Because all that’s important is that some change happens in a population and is inherited by its descendants. The cause of that change doesn’t matter. The pattern of changes shows the tree, not their causes. We’ve been over this before, countless times.
I am unable eto make any sense of that sentence, and so can’t comment.
Why would they lose trust? It seems that they would instead gain trust when some point of science becomes more clear. The model is unclear to you because you are strongly vested in not understanding. I doubt that @AJRoberts would be helpful, and she’s not showing up anyway. None of this has anything to do with the topic.
Not true, and in fact polls show that the public is fully capable of separating common descent from the issue of divine guidance. This one, for example:
Note that from 30 to 40 percent of respondents agree with God-guided common descent. So much for your claim.
I mean trees made of sequence differences of single genes.
Like your study of the MYC gene in crocs.
Can you quantify this?
I am ok where ever it leads. I see lots of progress in many areas especially health care. As far as evolutionary biology where do you see the advances over the last 5 years?
Correct, this is why we have to first identify the morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates between the red and giant pandas.
We can confirm this using the Baraminic distance correlation analysis (BDC) method, which classifies groups of organisms based on their design features. For instance, if there is a chain of positive and significant baraminic distance correlations connecting all the taxa, then they are considered to belong to the same species. However, if there is a negative correlation outside the group by gaps that are significantly greater than intra-group differences, this would be evidence of discontinuity .
Another method to use in this process is classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), which is a technique used to visualize and analyze the similarities and dissimilarities between groups of objects. In the context of baraminology, CMDS has been used to compare the morphological features of different groups of organisms and to identify potential “created kinds” based on their shared design features. These methods were used to separate birds from dinosuars and mammals from reptiles according to these studies:
*Wood, T.C. 2011b. Using creation science to demonstrate *
*evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited. Journal of Evolutionary * Biology 24:914-918.
*Aaron, M. 2014a. Baraminological analysis of the Caseidae *
*(Synapsida: Pelycosauria). Journal of Creation Theology and * Science Series B: Life Sciences 4:19-22
In the case of pandas, the k-mer signature analysis was used to identify the differences between the two pandas:
A tail of two pandas— whole genome k-mer signature analysis of the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) and the Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) | BMC Genomics | Full Text
I agree, that is why you have to examine how the bears functionally interact with their environment
compared to different bear species. But, you have to identify those functional differences before you can determine this, which is what they did in the first panda study.
Wrong. A common designer only implies having a common design rather than common descent because only humans produce top-down causation through algorithmic information or RNA viruses.
For instance, scientists synthesized RNA molecules of a virus and reconstructed a virus particle from scratch [15]. They accomplished this by creating another virus and using its parts, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus to solve the problem of unstable RNA. Other experiments have shown that RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host microRNA pathways [16], and observations show that they can produce substantial innovation in one scoop rather than point mutations or gene duplication [17].
This process is called horizontal gene transfer (HGT), where genetic material is transferred between organisms that are not in a parent-offspring relationship. This transfer of genetic material can occur between organisms of different species or even different kingdoms, which can lead to the acquisition of new traits not present in the genome of the recipient organism [18].
HGT can occur through several mechanisms, such as transformation, transduction, and conjugation, and has been observed in a wide range of organisms, including bacteria, archaea, and even some eukaryotes. HGT can also occur between organisms that are not closely related, which means that genes can be transferred across phylogenetic boundaries, leading to the rapid acquisition of novel traits.
The ability to acquire pre-existing adaptive characters through HGT can provide a significant advantage to organisms, allowing them to rapidly adapt to new environments or to overcome challenges that would otherwise require the slow process of gradual evolution through mutation and selection.
This process has also been reported to produce nested hierarchies [19]. For instance, the idea is that complex biological traits, such as morphology or behavior, can be composed of multiple functional modules that have been selected and optimized over evolutionary time. These modules can be shared among different species, leading to the emergence of nested hierarchies of trait similarity and genetic relatedness.
In the context of morphology, different anatomical structures can be considered as modular units that have evolved to perform specific functions, such as locomotion, feeding, or sensing. These modular units can be shared among different species, leading to the emergence of nested hierarchies of morphological similarity and genetic relatedness.
Overall, this is how human designers operate. They use preexisting mechanisms (i.e. HGT), material parts (i.e. viruses), and digital information (i.e. modules) to assemble designs to achieve a purpose.
