Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
 [ 65 posts ] 
Feel free to ask questions about evolution.
Author Message
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote:Sorry, let me rephrase the question. What are your best arguments for and against common descent?

I've never heard a good argument against common descent at all. They all have foundational logical flaws, so it's hard to determine which one is worst.

I guess among the most ridiculous are the ones that reject evolution and common descent (because, among other things, there "wasn't enough time" or "it's too unlikely), yet at the same time insisting there was a huuuuge a mount of post-Noah's flood diversification into the millions of species we see today. Seriously, I've see a creationist argue that whales and dophins evolved from terrestrial mammals after Noah's flood, yet evolution is false and creationism is true.

The best argument for common descent is DNA. Quantitatively speaking (and many don't know this, not even biologists or people who are evolutionists), universal common descent is the hypothesis that has yielded the best agreement between prediction and observation, in all of science. Literally.

You take a theory like quantum electrodynamics and compute it's predictions. Then you run an experiment and do observations and compare the results of those observations to the predictions, and you will find they agree to an astonishing 15 decimal places (which is the limit of the accuracy of the equipment used to perform the experiments). That is extremely high accuracy for a scientific theory, and it's the best agreement you will find in all of the physical sciences. The confidence that quantum electrodynamics is a correct theory in it's area of domain is very high, for good reason.

Universal common descent has produced an agreement between prediction and observation to... 38 decimal places. That is 23 orders of magnitude higher than the best theory in all of physics.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:14 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote:Sorry, let me rephrase the question. What are your best arguments for and against common descent?




Rumraket wrote:I've never heard a good argument against common descent at all. They all have foundational logical flaws, so it's hard to determine which one is worst.
I guess among the most ridiculous are the ones that reject evolution and common descent (because, among other things, there "wasn't enough time" or "it's too unlikely), yet at the same time insisting there was a huuuuge a mount of post-Noah's flood diversification into the millions of species we see today. Seriously, I've see a creationist argue that whales and dophins evolved from terrestrial mammals after Noah's flood, yet evolution is false and creationism is true.

The best argument for common descent is DNA. Quantitatively speaking (and many don't know this, not even biologists or people who are evolutionists), universal common descent is the hypothesis that has yielded the best agreement between prediction and observation, in all of science. Literally.

You take a theory like quantum electrodynamics and compute it's predictions. Then you run an experiment and do observations and compare the results of those observations to the predictions, and you will find they agree to an astonishing 15 decimal places (which is the limit of the accuracy of the equipment used to perform the experiments). That is extremely high accuracy for a scientific theory, and it's the best agreement you will find in all of the physical sciences. The confidence that quantum electrodynamics is a correct theory in it's area of domain is very high, for good reason.

Universal common descent has produced an agreement between prediction and observation to... 38 decimal places. That is 23 orders of magnitude higher than the best theory in all of physics.



Thanks Rumraket. I've never heard of creationists argue that whales and dolphins evolved from terrestrial mammals. Perhaps IDers or theistic evolutionists. Common Descent does (or did) have strong arguments for ToE; however, more discoveries in genetics I believe is changing the current paradigm. Discoveries with organism specific essential genes for survival and non-coding DNA is good tool to use determining CD.

I believe the thought of non-coding genes becoming a gene is wishful thinking but serve only the purpose of regulatory functions and sequence structures. Gene gain experiments with spontaneous mutations and engineered mutations show a majority fitness decrease and two beneficial mutations working against each other, respectively.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:28 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

thenexttodie wrote:What is the best evidence for Darwinian evolution?


It's been observed occurring. Not sure why you insert the term 'Darwinian' in there. Pretty much only creationists and Richard Dawkins (who refuses to let creationists have the term) use it any more. We've moved on since Darwin.
Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:25 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote:What is your opinion(s) for the weakest and strongest arguments for The Theory of Evolution?


My opinion on all arguments for and against the theory of evolution is that they're redundant, because arguments are not necessary. Evolution, exactly commensurate with the theory in every aspect, has been observed occurring.
Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:26 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote: Common Descent does (or did) have strong arguments for ToE; however, more discoveries in genetics I believe is changing the current paradigm. Discoveries with organism specific essential genes for survival and non-coding DNA is good tool to use determining CD.

I believe the thought of non-coding genes becoming a gene is wishful thinking but serve only the purpose of regulatory functions and sequence structures.

Well you're of course in your right to believe whatever you feel is necessary to maintain your worldview.

Nevertheless, there is strong evidence from comparative genetics that this actually takes place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4571571/
New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation
Aoife McLysaght and Daniele Guerzoni
ABSTRACT
The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible. In less than a decade, and especially in the last five years, this view has been overturned by extensive evidence from diverse eukaryotic lineages. There is now evidence that this mechanism has contributed a significant number of genes to genomes of organisms as diverse as Saccharomyces, Drosophila, Plasmodium, Arabidopisis and human. From simple beginnings, these genes have in some instances acquired complex structure, regulated expression and important functional roles. New genes are often thought of as dispensable late additions; however, some recent de novo genes in human can play a role in disease. Rather than an extremely rare occurrence, it is now evident that there is a relatively constant trickle of proto-genes released into the testing ground of natural selection. It is currently unknown whether de novo genes arise primarily through an ‘RNA-first’ or ‘ORF-first’ pathway. Either way, evolutionary tinkering with this pool of genetic potential may have been a significant player in the origins of lineage-specific traits and adaptations.

The underlined is my highlights. The beliefs and conclusions of scientists changed in light of the evidence, will you do the same?

Rhed wrote:Gene gain experiments with spontaneous mutations and engineered mutations show a majority fitness decrease

I think you have to clarify your terminology here. What is a "gene gain experiment with spontaneous mutations"? Please give a reference as an example.

