It shows orthologous genes or genes shared between humans and zebrafish and the other organisms mentioned.
Environmental factors decide whether a gene loss event is deleterious or beneficial. Its not inherent. The E.coli lines in Lenski’s LTEE experiment lost a couple of genes (like the one that encodes a maltose transporter) due to degrading mutations but they did just fine anyway and are still experiencing an increase in fitness. We lost the GULO gene (which encodes an enzyme that catalyzes the synthesis of vitamin C) activity too, but probably due to the preponderance of fruits rich in vitamin C in the environment of our ancestors, they didn’t feel the impact of that gene loss event.
Like I said, to figure out how this divergence events played out, then you have to look at information from various sources like DNA and fossils. Reproduction is necessary for evolutionary change but it does not cause evolutionary change. Mutations do. You have a very weird perception of how evolution happens.
The chart you linked unsettles nothing about our shared ancestry with zebrafish and other vertebrates.
You understand that we can see genes being gained and lost, right, including lots of intermediate steps? Genes are duplicated and diverge. Genes arise from non-coding sequences that still exist in close relatives. Genes are inactivated as pseudogenes, which gradually decay. All this is known. What sort of mathematical model do you demand in the face of all that evidence? Are you trying to force people to prove that bumblebees can fly?
How does a single event “mathematically support” anything? Of course there’s a simple model: natural selection.
Nothing in ID-Creationism has been supported with any mathematical model. When will we see the justification for the IDC probability claims you keep championing?
Except that “model” was scientifically disproven more than a century ago Bill. You don’t get to substitute MAGIC! for scientific facts just because you don’t understand the science.
It’s already been done Bill. It’s called evolutionary theory. You really should read up on it sometime.
Yes, but explaining how it happened, as I have several times, does explain how it happened. The various intermediate states observed are quite good clues, all of which you studiously ignore. Which of the various mechanisms of gene loss and gain do you doubt, and why? How does design account for pseudogenes homologous to old genes, paralogous genes, and non-coding sequences homologous to new genes?
It does not account for this. What the design hypothesis is telling you is where to initiate your scientific research. When we start from living populations the models work well.
The inability to model the transitions to new gene sets observed in Sals flower is giving us a clue to the origin of these animals.
Heh. Bill’s latest science misunderstanding “shiny thing” infatuation. At least we don’t have to hear the “disembodied brain did it” fantasy for a while.
Then we don’t need it. Evolutionary theory has that covered already.
I don’t know what you have been reading, but all evolutionary models assume a population (organisms, cells, DNA sequences, proteins) of interest exists.
Define what you mean by “gene sets”?
I also don’t know what you are talking about with respect to “Sals flower”.
“Sal’s flower” is called that because it was introduced to various forums by Sal Cordova, and it looks rather like a flower. It’s the colorful Venn diagram of gene content in four species that you can see above. Bill has been trotting it out regularly as if it’s a big problem for evolutionary biology, and he ignores all the explanations of why it isn’t.
Gene sets are the genes types that a species genome contain. Sals flower is a Venn diagram that shows similarity and differences between the genes of zebra fish, chickens, mice and humans.
Simple: when genes are different, that’s evidence for design; when genes are the same, that’s evidence for design. Should be obvious. Sure, gene presence and absence follow a nested hierarchy quite well, as do gene sequences. But that’s evidence for design too. I guess so, I dunno.