The other reason a common designer implies having a common design rather than common descent is that natural selection cannot elucidate the physical mechanisms underlying the transition from non-life to life or distinguish non-living from living [20]. Natural selection, as a process, operates on populations of living organisms that are already capable of reproducing and passing on heritable traits to their offspring. It does not provide an explanation for how the first living organisms emerged from non-living matter or how to distinguish between non-living and living organisms.
Viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species, and common descent is unlikely to explain this [22]. Without a host cell, RNA viruses cannot replicate or undergo natural selection, which is a key aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Furthermore, RNA viruses cannot be included in the Tree of Life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic—they have many evolutionary origins [21].
Therefore, it would indeed be difficult to reconcile their evolution with Darwin’s theory of evolution, since they cannot exist or evolve in the absence of a host.
[32] Moelling, K., 2012. Are viruses our oldest ancestors?. EMBO reports, 13(12), pp.1033-1033.
[33] Cello, J., Paul, A.V. and Wimmer, E., 2002. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), pp. 1016-1018.
[34] Tenoever, B.R., 2013. RNA viruses and the host microRNA machinery. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 11(3), pp. 169-180.
[37] Walker, S.I. and Davies, P.C., 2013. The algorithmic origins of life. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10(79), pp. 20120869.
[38] Moreira, D., & López-GarcÃa, P., 2009. Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life Nature Reviews Microbiology, 7 (4), pp. 306-311. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2108
How do you know this when you have yet to provide a way to test for homologous phenotypic traits between families and order? All you are doing is assuming common descent is the only process that can create nested patterns in order to support and test it.
Yes, that is true. I should have said the study involved or used modular principles to understand regulatory networks which they did.
Yes it does. When conserved functional units or modules are shared between different biological systems or species, it can result in the emergence of similar regulatory networks or functions. This can lead to the formation of a nested hierarchy where the conserved modules are shared by a larger group of related species or systems, and the modules become more conserved across evolutionary related groups. The nested hierarchy arises because the presence or absence of these conserved modules or functional units determines the expression of downstream genes or the functioning of biological systems, and this organization is conserved across evolutionary time.
Yes, I have argued already how nature uses similar designing principles as well.
For instance, the authors of the article “Natural engineering principles of electron tunnelling in biological oxidation-reduction” discussed the mechanism of electron transfer in biological systems, which is a key process involved in energy production and metabolism [12]. They suggested that biological electron transfer systems exhibit certain “engineering principles” similar to those used in artificial electronic devices, such as transistors and diodes. Specifically, they proposed that the process of electron transfer in biological systems relies on a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling, which allows electrons to pass through barriers that would be classically impossible [12].
The article goes on to describe how the observed principles of electron tunneling in biological systems are highly optimized, with electron transfer rates that are faster than expected based on classical tunneling theory. Moreover, the observed principles of electron tunneling are highly conserved across different organisms and have likely evolved independently in multiple lineages.
Of course, you assume that random unguided mutations were the other mechanism at play. But, the study I mentioned before cited other studies that show regulatory networks is not random:
Were these regulatory networks randomly organized, or did they follow well-defined organizational principles? More recent studies of complex biological networks have shown that their organizations are not random; rather, they follow modular principles (Barabási & Oltvai 2004). Scientists defined a module as a group of genes cooperating to achieve a particular physiological function (Hartwell 1999).
You are actually referring to a different study done on the pandas that involved hox genes.
The researchers apparently used bioinformatics tools to compare the red panda genome to other reference genomes, such as the human genome or the giant panda genome. They would have looked for genes and pathways that are conserved across these species and are known to play a role in digestion, metabolism, and sensory perception.
The researchers may have also compared the red panda genome to other carnivorous or omnivorous mammals to identify genes that have undergone convergent evolution in the red panda and the giant panda, suggesting that they have adapted to a similar dietary niche.
Yes, they looked for evidence of positive selection in the genomes of both the giant panda and the red panda, as well as in other herbivorous and carnivorous mammals.
No John, that is not what it said. It said “divinely influenced evolution” that emerged from common archetypes NOT common descent.
Again, Common design theory is not dependent on HGT being true. More importantly, there does not need to be a study showing that modular design principles produce nested patterns in species. I explained how it is possible that these principles can be applied to nested patterns in species.
Uh no, the burden of proof is on you because the common archetype theory came first when it comes explaining all those observations.