It is correct that the majority of spontaneous mutations are deleterious (actually when averaged across the whole genome they're neutral, but in coding regions they're mostly deleterious yes), but that's directly compensated for through low mutation rates, small genomes (or high-junk genomes), high fecundity and natural selection. In other words, the fact that most mutations in coding and regulatory regions are deleterious has literally no bearing on the probability that evolution is possible and does happen.

This is a common creationist misconception. You people keep repeating this basic mistake: You look at the fitness distribution of mutations, see that most are neutral or deleterious, and then you prematurely conclude evolution can't happen without ever factoring in the mutation rate, genome size, junk%, natural selection and fecundity.

Rhed wrote: and two beneficial mutations working against each other, respectively.

What are you talking about here?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:47 am
ElshamahPosts: 392Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:32 am

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:Tiktaalik is my personal favorite, however my favorite transitional lineage is dinosaurs to birds. What is your favorite?


If that is your best bet, the theory is in a bad shape.

" Tetrapods evolved " . Really ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org ... -tetrapods

Recently i saw following youtube video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w



I thought how much brainpower was required to program and make these robots. In the natural world , according to proponents of naturalism, the required coordination and invention of new limbs was due just to random natural processes. That made me have a closer look what mainstream scientific papers have to say about the subject. How did the first limbs of tetrapods emerge ? What mechanism is required to grow body parts like legs, and how do proponents of evolution explain the arise of tetrapods ?

According to proponents of evolution, tetrapods arose from a lineage of fish. This kind of dramatic change over time is called macroevolution.
The transition from life in water to life on land would have necessitated dramatic structural changes of the whole body to withstand the increased effects of gravity, amongst other new requirements.
Many aspects of tetrapod origins remain elusive. Its supposed evolution has generated great interest, but the earliest phases of their history are poorly understood. Recent studies have questioned long-accepted hypotheses about the origin of the pentadactyl limb, the phylogeny of tetrapods and the environment in which the first tetrapods lived.
The ‘earliest’ known tetrapods with feet and legs are now thought to have been aquatic animals; proponents of evolution therefore argue that feet and legs evolved in a shallow water environment and were only later co-opted for use on the land.

Most discussions of the topic concentrate to elucidate if the fossil record permits to find transitional forms that permit infer a water to land transition. Not only are there hudge gaps, but the idea bears big problems conceptually, and as a whole.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org ... light=land

Moreover, as Behe explained nicely : In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as the arise of tetrapods must include how the transition occurred on a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

So rather than stick to anatomy comparisons of fossils that might bear some similarity that could be interpreted as intermediates and evolution of tetrapod limbs from fish fins , let us try to elucidate how significant the functional and morphological shift was it in terms of the underlying genetic mechanisms . The fossil record provides insight into supposed morphological changes. However, to understand the underlying mechanisms, we must peer into the gene regulatory networks of living vertebrates.

Do new anatomical structures arise de novo, or do they evolve from pre-existing structures? Advances in developmental genetics, palaeontology and evolutionary developmental biology have recently supposedly shed light on the origins of the structures that most intrigued Charles Darwin, including tetrapod limbs. According to proponents of evolution, structures arose by the modification of pre-existing genetic regulatory circuits.

The genetic program instructs how to make new structures, but that program must be precisely programmed, and the genetic regulatory circuits need also to be programmed . That is, two separate programs need to emerge, that is 1. the program which defines the physical form and structure, and 2. the program which instructs where to find the genetic information in the genome, and when to express is during development, that is in the right sequence. That are different layers of information, which must exist fully developed in order to make the new anatomical parts in question.

The instructions that control when and where a gene is expressed are written in the sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene. These instructions are written in a language that is often called the ‘gene regulatory code’. This code is read and interpreted by proteins called transcription factors that bind to specific sequences of DNA (or ‘DNA words’) and increase or decrease gene expression. Changes in gene expression between species could therefore be due to changes in the transcription factors and/or changes in the instructions within the regulatory regions of specific genes.

In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a step-wise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org ... nformation

During vertebrate limb development, Hoxd genes are transcribed in two temporal phases; an early wave controls growth and polarity up to the forearm and a late wave patterns the digits. In this issue of Developmental Cell, Tarchini and Duboule (2006) report that two opposite regulatory modules direct early collinear expression of Hoxd genes.

Question : how could natural mechanisms have programmed and directed the right temporal phases of gene transcription of the right genes, and early wave control ? Furthermore, the limbs develop at the right place, the right coordinates and positional information is required, they could develop anywhere on the body. Did natural mechanisms find out about the right place by trial and error ? There were myriads of positions possible to add the limb. How could the right and precise coordination of axial position be achieved by mutations ?

The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism. Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, design is a better explanation.

Going over through several mainstream scientific papers, i have not come across one of them, that were able to provide a detailed description how exactly the morphological transition could have occurred through evolution.

Some biologists have also envisioned special mutations in regulatory homeobox or "Hox" genes, where simple mutations might be able to make large developmental changes in an organism which might case a radically different phenotype. However, manipulating "Hox" genes does little to solve the problem of generating novel functional biostructures, for making large changes in phenotype are rarely beneficial. Hox gene mutations may be a more simple mechanism for generating large change, but they also do not escape the problem of the "hopeful monster":"The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad others will change as well--and not necessarily for the better. Thus dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists call a "hopeful monster"- such as a fish with feet--are likely to remain elusive."Furthermore, many biologists forget when invoking Hox gene mutations that Hox genes can only re-arrange parts which are already there--they cannot create truly novel structures.

