Evolutionary Patterns
-
Much has been made about alleged expectations of evolution with respect to patterns we should see. This is all posturing because, as I have said, mechanism(s) dictate patterns. But even that misses the fact that with evolutionary divergence every population has the potential to be a point of divergence. One population becomes two, which become 4, which become 8 and so on. So right off the bat the "tree" is nothing but a bushy mess.
Just think about having to classify every alleged organism that had to have existed. The transitional forms would be innumerable with traits and body parts slowly blending as transformations occurred.
Given those expectations pattern building is a fool's errand.
The point being is that Common Descent really "predicts" any and all patterns from that bushy mess to any tree Darwin envisioned. It would even be OK with a straight line of descent- the branches being pruned by extinction events and mother nature.
And seeing that evolution is not about progress, evolution is also OK with an asterisk type pattern. A pattern that accounts for the loss of structures or genes. It all depends on what works- a contingent serendipity.
Even Gould understood the importance of contingencies in a blind watchmaker scenario. Unless you can predict said contingencies, you cannot say you expected pattern X.
The point is that anyone who sez that evolution predicts any specific pattern is a LIAR.
Much has been made about alleged expectations of evolution with respect to patterns we should see. This is all posturing because, as I have said, mechanism(s) dictate patterns. But even that misses the fact that with evolutionary divergence every population has the potential to be a point of divergence. One population becomes two, which become 4, which become 8 and so on. So right off the bat the "tree" is nothing but a bushy mess.
Just think about having to classify every alleged organism that had to have existed. The transitional forms would be innumerable with traits and body parts slowly blending as transformations occurred.
Given those expectations pattern building is a fool's errand.
The point being is that Common Descent really "predicts" any and all patterns from that bushy mess to any tree Darwin envisioned. It would even be OK with a straight line of descent- the branches being pruned by extinction events and mother nature.
And seeing that evolution is not about progress, evolution is also OK with an asterisk type pattern. A pattern that accounts for the loss of structures or genes. It all depends on what works- a contingent serendipity.
Even Gould understood the importance of contingencies in a blind watchmaker scenario. Unless you can predict said contingencies, you cannot say you expected pattern X.
The point is that anyone who sez that evolution predicts any specific pattern is a LIAR.
posted by Joe G @ 9:38 AM
28 Comments:
At 10:25 AM,
JV said…
Just think about having to classify every alleged organism that had to have existed. The transitional forms would be innumerable with traits and body parts slowly blending as transformations occurred.
Exactly so. In some sense all species are 'transitional'. This point was made quite well in Dr Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth. Even human beings are just another variation along the way.
The point being is that Common Descent really "predicts" any and all patterns from that bushy mess to any tree Darwin envisioned. It would even be OK with a straight line of descent- the branches being pruned by extinction events and mother nature.
And seeing that evolution is not about progress, evolution is also OK with an asterisk type pattern. A pattern that accounts for the loss of structures or genes. It all depends on what works- a contingent serendipity.
The phrase is not quite right but 'survival of the fittest' almost kind of works. Unguided stuff is messy for sure.
The point is that anyone who sez that evolution predicts any specific pattern is a LIAR.
I don't think any decent biologist has ever predicted any specific pattern. They would predict adaptation and so, in particular circumstances, that might mean something a bit more specific. Evolutionary theory would definitely predict ring species and anti-biotic resistance but, again, those are general notions.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'specific'.
Looking back over the fossil record I think it is possible to 'predict' that certain kinds of transitional species will be found in certain geological strata. In general.
Anyway, there's no problem with any of these, it's the way it works: life bumbles along, filling niches a little bit better over the ages. And the niches change!! But there's no direction, no guidance. It just arises as different variants gain some slight advantage over their cousins.
If there was guidance then it doesn't make sense that it would take billions of years!! That's just hideously wasteful and pointless.
At 10:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Survival of the fittest is nonsense. With natural selection it is the survival of whatever is good enough. Unguided stuff can only break and degrade. Unguided evolution cannot account for the fossils.
And the billions of years is nonsense, too.
But anyway, you are ignorant of biology and as such you are a waste of time.
At 11:49 AM,
JV said…
Survival of the fittest is nonsense. With natural selection it is the survival of whatever is good enough. Unguided stuff can only break and degrade. Unguided evolution cannot account for the fossils.
What is your justification for saying: Unguided stuff can only break and degrade. Mutations are random which means some will be beneficial.
And the billions of years is nonsense, too.