For instance, Owen believed in the idea of a natural order or “gradation” of living things, which he believed reflected a divine plan. He believed that the characteristics of living things were arranged in a linear series from the simplest to the most complex, with each level of complexity building on the previous one. This idea was based on the concept of “archetypes,” which Owen believed were ideal forms that gave rise to the diversity of life on Earth.
According to him, the nested hierarchy of living things was a reflection of this natural order, with each level of the hierarchy representing a higher degree of complexity and organization than the one below it. He believed that this order was inherent in the structure and organization of living things themselves and was not the result of any specific mechanism or process, such as natural selection.
However, while both Owen’s “common archetype” and Darwin’s “common ancestor” explanations attempted to account for the similarities and differences in the diversity of life, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection elucidate a specific mechanism for the process by which those similarities and differences arose.
In contrast, Owen’s theory did not elucidate a specific mechanism for the similarities and differences in the diversity of life. While he believed that the similarities between different species were evidence of a shared design, he did not explain how this design was implemented or why it led to differences between species. Therefore, by elucidating the specific mechanism of natural selection, Darwin’s theory has established itself as a more complete and scientifically rigorous explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and has become widely accepted as the prevailing theory of biology.
In other words, the only reason Darwin’s theory successfully superseded Owen’s theory is because it lacked a mechanism NOT a lack of an explanation.
My point is that it is you guys that need to provide evidence or a test that can only be explained by universal common descent.
Let me just show you the full model:
Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, pi electron resonance clouds in single-chain amphiphile molecules coalesced in geometric pi-stacks, forming viroids with quantum-friendly regions for OR events within Earth’s deep-sea hypothermal vents [24]. Subsequently, through natural selection and OR events, groups of viroids formed into highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules of a DNA/RNA virus or molecule, which later evolved into different species of unicellular organisms [25].
Through HRT, these unicellular organisms underwent extensive regulatory switching and rewiring in their noncoding regulatory regions. As colonies of cells evolved into multicellular organisms, different cells within the organism began to take on specialized roles and functions. This specialization led to the divergence of transcription start sites and gene expression levels, which allowed for the development of more complex multicellular clades, such as animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, or land plants.
Central nervous systems consisting of approximately 300 neurons, such as those present in tiny worms and urchins at the early Cambrian evolutionary explosion 540 million years ago, theoretically had sufficient microtubules to reach OR, which precipitated the accelerated evolution of the Cambrian explosion [26].
Further evolution required the non-computability of OR that goes beyond mere quantum computation and depends upon larger scale infrastructure of efficiently functioning microtubules (MT), capable of operating quantum-computational processes. Moreover, these larger sets of MTs, which are able to be isolated from decoherence, would enable higher levels of OR [26].
This allowed stem metazoans to develop into groups of created kinds, such as complex vertebrae body plans, and emerge at different times and global locations.
Quantum mind theory is definitely NOT far-from-basics fringe speculations. You have provided no argument for this.
No it is not odd at all. As I told others, quantum mind theory or common archetype theory is not based on secular dogma created by the scientific consensus. It is based upon present observations.
Fir one thing, that’s what the paper by David Penny that Buggs talked about early in his lecture was about. You need a measure of tree similarity (for example, Robinson-Foulds distance) and then you compare how close trees are by that measure compared to the distances between randomly chosen trees or some similar null model. You can get a P-value by determining the proportion of randomly chosen trees that are as or more similar. You can also ask how much the tree based on combined data changes if you omit certain factions of the data, also known as gene-jackknifing.There are other methods, but that will do. I’ve done the latter, though not the former. See Hackett S.J., Kimball R.T., Reddy S., Bowie R.C.K., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Chojnowski J.L., Cox W.A., Han K.-L., Harshman J., Huddleston C.J., Marks B.D., Miglia K.J., Moore W.A., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W., Witt C.C., Yuri T. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 2008; 320:1763-1768. I’m sure you can find many examples of something like Penny’s approach.
We’re talking specifically about phylogenetics, not evolutionary biology as a whole. The answer is lots more genomic studies and more sophisticated analyses. More use of rare events like SINE insertions and such. What it won’t do is lead toward creationism. That horse died long ago.
There is no such thing as temporal priority in science. Older theories are not to be considered the default just because they’re old. You pick the theory that best explains the data. And despite your claims, the notion of archetypes doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy. A linear series does not predict a nested hierarchy.
Darwin’s theory was not accepted because it proposed a mechanism for variation. In fact his idea of common descent was accepted while his idea of natural selection was much more controversial. If that’s a chatbot talking, as I suspect, it’s a fine example of why they’re not ready for prime time.