Casey Luskin : Hox mutations will never create new "body part genes", and thus cannot add truly new phenotypic functions into the genome, and at best we are left with the quandaries associated with "pre-adaptation". The majority of evolutionary change must take place through evolving new "body part genes", which Hox mutations cannot do. One reviewer in Nature recognizes this fact:"Schwartz ignores the fact that homeobox genes are selector genes. They can do nothing if the genes regulated by them are not there. It is these genes that specify in detail the adaptive structure of the organs. To be sure, turning on a homeobox gene at the wrong place can result in the appearance of an ectopic organ, but only if the genes for that organ are present in the same individual. It is totally wrong to imply that an eye could be produced by a macromutation when no eye was ever present in the lineage before.


Darwins doubt, pg.239

WHAT ABOUT HOX GENES? Hox (or homeotic) genes regulate the expression of other protein-coding genes during the process of animal development. Some biologists have likened them to the conductor of an orchestra who plays the role of coordinating the contributions of the players. And because Hox genes affect so many other genes, many evo-devo advocates think that mutations in these genes can generate large- scale changes in form.

But can mutations in Hox genes transform one form of animal life—one body plan—into another? There are several reasons to doubt that they can.
First, precisely because Hox genes coordinate the expression of so many other different genes, experimentally generated mutations in Hox genes have proven harmful. in fruit flies "most mutations in homeotic [Hox] genes cause fatal birth defects." In other cases, the resulting Hox mutant phenotype, while viable in the short term, is nonetheless markedly less fit than the wild type. For example, by mutating a Hox gene in a fruit fly, biologists have produced the dramatic Antennapedia mutant, a hapless fly with legs growing out of its head where the antennae should be.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2077-hox-genes
Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:50 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 777Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:I am currently a bit bored so I have put this thread for anyone that wants to ask a question about evolution (my topic of interest). So go ahead, I will be happy to teach you and if anyone knows the answer to a question, feel free to provide an answer.

If I had the skill, patience and money how long would it take for me to make a new species of dog (or cat)? I know it's a rather silly question but I'm wondering what I'll do with the 80 M€ lottery winning I'm sure I'll be getting any week now.
Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:02 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:
Or in other words, if you are in some way arguing that we did not came from apes, then why are humans still apes right now?


Because we are able to freely rotate our arms.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:59 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Elshamah wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Tiktaalik is my personal favorite, however my favorite transitional lineage is dinosaurs to birds. What is your favorite?


If that is your best bet, the theory is in a bad shape.

" Tetrapods evolved " . Really ?

Yes, really. First a few basic facts (which are facts whether evolution happened or not).

Prior to the discovery of Tiktaalik, there existed a collection of putatively morphologically transitional* lobe-finned fish and stem-tetrapods in geological strata of Devonian age.

* (meaning even if evoluton didn't happen, they exhibit intermediate morphological attributes between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods).

Prior to the discovery of Tiktaalik, the fossil record of species exhibiting putatively transitinal attributes, looked roughly like this, with the ages of the oldest of the respective fossil species stated:
Approximately 385 million years ago: Eusthenopteron
Approximately 380 million years ago: Panderichthys
... a 10 million year gap
Approximately 370 million years ago: Ichthyostega
Approximately 365 million years ago: Acanthostega

This was thought to represent the approximate time when the transition happened, over a period of about 20 million years. There was a gap in the middle of about 10 million years where paleontologists had no fossils. The reason for this was that there was no known, easy to get to-strata of about 375 million years old. Somebody had to get funding, assemble a team and actually make the trip to the Canadian arctic and hunt for fossils.

Now here is the key question for IDcreationists: How come it was even possible to predict from basic evolutionary principles, that a species morphologically similar to the Tiktaalik specimen, should exist in a rock strata roughly 375 million years old? Why does this fossil exist and in the right location and age, if evolution didn't happen? The simple fact is that if evolution did not take place, if tetrapods did not evolve from lobe-finned fish, the expedition to Ellsmere Island should have produced NOTHING. Not to mention the fact that the above fossil series alone is enough to completely cement the reality of the transition in the first place.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:05 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rumraket wrote:Well you're of course in your right to believe whatever you feel is necessary to maintain your worldview.

Nevertheless, there is strong evidence from comparative genetics that this actually takes place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4571571/
New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation
Aoife McLysaght and Daniele Guerzoni
ABSTRACT
The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible. In less than a decade, and especially in the last five years, this view has been overturned by extensive evidence from diverse eukaryotic lineages. There is now evidence that this mechanism has contributed a significant number of genes to genomes of organisms as diverse as Saccharomyces, Drosophila, Plasmodium, Arabidopisis and human. From simple beginnings, these genes have in some instances acquired complex structure, regulated expression and important functional roles. New genes are often thought of as dispensable late additions; however, some recent de novo genes in human can play a role in disease. Rather than an extremely rare occurrence, it is now evident that there is a relatively constant trickle of proto-genes released into the testing ground of natural selection. It is currently unknown whether de novo genes arise primarily through an ‘RNA-first’ or ‘ORF-first’ pathway. Either way, evolutionary tinkering with this pool of genetic potential may have been a significant player in the origins of lineage-specific traits and adaptations.

The underlined is my highlights. The beliefs and conclusions of scientists changed in light of the evidence, will you do the same?


The paper talks about a paradigm shift due to the evidence of what we now know; i.e. de novo genes indeed do exist. The paper acknowledges this fact but notice none of it is observation-based but more about pattern-based. The scientific community will likely accept this because of its naturalistic explanations. You can believe these type of genes occurred naturally; however, the sheer existences of taxonomically restricted genes (TRG) doesn't conform so well with Common Descent. Actually it was a challenge from evolutionists C0nc0rdance and Thunderfoot back in 2009 about any sequenced gene that doesn't have homology in this video. They said if we find such a gene it would rock the foundations of evolutionary biology.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:59 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote:The paper talks about a paradigm shift due to the evidence of what we now know; i.e. de novo genes indeed do exist.