In what way? What timeframe would you think was correct?
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
The billions of years relies on the untestable assumption that all accretion debris became molten, such that there weren't any surviving crystals.
My justification for saying that unguided stuff can only break and degrade is years of observation and experimentation.
Even a loss of function can be beneficial. Many bacteria gain anti-biotic resistance via loss of function.
At 4:33 PM,
JV said…
The billions of years relies on the untestable assumption that all accretion debris became molten, such that there weren't any surviving crystals.
Are you saying you don't think the earth is billions of years old?
My justification for saying that unguided stuff can only break and degrade is years of observation and experimentation.
Is that years of observing self-replicating, living systems?
You do agree that genes can get duplicated? And do you think it's possible that a duplicated gene could mutate and code for a different protein?
Even a loss of function can be beneficial. Many bacteria gain anti-biotic resistance via loss of function.
Do you think that all existent lifeforms are either degradations of forms that lived before or ones that came about via guided mutations?
At 4:58 PM,
Joe G said…
I am saying that saying the earth is 4.5x billion years old relies on untestable assumptions.
Is that years of observing self-replicating, living systems?
Yes, these have proof reading and error correction mechanisms.
You do agree that genes can get duplicated?
By design.
And do you think it's possible that a duplicated gene could mutate and code for a different protein?
By design. But the new gene would also need a binding site. And if it takes more than TWO specific mutations to change the protein then unguided evolution is in trouble.
Do you think that all existent lifeforms are either degradations of forms that lived before or ones that came about via guided mutations?
Genetic entropy is real. It cannot be avoided in this universe.
But all this is moot and irrelevant to the fact that evolution doesn't predict any particular pattern. And anyone claiming otherwise is being dishonest.
At 6:44 AM,
JV said…
I am saying that saying the earth is 4.5x billion years old relies on untestable assumptions.
So . . . how old do you think the earth is?
Yes, these have proof reading and error correction mechanisms.
Which can go wrong??
You do agree that genes can get duplicated?
By design.
Triggered by?
And do you think it's possible that a duplicated gene could mutate and code for a different protein?
By design. But the new gene would also need a binding site. And if it takes more than TWO specific mutations to change the protein then unguided evolution is in trouble.
From Gene duplication and the adaptive evolution of a classic genetic switch (in the abstract):
"After duplication, previously disfavoured binding site configurations evolved that divided the regulation of the ancestral gene into two specialized genes, one of which ultimately became one of the most tightly regulated genes in the genome."
Genetic entropy is real. It cannot be avoided in this universe.
Okay, so you're saying genetic disorder grows. BUT, many of the phenotypes with deleterious mutations will not create offspring so the process is favourably biased towards neutral and beneficial mutations.
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
The age of the earth depends on how it was formed.
Unguided processes cannot produce proof reading and error correction. It cannnot produce codes from the bottom up.
Gene duplications are triggered by the design.
Anything more than TWO specific mutations means that unguided processes mean that unguided processes are in trouble.
And beneficial mutations cause loss of function.
At 11:37 AM,
JV said…
The age of the earth depends on how it was formed.
So . . . how old do you think the earth is?
Unguided processes cannot produce proof reading and error correction. It cannnot produce codes from the bottom up.
No proof reading . . . because it's self-referential? What if DNA isn't a 'true' code?
Gene duplications are triggered by the design.
How can you tell?
Anything more than TWO specific mutations means that unguided processes mean that unguided processes are in trouble.
Sure, if you're trying to figure out the chances of a particular person winning the lottery it's highly improbable. But what are the chances that SOMEONE will win? A lot lower. What are the chances that you get a couple of mutations: quite high. What are the chances that the two mutations you get are neutral or beneficial IN SOME WAY? Much lower. What are the chances you get two specified mutations: really, really low. If the process is unguided then it's not looking for specified mutations: you get what you get. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not, sometimes eh.
And beneficial mutations cause loss of function.
For example?
At 11:50 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't know how old the earth is. It is as old as it needs to be.
Proof reading because blind and mindless processes can't do it. And the genetic code is a real code.
How can I tell? Because blind and mindless processes aren't up to the task.
If the process is unguided then it's not looking for specified mutations: you get what you get.
It's still specified. It's still untestable sheer dumb luck.
The only reason for probability arguments is that you have nothing to offer.
Anti-biotic resistance comes with a loss of function. Blind cave fish come with a loss of function. The list is very long.
