but again: we can say the same for human with a dino fossil.
No, because the human fossil record is extremely complete.
Now, can you spot the difference?
The early tetrapod fossil record is very incomplete and spotty.
The human fossil record is extremely complete.
These situations are not the same, how long will it take for you to understand that?
how do you know that? if we will find a human fossil with a dino one you will say that the fossil record for human at this geological period was too small
I wouldn't say that, and I will not allow you to put words in my mouth.
and this is why we find only a single fossil of human at this time period. its only an ad hoc explanation.[/QUOTE]
Sigh, no. Very complete means that we have a ton of transitions that absolutely mark when a trait began to appear, to the point that the margin of error is within the thousands of years. This situation exists for human evolution, but not early tetrapod evolution.
Yet, your entire rant has always been "evolution isn't falsifiable", yet you seem to have distanced yourself from the Precambrian rabbit. I wonder why... could it be that even you have to acknowledge that such a thing cannot be explained away by evolution and would thus disprove it? Always complaining and moaning about not being able to disprove evolution without ever having evidence that disproves it, but you ignore the situations that would disprove evolution so easily. Like a pig giving birth to a human without some mad scientist involvement.
i just show you a case of a gene loss (in several species). so how you can claim that i didnt gave you such example?
Your claim: if 2 distant species share THE EXACT SAME GENE and could not have possibly inherited it via common ancestor, it could be explained away as a case of convergent gene loss and the organisms did inherit it from a shared ancestor.
Problem with your claim: In order for this mistake to be made,
ALL organisms more closely related to each one in question
MUST be missing that gene
COMPLETELY. You have failed to demonstrate that this has ever come close to happening. And yes, the gene must be lost completely, because a partial gene can be recognized.
To claim that since SOME of those organisms lack the gene means that hypothetically all of them but the two being compared could reasonably lose it is like saying that since an individual can run 10 miles without rest that they can run 30 miles without rest. Being able to run 10 miles without stopping doesn't demonstrate that the same person can do the same with the distance tripled. Showing that some organisms lose genes doesn't demonstrate that all but two distant lineages can be reasonably expected to lose a given gene to give the illusion that said gene developed independently in two different lineages.
actually if you will look at some of the references you will find out that some of these genes are indeed the result of gene loss, for several reasons. take a look at this paper for instance (i have no access but you can find the pdf file):
Microbial genes in the human genome: lateral transfer or gene loss? - PubMed - NCBI
see above.
-_- I never brought up gene loss with microbes and microbes can perform horizontal gene transfer, making their lineages rather muddy. But your original claim was about mammals evolving independently twice, so microbes aren't relevant to that claim.
