The magic word is other animal species.
1 Like
Yes, and we can cite many, many correlations between genotype and phenotype. Just because we canāt link every phenotype to every genotype in no way falsifies the evidence we do have.
We have tons of evidence linking phenotype to genotype. I have yet to see any evidence for a different mechanism.
1 Like
you said that evolution will not be able to expain a situation of a gene that exist in 2 far species but not in other species (or even a group of species). so this case show that its possible.
You havenāt shown it is possible for non-bacterial genes.
1 Like
irrelevant. i only need to show a mechanism and this is what i did.
Completely relevant. There are observed mechanisms that can transfer bacterial genes to eukaryotic genomes. There are no known mechanisms for transferring genes between distantly related animals at a meaningful rate. Eukaryotic genes produce the expected noisy nested hierarchy.
1 Like
Of course they do. Even if we donāt know what particular differences in sequence relate to what particular differences in morphology, we can know that all the differences are the sort of thing explainable by known mutational mechanisms, and we can know that humans and chimps are related by common descent. Both of those are elements of the puzzle, surely.
Or are you trying to deny that the morphological differences have a genetic basis?
1 Like
you said nothing about āmeaningful rateā. you said that even a single gene can falsify common descent. right?
Iām saying that the main explanatory task of evolutionary theory is to elucidate the process of transformation, not similarity. Similarity just gives you more of the same thing.
Transformation via common ancestry as a phenomenon is woefully understudied, and hence, not understood.
1 Like
That Humans and chimps are more similar to each other than chimps and lemurs!
How about you?
@scd,
Youll have to produce an article for me to think you didnt just make this upā¦ waiting on you.
Can you expand on this?
Its the same processes used ny crime labs to find the peroetrator.
Are you suggesting we analyze crime scenes completely inaccurately?
You said it yourself!!!
So how do you justify fighting against God Led Primate Evolution when you have all the evidence in front you?
Or are you finally confessing that even if an Angel of God said āGod did it that way!āā¦ you would insist that the angel sit down and read Genesis?
see here:
Are you for real?
Either God does it every day for the last 1000 years through designing natural processes that distinguish chimps from humans ā¦ or you are the first Christian endorsing Sorcery ive ever met!
@scd,
How does this article make Evolution falseā¦ if all they do is discuss genetic exchanges?
If anything, it helps to explain Evolution!
1 Like
see the discussion above.
Iām not clear on how thatās supposed to be a problem for common ancestry. Could you explain?
No, heās right about that. For about 15% of the genome, gorillas are closer to humans than to chimps. For about another 15%, gorillas are closer to chimps than to humans. And for about 1%, gorillas are closer to orangutans. This is expected from incomplete lineage sorting.
2 Likes
Why not both? What you really seem to be saying is that the main problem is to explain how genetics determines morphology, including how different genetics determines different morphology. Thatās not really evolutionary biology; itās more developmental genetics. Of course phylogenetic comparisons can help with developmental genetics; thatās what evo-devo is all about. But the question of how these genetic differences can arise is already answered: again, by known mutational mechanisms.