That would seem to be you again, commenting on your chatbot’s output. No, your bot is wrong.
Have you actually done this? If not, your claims are premature. What reason is there to suppose that CMDS can actually identify kinds? How would you test the ability of your methods to do so unless you already had some kinds available?
How do you know that k-mer signatures can identify kinds?
That was incoherent. How would it help?
Gibberish. And the regurgitated spew that follows it is no better.
If you will recall, you yourself cited a paper showing that the two pandas evolved their thumbs in different contexts and, initially, with different functions. Not, that is, “in response to similar needs”. You don’t pay attention to your own arguments. The test is simple: if the trait was present in the common ancestor, it’s homologous. Otherwise, it isn’t. That’s in fact the exact test you are using with regard to pandas’ thumbs.
The only part of that sentence relevant to nested hierarchy is “conserved across evolutionary time”. If that means anything at all, it refers to common descent.
None of that is relevant to common descent vs. common design.
That’s not genomic data.
You clearly don’t understand what the stuff you quote actually means.
You may imagine that you explained it, but you didn’t.
The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim or assertion. This means that if someone makes a statement or argument, they have the responsibility to provide evidence or logical reasoning to support their position.
For example, the phenomenon of stasis, or the apparent lack of change in certain lineages over long periods of time, had been noted by many naturalists throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. One notable one was the French naturalist Georges Cuvier, who lived from 1769 to 1832, recognized that certain groups of animals appeared to be static in the fossil record, with little change over millions of years.
Similarly, the phenomenon of sudden appearances of new species in the fossil record had also been noted by many naturalists prior to Darwin. One of the most famous examples of this is the Cambrian explosion, a period of rapid diversification of animal life that occurred around 540 million years ago.
This is why many of Darwin’s contemporaries, including the British biologist Richard Owen, were proponents of saltationism, which is the theory that evolutionary change occurs in sudden jumps or leaps rather than through gradual, incremental changes.
Owen’s theory predicts stasis and sudden appearances while Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection claims that this is an illusion. Since you guys are making the same additional claim as Darwin that this phenomenon is illusory, you have the burden of proof.
As this article pointed:
Owen talked of his own theories, influenced by Johannes Peter Müller, that living matter had an “organising energy” , a life-force that directed the growth of tissues and also determined the lifespan of the individual and of the species. Richard Owen - New World Encyclopedia
Based on what we know from the law of entropy, his theory’s assumptions and claims ended up being right:
In many cases it is understood how matter transforms from basic constituents to larger assemblies and vice versa. However the basic principle, why matter organizes as ‘systems within systems’ and why in other cases systems disassemble to constituents, has remained obscure. The simple question concerning the driving force looks for a reason.
Contemporary consensus recognizes on one hand natural selection within the theory of evolution (Darwin, 1859) as the ubiquitous imperative that guides biotic processes and on the other hand the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Boltzmann, 1886; Carnot, 1824; Clausius, 1879; Gibbs, 1876) as another universal law that directs abiotic processes. Today these two driving forces are often perceived as opposing, one as constructive and the other as destructive.
However, recently it was shown, by a first-principle derivation that they are in fact one and the same law (Sharma and Annila, 2007). The fundamental law simply states that energy differences diminish via flows of energy. To abolish energy gradients most rapidly the flows funnel through those mechanisms that level differences most effectively. The universal law finds no demarcation line between animate and inanimate. Both systems evolve by flows of energy toward stationary states with respect to their surroundings. hierarchy.pdf (helsinki.fi)
I have already provided the reason for why these methods can do the job. Again, these methods were used to separate birds from dinosuars and mammals from reptiles. There are many more examples like this. It is not perfect but again it is just a start point for further analysis.
Because whole-genome k-mer signature analysis has several advantages over other genome comparison methods, including its ability to compare whole genomes quickly and efficiently, and its sensitivity to differences in genome organization, such as duplications, deletions, and rearrangements.
I will just give you a summarized version then:
"Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) enables organisms to acquire pre-existing adaptive characters from other organisms, regardless of phylogenetic distance. Thus, instead of genetic traits within lineages always emerging gradually through successive mutations and selection, evolution is accelerated as a parallel process, where inventions made in different lineages can come together in a single cell through HGT.