At 8:23 AM,
JV said…
I don't know how old the earth is. It is as old as it needs to be.
"[A[s old as it needs to be." What does that mean?
Proof reading because blind and mindless processes can't do it. And the genetic code is a real code.
Maybe. It's established science that says DNA is a code but you disagree with much of science so why do you believe them about that?
If the process is unguided then it's not looking for specified mutations: you get what you get.
It's still specified. It's still untestable sheer dumb luck.
That doesn't make any sense: specified and dumb luck.
The only reason for probability arguments is that you have nothing to offer.
Probability arguments are very powerful when used to analyse large amounts of behaviour. Or in quantum mechanics.
Anti-biotic resistance comes with a loss of function. Blind cave fish come with a loss of function. The list is very long.
Bats gained a function over their ancestors. Birds gained a function over their ancestors. The list is very long.
At 8:27 AM,
Joe G said…
DNA is not the code. The genetic code is the code.
It is specified and all you have to account for it is sheer dumb luck.
Probability arguments are all your side has. If you had some actual science we wouldn't need probability arguments.
Bats gained a function over their ancestors. Birds gained a function over their ancestors.
Question-begging.
At 2:25 PM,
JV said…
DNA is not the code. The genetic code is the code. It is specified and all you have to account for it is sheer dumb luck.
What if it's down to various chemical bonding preferences as some recent research has suggested?
Probability arguments are all your side has. If you had some actual science we wouldn't need probability arguments.
When the FDA decides if some new drug is efficacious that's based on probability arguments. There's quite a lot of probability in science actually.
Bats gained a function over their ancestors. Birds gained a function over their ancestors.
Question-begging.
No. You mentioned some cases when genetic degredation (may) have been beneficial and I listed some cases when new functions arose NOT through genomic degredation. If you want to consider all the data then please consider all the data. If you're going to cherry pick then you're going to get some blowback.
At 3:39 PM,
Joe G said…
What if it's down to various chemical bonding preferences as some recent research has suggested?
LoL! Of course the way it is carried out is down to various chemical bonding preferences. That doesn't mean chemical processes produced it.
When the FDA decides if some new drug is efficacious that's based on probability arguments. There's quite a lot of probability in science actually.
Your entire position relies on it and yet no one can actually calculate any.
You mentioned some cases when genetic degredation (may) have been beneficial and I listed some cases when new functions arose NOT through genomic degredation.
My examples are proven fact. Yours are question-begging. What function did bats gain over their ancestors? What about birds? Be specific
At 4:50 PM,
JV said…
LoL! Of course the way it is carried out is down to various chemical bonding preferences. That doesn't mean chemical processes produced it.
It's a possibility as some recent research has suggested. I don't know why you're fighting the point so much. Unless you 'need' it to be a true code to prove intelligent intervention.
Your entire position relies on it and yet no one can actually calculate any.
Sounds like you've not perused some of the recent research. AND doesn't Dr Behe make a probability argument against unguided processes?
My examples are proven fact. Yours are question-begging. What function did bats gain over their ancestors? What about birds? Be specific
The ancestors of bats could not echo locate; that ability evolved. Birds evolved the ability to fly; if you go back far enough their ancestors were unable to fly. Opposable thumbs; some primates have opposable thumbs whereas their ancestors did not have them. Primate brains generally got larger over millions of years; that's not something breaking.
The point is that new functions have arisen without something breaking.
I don't know how old the earth is. It is as old as it needs to be.
"[A[s old as it needs to be." What does that mean?
You didn't answer this question. Why are you so reluctant to be specific? Are you saying there is no way to even get close to the age of the earth? Surely you can at least give an order of magnitude guess.
And what assumptions do you suspect of being incorrect when geologists date the earth? That processes of physics may not be constant? If that's true then you can't really have any historical sciences because you put into question the idea that we can extrapolate backward based on what we observe now. I don't think Isaac Newton would agree with you on that.
At 5:09 PM,
Joe G said…
It's a possibility as some recent research has suggested.
It isn't a possibility and there isn't any research to suggest there is.
Unless you 'need' it to be a true code to prove intelligent intervention.
It is a true code and it isn't the only one that biological organisms rely on.
Sounds like you've not perused some of the recent research.
Enlighten me or admit that you are bluffing.
AND doesn't Dr Behe make a probability argument against unguided processes?
He tries. But s I said no one can give any real data to use.
The ancestors of bats could not echo locate; that ability evolved.
Question-begging.
