Convergent evolution: tenrecs and hedgehogs

A few things to note:

1. Tenrecs are a moderately diverse and highly disparate family of 30+ species, only a few of which look like hedgehogs. Others look like shrews, rodents, or otters. (That last bunch lives in mainland Africa.) So "the tenrec" is a bit of a misnomer.

2. They belong to the major clade Afrotheria, and so are related to elephants, manatees, hyraxes, and such. Which is way cool.

As long as they don't make nervous yappy hedgehogs, they can do anything they want with them.

Glen Davidson

Where did the new information for those ears come from? 111 11! :)

As a hedgehog owner I approve of this post. Their reflexes are amazing, truly masters of self-defense. Haven't seen a Tenrec in person but I know from video they have similar (but somewhat different) behavioral adaptations in terms of how they use their quills and sudden loud huffing to scare off predators. They're an excellent example of convergent evolution!

I do not accept there is any such thing as convergent evolution. I insist marsupials are just pouchy placentals and many others in the fossil record.
i did once try to read up on MAD tenrecs because i thought it would add evidence to my case. hOwever I couldn't access info.
I suspect they are the same creatures as who they are convergent with and the TENREC details are from simply mutual adaptation upon migration back in the day.
The genes only being a manifestation of the change.
The traits that are used to group their classification are the point here. Rather then the few points of tenrecism why not first group by major morphology.
anyways I can't study them as info is too limited.

Robert Byers said: I do not accept there is any such thing as convergent evolution.

Does anyone know of a book or a sufficiently-detailed article that explains the patterns of convergent evolution in a non-hand-wavy manner? I'm really interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead different lineages to converge on very similar morphological (or molecular) features. Thanks in advance.

Tenrecs at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Own work

Rhazes said: Does anyone know of a book or a sufficiently-detailed article that explains the patterns of convergent evolution in a non-hand-wavy manner? I'm really interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead different lineages to converge on very similar morphological (or molecular) features. Thanks in advance.

hemm. interesting topic.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Tenrecs at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Own work

Well they look a little stiff, you know. Glen Davidson

John Harshman said: A few things to note: 1. Tenrecs are a moderately diverse and highly disparate family of 30+ species, only a few of which look like hedgehogs. Others look like shrews, rodents, or otters. (That last bunch lives in mainland Africa.) So "the tenrec" is a bit of a misnomer. 2. They belong to the major clade Afrotheria, and so are related to elephants, manatees, hyraxes, and such. Which is way cool.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Rhazes said: Does anyone know of a book or a sufficiently-detailed article that explains the patterns of convergent evolution in a non-hand-wavy manner? I'm really interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead different lineages to converge on very similar morphological (or molecular) features. Thanks in advance.

Sean Carroll, "The Making of the Fittest" gives simple mathematical examples, using melanism as a test case. That is good for the mechanism of CE. I also recommemd googling Kevin Padian's testimony at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, which is online with slide images, and focuses on convergent evolution in anatomical detail, particularly marsupials. But that refutes creo falsehoods about convergent evolution; it is not focused on the mechanism.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: As long as they don't make nervous yappy hedgehogs, they can do anything they want with them. Glen Davidson

I think creationists have a vested interest in representing convergence as being total. All characters converge, giving a misleading conclusion as to the affinities of the organism. In reality convergence is on suites of characters, especially external characters. A more detailed examination of the morphology shows that many characters remain divergent, and even the convergences are achieved by means that differ in detail. And the molecular sequences show the affinities clearly, even when external morphology looks similar.

So, for example a flying squirrel and a "sugar glider" look somewhat similar and "fly" in quite similar ways, but there is no mistaking that one is a placental mammal and the other a marsupial.

Joe Felsenstein said: I think creationists have a vested interest in representing convergence as being total. All characters converge, giving a misleading conclusion as to the affinities of the organism. In reality convergence is on suites of characters, especially external characters. A more detailed examination of the morphology shows that many characters remain divergent, and even the convergences are achieved by means that differ in detail. And the molecular sequences show the affinities clearly, even when external morphology looks similar. So, for example a flying squirrel and a "sugar glider" look somewhat similar and "fly" in quite similar ways, but there is no mistaking that one is a placental mammal and the other a marsupial.