…In addition to sharing metabolic capabilities between unrelated organisms, HGT also plays an important role in creating new functional roles for existing proteins by assembling new metabolic pathways. Some pathways that changed the face of planet Earth, such as acetoclastic methanogenesis in Methanosarcina [2,3] were likely assembled through gene transfer. All enzymes involved in the newly identified methylaspartate cycle for acetyl-CoA assimilation in Halobacteriales were acquired through the horizontal transfer and recombination of different pre-existing genes from different bacterial genomes [4]. " Ancient horizontal gene transfer and the last common ancestors | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
As you can see, this has everything to do with common design. I don’t get why you think this would not be design or think it is not an alternative to natural selection or common descent.
Because it allows us to differentiate it from common descent. For instance, there are limitations with the traditional Linnaean classification methods that are based solely on anatomical and genetic characteristics, and do not consider the ecological and functional relationships between organisms.
This leads me to addresss this…
This does not differentiate common descent/homologous traits from common design/analogous traits.
Moreover, the first test maybe the same test, but the second test I am using differentiates it from common descent, as I just mentioned above.
Nope, it does not refer to common descent in light of HGT. For instance, the transferred regulatory regions can potentially interact with genes in the recipient organism’s genome, leading to changes in gene expression patterns. Over time, these changes can lead to the emergence of new traits or functions.
Nested hierarchies can arise as a result of this process because the transferred regulatory regions tend to have specific functions and targets, and thus their effects on gene expression tend to be consistent across different individuals or species that acquire them.
This can result in a pattern where the regulatory regions are associated with certain traits or functions, which are shared by different groups of organisms that have acquired the same or similar regulatory regions.
This pattern can be seen, for example, in the evolution of bacterial operons, which are groups of functionally related genes that are regulated by a single promoter and regulatory region. Horizontal transfer of operons can lead to the spread of related functions across different bacterial groups, producing a nested hierarchy of shared functions and regulatory elements. Similarly, the transfer of regulatory regions between different eukaryotic lineages can lead to the emergence of new gene regulatory networks, which can also exhibit nested hierarchical patterns.
It does if you are claiming that common design principles do not produce nested hierarchies like common descent.
Actually, you did not read further. Take a look:
During the development of Darwin’s theory, prior to the publication of Origin of Species , Darwin’s investigation of barnacles showed, in 1849, how their segmentation related to other crustaceans, reflecting an apparent descent with modification from their relatives. To Owen, such “homologies” in comparative anatomy instead revealed archetypes in the Divine mind. Owen demonstrated fossil evidence of an evolutionary sequence of horsesas supporting his idea of development from archetypes in “ordained continuous becoming” and, in 1854, gave a British Association for the Advancement of Science talk on the impossibility of bestial apes, such as the recently discovered gorilla, standing erect and being transmuted into men. Richard Owen - New World Encyclopedia
Same here, you may imagine that you explained how it was not the case, but you didn’t.
I would point out that the New World Encyclopedia is published by the Unification Church – making it a decidedly less-than-trustworthy source – particularly on anything related to evolution.
I did that, and you dismissed the link provided without apparently reading it.
I note that you have linked to that article yourself, but your comment…
…confirms that you haven’t read it, but are simply using it as another irrelevant random citation, since Theobald doesn’t mention ‘transmutation’ anywhere in his article.
Meanwhile, you are complaining about others not reading the references you provide.
If you ever get round to reading Theobald’s article and commenting sensibly on the contents, you might be worth a further response. At the moment, you aren’t.
Common design/archetype can and has explained this observation already
A nested hierarchy of species
Does not count because it assumes that common descent is the process that can create nested hierarchies within species. This is a false and an unsupported premise.
Independent determination of the historical phylogeny
This is the same as I said above.
Intermediate and transitional forms
Unless the species are transitioning into a completely different species (i.e. transmutation), this can’t be considered a prediction that supports common descent. Only the Reptile-birds and Reptile mammals series would be true examples of transmutation, but they have been shown to be separate:
That’s not an assumption. It’s a necessary consequence of the simple model of branching descent, inheritance, and some sort of heritable change. But nobody is talking about nested hierarchy within species; it’s nested hierarchy within higher taxa.
Predictions don’t support anything. Fulfilled predictions might. And “completely different species” appears to be meaning-free. The existence of intermediate species is a prediction of common descent but not of separate creation.
What does that sentence even mean? What’s been shown to be separate? Those are excellent examples of transitions, but there are plenty of others.
