but the organism cant use that detection. this is why organisms also have few proteins in order to detect light and use that detection. this isnt a rare case. a binding site for TRNA for instance will need at least one or two additional sites, since binding TRNA by itself should be useless. and the same is also true for ATP binding. so as we can see, that problem is everywhere in nature.
All of this was explained to you previously:
The meaning of you repeating an objection that has already been answered has also been explained to you:
Are you not capable of honesty?
1 Like
again, your starting point already requires two parts. i also gave you two additional examples such as TRNA and ATP binding sites.
Stop being dishonest.
4 Likes
The LUCA hypothesis does matter as it is the working hypothesis that allows the explanation of gene loss/gain without a mathematical model of how this happens.
If that were true, then you would be able to explain why the LUCA hypothesis is relevant to evolution within vertebrates. Take your time and show your work. I will note that you have no mathematical model of separate creation, and in fact no model of any sort.
3 Likes
The mathematical model of special creation works well as it does not require explaining the difference in patterns that we see in the various Venn diagrams. If we can explain the differences with a mathematical model then we have a reasonable hypothesis of animals sharing the same kind.
The LUCA model is relevant to all evolution as it makes the assumption that all life is related by common ancestry and therefor gene gain/loss in vertebrates does not need to be explained. Gene gain/loss is the only explanation under the LUCA model.
What mathematical model of special creation? I asked you to show your work. And the model works by not explaining anything? Now that’s efficient, but not very useful.
That was word salad again. Of course gene gain/loss needs to be explained, but it has nothing to do with anything that happened 3-4 billion years ago. Further, the explanations of gene gain and loss are not relevant to explaining the pattern of distribution; gene gain and loss explain the pattern, regardless of whether the gains and losses themselves are explained. You have created an infinite regress of explanations. Finally, of course we have explanations for gene gain and loss. Please stop with the word salad.
1 Like
@colewd, I showed you Venn diagrams. Tell me whether the organisms shown were independently created?
2 Likes
Gene gain/loss only explains the pattern under the LUCA hypothesis.
That’s nonsense. Consider the hypothesis that an ancestral vertebrate was created and then gave rise to all others. That’s not the LUCA hypothesis, and yet gain/loss still explains the pattern. Please think before typing.
2 Likes
At this point LUCA is the alternative hypothesis.
If hypothetically you offered this (LCVA) hypothesis then my comment would be that gene gain/loss only explains the pattern under the LCVA hypothesis.
Why are you ignoring my question? Here are the Venn diagrams again.
Are those organisms independently created or not? In addition, does LUCA have anything to do with the diagrams?
5 Likes
There is not enough clarity in the diagrams to answer the question you are asking or even make an educated guess. Do you have a citation for the diagrams?
Those diagrams are super clear and I have a reference for it, plus other studies with similar diagrams. That diagram is the same with Howe’s diagram, but with the identities of the sampled organisms changed. So tell me, are those organisms independently created or not?
3 Likes
Then provide a complete description and include the citation. You have not provided a clear a detailed description of what the numbers mean. It is against the spirit of this discussion board to provide partial information and demand a conclusion to the data without providing a citation. @Dan_Eastwood please advise.
Let’s just assume they’re a pattern of genes shared or not between different organisms, similar to the Howe et al. figure. Where the circles overlap the organisms represented share the number of genes within the shared area. So looking at the numbers in those figures, would you say the species share common ancestry or were independently created?
1 Like
Not when it is a test case to demonstrate your prior use of data was baseless. If your inference from the Howe diagram is valid, you can either make an equivalent inference from @Michael_Okoko’s diagrams or specify what additional data you would need and why that data is needed. But you can’t, because you already know you’ve been wrong this entire time.
7 Likes
Word salad again.
You would definitely be closer to right, but not very close. The combination of a particular tree of common descent within vertebrates and gene gain/loss explains the pattern in the data. Your hypothesis of separate creation explains nothing, and you have come close to admitting that.
1 Like