No. That is what we used to think. What we now know is that these genes aren't actually truly "de novo" genes (in the sense that a coding region comes to exist without the underlying DNA actually already existing and mutating into having a start codon). Instead, by doing comparative genetics, we can see that genes that are transcribed and translated in one species, exist in other species as well, but they are not transcribed and/or translated in the close relatives. So the entire coding region and the associated putative regulatory regions really still exist in related species, they just have not suffered the mutations that have caused them to become bona fide regulatory and coding regions. This can in effect come down to one or two point mutations.

Rhed wrote:The paper acknowledges this fact but notice none of it is observation-based but more about pattern-based.

A pattern is observed. That makes it observation-based. The pattern is that these ORFan genes aren't, when it comes down to it, truly "ORFan", because the genomic regions they arise from exist in multiple species.

So technically, there aren't actually any truly "taxonomically restricted" genes.

Rhed wrote:The scientific community will likely accept this because of its naturalistic explanations.

No, this is the typical ad-hoc rationalization we see from conspiracy theorists of all sorts. When the science goes against you, you invent a hypothesis of motivated reasoning. Same fucking shit every time.

The scientific community did the actual lab work, found putatively ORFan genes. Then they made a prediction: These genes, if evolution is true, probably derive from noncoding regions where accumulations of mutations eventually result in areas that look like enhancer and promoter regions, resulting in regulatory elements being able to bind and initiate transcription and eventually the transcripts become translated.

If this hypothesis is correct, we should expect to find, in closely related species, these putative enhancer and promoter regions, in a pre-mutated state where they have NOT suffered the specific mutations that turned them into true enhancers/promoters.

Then they sequence the genomes of multiple species and observe what they find. Lo and behold, the observations match the predictions.

Rhed wrote:You can believe these type of genes occurred naturally; however, the sheer existences of taxonomically restricted genes (TRG) doesn't conform so well with Common Descent.

But in so far as we know, where we have so far been able to sequence the genomes of closely related species, what was originally thought to be a TRG, turned out not to be.

Rhed wrote:Actually it was a challenge from evolutionists C0nc0rdance and Thunderfoot back in 2009 about any sequenced gene that doesn't have homology in this video. They said if we find such a gene it would rock the foundations of evolutionary biology.

Which would be true, but in order to truly have a TRG, you need to find an example of an ORFan gene where both the associated coding and regulatory region in DNA does have a homologous DNA sequence in any sister taxon.

The only examples of TRG's we have are putative TRG's where we simply don't have sequence data (yet) from closely related species. For example, all the supposed ORFan genes in the human genome detected back when the human genome was first assembled, turned out to have strongly homologous DNA sequences in the chimpanzee genome when scientists got around to producing a good draft of the chimp genome.

This has been the pattern every time.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:23 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2567Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote:If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies



But... it is often in the newspapers. And rarely, if ever, in the funnies.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:04 am
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

In fact I do have many honest and sincere questions, for example

where are all the direct ancestors of modern species? why don't we find thousands of direct ancestors in the fossil record?

all modern species came from a direct ancestor and each ancestor came form an other ancestor, ..... in the mammalian class more than 5,000 different direct ancestors have lived, each of them being the direct ancestor of 1 or more modern specie of mammal. ...........so why haven't we found thousands of direct ancestors?

or just to formulate the question differently.

why do we find modern like humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc. in the fossil record, but we don't find the common ancestor of humans and chimps, nor the ancestor of gorillas and humans, nor the ancestor of humans and orangutans, nor the ancestor of humans and monkeys? why is the Fossil record so good in preserving modern like animals, but so bad in preserving direct ancestors.


this is really an honest question, I am honestly interested in an answer
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:43 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

This was thought to represent the approximate time when the transition happened, over a period of about 20 million years. There was a gap in the middle of about 10 million years where paleontologists had no fossils. The reason for this was that there was no known, easy to get to-strata of about 375 million years old. Somebody had to get funding, assemble a team and actually make the trip to the Canadian arctic and hunt for fossils.


but after that fully land animals where found that predate tiktaalik and all the other supposed transitions, so land tetrapod's evolved form fish this transitions would have to occur before that ....the transitional fossils that you mentioned are just side branches, they are not the ancestors of land tetrapods. and therefore are irrelevant for evolution.



Now here is the key question for IDcreationists: How come it was even possible to predict from basic evolutionary principles, that a species morphologically similar to the Tiktaalik specimen, should exist in a rock strata roughly 375 million years old? Why does this fossil exist and in the right location and age, if evolution didn't happen? The simple fact is that if evolution did not take place, if tetrapods did not evolve from lobe-finned fish, the expedition to Ellsmere Island should have produced NOTHING. Not to mention the fact that the above fossil series alone is enough to completely cement the reality of the transition in the first place.


it was not the right "age" the right age would have been at a period of time where fully land animals did not excised. the correct age would have to be more than 395,000,000y ago since the oldest land tetrapods are 395,000,000 any ancestor would have to be older than that the right age would have to be in strata older than 396Myo

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... king-land/

but in response to your question.

since we have modern fish today with some tetrapod atributes, this type of animals are expected to be found in the fossil record too.

for example some modern fish have longs, some modern fish can crawl and even climb trees, some modern fish have neck, some modern fish even have a placenta. but none of this atributes are claimed to be related to evolution and the alleged fish ancestry that land animals are suppose to have

so if we have modern fish that have some atributes that resemble, land animals, why would we find them in the fossil record?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Nov 26, 2016 4:03 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Gnug215 wrote:But... it is often in the newspapers. And rarely, if ever, in the funnies.