Birds evolved the ability to fly; if you go back far enough their ancestors were unable to fly.
Question-begging
Opposable thumbs; some primates have opposable thumbs whereas their ancestors did not have them
Question-begging
Primate brains generally got larger over millions of years; that's not something breaking.
No, it's just more question-begging.
In every case were there was a loss of function we actually know what happened. In every one of your examples we have no idea if it happened or not. We definitely don't know what genes could have done it.
Are you saying there is no way to even get close to the age of the earth?
Again, unless you know how it was formed it is a fool's errand. But you are fond of those so have at it.
And what assumptions do you suspect of being incorrect when geologists date the earth?
I have already told you. What is your problem?
That processes of physics may not be constant?
Learn how to read for comprehension. You don't realize how much of a troll you are, do you?
At 2:03 AM,
JV said…
It isn't a possibility and there isn't any research to suggest there is.
Incorrect as can be easily checked.
It is a true code and it isn't the only one that biological organisms rely on.
We'll see.
Enlighten me or admit that you are bluffing.
Why don't you do your own research?
AND doesn't Dr Behe make a probability argument against unguided processes?
He tries. But s I said no one can give any real data to use.
So . . . you agree with him but not because of his probability arguments? Like saying it would take too long for unguided processes to create a double binding site?
Question-begging.
Question-begging.
Question-begging.
No, it's just more question-begging.
Sorry if there's counter-examples to your assertion. Perhaps you should try and accommodate all of the available data. We can see from the fossil record that some of the abilities I listed were not present in the pertinent ancestors.
In every case were there was a loss of function we actually know what happened. In every one of your examples we have no idea if it happened or not. We definitely don't know what genes could have done it.
Actually, that's not true. Genomic analysis of different life-forms that use echolocation suggest the same genomic pathways were followed.
Again, unless you know how it was formed it is a fool's errand. But you are fond of those so have at it.
Are you saying any kind of historical science NOT based on written records is suspect? Because somehow the laws of physics might have been changed?
And what assumptions do you suspect of being incorrect when geologists date the earth?
I have already told you. What is your problem?
What particular assumptions? That the laws of physics are constant?
That processes of physics may not be constant?
Learn how to read for comprehension. You don't realize how much of a troll you are, do you?
Why don't you just make sure that any and all readers are clear about your position? I'm trying to avoid putting words in your mouth and you just want the whole issue to seem to be my problem. If you really want your position to be clear then state your postition clearly and unambiguously.
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! I have checked it- you are bluffing.
We'll see.
Already seen.
Why don't you do your own research?
I have. That is why I know tat you are bluffing.
So . . . you agree with him but not because of his probability arguments?
Your side doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability table.
Sorry if there's counter-examples to your assertion.
Still waiting for ONE. Your examples are all question-begging bluffs. As I said with my examples we actually know the mutations. Not so for yours. So you lose.
Genomic analysis of different life-forms that use echolocation suggest the same genomic pathways were followed.
That analysis assumes Common Descent.
Are you saying any kind of historical science NOT based on written records is suspect?
No. Clearly you are just a troll.
What particular assumptions?
Already told you. Learn how to read.
Why don't you just make sure that any and all readers are clear about your position?
I have. YOU are the issue.
At 11:07 AM,
JV said…
So . . . you agree with him but not because of his probability arguments?
Your side doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability table.
Once again you refuse to answer a simple direct question. Do you agree with Dr Behe's probability arguments regarding the improbability of unguided causes coming up with a novel double binding site?
Still waiting for ONE. Your examples are all question-begging bluffs. As I said with my examples we actually know the mutations. Not so for yours. So you lose.
From Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12511
"However, recent studies have demonstrated that adaptive convergent sequence evolution can be detected in vertebrates using statistical methods that model parallel evolution9,10, although the extent to which sequence convergence between genera occurs across genomes is unknown. Here we analyse genomic sequence data in mammals that have independently evolved echolocation and show that convergence is not a rare process restricted to several loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus. Systematic analyses of convergent sequence evolution in 805,053 amino acids within 2,326 orthologous coding gene sequences compared across 22 mammals (including four newly sequenced bat genomes) revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci. Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation. Unexpectedly, we also found convergence in many genes linked to vision: the convergent signal of many sensory genes was robustly correlated with the strength of natural selection. This first attempt to detect genome-wide convergent sequence evolution across divergent taxa reveals the phenomenon to be much more pervasive than previously recognized."
