We have the DNA of living species which contains the evidence for common ancestry.
the fact that you can’t show common ancestors e.g. in fossil records (there supposed to be like thousands if not millions in the history of earth) but you can’t show one, this indicates that your theory is flawed … not to mention even much bigger problem with multiple independent origins of giant viruses, which seem to emerged from scratch… multiple times independently… viruses do not fit the theory of common ancestor … see my today’s comment on viruses … as i said, the evolutionary theory is very flawed… even a layman can tell …
let me quote from the arthropod paper… " two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary
histories must be true. "
this might indicate, that your evolutionary theory is flawed … e.g. the arthropods have not evolved, but were created…
Why?
Viruses evolving independently does not rule out common ancestry, so I don’t know what you are going on about.
delete post…
Or it may indicate that an unlikely evolutionary event did take place.
… if it would happen once, i would agree, but it happens again and again … the loss of wings, the loss of photosynthesis, the loss of eyes …
tell me T_aquaticus, why would plants lose the ability of photosynthesis? And not once, but multiple times - independently… is there any cheaper source of energy? Try to explain to me …
Moreover, get this:
“Evolution: Have Wings Come, Gone and Come Again?”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203003646
WHAT IS THAT? It is a very crazy stuff to get … for a layman…
All that tells me, that your theory is very flawed…
does not rule out common ancestry of what? or does your common ancestry concept work only with certain domains of life? i am a layman, i am trying to understand …
see it with layman’s eyes…
you don’t know where “the most numerous type of biological entity on Earth” comes from. You have no idea… you theory does not work with viruses.
But i hear from everywhere that the theory of evolution is a fact… Then i have a closer look, and i see how the theory is flawed… i really start to think this is some kind of conspiracy, or, that it is all about your paychecks…
and one more thing … ( Christy closed the other thread, i had no chance to reply. )
you said: “I would agree that your mind is closed to what others are saying. If you are actually interested in learning new things, let us know.”
Sure i would like to learn new things, however, i doubt you can teach me new things, because you are almost always wrong and in general, very confused. Of course, it is not only you in particular. Nothing personal…
Actually, it is the other way around, we engineers should teach you guys … it is true… i can’t do much about it… what is true is true… so simple is that… you biologists and other -logists can’t give lectures on how miniature, autonomous, self-navigating flying drones (flying insect) somehow self-designed with no help from engineers… because we have the 21st century now… to design an autonomous self-navigating flying drone of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI … even in 21st century…
There is no gap in our knowledge … We 21st engineers know what it takes… you biologists can’t say it happened somehow…you can’t show how, but you are 100% sure it happened by unguided natural process… and you are serious about such theory in 21st century…
I was wondering, why not to close all the technical universities around the World and send future engineers to study evolutionary biology in order to design autonomous cars, drones, submarines … ?
There’s a reason she did that. It was to prevent responses like this.
How is this not personal?
Sir, you are a Christian, speaking to an atheist. Is this how you would like to reflect your Lord to him? Please be gracious.
Perhaps it is cultural, if you’re German. But in America people don’t consider this polite or winsome.
Once you understand something, it is hard to unlearn, to remember what it’s like to not be able to grasp it. Try to look at this page and remember what it’s like not being able to read or not knowing any English. Try to stare at it blankly as if it’s a bunch of incomprehensible black and white. It’s virtually impossible to do. I know I can’t.
I admit, as a fellow layman, I can’t understand what it is about barcodes that you think is at odds with evolutionary theory. It all seems perfectly consonant to me. Same with the convergent evolution of wings. So if you want people to explain things to you, you’ll have to do a bit more to help us get our minds around what exactly you find challenging in this, because we’re not seeing it.
Truly respectfully,
AMW
3 Likes
Don’t worry, they know what is challenging…
Wolfe, you said you are a layman, and the evolution makes a perfect sense …
So Wolfe, why would plants lose the ability of photosynthesis… it happened not once, but multiple times, independently… can you imagine a cheaper source of energy than a photosynthesis? Does it make sense? Does it make sense you lose your eyes or you lose your wings? or even your lungs!!! Does it make sense ?
Get this:
Rapid convergent evolution:
“Male crickets on two Hawaiian islands recently lost song-producing wing structures”
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)00524-7
so, how that happened? The same mutations came twice at the same moment? By chance?
Evidently. Since the “loss” was selected for by environmental pressures. Do kiwis thrive just fine without wings? Yep, they sure do.
Unless this discussion actually starts heading in a direction, I’m going to close it too. Casting aspersions on all the people who work in a major field of biology is not gracious dialogue.
After reading this and the other thread, I don’t personally believe @martin_r that your questions are motivated by a genuine search for information, knowledge, or understanding. I think you view your questions as defeaters or points in a debate you are winning. They aren’t nearly as convincing or devastating as you imagine them to be, and if you aren’t really interested in answers, you are wasting people’s time.
4 Likes
yes, but it happened multiple times independently, on all continents… what are the odds?
wiki:
“Flightless birds are birds that through evolution lost the ability to fly. There are over 60 extant species including the well known ratites (ostrich, emu, cassowary, rhea and kiwi) and penguins. … Flightlessness has evolved in many different birds independently.”
again:
“Flightlessness has evolved in many different birds independently.” what are the odds?
tell me Christy, honestly, are you thinking to ban my account?
Christy, you should also read this:
“Evolution: Have Wings Come, Gone and Come Again?”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203003646
this stuff is not easy to believe… Christy, something is very wrong…
Christy, sure i look for answers… but i am being attacked again and again…
e.g. I put a simple question: why would plants loss their ability of photosynthesis, is there any cheaper source of energy? Nobody replied… could you? Sure i am looking for answers … give me at least some speculation … anything…
The odds are irrelevant. Convergent evolution is an observed phenomenon. My favorite example is bioluminescence.
2 Likes
I will keep that in mind when i look at those 200,000 ERVs insertions infecting the same place in genome …