I see them as the funnies though.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:04 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:In fact I do have many honest and sincere questions, for example

where are all the direct ancestors of modern species? why don't we find thousands of direct ancestors in the fossil record?

You can't prove direct line of descent to a fossil. So it's not that they don't exist, it's that given relatively simple measures of probability, we can't honestly claim with any great confidence that a fossil is on any extant species direct line of descent.

Among the the fossils we have may in fact BE direct ancestors, but because at any given time, a diversity of similar-looking species exist, it is more probable that any given fossil is instead from a member of a species that lies on a cousin line of descent.

leroy wrote:all modern species came from a direct ancestor and each ancestor came form an other ancestor, ..... in the mammalian class more than 5,000 different direct ancestors have lived, each of them being the direct ancestor of 1 or more modern specie of mammal. ...........so why haven't we found thousands of direct ancestors?

We don't know that we haven't, we just do not have the kind of information that would allow us to CLAIM that one of these fossils IS a direct ancestor.

So when evolutionary trees of relationships are drawn, the preference is to put fossils on cousin lines of descent, instead of as direct ancestors, because of the above mentioned probabilities. For example, take a look at rodents. There are thousands of species of rats and mice. What is the odds that a fossil rodent half a million year old is on the direct line of decent to some particular extant species of rodent? Small.

It's not that it's impossible, it's not that anyone claims with great certainty that there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record. It's simply that the most honest depiction, given the probabilities, is that it's way more likely we are looking at an extinct cousin, rather than a direct ancestor.

leroy wrote:why do we find modern like humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc. in the fossil record, but we don't find the common ancestor of humans and chimps, nor the ancestor of gorillas and humans, nor the ancestor of humans and orangutans, nor the ancestor of humans and monkeys? why is the Fossil record so good in preserving modern like animals, but so bad in preserving direct ancestors.

While the fossil record of forest dwelling organisms is generally poor, compared to organisms that live in deserts, and it is abysmal compared to marine/aquatif life, we still do have quite an extensive fossil record of primates. But it is not extensive enough to be able to say with any great certainty, that some particular primate fossil represents an ancestral species, rather than an extinct cousin. Again, the reason is the same as above.

leroy wrote:this is really an honest question, I am honestly interested in an answer

I believe you, and there's nothing wrong with your question. I've had this question myself, which made me look for the answer. I found it, what I've described really is the answer.

1. Fossilization is relatively rare.
2. Almost all species exist as part of a diverse set of very similar species.

So the probability that a fossil represents a direct ancestor is low. So when phylogenies are drawn, the most probably true phylogeny is that the fossil species is an extinct cousin. They could be put as direct ancestors, but that would be dishonest, since that just isn't the most likely to be true representation. If they put them as direct ancestors, we would be here asking how the hell they know that?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:26 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:
Rumraket wrote:This was thought to represent the approximate time when the transition happened, over a period of about 20 million years. There was a gap in the middle of about 10 million years where paleontologists had no fossils. The reason for this was that there was no known, easy to get to-strata of about 375 million years old. Somebody had to get funding, assemble a team and actually make the trip to the Canadian arctic and hunt for fossils.


but after that fully land animals where found that predate tiktaalik and all the other supposed transitions,

First of all, they're not "supposed" transitional forms. They ARE transitional forms. A transitional form is not claimed to be sitting on the direct line of descent. It is merely claimed to be part of a transition, and it is so claimed because of it's predicted transitional features. It is not claimed to be the only such, or even the first transition.

Some putative footprints have been found, yes. What this means is that the FIRST such transitions predate the timeperiod where we find Tiktaalik. That doesn't mean tiktaalik is not a transitional form, or that it isn't evidence of evolution. Since it was still clearly predicted to exist on the basis of evolution, and it has the features expected of a transitional tetrapod.

We might consider whales that live today, as the descendants of the first mammals to transition to an aquatic lifestyle. Even so, there are mammals living today which are clearly somewhere in the process of adapting to an aquatic life. Seals, walruses, sea cows, otters, beavers, manatees and so on are all mammals that have various degrees of adaptation to life in water. Transitions don't just happen once and then stop.

leroy wrote: so land tetrapod's evolved form fish this transitions would have to occur before that

Well, yes for those footprints to exist there would have to have been a transition before the tiktaalik one.

There could be multiple origins of tetrapod-like organisms, but only one branch of which managed to leave descendants (and closely related fossils).

leroy wrote: ....the transitional fossils that you mentioned are just side branches, they are not the ancestors of land tetrapods.

All fossils are represented as extinct cousin species due to previously mentioned matters of basic probability. While it is still possible the tetrapods that live today could all be direct descendants of Tiktaalik (or the organism that left the footprints), that is just very unlikely and as such, scientists don't claim that they are. We are simply not in a position to state with any appreciable certainty that either of them represents our ancestor (or which one of them, if any, represents the transition that lead to us).

leroy wrote: and therefore are irrelevant for evolution.

Of couse they are still relevant for evolution for the reasons mentioned. The organism was predicted to exist in the particular environment, layers of the approximate age and with certain mophological features. Simply put, if evolution doesn't happen the fossil should not exist. Whether it is a direct ancestor of tetrapods alive today, or whether it is a fossil representative of the FIRST transition from lobe-finned fish to tetrapods, is actually irrelevant.

leroy wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Now here is the key question for IDcreationists: How come it was even possible to predict from basic evolutionary principles, that a species morphologically similar to the Tiktaalik specimen, should exist in a rock strata roughly 375 million years old? Why does this fossil exist and in the right location and age, if evolution didn't happen? The simple fact is that if evolution did not take place, if tetrapods did not evolve from lobe-finned fish, the expedition to Ellsmere Island should have produced NOTHING. Not to mention the fact that the above fossil series alone is enough to completely cement the reality of the transition in the first place.

it was not the right "age" the right age would have been at a period of time where fully land animals did not excised.