Joe, I presume your aim was not to educate Byers, which as we can see is impossible, but to point out his fundamental error to others, which you have done.

Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

Robert Byers said: if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man?

John Harshman said: Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

Robert Byers said: if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man?

Nope, there's never any point in actually responding to him. It's even dubious that it's worth pointing out his semiliteracy and incoherence. Those, at least, should be readily apparent to anyone who takes the pains necessary to read him.

Because here's the thing: if you really can't see on first reading how illiterate and incoherent Byers is, and how plainly false to fact his assertions are, you're a lost cause anyway.

Dave Luckett said: his semiliteracy and incoherence.

What I find to be occasionally interesting is that Byers will actually make some factual claims. Unlike FL, he seldom, if ever, relies on Bible verses to make his point, other than in the most general ways (e.g. there was a great flood). The amusing part is to try to lead him around by his "logic". You might be able to get him to commit to one or two steps of logic, and then, *poof*: "Well I believe this absurd thing, which proves my point". Such as, "marsupials are just placentals with a few minor differences, proving that evolution doesn't exist."

Heck, humans are just fish, with a few minor differences.

John Harshman said: Joe, I presume your aim was not to educate Byers, which as we can see is impossible, but to point out his fundamental error to others, which you have done. Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

Someone's probably already asked this, but is our Beyers related Ezra Beyer, i.e. this nutjob?

The style, not to mention the striking ability to disregard reality, seems very similar.

stevaroni said: Someone's probably already asked this, but is our Beyers related Ezra Beyer, i.e. this nutjob? The style, not to mention the striking ability to disregard reality, seems very similar.

John Harshman said: Joe, I presume your aim was not to educate Byers, which as we can see is impossible, but to point out his fundamental error to others, which you have done. Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

Dave Luckett said: Nope, there's never any point in actually responding to him.

Because here's the thing: if you really can't see on first reading how illiterate and incoherent Byers is, and how plainly false to fact his assertions are, you're a lost cause anyway.

beatgroover said:

Robert Byers said: if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man?

Convergence isn't uniformly likely between just any species in a similar environment. You'll reject this premise out of hand but I'd say it's contingent based on shared genetic history. Both have quills that are modified hairs (perhaps even caused by a similar gene that they share from back when their ancestral populations split) but the actual patterning of the quills is different. Hedgehogs have two large strips of quills overlapping going down their backs with a naked ridge in the middle, pulled up by two large bands of muscle along the sides of the back. The lowland streaked tenrec's quills are arranged totally haphazardly. Look at this picture of one. The quills look mangy and random, not neat and patterned as you see in hedgehogs http://www.rockjumperbirding.com/wp-content/gallery/gallery-tours-essential-madagascar-birding/lowland-streaked-tenrec-by-jonathan-rossouw.jpg Clearly god wanted this tenrec to look ugly but the hedgehog to look well groomed. Does the bible tell us anything about why he might have done that? Why would the fall of man (most sharp objects in nature seem to be caused by that according to your camp, Bob) give one creature neat quills and another one mangy quills? I would love to see some genomic comparisons between all tenrec species and hedgehog species, that might reveal a little more useful information about their relationship than entertaining pseudo-YEC speculation. Doubt you'll get grant money for something like that though :-(

Robert Byers said: I am mini-Ham.

Reading between the glitches - always required, when reading Byers - I think his posts to this thread more or less say that he believes in divergent hyperevolution, but not convergent evolution.

That is, he believes that species can radiate from common ancestors fast enough to produce koalas and grizzly bears from one pair of common ancestors within five thousand years. But he doesn't accept that it could happen in, say, sixty or seventy million years, nor could convergent evolution - the converse - ever happen at all.

Naturally, the proposition that this is internally inconsistent in at least two different ways cannot occur to Byers. That's because Byers is a loony.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: I am mini-Ham.

You're a micro-Ham, Byers.

stevaroni said: Wow. Considering the underwhelming intellect of the original Ham, it's hard to contemplate a mere fraction thereof.

