Yes, but the level of both tends to decrease with more evidence. How does one interpret a series of named species and forms intermediate between them in a series of successive deposits as anything but transitional?
But patterns still exist. Why does this cladogram, purely based on blind statistical analysis of half of a gene that encodes a mitochondrial electron-transport chain protein agree as well as it does with radular characters, gross soft anatomy, and shell characters, if it doesn’t reveal relationships?
As can nothing in science. Proving anything true is logically impossible.
That is an impossible level of evidence for every scientific theory. Proving that a theory perfectly explains every possible case that it describes is beyond the scope of science.
But it is taught as fact. There are no caveats or cautions. This happened. That derives from this. It is the certitude and arrogance I object to.
I am not claiming Evolution is wrong (par se). I am asking for a little latitude, and the admission that you do not have all the answers.
Because statistics lie!. They prove what you are trying to prove. And you have no interest in analysing the data from a different perspective.
My aim is not to destroy but disturb. And to leave the door open for God.
There are many Christians who would claim that all the evidence for God is available, but atheists claim otherwise. You claim that the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming? I claim otherwise. And when I present scientific data I expect it to be considered without bias or agenda.
No one dared to comment on this
Whether the component parts could be assembled or not, the control mechanism has to come from somewhere. Are you going to claim it was pure luck or try until it works?
There is more here than just assembly.
Evolutionists have a habit of glossing over things that are too awkward. “time will do it!” And what does the poor creature do while its brain is trying to work out how to use these damned wings!
Somehow, rivers always flow downhill and move towards the ocean. Rivers aren’t intelligent, nor are the forces the cause rivers to flow towards their target. And yet it happens.
In the same way, no intelligence is needed for selection to occur. It is an unavoidable consequence of imperfect replication and limited resources. There has to be winners and losers, and the one constant that exists is fitness. Those that are less fit tend to have fewer offspring. The fitter organisms tend to have more offspring. Again, this is unavoidable. It has to happen by the very facts of biology.
The transitional nature of fossils is not speculation. We can see those features.
The nested hierarchy of life is not speculation. We can see this pattern.
Then please tell us what patterns we should see if common ancestry is true if it isn’t a nested hierarchy.
That is hilariously false. Evolution is ALL science. You just choose to ignore it. In almost every thread you just tell us to throw out the science because you don’t like it.
You claim that evolution can’t produce these species is not science. It is just empty assertions.
It is science, and I have shown it to you. It is such powerful evidence that you have to outright ignore it. Any time the DNA evidence is brought up you just flat out reject it without comment and without addressing it. You won’t address the nested hierarchy. You won’t address the patterns of exon and intron divergence. You won’t address any of the evidence I have presented. Your won’t address the science.
False. It is up to you to support your claim that these species can’t evolve. You. Not me. YOU.
It is. The problem is that people view a “fact” as an “We know every detail of this with absolute certainty”, and not as encompassing “The data we’ve got says ___”.
Statistics cannot lie, as they are not personified. People can use statistics to lie, lie about statistics, give inaccurate inputs to statistics, or otherwise misuse them. Most statistical analyses (including all of the ones that are used for constructing the tree I pasted in above) are derived from basic axioms of mathematics and nothing else.
The analysis program (in the case of the parsimony analysis in the tree pictured) is told “Group things in the way that requires the lowest number of changes.” And nothing else.
That seems to do pretty well for computer programs.
But natural selection does provide direction. As there is always more life procreated than can be sustained by available resources, there will be competition which on average favors certain fitness traits. This is unavoidable.
Are you trying to say that new system come ready formed with all ancillary connections intact. Like some sort of module? (DNA sequence) Sounds awfully convenient. Even intelligent
I am way ahead of you. I was taught to swim.
The first flyer had no teacher, neither wuld it have any sort of genetic memory or program. Neither could it have memorised reflexes or any of the other mechanisms a fledgling would have.
A computer program does not have to survive in the outside world. It is basically inert until finished. One mistake for a creature and it is basically dead.
What is your explanation for the difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns?
I have never said any such thing. Now you are putting words in my mouth while ignoring the words that I actually say.
Fledglings don’t memorize how to fly. They do so instinctually. These instincts come from their DNA.
If there are mutations that cause a species to instinctually use their arms to glide, and this behavior proves to increase fitness, then this trait will be selected for. They don’t have to have full flight, nor do they have to be perfect gliders or fliers. They just have to be a little bit better than the others in their population. Keep repeating this process and you build up to better and better gliding and flight, including the additional physical changes that increase the effectiveness of gliding then flying.
