REAL NS is a problem for common descent, fitness peaks, in Eukaryotic evolution

The model is natural selection, mutation, speciation, and vertical inheritance. How many times have we stated this?

You arbitrarily rule out design all of the time, and for the same reasons. When you observe the planets moving about the Sun you rule out gravity fairies pushing them in their path because we have a natural mechanism that explains the motion.


And he also could not. If he did not deliberately set out to create all “kinds” such that they look exactly as if they evolved from common ancestors to each other, there is essentially zero chance he would have done so just by chance.

So the options are 1) common ancestry is true. 2) God deliberately created a universe in which common ancestry would be the correct scientific conclusion from the evidence.

Those are your options. Either one leads to the conclusion that according to science common ancestry is true.


These are not models. Real models can show how the prediction works. Dawkins built a model. The problem was that it required design to work. I have explained this to you many times :slight_smile:

This is a false assertion. You need to move on.

Wrong. The assertion is correct. If you disagree, please provide the evidence to support your claim.

Is it again time for us to ask you to provide the model that explains how living things were “designed”, so you can yet again fail to provide an answer?

1 Like

That’s exactly what the model does. You ignore it every time it is given.

If you want a real, living example of the model at work, I suggest you go to my thread on rock pocket mice:

It shows how convergence works. Read the abstract of the paper linked in the opening post.


[quote=“Faizal_Ali, post:158, topic:8218”]
Wrong. The assertion is correct. If you disagree, please provide the evidence to support your claim.
]Zebrafish Genome Found Strikingly Similar to Humans | Genetics |

I will repeat my request: Please provide the evidence to support your claim.

To be clear: I did NOT ask for you to post an article which confirms evolution, but which your non-existent powers of comprehension lead you to believe it does not.

You need to actually articulate why you think that diagram deviates from the expectation of common descent, instead of hand-waving.


Tell me how this confirms evolution? You claimed a perfect fit for common descent. This shows a non perfect fit. Your claim that the pattern shows common descent is the best and only description is non sense.

How so? Please be specific.

Very simple. I would not expect from common descent genes not following the branching tree. There is no reason reproduction alone would cause this.

Genes are not following the branching pattern. This is not what inheritance predicts.

It doesn’t matter. Even if the author spoke to an eyewitness, it can only be an eyewitness account if it is provided by the eyewitness him/herself. This is not a difficult concept.

Mr. Literalist, Peter said that he witnessed Christ’s majesty.

You abandon literalism for convenience pretty quickly, don’t you?

False. You can test this for yourself, as BLAST gives you the option of seeing the branching pattern.

When a court of law records and eye witness testimony that is not an eye witness testimony?

How do you believe that diagram demonstrates this? Again, please be specific. You have not been so far.

So if the diagram showed just 1 gene “not following the branching tree”, for example there was 1 gene shared by humans and zebrafish and humans but not mice or frogs, you would also tout that as evidence against common ancestry?

The eyewitness discussion is worthwhile, but is tangential to the topic and warrants its own thread.

1 Like

It is when it comes from the eyewitness. That’s why courts have eyewitnesses themselves testify. The police report of what the eyewitness told officers what s/he saw is not eyewitness testimony.