This is a bit interesting. Though the evidence for Afrotheria is mostly molecular, there are some morphological synapomorphies, which I have taken from papers referenced by Wikipedia: 1) 8 lumbar vertebrae; 2) a four-lobed allantois (and there are other characters of the placenta shared by Afrotheria and Xenarthra); 3) large hypoconid on premolar 4; 4) presence of a protocone on premolar 3; 5) metacone present on premolar 4; 6) blood vessels in the vomeronasal organ scattered; 6) internal carotid lateral to the cochlear portion of the otic capsule; and 7) late eruption of permanent teeth.

These characters are all quite trivial and only distantly related to adaptive functions, if at all. In others words, they are just the sorts of characters that can be explained by common descent, not common design.

You guys are arguing with someone who doesn't even know if whales are fish! COme on man, do you really expect this guy to understand anything? This is the guy who claimed that genetics was "atomic and unproven" remember? He isn't going to accept any molecular evidence of anything. And he isn't going to understand the logic of parsimony either. And even if he somehow did, he would never admit it. He is indeed a micro ham, one who completely unwilling to change their opinion, regardless of the evidence. The fact that he even tries to discuss any evidence shows him to be a hypocrite of the highest order. Just keep hamming it up byers, i find it hilarious.

John Harshman said: This is a bit interesting. Though the evidence for Afrotheria is mostly molecular, there are some morphological synapomorphies, which I have taken from papers referenced by Wikipedia: 1) 8 lumbar vertebrae; 2) a four-lobed allantois (and there are other characters of the placenta shared by Afrotheria and Xenarthra); 3) large hypoconid on premolar 4; 4) presence of a protocone on premolar 3; 5) metacone present on premolar 4; 6) blood vessels in the vomeronasal organ scattered; 6) internal carotid lateral to the cochlear portion of the otic capsule; and 7) late eruption of permanent teeth. These characters are all quite trivial and only distantly related to adaptive functions, if at all. In others words, they are just the sorts of characters that can be explained by common descent, not common design.

Robert Byers said:

John Harshman said: This is a bit interesting. Though the evidence for Afrotheria is mostly molecular, there are some morphological synapomorphies, which I have taken from papers referenced by Wikipedia: 1) 8 lumbar vertebrae; 2) a four-lobed allantois (and there are other characters of the placenta shared by Afrotheria and Xenarthra); 3) large hypoconid on premolar 4; 4) presence of a protocone on premolar 3; 5) metacone present on premolar 4; 6) blood vessels in the vomeronasal organ scattered; 6) internal carotid lateral to the cochlear portion of the otic capsule; and 7) late eruption of permanent teeth. These characters are all quite trivial and only distantly related to adaptive functions, if at all. In others words, they are just the sorts of characters that can be explained by common descent, not common design.

If its mostly molecular its mostly unrelated to morphological evidence for biological relationship. DNA is not evidence but only a line of reasoning its evidence. Your list is about teeth or very trivial details easily explained upon mutual migration with mutual response to needs or influence. The placenta? No surprise to me there. if your willing to group these creatures because of these few and minor traits then its reasonable to group each one of them with the hundreds or thousands of traits that conspire to make them look like others on the mainland. The reason they are said to be convergent is the great sameness of anatomy. This requires hundreds etc of twists and turns to bring such visual likeness. I have to rely on your info but it seems you make my case, to me, that these creatures are actually just like the marsupials. Creatures who adapted a few like traits upon migration but are actually related to their cousins elsewhere. Tenrecs is a classification problem, it seems, like the marsupials.

Robert Byers said: DNA is not evidence but only a line of reasoning its evidence.

Told you he wouldn't get it. Anything booby doesn't like is "just a line of reasoning". Too bad he doesn't apply that "line of reasoning" to his own nonsense. He's just another micro ham that needs to be smoked in a very tiny smoke house.

Ermm... "Smoking" may be one source of his problems.

Robert Byers said: The placenta? No surprise to me there.

Years ago, I operated a Markov chain travesty robot on a forum involving email spam, feeding the spammers' own spewage back at them in amusingly varied text constructions. At one point, to the delight of nearly all, one particular spammer engaged the robot in a debate ... and lost.

