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.
2 Likes
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.
We are seeing matching genes in animals separated by 400 million years that are missing in other animals in the tree separated by less the an 100 million years. Ancestry does not predict this.
The claim has always been a statistically significant fit for common ancestry. Like almost every other scientific theory, there is noise. It is the ratio of noise to signal that matters.
2 Likes
Ancestry doesn’t predict that genes can be lost in some lineages? Since when?
1 Like
Ancestry does predict vertical inheritance of deletion mutations that remove genes from the genome.
2 Likes
I will simply quote what John Harshman wrote just a short while ago. What do you not understand about this?
A different way of asking you to explain yourself: What do you expect that diagram to look like if common descent was true? How would it be different?
1 Like
It’s highly contradictory evidence you call noise. When do you start to realize the contradictory evidence is problematic. Fazil is claiming the pattern looks exactly like common descent and now you admit noise. What is causing the large amount of noise?
How is the veritical inheritance of deletion mutations contradictory evidence?
1 Like