That's just one paper I found in less than a minute of searching.
That analysis assumes Common Descent.
And you think Common Descent is rubbish?
At 12:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you agree with Dr Behe's probability arguments regarding the improbability of unguided causes coming up with a novel double binding site?
Do you even know what that refers to? I bet that you do not.
From Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals
Again it assumes what needs to substantiated.
The examples I provided all have known mutations. The examples you offered does NOT offer that.
There isn't a mechanism capable of producing the transformation required for Common Descent. And given sexual reproduction there isn't a chance of it. But I am sure that you will not understand why that is.
Sexual reproduction only half of each parent's genomes are used. Sexual selection also helps keep the norm. Then there are those pesky voles: What Gene Variation CAN Do
Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.
At 2:33 PM,
JV said…
Do you agree with Dr Behe's probability arguments regarding the improbability of unguided causes coming up with a novel double binding site?
Do you even know what that refers to? I bet that you do not.
Why are you NOT answering the question?
From Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals
Again it assumes what needs to substantiated.
I guess you don't understand the work.
The examples I provided all have known mutations. The examples you offered does NOT offer that.
They are examples of new functionality being added by unguided processes since no one can provide a way that mutations were guided or influenced.
There isn't a mechanism capable of producing the transformation required for Common Descent. And given sexual reproduction there isn't a chance of it. But I am sure that you will not understand why that is.
I'm not going to bother trying to understand something that runs counter to well established science that is accepted by a vast majority of working biologists. Not without some hard physical evidence to back it up.
Sexual reproduction only half of each parent's genomes are used. Sexual selection also helps keep the norm. Then there are those pesky voles: What Gene Variation CAN Do
Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.
And alligators are still alligators. But humans are not still Homo habilis or any of a large number of precursors. Most modern life forms differ greatly from their antecedents of 10 - 20 million years ago.
And speaking of Voles: from https://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2006/060914DeWoodyVole.html
"Purdue University research has shown that the vole, a mouselike rodent, is not only the fastest evolving mammal, but also harbors a number of puzzling genetic traits that challenge current scientific understanding."
And
"The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number."
So, you didn't get that right at all. And that paper is almost 13 years old.
Your merchant of doubt routine is predicably selective on what information you promulgate instead of considering all the data. That might work for the true believers who can't be bothered to check things out on their own but it doesn't fly when people check out what you are saying.
At 4:38 PM,
Joe G said…
I guess you don't understand the work.
Clearly you don't
They are examples of new functionality being added by unguided processes since no one can provide a way that mutations were guided or influenced.
That is cowardly retard talk.
I'm not going to bother trying to understand something that runs counter to well established science that is accepted by a vast majority of working biologists.
So you can't think for yourself. Got it. Too bad those biologists can't help you.
Not without some hard physical evidence to back it up.
YOU don't have any physical evidence to back up anything you have said.
And alligators are still alligators.
And there isn't any physical evidence they evolved from something else.
So, you didn't get that right at all.
What did I get wrong, asshole? The voles are still voles even after their rapid evolution. There isn't a mechanism capable of producing anything but voles given populations of voles.
Clearly you are just a true believer. You definitely don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. You definitely don't have a mechanism capable of producing the genetic toolkit required for developmental biology. And you don't even know what DETERMINES the type of organism that will develop.
At 11:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Can you demonstrate how mutations are influenced?
You can't demonstrate anything. So stuff it. You refuse to read the literature. So stuff it.
True, if you ignore the fossil record, the genomic record, the bio-geographic record, and the morphological record.
So you can't make a case and all you v=can do is bluff like a coward. Got it.
They're not all even in the same Genus!! So clearly unable to cross breed. They don't even all have the same number of chromosomes. "Voles" is just a category invented by humans for a bunch of small furry mammals that kind of look the same.
They are all still VOLES you ignorant asshole. No new body plans. No new body parts.
You should learn how to think for yourself instead of just repeating stuff written by people who are trying to get you to vote a certain way and buy their books.
You are unable to think. Period.
Even if the above is true (and it clearly isn't) you haven't got anything to offer in return.
Fuck you. What I said is true and at least ID makes testable claims.
You can't say when or how design was implemented even though you claim 'design is a mechanism'.
Neither can you, asshole. And your side is a mechanistic scenario!
You spend all your time attacking well established science and produce none yourself.
Liar. If you had the science then ID would be dead. But ID is still going strong because you and yours are complete cowards and failures.