Looking at the bulk of Byers's ... uh ... contributions, I am having trouble distinguishing his effluvia from that of a Markov chain travesty robot operated by a poe. In fact, having run his stuff through my own robot, I get output that closely resembles his ... uh ... contributions. Does art imitate nature, or does nature imitate art?

Hmm.

-s-

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: DNA is not evidence but only a line of reasoning its evidence.

Federal, state, and local courts disagree with you. All judges, *all* judges disagree with you.

Well I guess I won the thread! No takers.
The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.
Even the thread author is quiet.
No one proved me wrong or close.
What's my prize? A tenrec.
OK but a cute one with its shots!!

Robert Byers said: Well I guess I won the thread! No takers. The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence. Even the thread author is quiet. No one proved me wrong or close. What's my prize? A tenrec. OK but a cute one with its shots!!

Robert Byers said: Well I guess I won the thread! No takers. The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence. Even the thread author is quiet. No one proved me wrong or close. What's my prize? A tenrec. OK but a cute one with its shots!!

Robert Byers said: The minute we creationists get down (to) facts there is the great silence.

Dave Luckett said: Big fleas have little fleas/On their backs to bite 'em/And little fleas have smaller fleas/And so ad infinitum.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: DNA is not evidence but only a line of reasoning its evidence.

Federal, state, and local courts disagree with you. All judges, *all* judges disagree with you.

Its off thread. i found this interesting. Its a good point of contact. I never studied Tenrecs but heard about them. Other posters listed their traits that are the ones that define them as a group. BANG. The traits were trivial and its seeming indeed once again they are just the same creatures as on the mainland with trivial adaptations.

The greater number of traits that justify them as convergent critters are in fact how they should be defined. tHey are just another example of a segregated area, like australia, where migrating creatures were slightly modified by like influences. They are just otters, shrews, hedgehogs, etc.

Judges using DNA is just for humans. Its just a line of reasoning to use DNA to extrapolate backwards beyond a kind threshold.

There is no scientific genetic evidence for DNA as evidence for common decent. Why do think there is? anyways off thread.

Classification should first and largely be dominated by morphology.

I did that here. The evolutionists here did not as I see it.

I think I'm winning my litlle debate here just as ham won the big one. So, like in the Myers movie, I thought it cute to call myself mini-Ham. Get it !

The courts certainly don't just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date.

I'm quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it's been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

I saw a forensic case where the killer had committed a crime under a locust tree. They found the seed pods in the back of his pickup truck and they confirmed that they had come from that particular tree using DNA. He was convicted based on that and other forensic evidence.

But then again, I use DNA every day in order to study invasive species and wildlife management and climate change. booby can crow all he wants to about things he is completely ignorant of, but he can't fool anybody who knows anything at all.

AltairIV said: The courts certainly don't just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date. I'm quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it's been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

Robert Byers said:

AltairIV said: The courts certainly don't just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date. I'm quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it's been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

Unrelated to this subject. I insist DNA is not genetic scientific evidence for common descent. Even if it was all true. its just a extrapolation backwards from present reality. its just lines of reasoning. Its not science. Evolutionists do have a intellectual optical illusion about how data results in relationship to other data results proves connections. How many hundreds of evolutionist supporters have told me my DNA sameness with my dad is SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF for man being related with primates. Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning. A common blueprint would predict the same thing and so dissolve the reasoning and leave bare any claims to evidence. Yet this means its not science but mere logic based on presumptions. Whoops! Where is my TENREC prize??

Robert Byers said:

AltairIV said: The courts certainly don't just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date. I'm quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it's been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

Unrelated to this subject. I insist DNA is not genetic scientific evidence for common descent.

Even if it was all true. its just a extrapolation backwards from present reality. its just lines of reasoning. Its not science.

Evolutionists do have a intellectual optical illusion about how data results in relationship to other data results proves connections.

How many hundreds of evolutionist supporters have told me my DNA sameness with my dad is SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF for man being related with primates.

Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning.

A common blueprint would predict the same thing and so dissolve the reasoning and leave bare any claims to evidence.

Yet this means its not science but mere logic based on presumptions. Whoops! Where is my TENREC prize??

