The Fossil Record and Evolution

@scd

Maybe to cut off a long and pointless discussion: Is your claim that it is hypothetically possible for the same trait to evolve twice, much as it is hypothetically possible to have a true coin come up heads a million times in a row?

And, @Rich_Hampton, is your claim similar: That it is possible theoretically, but also practically impossible in the same sense that a coin coming up heads a million times in a row is practically impossible?

1 Like

Yes. How many bases do you think comprise the fish fin or dolphin flipper?

1 Like

Precisely, though I used the monkeys typing Shakespeare metaphor previously.

2 Likes

yes and no. yes- its possible and no- its not so improbable.

probably a lot but if you agree that the same 10 bases can evolve twice where you put the limit for evolution? 20 bases? 30? there is no such limit and thus there is no real limitation to evolve a fish fin twice.

1 Like

@scd

Ah very good.

So, then, I presume you also think it is “not so improbable” that a bunch of chemicals could have just smacked together by chance to form a living cell and there is no need to presume that an intelligent agent or god would be needed to make this happen, correct?

If not, then you also need to specify exactly how you determined where to draw the line to determine that a fin evolving twice is plausible, but a cell popping into existence from chemicals smacking together is not.

1 Like

The limit will show itself in the real world. Look at the current lifeforms and find identically genetic traits that have evolved in different lineages.

1 Like

when i said that its not so imrobable i refer to evolution theory. so according to evolution it will not be so improbable to evolve a fish fin twice.

so again we are going back to the assumption that evolution is true. by that logic i can say that since special creation is true then all fins were designed by convergent design and thus arent the result of common descent. see the problem? this is why i asked for a real calculation and not just assumption. and there is no such calculation.

1 Like

Please answer my question, or just admit you are not able to answer my question and, therefore, your entire line of argument here is invalid.

Thanks in advance.

1 Like

That is a real calculation. It’s the same method used to determine the likelihood of a hurricane, earthquake, etc, for a particular locale in a given year.

It also doesn’t claim what produces the effect, only the frequency with which it appears. You could use the same calculation to determine how frequently the intelligent designers apply the same genetically identical design to a second lineage.

1 Like

as for you question: no, i dont think that its likely to evolve a cell from a bunch of chemicals.

base on what? base on the assumption that evolution happened. by the way we can also explain it by convergent loss. so again we can see that evolution can explain any finding.

Read this again.

again: no calculation.

You have not answered my question. I will repeat it here, to refresh your memory and save you the trouble of having to scroll up to find it.

Number of events / time period

So take the number of genetically identical traits and divide that by the number of years. Just for fun you can do this for the last millennium, century, decade or year. All you need to do is supply the numerator. Go ahead, try it.

1 Like

your question assuming something that i dont believe. so i cant realy answer something that i dont believe anyway.

easy: since all fish were created at once, and say that there are about 300 different groups (kinds) of fish. my calculation give us about 300 convergent events per day. see the problem with your calculation? it depend on the assumption that evolution is true and thus its not realy a calculation but an assumption.

If all fish were created at once, why do they show up at such different points in the fossil record?

4 Likes

its actually was a theoretical assumption (i dont have a problem with different groups designed in different times) to show why Rich claim is base on assumption and not a calculation. if you can answer that question it will be interesting to see your calculation. although i dont think that such a clculation exist.

What makes you think there are different groups (“kinds”) at all?

The argument was about genetically identical traits appearing outside of lineages. Your example was the fish fin appearing on the dolphin and penguin. That’s the number of events that is supposed to appear in the numerator. You can use this simply approach to calculate the average occurrence of earthquake or hurricanes for a given locale.

Come on, your not even trying.

2 Likes

the clear difference between many groups like mammals and reptiles for instance

i dont think so. you assume that evolution is true. its not realy a calculation. as i said already several times.
.