The science of ID is with the detection and study of design in nature. And that is by far more than your side has.
There isn't any published research that supports blind watchmaker evolution. We have probability arguments because you and yours have nothing else.
And the saying is that mutations are random as in accidents, errors and mistakes. You don't even understand the position you are trying to defend.
Again, there are more important questions to answer and your asinine agenda just exposes your ignorance.
At 1:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Fuck me. Methinks I just deleted Jerad's comment. I will see if I can find it.
But anyway- the voles. In all of their evolution we still see the SAME body plan utilizing the SAME body parts.
The SAME. Great apes and humans do NOT share the same body plan. Nor do we have all of the same parts.
Due to the number of generations, 2 million years of vole evolution is greater than the alleged 7 million years of human evolution. The voles are evidence against (universal) Common Descent.
At 5:08 PM,
JV said…
Fuck me. Methinks I just deleted Jerad's comment. I will see if I can find it.
LOL! No worries. It was a bit ranty anyway.
So you can't make a case and all you v=can do is bluff like a coward. Got it.
I have never heard an ID proponent fully address all the data from all the different threads of evidence. For example: why are there close physiological species in, say, North America and Australia but which clearly have followed different genomic paths? If it's all due to design then by what logic would a designer have come up with that?
As always: the ID community is doing no research and publishing nothing. If it's a science then where is the output?
Again, there are more important questions to answer and your asinine agenda just exposes your ignorance.
Like what? Give us a list of things that the ID community is working on.
But anyway- the voles. In all of their evolution we still see the SAME body plan utilizing the SAME body parts.
Which is much the same as mice and quite a few other small, furry things. BUT that doesn't mean they aren't heading for divergence. A vast majority of all the creatures with that body plan and those body parts can't interbreed so they have already diverged significantly. You think the drift will be limited for what reason? Is it based on a probabilistic argument?
The SAME. Great apes and humans do NOT share the same body plan. Nor do we have all of the same parts.
I'd say generally they do so what specifically are you thinking?
Due to the number of generations, 2 million years of vole evolution is greater than the alleged 7 million years of human evolution. The voles are evidence against (universal) Common Descent.
The voles have continued to occupy the same ecological niche during that time. That niche would favour variations that matched its conditions, i.e. didn't fall too far from the tree.
It is clear even from the limited time we've had to study such things that species that are put into new and stressful environmental situations diverge more rapidly from the root stock than those that continue to co-exist with their 'parents'. Which is what you'd expect.
At 6:02 PM,
Joe G said…
For example: why are there close physiological species in, say, North America and Australia but which clearly have followed different genomic paths?
That is like asking why are computers so similar and yet can be so different depending on the requirements? Why are two vehicles so similar and yet can be so different depending on their requirements?
Unguided evolution can't explain any of the organisms.
Like what?
Studying the design so we can understand it. That way we are better prepared to repair and maintain it.
And again, scientists are specialists. It will take some time and training to get people up to speed in order to do what is required.
And look, there isn't any mechanism capable of producing something other than a vole given starting populations of voles.
Your special pleading about occupying the same niche is just evolutionary double-talk and the inability to deal with the evidence.
Humans are not knuckle-walkers. There is a great deal of change in musculature to get a man from a great ape-like population. Where the spine enters the head is in a different location. The jaw is completely different. The list of differences is long.
At 11:03 AM,
JV said…
For example: why are there close physiological species in, say, North America and Australia but which clearly have followed different genomic paths?
That is like asking why are computers so similar and yet can be so different depending on the requirements? Why are two vehicles so similar and yet can be so different depending on their requirements?
Unguided evolution can't explain any of the organisms.
I think the point is that even life forms that start from much different sources can converge functionally.
Your special pleading about occupying the same niche is just evolutionary double-talk and the inability to deal with the evidence.
Well, the data, all the data, supports it.
Humans are not knuckle-walkers. There is a great deal of change in musculature to get a man from a great ape-like population. Where the spine enters the head is in a different location. The jaw is completely different. The list of differences is long.
The basic body plans are the same but some features have been modified. Not much really new has been introduced, things have been altered. The genomic records explains it very well.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! The basic body plan is NOT the same. Knuckle-walkers are closer to quadrupeds then upright bipeds.
I think the point is that even life forms that start from much different sources can converge functionally.
Unguided evolution cannot account for that.
Well, the data, all the data, supports it
And yet we observe DIFFERENT body plans occupying the same niches! What about THAT data?
Post a Comment
<< Home