You don’t need the whole kit at once. Even transitional species like Archaeopteryx shows us this.
Archaeopteryx lacked many of the flight adaptations seen in living birds. It lacked the large breastbone, a pygostyle, a backwards facing pubis, fused metatarsals, and so on. And yet, Archaeopteryx has every appearance of being able to fly, or at least glide really well.
This would mean that changes in DNA could cause some individuals to instinctively try to use their limbs to glide.
If that behavior increases fitness then it will be selected for.
If selected for, subsequent mutations that enhance this behavior as well as mutations that allow physical characteristics to support this behavior will be selected for.
Of course, even today we have birds that are primarily gliders, as well as flightless birds. I see roadrunners pretty frequently and while they can fly a few hundred feet, They usually flap up a few times then glide the rest of the way.
Even the instinct to glide has to come from somewhere. I mean, if it has never been done before why would you just jump off into mid-air?
Look, you can wiggle and squirm and postulate and eventually find something plausible, but…
perhaps your love of statistics and maths would like to calculate the probabilities and variables involved?
Nature does not/did not have the luxury of your intelligence and quick-thinking adaptability. Natural selection and survival (of the fittest etc) is simplistic in terms of the pressures of living. While the creatures are fine-tuning they are vulnerable. Time now becomes an enemy not a friend,
Plausibility and incredulity are very subjective.
There is no point in arguing and counter-arguing what amounts to hypothetics and guesses. It boils down to personal opinions.
I really do not think that you can see what complexity and interdependency actually amounts to. Neither do you seem to realise how your partial developments are disadvantaged and therefore would not survive long enough for the next stage to be reached. It is oh so simple…
You have made the connections in DNA so will search for any possible means of duplicating them in the macro world.
Are we in agreement that since birds are born with the instinct to fly that it has to be in their DNA?
If so, then why can’t a mutation instigate the beginnings of this instinct?
It wouldn’t need to. In the same way, the unintelligent little bacteria can produce new proteins that prevent the bacteria from dying when exposed to antibiotics. They don’t need to know about protein folding, enzyme design, or anything.
We find those transitional states throughout the fossil record.
Physician, heal thyself.
Then how was Archaeopteryx able to survive with only partially developed bird features? How are species like mudskippers able to survive when they barely have any adaptions at all for living on land?
I would not be able to offer any sort of explanation because I fail to see the significance. My knowledge of genetics stopped at Mendel.
You have explained it, I have read it, and some of your suggested reading. I just do not see it.
If I was looking for building blocks I would expect to see similar blocks in relation to the similarities of structure. I would expect to see base sequences and similarities. As I am not looking for heredity I would not make the connections suggested and no arguing would persuade me that any mathematical formulae would be valid. Mathematics and order are more associated with design. As I understood it Evolution has no structure but is based on random change and deviation. Once you start deviating it will, by definition distort any historical connections
I am sorry but all I see is an algorithm that DNA has been shoehorned to match. Probably my bad but ces la vis. Besides, your data must be based on the present. You cannot possibly trace it back to creatures for which we have no DNA data.
Do you agree that there is going to be selection against deleterious mutations in coding regions (i.e. exons), leading to conservation of sequence? This is even seen in human data.
Do you agree that no such selection is going to happen in the vast majority of intron sequence, resulting in lower levels of sequence conservation?
Why should the amount of sequence similarity differ between exons and introns? Why should the exons shared by two species have more similarity than the introns?
We observe natural processes producing mathematics and order all around us. However you believe that relates to design is up to you, but natural processes produce the features all of the time.
And selection. You keep leaving out selection.
Then what would the patterns in the data look like if common ancestry and evolution were true if the patterns I have pointed to are not it?
This is done all of the time. Genetics is used to determine relatedness between humans without needing to dig up some human ancestor and sequence their DNA.
A key point to remember is that all that natural selection requires is for the trait to offer some incremental advantage relative to existing alternatives in the gene pool. The trait doesn’t need to be “perfectly fine-tuned” according to some standard before it is advantageous relative to alternatives. So, a proto-bird with “intermediate anatomy” that could not fly far or with the agility of modern birds could still have been selected for, even with only an ability to glide farther than competitors at the time.
The first speaker of French would have had nobody around who could understand him. His parents, who spoke Latin, would have found him unintelligible. Therefore, French could not have happened.
Of course, neurodevelopment was in lockstep with the physiology of flight. It is not like some dinosaur suddenly sprouted wings and had no idea what to do with them. What a non-problem.