Related to this subject.
I insist DNA is genetic scientific evidence for common descent. Since it was all true.
its not just a extrapolation backwards from present reality. its more than just lines of reasoning. Its science.
Evolutionary biologists do have a intellectual knowledge about how data results in relationship to other data results proves connections.
Hundreds of evolutionary biologists have told you that your DNA sameness with your dad is SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF for you being related to your dad and to primates.
Its proof. its not just a line of reasoning.
A common blueprint would not predict the same thing and so would not dissolve the reasoning and not leave bare any claims to evidence.
Yet this means its science and logic based not only on presumptions.

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint would predict the same thing and so dissolve the reasoning and leave bare any claims to evidence.

Robert Byers said: its just lines of reasoning. Its not science. … Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning.

(And yes, apologies to any field scientists out there. The stamp-collecting part of science is crucial to the endeavor. While an individual scientist (eg. Mendel) may do no more than "collect data", that person is still "doing" science and is still part of the scientific process as a whole.)

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

AltairIV said: The courts certainly don't just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date. I'm quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it's been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

Unrelated to this subject. I insist DNA is not genetic scientific evidence for common descent.

Those of us in reality land know that it is - so OF COURSE you 'insist' that it isn't (since you lack the intellect and honesty to accept it, and have no valid alternative model).

Even if it was all true. its just a extrapolation backwards from present reality. its just lines of reasoning. Its not science.

Actually, it IS science, given the extrapolations produce TESTABLE ideas (unlike your 'alternative' of gibbering Magical Skymanism). Initiating standard Byers blubbering :

Evolutionists do have a intellectual optical illusion about how data results in relationship to other data results proves connections.

It is not an illusion - comparison of DNA sequences show that chimps are more closely related to humans than other primates (and primates are closer to humans than other critters). Charting out who is most closely related to whom keep giving THE SAME TREE. A highly unlikely result if there was no common descent. Sane and rational people use those OBSERVED characteristics to generate phylogenies. Common descent is the best explanation for the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness.

How many hundreds of evolutionist supporters have told me my DNA sameness with my dad is SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF for man being related with primates.

It demonstrates that DNA is inherited, and that patterns of relatedness is best explained by common descent. Again, twit : chimps are more closely related to humans than any of the other primates. Primates are more closely related to each other than to other mammals, etc. Different genes give more or less the same pattern of relatedness. Common descent explains the pattern, given the FACT that DNA is the molecule of inheritance.

Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning.

A valid, well-tested line of reasoning well supported by decades of real world work. What, PRECISELY, would a willfully ignorant, blubbering god-botherer like you consider evidence for common descent ? Initiating standard creationut evasion :

A common blueprint would predict the same thing and so dissolve the reasoning and leave bare any claims to evidence.

RiiiIIiiIIight ! Got something besides your ignorant posturing to back that claim up ? Descent with modification explains the OBSERVED PATTERNS of relatedness seen in living things. Humans have damaged egg yolk proteins, YET DON'T LAY EGGS. Common descent explains their presence in the human genome (our distant ancestors laid eggs and had genes to make those proteins, but as time went on, genomes were modified and the yolk proteins weren't used, and thus free to accumulate changes); how does gibbering Magical Skymanism explain it ?

Yet this means its not science but mere logic based on presumptions. Whoops! Where is my TENREC prize??

And those 'presumptions' have been demonstrated valid many times over; in fact, you'd have to be either incredibly ignorant or willfully stupid to pretend they can be brushed aside merely because they show that REALITY does not conform to your silly interpretations of ancient super hero stories. Common descent explains the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness in living things better and more rationally than the 'alternatives' vomited up by ignoramuses - whose 'understanding' of real world biology is limited to standing back ten feet and looking.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: its just lines of reasoning. Its not science. … Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning.

Robert, do you even know what a "proof" actually is? Have you ever personally performed a mathematical "proof" in your life? A geometric "proof", perhaps? The only human endeavor that I'm aware of in which a "proof" is actually (even theoretically) possible is in mathematics. (And, by extension, perhaps theoretical physics, but my mathematical capabilities do not extend that far.) In math, a "proof" is composed entirely of a "line of reasoning", as you put it. "A line of reasoning" is what a "proof" is. And what do you think "science" is? In essence, Science consists primarily of three things: 1) Collect data; 2) Reason about the data that has been collected (that is, you "think" about the data you've collected); 3) Repeat. If you only do step #1, and never do #2 and #3, then you aren't doing "science". Why do you feel that "reasoning" is such a terrible, awful thing? Why do you believe that "thinking" is such an awful thing? You always use the word "reasoning" as a put down, or use the word "reasoning" to belittle something. You use the word "science" as a good thing. Yet, the two words "reasoning" and "science" are synonymous.

