Not a single known example exists of independent convergence to an identical protein sequence from different positions in sequence space, in over 200 million known protein sequences.
The example you give is the strongest known case of molecular convergence in protein sequences, and consists of something like 7 amino acids out of hundreds converging from a very similar ancestral sequence (which was already similar to begin with because it was inherited as identical from a common ancestor).
I’m having a hard time seeing how that is consistent with “Common Designer.” When someone is designing a car or whatever, do they make sure that they don’t use a single molecule that was used in another car?
so if evolution is true, what we should never find in terms of convergence?
in human terms, its indeed infinite. think about that: we basically have huge number of possible ways to made a living creature. thus, its seems to be unlikely to get a similar creature by convergent evolution.
depends on the assumption. if we assume that common design is true than almost every protein is the result of convergence (design).
In human terms it’s not infinite, because of the meaning of “infinite”. Huge numbers are by definition not infinite.
Design is not convergence. If we assume common design is true, that leaves us wanting a reason why there is so much variation in proteins and genomes, and especially why there is variation with no apparent effect that matches hierarchical descent.
Yes you can assume that life was designed to look like common descent is true, that’s true. With that assumption, all positions in proteins that are similar are so because they were created to be similar, and all positions in proteins that are different are so because they were created to be different, and these were all deliberately placed to result in consilient phylogenetic trees as one would expect if common descent was true.
However, given that this is a totally meaningless rationalization that generates exactly the same evidence as that predicted from common descent, it’s a rather poor design hypothesis, and one wonders why you don’t just conclude common descent, instead of designed-to-look-like-common-descent. But hey, we’ve only been over this like a hundred times these last 3 years.
Exactly. And the OP laid the basis for deciding. On that basis, common descent is the clear winner.
Common descent by itself does not, of course, explain molecular innovation, but common descent with modification (which is the actual model in question) does. Either way, it’s a ridiculous question.
Is a convergent amino acid substitution a “molecular innovation” to you?
Common descent explains why there is a tree in the data, our knowledge of molecular evolution (that given long enough sequences and enough mutations, the same mutations will happen in parallel just by chance some times) explains why there some times occur convergent amino acid substitutions.
So why does “common design” predict that shared similar protein sequences from different species should suffer convergent amino acid substitutions roughly at the rate expected from chance?
Birds, insects, herbivore mammals, carnivorous mammals, sea mammals, fish, creepy crawling animals, and humans are all species that have been separately constructed.
Everything else would be kinds within a species.
Again, this model would also expect nested hierarchies within kinds, but these hierarchies would be independent (unrelated organisms) where each stems from an organism created by fiat and filled out through secondary cause-and-effect reproduction. However, this means that created phyla, family, etc. within a kinds, such as family, phyla, etc. would need to be determined through observations and comparisons.
How do we determined this?
Finding function within vestigial features and/or looking for different environments that might show how a functional feature is fully optimized in comparison to another similarly constructed organism.
For example, the placement of an optic nerve in the human eye has been argued to be flawed when compared to that in the octopus eye because it results in a minor blind spot in our visual field, which does not occur in the octopus eye. However, the different placement of the optic nerve in humans versus cephalopods is actually because of the need for a larger supply of high-acuity vision in warm-blooded animals.
I am not sure I completely follow you here. What do you mean by “forcing” convergence?
We don’t have any proof that random mutations can produce the same potent changes that the only additive mutations assumption has produce.
No, I did reference them numerous times. I specifically said, “As Fuz Rana suggested,”
I know. I never said that the study itself suggested that the design was previously considered “bad”. Also, I actually did copy and pasted what you showed me was the more accurate quotation on that study.
Ah. Well, you fail right there, then. These are nonsense categories with regard to descent, with sea mammals having multiple origins and having their closest affinities to different groups depending upon the particular sea mammal, for example. Carnivorous and herbivorous lifestyles are all over the map with regard to descent – there’s nothing remotely like a clade of the carnivores or of the herbivores (I will note that while “Carnivora” is a clade, and includes a great many carnivorous animals, it also includes herbivorous members, e.g., the Great Panda, and excludes other carnivorous animals).
And I regret to inform you that “creepy crawling animals” may not be a proper phylogenetic classification.
Meanwhile, “fish,” if the term is used to refer to a proper clade, actually includes all of your birds, mammals and (gasp! yes!) the particular mammals called “humans,” and even the non-avian reptiles which you either left out or meant to be in with the nematodes and such-like in the “creepy crawling” category. If it’s not used that way, it’s paraphyletic because no clade can include the bony and cartilaginous fish without also including the tetrapods.
All of that is well documented and beyond plausible dispute. I’d recommend that you go and find a good book on actual biology – maybe something like the college textbook on Vertebrate Life by Christine Janis et al., which would help you better understand the evidence for common descent.
FYI, I am using the Genesis account’s definition of species and kinds NOT the secular mainstream classifications of animal and human species because we are dealing with a common design model, which is mutually exclusive from common descent. So everything you just said was irrelevant to this topic. I am providing something new and potentially useful.
No, you’re providing something completely at odds with known reality. These aren’t merely the “secular mainstream classifications” of animals – they are the known pattern of descent of animals. When you acknowledge that these facts cannot be accommodated by your speculations, well, so much for your speculations: you may as well quit because there’s nothing to be gained.
NO, you don’t know what I mean by herbivore mammals, carnivorous mammals, sea mammals, fish, creepy crawling animals, and humans because the Genesis account defines them differently. You are going off a Universal common descent model and imposing it onto the common design model. Ultimately, we have to determine what truly is a “carnivorous” mammal versus a “herbivore” mammal through observations and comparisons under a common design model.
My list was just a starting point to help guide further testing.
You obviously are not just using the Genesis account, because it doesn’t mention mammals or insects, and doesn’t separate insects from other creepy-crawlies or sea mammals from fish.
Those separations come from mainstream classifications.
You did not. The word “suggested” does not previously appear in this thread.
You did say “According to Fuz Rana” and mark some of his words from a different source as a quote, but the paragraph you plagiarised was not marked as a quote, not referenced, and not in that part of your post.
You passed Rana /Ross’s words off as your own, and are now trying to pretend you didn’t. Honest you aren’t.
Not that it matters. No-one will take you seriously after this:
The only reason anyone might read further would be for entertainment. They’d not be disappointed.
Makes no sense. Only the last is a species. You are making up your own definitions for terms and it’s therefore almost impossible to determine what you mean. “Kind”, also, has a clear definition in creationism, and you invent your own for that too.
But do you mean that a single population of birds was originally created, and all birds are descended from that single population? That a single population of invertebrates was created and that all invertebrates are descended from that single population?
And if humans were separately created, why do they fit into the nested hierarchy of primates?
When you say “kinds” what do you mean? You have previously stated that there are multiple kinds within a species, and that a species is the created unit such that, e.g., all birds are one species. Should we not then expect a single nested hierarchy for all birds?
Now you say there are created units within kinds. But kinds are, according to you, evolved units within species, and species are the created units. So you have created units within evolved units within created units. Can you see how this is impossible to understand and seems incoherent?
What would that show, and how would it help to determine separate, created units?
I mean God producing mutations within evolving populations that carry them in particular directions, and producing mutations of similar effect in disparate populations.
I wasn’t talking about random mutations.
So why is there a single nested hierarchy of mammals, when according to you they are split into at least four separately created units? Why are there marine mammals in several different places in that hierarchy, when according to you they should all be the same, separate hierarchy from other mammals?
Is a giant panda a carnivorous mammal or is it a herbivorous mammal? What does you common design model predict?