Here is a summary of how to test my hypothesis. I made it clearer this time. This includes me explaining how I know the red and giant pandas are created kinds.
Adaptive convergence hypothesis
Analogous phenotypic traits were designed separately in unrelated families and orders in response to similar needs.
Based on the adaptive convergence hypothesis, we would expect to find the following between families and orders:
1, Convergent amino acid changes in these particular genes DYNC2H1 and PCNT or HOXC10
2. Signatures of common positive selection in HOXA3 genes
HOW TO TEST IT
Identifying morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order- and family-level taxa.
We can confirm this with the Baraminic distance correlation analysis (BDC) method, which classifies groups of organisms based on their design features.
Another method to use in this process is the classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), which is a technique used to visualize and analyze the similarities and dissimilarities between groups of objects.
If both methods don’t yield any results, then the newer methods that were used in previous studies must be used to identify any dissimilarities:
In the case of pandas, the k-mer signature analysis was used to identify the differences between the two pandas:
A tail of two pandas— whole genome k-mer signature analysis of the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) and the Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) | BMC Genomics | Full Text
Identifying functional differences among order- and family-level taxa in relation to their environment.
We can confirm this by using comparative anatomical analysis can provide insights into the evolution and function of physiological structures. Then, we use comparative physiology to elucidate the mechanisms and adaptations underlying these functions.
In the case of pandas, the comparative anatomical analysis was used to identify the structural and functional differences between the two pandas:
Test the predictions related to the functional differences among order- and family-level taxa
We can confirm this by using a comparative genomics strategy. If these tests reveal at least one adaptive and/or structural gene and one positively selected gene, we can confidently conclude a common design.
In the case of pandas, they predicted and confirmed the 3D structures of HOXA3 and HOXC10 and assessment of mutation effects:
I actually meant to say …
Does not count because it assumes that common descent is the ONLY process that can create nested hierarchies [of] species. This is a false and an unsupported premise.
Alright, let me rephrase that.
Unless the created kinds are transitioning into a different created kinds (i.e. transmutation), this can’t be considered a prediction that supports common descent.
It means that macroevolution does not conflict with the common design theory. Instead, it is the concept of transmutation that is in conflict. There is a difference.
Reptile-birds and Reptile mammals series are examples of transmutation.
Legged whales or Legged seacows series are examples of macroevolution
So you may imagine, but you lack the capacity to make anything clearer.
It certainly ought to, since that was the question you have been avoiding for a long time. But it turns out you didn’t do that.
Why would we expect this very specific result?
How does a difference in k-mer signatures between two pandas show them to belong to separate created kinds?
How do these structural and functional differences identify them as belonging to separate created kinds? Consider that some of the differences are not shared with other members of their families.
How does this confirm a common design, or any design at all?
In short, you have managed to leave out all justification of your ocnclusions.
If so, you should be able to point to another process that creates nested hierarchies of species, and so far you haven’t.
Again, predictions don’t support anything, and since you can’t identify created kinds it’s impossible to provide examples of transitionals between them. Still, it seems reasonable to suppose that you think “reptiles” and mammals and dinosaurs and birds are bundles of separate kinds, the two transitions you previously mentioned seem evidence against your notions.
If that’s what it means, you are the least clear writer in existence. And I have no idea what that statement was supposed to mean either.
I have no idea what the difference is supposed to be. But don’t both of them contradict your notion of what the created kinds are? Are they therefore not both evidence against your idea?
No it doesn’t, and no it hasn’t. There is no reason why common design/archetype need result in the same structures being used for replication, heritability, catalysis and metabolism in all life forms, particularly those from different archetypes.
No it doesn’t. It says that branching evolutionary processes are the only known processes that do.
No it isn’t.
Sinonyx and whales are also completely different species, based on the criteria you provided. Anyway, you’re wrong, and the rest of what you say is nonsensical.
No it isn’t.
Given that
You have a history of citing sources you haven’t read;
@Meerkat_SK5 has not only suggested that you can evaluate gene sequences by looking at fossils, he’s suggested that you can do it by looking at fossils we haven’t found.
When two unrelated lineages evolve similar traits, it is likely that the underlying genetic mechanisms that govern the development and function of these traits will also be similar. This means that if we compare the genomes of these lineages, we might expect to find convergent changes in the genes that are involved in the development or function of these traits.
It doesn’t. It just gives us a good reason to suspect they might belong to separate created kinds and it helps guide the direction of research.