Robert Byers said: The backward tracking is not evidence for your conclusion I insist.

Robert Byers said: i'm not against reasoning BUT am against reasoning being claimed as scientific evidence. A creationist can not kill a EVIDENCE for evolution said to be based on science IF its just reasoning. Reasoning, logic, extrapolation is NOT scientific evidence for genetic claims of common descent. Show me why i'm wrong? You show me with your posts you persuade yourself DNA is a trail of evolution JUST because you see like DNA in all of biology. YET it would be this way from a creator with basic common blueprint for biology.! Anyways the creator option shows your side has no evidence but oNL:Y as it where, as you see it, CORNERED THE MARKET on why biology has such like DNA and why very like looking creatures like man/ape have like DNA. Its not scientific evidence AT ALL. NONE!!! Its just extrapolation backwards. Its just saying one must only do this. NO. One has another option. By the way DARWIN mentioned this and quickly ran from it but it occured to him.

Without the assimilation of backing evidence, insistence is futile.

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

AltairIV said: The courts certainly don't just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date. I'm quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it's been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

Unrelated to this subject. I insist DNA is not genetic scientific evidence for common descent.

Those of us in reality land know that it is - so OF COURSE you 'insist' that it isn't (since you lack the intellect and honesty to accept it, and have no valid alternative model).

Even if it was all true. its just a extrapolation backwards from present reality. its just lines of reasoning. Its not science.

Actually, it IS science, given the extrapolations produce TESTABLE ideas (unlike your 'alternative' of gibbering Magical Skymanism). Initiating standard Byers blubbering :

Evolutionists do have a intellectual optical illusion about how data results in relationship to other data results proves connections.

It is not an illusion - comparison of DNA sequences show that chimps are more closely related to humans than other primates (and primates are closer to humans than other critters). Charting out who is most closely related to whom keep giving THE SAME TREE. A highly unlikely result if there was no common descent. Sane and rational people use those OBSERVED characteristics to generate phylogenies. Common descent is the best explanation for the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness.

How many hundreds of evolutionist supporters have told me my DNA sameness with my dad is SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF for man being related with primates.

It demonstrates that DNA is inherited, and that patterns of relatedness is best explained by common descent. Again, twit : chimps are more closely related to humans than any of the other primates. Primates are more closely related to each other than to other mammals, etc. Different genes give more or less the same pattern of relatedness. Common descent explains the pattern, given the FACT that DNA is the molecule of inheritance.

Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning.

A valid, well-tested line of reasoning well supported by decades of real world work. What, PRECISELY, would a willfully ignorant, blubbering god-botherer like you consider evidence for common descent ? Initiating standard creationut evasion :

A common blueprint would predict the same thing and so dissolve the reasoning and leave bare any claims to evidence.

RiiiIIiiIIight ! Got something besides your ignorant posturing to back that claim up ? Descent with modification explains the OBSERVED PATTERNS of relatedness seen in living things. Humans have damaged egg yolk proteins, YET DON'T LAY EGGS. Common descent explains their presence in the human genome (our distant ancestors laid eggs and had genes to make those proteins, but as time went on, genomes were modified and the yolk proteins weren't used, and thus free to accumulate changes); how does gibbering Magical Skymanism explain it ?

Yet this means its not science but mere logic based on presumptions. Whoops! Where is my TENREC prize??

And those 'presumptions' have been demonstrated valid many times over; in fact, you'd have to be either incredibly ignorant or willfully stupid to pretend they can be brushed aside merely because they show that REALITY does not conform to your silly interpretations of ancient super hero stories. Common descent explains the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness in living things better and more rationally than the 'alternatives' vomited up by ignoramuses - whose 'understanding' of real world biology is limited to standing back ten feet and looking.

