[quote=“dcscccc, post:17, topic:4405”]
ok. so if for example fish was similar to human then chimp (from dna prespective) then you need to believe in this case that fish are closer to human then chimp from phylogenetic prespective? i doubt on it.[/quote]
You are appealing to magical, hypothetical evidence that does not exist. How are we supposed to make progress in our discussion?
The distance from fish to human DNA is far, far greater than the distance from chimp to human DNA. If you can find any published evidence to the contrary, please let us know so we consider it carefully.
Convergent loss does not begin to address the GULO gene evidence for evolution. The way the gene is disabled varies among species:
- The human GULO gene remnant is very much different from the guinea pig GULO remnant.
- It is closer to monkey GULO remnants.
- It is even closer to the chimp remnant.
You assert that the YEC/ID creationist theories predict that the GULO gene would be disabled in a variety of species that are subject to similar natural selection pressures. However, your assertion does not address the subject of discussion. Not even close.
Dr Ex-YEC, argon, and I have been talking about the fact that there are millions of different ways to disable the GULO gene by random mutations. If chimps and humans are not related phylogenetically, there are astronomical odds against chimps and humans having the same set of disabling changes–given that there are so many millions of different sets of disabling changes.
Does that make sense?
Unlike YEC and ID creationism, evolutionary creationism predicts that the GULO remnants should become more dissimilar as phylogenetic distance increases. Which is what we observe in the DNA evidence.
From the beginning of this discussion, my dear friend dcscccc, you have not given any evidence of recognizing what is being argued by evolutionary creationists, and how it relates to the DNA evidence. I have tried to explain this as clearly as possible in this post. But a far better explanation and detailed discussion can be found in this video by Stephen Schaffner of the MIT/Harvard Broad Institute. He has a Ph.D. in particle physics from Yale University, and specializes in the genetics of natural selection. He also shows up in the BL discussion forums from time to time under the moniker “glipsnort.”
Please, go and view that video and think about the evidence he presents.
We would expect, in a stochastic process that takes place over hundreds of millions of generations, that the shape of a proximity estimator across a large set of predictors would vary. In other words, the rate of variation is not constant across all genetic regions. Therefore, the generalized situation you describe does not pose any difficulties to the theory of evolution.