The data is not conclusive on its own but does not bode well for common descent between the species listed in the flower.
Why doesn’t it bode well? Lineage specific adaptations is exactly what we would expect to see if common descent and evolution are true.
1 Like
I’m going to put this as objectively as possible.
You need to have a conversation with a scientist that does this kind of research. You don’t understand the vocabulary. You don’t understand the methods. You don’t understand the logic. And you don’t understand the conclusions.
If I was wrong about these things, scientists everywhere would be running around like mad men…
1 Like
Why would you expect the observed pattern from reproduction?
I would expect the observed pattern from vertical inheritance in combination with evolutionary mechanisms because adaptations can not move horizontally between branches. If an analogous adaptations occurs in two different branches then we would expect to see lineage specific sequences that are responsible for those analogous adaptations since that branch did not inherit those sequences from a distant branch. This is why we see things like different wings in birds and bats, because those adaptations evolved independently after the two lineages split.
1 Like
So your hypothesis is that new features evolve easily? By what mechanism?
I have no idea how easy it is to evolve lineage specific adaptations. What we do know is that the mechanisms of evolution in eukaryotes (e.g. random mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, speciation, and vertical inheritance) would produce a tree-like pattern for both shared and derived features. Lineage specific adaptations fit perfectly with this pattern, contrary to your claims.
1 Like
Based on the mechanisms you cite I would not expect a specific adaption to get repeated yet this is what we observe.
If they are lineage specific then they aren’t repeated.
1 Like
Eyes are repeated
Wings are repeated
Genes are repeated
Which eyes are repeated? The vertebrate eye is different from the cephalopod eye, and the insect eye is different yet again. Those are different adaptations in each lineage, so they aren’t repeated. The same applies to your other examples.
1 Like
The may be different eyes but they are still eyes appearing repeatably. There needs to be a mechanism that can easily make something as complex as an eye.
They are different adaptations for sight appearing in different lineages, and they follow a tree-like pattern. That is evidence for common ancestry and evolution.
Yes, there does. Your point?
1 Like
None of the listed mechanisms appear to be adequate to repeatably create an eye.
Based on what evidence?
1 Like
Based on the evidence that the genome is a storage of sequential information and the mechanisms have random front ends. The eye it’s sockets the muscles that control it and the brain that processes the information are dependent on proper sequences to build them. How in the world can you claim a process driven by a random front end found an eye multiple times given it is mutating a sequence?
How can you claim that these processes can not produce an eye? Do you have something other than personal incredulity?
1 Like
Its not personal incredulity at all. It’s the number of ways to arrange a sequence that is the problem. One arrangement needs to build an eye one needs to build a heart one needs to build muscles. They are all different and they live in almost infinite mathematical space. The idea that one eye came from a process that has a random front end is unbelievable yet you claim multiple eye types came from this process.
How is this a problem?
That’s an argument from personal incredulity.
1 Like
It’s an argument for the observation the genome and proteins they code for are arranged in a sequence.
Where did the sequence that builds an eye and its surrounding structure come from?