need to accept evolution?. why if we have a batter explanation like id?

We either need to accept evolution as higher academia presents it to us, or resign ourselves to venting & ridicule.

Even mass murders in this country advertise for evolution:

 

[xianghua]

Even lost genes leave evidence that they were lost. We can see where they were. We don't just say that they must have been lost.

not always. in many cases we cant find anything. so scientists dont have any problem to claimning for gee loss e ven in such cases.

And if we have no idea how snake genes got into a cow, that won't negate the evidence we do have. Whatever new theory or alterations to existing theories arise, that old evidence must be accounted for somehow.

again: i think we have batter explanation. do you think that a robot with living traits is best explain by design or a natural process?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

do you think that a robot with living traits is best explain by design or a natural process?

 

[Speedwell]

not always. in many cases we cant find anything. so scientists dont have any problem to claimning for gee loss e ven in such cases.



again: i think we have batter explanation. do you think that a robot with living traits is best explain by design or a natural process?

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. How does the "design" get from the mind of the designer into the biochemicals?

 

[LutheranGuy123]

not always. in many cases we cant find anything. so scientists dont have any problem to claimning for gee loss e ven in such cases.



again: i think we have batter explanation. do you think that a robot with living traits is best explain by design or a natural process?

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

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is pretty low ...

Evolution can go much lower.

... and not very honest.

I beg your pardon?

I didn't photoshop this, like Haeckel did his drawings.

 

[Skreeper]

again: i think we have batter explanation. do you think that a robot with living traits is best explain by design or a natural process?

 

[Skreeper]

We either need to accept evolution as higher academia presents it to us, or resign ourselves to venting & ridicule.

Even mass murders in this country advertise for evolution:

That guy probably ate bread too. Maybe the gluten told him to murder a bunch of people...

 

[AV1611VET]

That guy probably ate bread too.

I don't care what he ate; he advertised evolution, not bread.

 

[Skreeper]

I don't care what he ate; he advertised evolution, not bread.

His views had nothing to do with evolution. I doubt a guy like him could even define evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

His views had nothing to do with evolution. I doubt a guy like him could even define evolution.

You knew him, did you?

 

[pitabread]

Evolution can go much lower.I beg your pardon?

I didn't photoshop this, like Haeckel did his drawings.

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?

 

[USincognito]

its like claiming that human can get the ability to make a spider web by eating or from a bite of a spider. its need experimental evidence. and they dont have it.