All you said here is to repeat like DNA equals like common descent. Even if true it would still only be a extrapolation. Your not testing the extrapolating but only extrapolating. The backward tracking is not evidence for your conclusion I insist. its just logic from a presumption.

REPLACE the presumption and there is no evidence THEREFORE its not evidence to begin with it. Its just reasoning from a present data source.

IT ALSO would be that primate dNA looks like ours if there was a creator who separately created kinds but upon a single atomic model.

All creatures likewise. Eyes have a common atomic warehouse number. so likle dNA on that point but not evidence for a common descent.

I'm not right now insisting on the common design but only making a logical point that DNA trees are just from reasoning backwards and not from actual scientific evidence.

Its a optical intellectual illusion. It really is.

Any tree you show me can be explained by a common blueprint at a atomic level.

Humans DNA trail is only a special case.

You don't persuade me why I'm wrong here even with the twit comments!!

PA Poland said: You don't know anything about biology, yet you PRESUME your opinions are relevant ?

Robert Byers said: The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you). - - - - - - - - - In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the "designer" that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job??? Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your "designer" like pigs more than humans??? Does your "designer" like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your "designer" leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it??? Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don't think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Byers is like a parasite, all he can do is encyst.

Speaking of great silence, what about it booby? I see you still have not answered my questions, or any others. why is that booby?

All right, here is an easier one for you. If your DNA comes from your parents, how many generations back do you have to go until until you find one of your ancestors who didn't give you any of their dNa? Cause that's basically what your claimin booby boy. now you would't want to use just a line of reasonin would you booby? u would wanna have some evidences right? u wouldn't want just great silence instead of answerin would ya? that's what i thought oh king of great silence

P/A. Poland. We're getting off thread here but it seems okay(Don't blame me anyone)
Your just repeating the evidence for common descent from genetics IS from DNA looking alike in like creatures.
This is a logical fallacy.
A common design would do likewise. YES eyes look the same in most creatures BUT its from a like creator with a single programme that is good enough. Why should gOD make every creatures eye different from the others to prove separate creation?? He doesn't do that in physics.

You give no answer here as to why gentic likeness is scientific evidence for common descent.
The Tenrecs would have like genes for the like changes upon migration. Yet its not a sign of being related to each other. one must prove that.
Its perfectly predictable that a creator would use a common programme for biology and so everything has a atomic parts number from the warehouse.
Extrapolation backwards is not scientific evidence for common descent EVEN IT WAS TRUE. It is just a line of reasoning that then confirms irself on the same reasoning.
I expect common DNA for common traits at every level of biology.
We have common DNA with apes because we look like them Yet its not scientific evidence of being related EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE.
its just a hunch.
A counter hunch is we have like DNA because of like parts from a creator who gave us a like body as it was the best one in the spectrum of biology which we must live in but are not a part of. We are made in Gods image and can't have a body showing our true identity.
Anyways.
DNA is not scientific genetic evidence for common descent. Its just a line of reasoning.
Saying it is evidence is a fallacy of logical thinking.
Evolutionists make a blunder on these points.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you). - - - - - - - - - In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the "designer" that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job??? Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your "designer" like pigs more than humans??? Does your "designer" like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your "designer" leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it??? Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don't think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you). - - - - - - - - - In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the "designer" that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job??? Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your "designer" like pigs more than humans??? Does your "designer" like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your "designer" leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it??? Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don't think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Off thread but simply we have like DNA results for like causes. Theres no reason to see these mutations as evidence of common descent. Its just a line of reasoning anyways but anyways it need just be seen as reactions to old problems. I would expect it. Remember after the fall everything changed in biology. Death came.

So you really don't want to answer my questions do you booby? Why is that? You can blubber all you want, but your ignorance is not going to convince anyone.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you). - - - - - - - - - In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the "designer" that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job??? Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your "designer" like pigs more than humans??? Does your "designer" like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your "designer" leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it??? Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don't think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Off thread but simply we have like DNA results for like causes. Theres no reason to see these mutations as evidence of common descent. Its just a line of reasoning anyways but anyways it need just be seen as reactions to old problems. I would expect it. Remember after the fall everything changed in biology. Death came.