as i said: by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.
-_- no, because that would make humans predate all other primates, let alone other apes, which DOESN'T match up with genetic evidence whatsoever. It would be out of order. Snakes diverging from lizards 53 million years after the existence of lizards doesn't change order at all.
The difference is like this: My great great grandma had to predate me, and so did my great grandma. But by how many years depends on the age at which the people in my family had children. It wouldn't matter if my great great grandma gave birth to my great grandma at the age of 37 or 16, they still would both predate me in the correct order either way. Same thing as the lizard and snake situation happens with this example.
However, a human living alongside dinosaurs might as well be my great grandmother for how out of order it is. That is, it would be the equivalent of making an ancestor that chronologically MUST be born after a bunch of others be born long before they even existed. It would be my great grandmother predating her own mother, and no amount of "pushing back" could hope to repair the order. If the snake fossil predated the oldest lizard fossil, this would be the situation that evolution would have problems with.
what? if we see a gene that is shared between 2 far species we can always claim for convergent loss rather then convergent evolution.
-_- convergent loss doesn't result in new, identical genes, it results in the removal of genes which were originally shared in both lineages thanks to a common ancestor. Both the chicken and the lizard lineages lost the ALX3 gene THAT THEY BOTH ORIGINALLY HAD AS A RESULT OF SHARED ANCESTRY ALONG WITH THE OTHER ALX GENES. No identical gene was gained this way, the sequences surrounding where the ALX3 gene had been were similar because those too were inherited by shared ancestry.
Now, repeat after me: Losing a gene and gaining a gene are opposites. I cannot explain away two dissimilar lineages having an identical gene they couldn't have possibly inherited through a shared ancestor because of them losing a gene.
Complete gene loss of the likes of ALX3 is uncommon, so much so that despite practically all vertebrates sharing the ancestor that had the ALX genes, only 3 lineages at any point lost it such that no traces of it remained. Out of thousands upon thousands of generations of thousands upon thousands of different species across millions of years.
But, I'll try to spell out the situation for you, here are two lineages, with 3 genes that are the same because of shared ancestry, and 2 different genes they acquired through mutation separately, represented as 3 letter words
Lineage 1: How are you Sir Cat
Lineage 2: How are you Mrs Owl
Now, both lineages will lose one of the genes they previously shared:
Lineage 1: How are Sir Cat
Lineage 2: How are Mrs Owl
Note that neither lineage developed a new gene via this convergent loss, and in fact the net result is that these genomes have become a lower percentage the same than they previously were (were originally 60% the same, now they are 50% the same). This has not given the illusion that these organisms are any more closely related than they were before, and they haven't gained any similarity they didn't have to begin with.
Now instead of a convergent loss, both lineages will GAIN an identical gene they could not feasibly have shared from a common ancestor, due to more closely related organisms to them lacking the gene and the shear amount of distance between these lineages:
Lineage 1: How are you Sir Cat Cry
Lineage 2: How are you Mrs Owl Cry
This is what you need to find; not loss of an identical gene shared through a common ancestor, but acquiring an identical gene they COULDN'T share through a common ancestor, which inflates genetic similarity enough to be a problem for determining relatedness (this increased the genetic similarity from 60% to about 66.67%) That is what your claims are predicated upon. You think that mutation similarity could result in organisms which seem more closely related than they actually are, but alas, the loss of the same gene results in organisms having LESS similar genomes than their actual relatedness would suggest, because that means that the overall number of sequences they shared has decreased relative to the different sequences.
Now, you may be thinking to yourself "then just have them lose genes which were different from each other, that would make them more similar despite being distant lineages". -_- the chances of two different lineages having different genes in the same spot that were the same length and were deleted in their entirety is extraordinarily low to the point of not being worth consideration, and the shared loss wouldn't result in people thinking they were more similar than they actually were because, as was the case with the chicken, it's easy to tell when genetic loss is the result of independent deletion events rather than shared ancestry.