Of course it was at the right age, the age of the layer it was found in was predicted to contain the specimen given already known fossil record. The time period from 380 to 360 million years ago was already known to contain lots of transitional tetrapods. On that basis alone, a fossil with morphological features approximately intermediate between the more fish-like and the more tetrapod-like was predicted to exist roughly in the chronological middle. Not because this particular fossil would then be thought of as the direct ancestor of anything coming after it, but because the time period was already known to contain lots of transitionals on both "ends" of the morphological spectrum. It makes perfect sense.

leroy wrote:the correct age would have to be more than 395,000,000y ago since the oldest land tetrapods are 395,000,000 any ancestor would have to be older than that the right age would have to be in strata older than 396Myo

No, this is classic mistaken ladder-thinking. As if the tree of life is one single stem leading in a ladder, from ancestors to descendants, instead of multiple simultaneous branches with lots of occasional offshoots to the sides.

You keep thinking of fossils in terms of ancestors. They're probably NOT your ancestors. The footprints merely imply a similar transition had happened before.

In fact this implies another prediction of evolution: If these footprints really were made by a primitive tetrapod, and if this tetrapod evolved from lobe-finned fish, it should be possible to find fossils from the time period when this happened prior to 395 million years ago. That prediction will presumably be tested in the future. There are probably paleontologists right now trying to find rock strata from shallow aquatic environments about 400 million years old as we speak.

leroy wrote:but in response to your question.

since we have modern fish today with some tetrapod atributes, this type of animals are expected to be found in the fossil record too.

That doesn't seem to answer my question at all. I asked how the prediction was possible if evolution didn't happen? The only thing that predicts transitional organisms is if a mechanism of change is in operation and if there is evidence that group A shares descent with group B.

If morphology was static and unchanging and all species were created more or less in their present form, there'd be no reason to expect there to exist, or have existed, something morphologically intermediate between two different clades, or orders or what have you.

leroy wrote:for example some modern fish have longs, some modern fish can crawl and even climb trees, some modern fish have neck, some modern fish even have a placenta. but none of this atributes are claimed to be related to evolution and the alleged fish ancestry that land animals are suppose to have

I can barely make sense of this. How is it a response to my question?

leroy wrote:so if we have modern fish that have some atributes that resemble, land animals, why would we find them in the fossil record?

Why would we find what in the fossil record? You're not being clear here. Try to reformulate the question.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:07 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rumraket wrote:
leroy wrote:In fact I do have many honest and sincere questions, for example

where are all the direct ancestors of modern species? why don't we find thousands of direct ancestors in the fossil record?

You can't prove direct line of descent to a fossil. So it's not that they don't exist, it's that given relatively simple measures of probability, we can't honestly claim with any great confidence that a fossil is on any extant species direct line of descent.

Among the the fossils we have may in fact BE direct ancestors, but because at any given time, a diversity of similar-looking species exist, it is more probable that any given fossil is instead from a member of a species that lies on a cousin line of descent.

leroy wrote:all modern species came from a direct ancestor and each ancestor came form an other ancestor, ..... in the mammalian class more than 5,000 different direct ancestors have lived, each of them being the direct ancestor of 1 or more modern specie of mammal. ...........so why haven't we found thousands of direct ancestors?

We don't know that we haven't, we just do not have the kind of information that would allow us to CLAIM that one of these fossils IS a direct ancestor.

So when evolutionary trees of relationships are drawn, the preference is to put fossils on cousin lines of descent, instead of as direct ancestors, because of the above mentioned probabilities. For example, take a look at rodents. There are thousands of species of rats and mice. What is the odds that a fossil rodent half a million year old is on the direct line of decent to some particular extant species of rodent? Small.

It's not that it's impossible, it's not that anyone claims with great certainty that there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record. It's simply that the most honest depiction, given the probabilities, is that it's way more likely we are looking at an extinct cousin, rather than a direct ancestor.

leroy wrote:why do we find modern like humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc. in the fossil record, but we don't find the common ancestor of humans and chimps, nor the ancestor of gorillas and humans, nor the ancestor of humans and orangutans, nor the ancestor of humans and monkeys? why is the Fossil record so good in preserving modern like animals, but so bad in preserving direct ancestors.

While the fossil record of forest dwelling organisms is generally poor, compared to organisms that live in deserts, and it is abysmal compared to marine/aquatif life, we still do have quite an extensive fossil record of primates. But it is not extensive enough to be able to say with any great certainty, that some particular primate fossil represents an ancestral species, rather than an extinct cousin. Again, the reason is the same as above.

leroy wrote:this is really an honest question, I am honestly interested in an answer

I believe you, and there's nothing wrong with your question. I've had this question myself, which made me look for the answer. I found it, what I've described really is the answer.

1. Fossilization is relatively rare.
2. Almost all species exist as part of a diverse set of very similar species.

So the probability that a fossil represents a direct ancestor is low. So when phylogenies are drawn, the most probably true phylogeny is that the fossil species is an extinct cousin. They could be put as direct ancestors, but that would be dishonest, since that just isn't the most likely to be true representation. If they put them as direct ancestors, we would be here asking how the hell they know that?




I understand what you are saying, even though it is impossible to know if a fossil represents a direct ancestor, at least we would expect to find candidates of creatures that could have been ancestors of modern species.

with candidate I mean, any animal that has the correct age and the correct anatomy.

for example the common ancestor between archaeopteryx and modern like birds would have to be>.>>

Correct age> older than the oldest and older than the oldest bird, but younger than the firsts tetrapod dinosaurs.