The structural and functional differences identified between the red and giant panda suggest that they belong to separate families because these differences are characteristic of taxonomic groups that are higher than species level. Families are groups of related species that share certain structural and functional characteristics, and these characteristics are used to differentiate one family from another. Therefore, the fact that the red and giant panda have significant differences in their anatomy and diet suggests that they belong to different families, despite their similar physical appearance.
Confirming the 3D structures of HOXA3 and HOXC10 and assessing the effects of mutations support the idea that the red and giant panda are separate families in a few ways. Firstly, it could help identify whether the convergent amino acid changes in these genes are functionally significant and potentially responsible for the observed differences in morphology or physiology between the two pandas. If the changes are found to be functionally significant and result in different protein structures or functions, this could suggest that the two pandas evolved these traits independently and thus are not closely related within a single family.
Additionally, assessing the effects of mutations in these genes provide further evidence for the functional significance of the amino acid changes and whether they are adaptive or neutral. Since the changes are found to be adaptive and positively selected in one or both pandas, this could suggest that the changes arose independently in response to different environmental or ecological pressures and are not the result of shared ancestry.
Common mechanism/ design could potentially be another explanation.
Keep in mind, abstract platonic forms existed already in the mind of God where God foreknew all the changes that were going to happen from a universal common plan of organisms. For instance, Humans would be the created modified form of the Great apes that was previously created from a preexisting non-material common blueprint rather than a common ancestor. Great apes would be the created modified form of Old World monkeys. Old World monkeys would be the created modified form of mammals. Mammals would be the created modified form of vertebrates.
As a result, we get back to a single common archetypical plan for all vertebrates showing a nested hierarchical pattern from a common design perspective (i.e. Design with slight modification). This is almost precisely what Owen’s theory suggests:
"…the more modified the organism from the archetype, the higher its position in the ranks of nature. Eventually, furthest removed from the archetype of any vertebrate, one finds Man, “the highest and most modified of all organic forms, in which the dominion of the controlling and specially-adapting force over the lower tendency to type and vegetative repetition is manifested in the strongest characters” [3, p. 132].
However, I am not saying I know this would create nested hierarchies in species. It is just a possible explanation that we can test. The adaptive convergence hypothesis is untested but can be tested in the future. If confirmed, we can say common design can create nested hierarchies of species… In contrast, you can’t test whether common descent produces this branching process.
We can identify them. We just can’t do so with only one analysis. Again, it requires a holistic approach to identify created kinds NOT a smoking gun approach.
A Legged whales or Legged seacows makes no difference because a legged whale and legged seacow is still a whale or a seacow. Just like a chihuahua or a great dane are still dogs.
I gave everyone the theory already that shows why it results in those things…
All extant species share a similar design that can be traced back to a universal common designer. However, what makes them different is the application of the differences in parts and functions that fit better in different environmental niches, giving them their uniqueness.
Definitions
Design: to create and develop animals separately through the process of HGT to survive, reproduce, and pioneer different environments globally
Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., OR)
Species: an ad hoc group of known animals that share continuity without regard to discontinuity with other organisms. In other words, this is a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. This could be a group containing one basic type or a portion of it, i.e., when a basic type is represented by a tree, one or more branches of that tree would be a species.
Basic types: the complete set of all known living and/or extinct animals in a group beginning after the designer created the original set of animal kinds. In other words, it is an entire related group that (1) shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least one other member) and (2) is bounded by discontinuity.
Therefore, each natural group of related plants or animals constitutes a basic type. The basic type may be represented as a branching tree, the nodes and tips of the branches representing all the known members (e.g., subspecies and species) of the “kind.”
Group of basic types: a group of known species bounded by discontinuity without regard to internal continuity, i.e., it may be one or more complete sets of basic types
A group of basic types may share similar morphology, ecology, and function but, by definition, not common descent, somewhat like polyphyletic groups.
Yes, common design or mechanism can create the same process as I explained to @John_Harshman
How am I wrong? Legged whales or Legged seacows makes no difference because a legged whale and legged seacow is still a whale or a seacow. Just like a chihuahua or a great dane are still dogs.
That is just the first step or analysis among many steps before we can arrive at a confident conclusion.
Again, it requires a holistic approach to identify created kinds NOT a smoking gun approach.
Well, I just gave you my theory again. So just tell me what you think the common design theory does not explain or predict that common descent does explain or predict. I say this because I don’t know what common design can’t explain that common descent can.
