Where did you show that they are similar because they live in the same environment? Tuna and cuttlefish share the same environment, but they are very different from one another.
It doesn’t make sense at all. You don’t need similar genetics in order to get similar morphology. Also, there are many, many genes that have nothing to do with morphology and yet those gene sequences are similar as well.
So fish and whales should be more genetically similar than whales and other mammals.
Are they?
Just wanted to respond to this one, and summarize a lot of the discussions in this thread:
More and more I’m coming to the conclusion that these more generalized tree-of-life discussions really don’t advance the conversations much, and seem to lack efficacy to sway ‘the other side.’ After a while I think we’re just beating a dead orca. That’s just my personal take.
I do think the more technical discussions have merit though. And pretty soon I’ll be able to jump back on my new topic Joshua created for me (thank you). I’m crafting up that response now…
Why do you think that is? I’d really like to know your opinion on this.
I am curious about this, too.
You seemed to be convinced that similarities were due to living in the same environments. I would be curious to hear what convinced you of that idea. I would also like to understand why you weren’t swayed when that idea was shown to be false.
This is a phenomena that we see a lot in these discussions. A creationist will throw out many, many different ideas that all turn out to be false, but they still aren’t convinced they are wrong. To us, that is confusing. If I had a model that consistently produced false predictions I would abandon it, but creationists don’t seem to do this. Boatloads of false predictions would certainly sway my thinking, so why doesn’t it sway the thinking of creationists?
{Applause}
@Chris_Falter You should post that as a new topic - it’s really good. I found a link to the source but not a translation.
It could be a blog post…what do you think @Chris_Falter ?
I’m pretty sure you have been given very specific references. I’m pretty sure I’ve done that, but in case I misremember, here’s what I consider an excellent paper, one I’m intimately familiar with, on one quite old part of the tree of life: True and False Gharials: A Nuclear Gene Phylogeny of Crocodylia. I think it’s fairly easy to understand, and perhaps less contentious for you than human evolution. Try it and let me know if you have questions.
@swamidass and @Dan_Eastwood - I am honored! If you think it might help someone, I would be happy for my little essay to become a blog post.
Chris
We’ll get around to it, but it might take some time. Until then, let’s split the thread 
.
I think that comment was meant for @jeffb, yes?
we already had this discussion:
Yes. Is there a way to fix that? Hey, @jeffb:
Indeed we have. And I appreciate your posting a link to that discussion. It contained excellent illustrations of your thinking on the subject, such as the diagram below. Good times:
It’s a partial explanation of why some animals are similar.
“Similar environment” example: terrestrial animals & four-footed-ness (then branched into mammals and reptiles). Four-footedness is a pretty good means of travel on land.
Exceptions - Sharks & orcas, octopus and vertebrate fish: God the Designer’s creativity.
There’s nothing ‘failed’ here.
I’m completely convinced on my end. You seem to be completely convinced on your end. And that again reiterates a conclusion I’m coming to: When it comes to phylogeny, discussions like: “what about these animals??” “Well what about those animals??” lose efficacy in this debate. There really is a great deal of overlap.
Speaking of, I’m surprised at how many evolutionists don’t recognize the great amount of evolution/creation overlap. And I believe that’s where a lot of the ‘talking past each other’ occurs.
Creationists agree, and have been saying that for years.
Yes we did and now you’re back, having learned seemingly nothing at all.
Those marsupial moles, are they most genetically similar to placental moles right? Wait… no? They’re not? But they are so similar when we look at them in body morphology, and they live in the same way underground, in similar environments, with similar lifestyles, burrowing underground, digging tunnels with their large forepawns and hunting in the dark by touch, smell, and hearing. So why aren’t they most genetically similar to each other?
Whales and humans have more in common than whales and teleost fish that share the same environment with them. Teleost fish have more in common with humans than they do with the cuttlefish they share the same environment with. Cuttlefish share more in common with land snails than they do with the teleost fish they share an environment with. The North American wolf has more in common with humans than it does with the Tasmanian wolf. I could go on for a long time pointing out all of the failures of your explanation.
Why? Your explanation completely falls flat.
Just dropping in to point out that we are seeking to understand why we should expect significant consilience of independent phylogenies on creationism, not merely why some organisms might show morphological similarities.
The question isn’t why both the giant squid, orcas, and sharks are all streamlined. That is explained by all of them being oceanic hunters that spent a significant amount of their energy by swimming down prey against aquadynamic drag. But of course this aspect of their overall bodily similarity does not make them fit together into the same clade.
What I want a creationist to explain, by actually showing it in practice(instead of just insisting or intuiting), is that independent creation inexorably results in the same degree of tree structure in the data without involving a branching genealogical process during the process of creation.
No, I do not consider it explained that there should be a consistent tree in the data across different sets of attributes just because organisms occupy a similar environment. I don’t see why, on independent creation, a gene encoding an enzyme in core metabolism should yield the same phylogenetic tree as some other gene encoding an enzyme involved in digestion, an intron sequence, or cell surface receptor or what have you.
And of course the thing @scd continues to not understand here: They are not that similar in terms of morphology, either! Once you get the skin off of them, it is pretty obvious what is what.