Correct anatomy> with bony tail, teeth, paws, without fully formed feathers, less aerodynamic than archaeopteryx, not reversed toe, an obturator process of the ischium etc,


Most (if not all) transitional fossils are considered cousins and not direct ancestors, not because of the statistical probability that you mentioned, but because, they fail to have ether the correct age and/or the correct anatomy.




so let me re formulate the question
where are all the candidates of direct ancestors of modern species? why don't we find thousands of candidates in the fossil record?


for every modern specie (or say genus just to keep the barrier clearer) we would expect to find multiple directs ancestors (or candidates) plus many cousins.


today there are more than 1,000 genus of mammals and all of them are found somewhere in the fossil record, therefore we would expect to find 500 different ancestors linking 2 different geniuses, plus other 500 more distant direct ancestors, plus thousands of cousins that would also have the correct anatomy and correct age.

for example
since we find chimps and humans in the fossil record, we would also expect to find our direct ancestor plus many other candidates......why cant we find them?....I Can grant that it would be impossible to tell the difference between a ancestor and a cousin candidate but we don't find any of them.........why is the fossil record so good in preserving modern like humans and chimps and very bad in preserving candidates?



1. Fossilization is relatively rare


well talking about vertebrates the fossil record is very good in preserving modern like animals, most geniuses are found somewhere in the fossil record, the fossil record seems to be very good in preserving modern animals, but it seems very bad in perceiving direct ancestors or candidates.




I am not trying to formulate an argument against evolution, I am simply formulating a question.


"I don't know" would be a valid answer, and it wouldn´t imply that evolution is wrong. ..............I am just curios about this
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:22 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

There is much to say about tiktaalik, but this post is suppose to be about answering honest questions and not about debating, so I will simply try to answer your question,

Rumraket wrote:
That doesn't seem to answer my question at all. I asked how the prediction was possible if evolution didn't happen? The only thing that predicts transitional organisms is if a mechanism of change is in operation and if there is evidence that group A shares descent with group B.

If morphology was static and unchanging and all species were created more or less in their present form, there'd be no reason to expect there to exist, or have existed, something morphologically intermediate between two different clades, or orders or what have you.

.




we do find animals with shared characteristics of 2 different clades, there is no mystery about that. for example marsupial wolves share characteristics with kangaroos and dogs, dolphins share characteristics with bats and whales...........and none of this similarities are due to common descent.

similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry........agree?

so the same could be said about animals that share characteristics with fish and land tetrapods ............similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry.

so I guess my answer would be that, an intelligent designer could have created creatures that have stuff in common with one group of animals and stuff in common with some other group, sometimes this similarities correspond to evolutionary predictions, sometimes they don't.


obviously you don't have to agree with my answer, and you don't have to be satisfied with it, ......but was my answer clear?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:49 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 260Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:I understand what you are saying, even though it is impossible to know if a fossil represents a direct ancestor, at least we would expect to find candidates of creatures that could have been ancestors of modern species.


Well, you could, we have candidate ancestors of some, but you don't have to if you have fossils of species that may not be direct ancestors of modern species, but still have characters that make them transitional. That on its own is already evidence.

leroy wrote:with candidate I mean, any animal that has the correct age and the correct anatomy.

for example the common ancestor between archaeopteryx and modern like birds would have to be>.>>

Correct age> older than the oldest and older than the oldest bird, but younger than the firsts tetrapod dinosaurs.


For a fossil to be a representative or a "candidate" of the ancestral species, it doesn't have to be older than both said groups, not necessarily. Take dogs for example. The ancestors of dogs were wolves, yet we still have wolves today. So if we found fossils with the right anatomy that would make it basal to both group, the fossil would have the characteristics that the ancestors of both likely possessed. As in the case with modern wolves are not identical with the wolf ancestors of dogs, but they are still a fair representative of what the ancestors of dogs looked like.

leroy wrote:Correct anatomy> with bony tail, teeth, paws, without fully formed feathers, less aerodynamic than archaeopteryx, not reversed toe, an obturator process of the ischium etc,


First of, paws?? Paws is a mammal trait (well not all mammals, but there are no non-mammals with paws). No dinosaur does or did ever had paws.

Second: Like this one?

Aurornis xui
Image

Apart from the paws, it has all the characters you listed. It is also considered more a basal to birds than Archaeopteryx (which means the common ancestor of birds and archaeopteryx is more recent than that of birds and Aurornis)

leroy wrote:Most (if not all) transitional fossils are considered cousins and not direct ancestors, not because of the statistical probability that you mentioned, but because, they fail to have ether the correct age and/or the correct anatomy.


No, most transitional fossils are considered cousin for the reasons Rumraket explained. I would argue that even if we found a fossil that has all the characteristics we expect of the ancestor, we still cannot be certain it was the ancestor, because (again) not every species that ever lived leaves fossils behind so if we found one that has all the characteristics, there were probably more species very much like it, which also had the same characteristics we should expect of the ancestor. Not all of them can be the ancestors of modern species, but all of them can be considered "candidates" but are more probably close cousins of the ancestors.

leroy wrote:so let me re formulate the question
where are all the candidates of direct ancestors of modern species? why don't we find thousands of candidates in the fossil record?


By the criteria you have put forward in the case of Aurornis, we do. We also have Homo erectus, a candidate for the human ancestors. And we have found hundreds of fossils of homo erectus.

Of course you could "reformulate" the question again, such that you ask for thousands of species. In that case, we have hundreds of transitional fossils (direct ancestors or not), but I am not sure wether we have thousands. Asking for thousands of transitional species that all must be candidates for direct ancestors, is unrealistic for the reasons Rumraket has explained and it also ignores the fact that we do have transitional fossils (in the hundreds when counting the transitional species). Which is already solid evidence, without having to determine wether they are candidates for direct ancestors.

Simply asking for more evidence or reducing the existing evidence by adding stricter criteria doesn't make the evidence go away.

leroy wrote:for every modern specie (or say genus just to keep the barrier clearer) we would expect to find multiple directs ancestors (or candidates) plus many cousins.


No we would, again for the same reasons Rumraket has explained. You keep saying that we would expect this, but you don't explain WHY you would.

leroy wrote:today there are more than 1,000 genus of mammals and all of them are found somewhere in the fossil record, therefore we would expect to find 500 different ancestors linking 2 different geniuses, plus other 500 more distant direct ancestors, plus thousands of cousins that would also have the correct anatomy and correct age.


Logic doesn't follow, if your 1,000 genera (plural of genus) of mammals is right, there would be indeed around 500 ancestors, but we don't expect to find all of them in the fossil record simply because they existed once. Not all species left fossils.

leroy wrote:for example
since we find chimps and humans in the fossil record, we would also expect to find our direct ancestor plus many other candidates......why cant we find them?....I Can grant that it would be impossible to tell the difference between a ancestor and a cousin candidate but we don't find any of them.........why is the fossil record so good in preserving modern like humans and chimps and very bad in preserving candidates?


Well first, no. Chimp fossils are very rare. I am only aware of a handful of cases. The reason why the chimp fossil record is scarce compared to that of humans is one humans covered a large area over Africa and some even made it to Asia and Indonesia in many different environments, while chimps were confined in dense forest (a bad place to get fossilized). Thus chances are, more fossils of humans are going to be found rather than that of chimps. Also because of our anthropomorphic bias, we are more actively searching for human fossils rather than for chimp ones. And the reason for how we can know where to look for human fossils is because of evolution. The predictive power of a theory is strong evidence for it.

And second, now you are referring to a specific case so I can easily fulfill your criteria by giving candidates.
Like with chimps and humans, a few candidates have been found (though there is controversy on which one is the most likely, but it doesn't matter if they are candidates)

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one:
Image

a less likely contender is Orrorin tugenensis

Another one is Ouranopithecus.

While the chimp/human ancestor is controversial, the candidate for the common ancestor of all great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans) is more certain.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Image

Not thousands, no, but we can and did find these.

leroy wrote:I am not trying to formulate an argument against evolution, I am simply formulating a question. "I don't know" would be a valid answer, and it wouldn´t imply that evolution is wrong. ..............I am just curios about this.


The fact that you have to clarify that, makes me question your motives. "unanswered questions" is a favorite argument against evolution.
Of course you might be an exception, and it really doesn't make a difference in either case.

leroy wrote:we do find animals with shared characteristics of 2 different clades, there is no mystery about that. for example marsupial wolves share characteristics with kangaroos and dogs, dolphins share characteristics with bats and whales...........and none of this similarities are due to common descent.


Well it depends on what characteristics you are talking about. The fact that all of them have backbones, Mammary glands, inner ear bones, hair (in some for or another, some whales still have tiny hairs) or just are mammals. Than that is due to common descent.

thylacines have more things in common with Kangaroos than with dogs. The fact that they are superficially similar to dogs doesn't mean much, whit regard to phylogeny. We can tell that for the same reason we can tell that bats are not more closely related to birds than to other mammals, despite both having wings. To you it may be obvious that bats are not close to birds, but I know people who have think that bats are birds, because they fly.

Most people have no idea how to classify life forms. Some just do it the easy way, by what they do or what general capability they have like flight. If it flies it is a birds so bats are birds. If it swims it is a fish, so whales are fish (yes many people still think that whales are fish, although I think that whales are technically fish but not for the same reason). If you classified life forms based on wether they have wings, then bats, birds, bees would be in the same category. But the fact still remains that the wings themselves are different. Their anatomy is not the same despite being used for the same purpose.

You have to learn more about anatomy and physiology to know how to do taxonomy.

Thylacines look on the outside like dogs just like dolphins look like sharks or the glass snake looks like a snake (but it is a legless skink not a snake).

The Thylacine/Dog comparison has been used to challenge homology as evidence for evolution in the Pandas book, which that was close to being used to push "intelligent design" in the classrooms of America. During the Dover trial in 2005, this argument was examined and pretty much exposed, better then I could ever do here, for what it is. Bunk
https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/dire ... homology-a

As for "dolphins sharing characteristics with bats and whales" well the whale isn't surprising since dolphins ARE freaking whales. And the bat and dolphin comparison sounds like a similar argument someone else used that I have refuted HERE

Wait....wait....hold on.....YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!!!!

leroy wrote:similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry........agree?


No, but shared diagnostic traits do. For example the fact that we all have the diagnostic traits that define what a mammal is, makes us more closer to all other mammals than to non-mammals. And it isn't just similarities, it is the pattern by which they occur.
Image

And we see the same in the genome as well.


leroy wrote:so I guess my answer would be that, an intelligent designer could have created creatures that have stuff in common with one group of animals and stuff in common with some other group, sometimes this similarities correspond to evolutionary predictions, sometimes they don't.


They always do. And I don't say "similarities" I clarify it as shared traits. Wings are not proper traits since wings can have drastically different anatomy from species who have evolved it independently. This is one way we can tell wether "similarity" is due to homology or analogy.

This is a superb video that best explains why the "similarity doesn't prove common ancestry, it can also point toward a common designer!" fails.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:19 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
 [ 65 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests