Convergent Evolution Defies Evolution...

[gilbo12345 858]

This is a spin off thread which I have created from

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=101546

 

 

It has come to my realization that the idea of convergent evolution defies the founding basis of evolution itself.

 

Convergent evolution is an aspect of evolution claimed ad hoc to explain away organisms which have similar or the same features, yet do not have common ancestry. The fact that evolutionists have created convergent evolution has legitimized these contradictory observations.

 

Evolutionists commonly site similarities as their evidence for evolution, similarities in DNA, in morphology, etc.. However this is based on assuming similarities = ancestry.

 

Yet convergent evolution defies such an assumption, since it is the observation of similar traits with no common ancestry... Therefore if we observe similar traits with no common ancestry, on what basis can evolutionists claim that similarities are evidence of ancestry / common ancestry?

[nonaffiated 27]

Well of course evolution does claim a common ancestor.

Perhaps you just mean not a close common ancestor?

 

For example the Thylacine of Australia, and the wolf would both be considered mammals, geographically separated, and have independently adapted similar characteristics in response to their respective environs.

 

Now for the creation perspective...

These are representatives of two different kinds.

 

 

One is actually a dog but they both climb trees.

[Bonedigger 42]

This looks like a more generalized version of my Problem of Homoplasy thread.

[gilbo12345 858]

This looks like a more generalized version of my Problem of Homoplasy thread.

 

Really. Sorry to steal your thunder.

 

Just figured the concepts of convergent evolution and assuming similarities = ancestry are diametrically opposed, yet both are affirmed by evolutionist dogma

 

 

Well of course evolution does claim a common ancestor.

Perhaps you just mean not a close common ancestor?

 

For example the Thylacine of Australia, and the wolf would both be considered mammals, geographically separated, and have independently adapted similar characteristics in response to their respective environs.

 

Now for the creation perspective...

These are representatives of two different kinds.

 

 

One is actually a dog but they both climb trees.

 

Not sure how this has anything to do with what I have written in the OP

[Mike Summers 448]

One is actually a dog but they both climb trees.

I could climb trees much better when I was younger. Help! I'm devolving!

[Adam Nagy 49]

Well of course evolution does claim a common ancestor.

Perhaps you just mean not a close common ancestor?

I think what is meant is that the implied common ancestor lacked the trait in question. For instance; whatever the common ancestor is between an octopus, with a lensed eye, and a cephalopod, with a pinhole eye, was morphologically prior to either eye developed.

[Vegan 4]

Therefore if we observe similar traits with no common ancestry, on what basis can evolutionists claim that similarities are evidence of ancestry / common ancestry?

This seems to me to be a false dilemma. Homoplasy and homology are not mutually exclusive.

[lifepsyop 230]

Convergent evolution is an added layer of redundancy to the already flimsy evolutionary assumptions. The argument from homology (that similar structures are indicative of ancestry) is itself based on total assumption. So to add on the "except when it doesn't" convergent caveat is just adding to the absurdity. Convergence (homoplasy) is also used methodologically as a rescue device to save the alleged "nested hierarchy of common descent" from ever being falsified by the appearance of an out of place complex trait.

 

PALEONTOLOGY: Homoplasy in the Mammalian Ear 2005

 

The separation of the middle ear bones from the mandible is considered a defining feature of all modern mammals. But did this event happen once in a primitive mammalian ancestor or independently in the monotreme lineage and therian (marsupial and placental) lineage? As Martin and Luo discuss in their Perspective, a new fossil-the dentary bone of an ancient toothed monotreme-suggests that the middle ear bones formed independently in these two mammalian lineages, providing a remarkable example of homoplastic evolution.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15708843

[Bonedigger 42]

This seems to me to be a false dilemma. Homoplasy and homology are not mutually exclusive.

 

Care to elaborate on that? Or do you just intend to throw in another ad hoc "explanation" like atavisms.

[greg 32]

 

Care to elaborate on that? Or do you just intend to throw in another ad hoc "explanation" like atavisms.

As long as we're clear that ad hoc doesn't necessarily mean "untrue". Just that additional skepticism is merited.

[Dataforge 7]

Convergent evolution isn't a problem for evolution.

 

If you assume that it's possible for a feature to evolve then there's no reason a similar feature couldn't evolve to perform a similar function.

 

The thing is, there are a near infinite potential arrangements and pathways for a feature that performs a particular function, so the odds of two features evolving independently and turning out exactly the same is astronomical. So, we'd expect all cases of convergent evolution to be similar in function, yet different in morphology.

 

This is exactly what we find. For example, birds, bats, pterosaurs and insects all have completely different wing arrangements. A panda's thumb is completely different to our thumb. A dolphin's flipper is different to a fish's flipper.

 

If you assume creationism is true then there's no reason a different taxon couldn't have the exact same feature.

 

I wouldn't say two organisms having similarities is evidence of evolution. It certainly helps, but there's no reason a god couldn't create organisms with similarities. What I do maintain is that the pattern of similarities, that forms a nested hierarchy, is evidence for evolution. Cases of convergent evolution support that.

[gilbo12345 858]

Convergent evolution isn't a problem for evolution.

 

 

If you assume that it's possible for a feature to evolve then there's no reason a similar feature couldn't evolve to perform a similar function.

 

So assuming things are possible is science now... Well that makes sense...

 

The thing is, there are a near infinite potential arrangements and pathways for a feature that performs a particular function, so the odds of two features evolving independently and turning out exactly the same is astronomical. So, we'd expect all cases of convergent evolution to be similar in function, yet different in morphology.

 

Bats and dolphins use the exact same gene for their sonar..... Kinda debunks your assumptions hey

 

However this is ignoring my point, how can evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, whilst at the same time know that there are organisms that are similar and yet have no ancestry... They cherry-pick what they want to believe occured / assume (as you aptly said above), and go from there.

 

 

I wouldn't say two organisms having similarities is evidence of evolution.

 

Then why is it assumed in terms of ancestry? When evolutionists look at fossils all they can do is compare similarities and that is how they define whether one is related to another... Therefore how can this assumption be valid when we know that similar traits can be acquired outside of ancestry... How do they KNOW what trait was due to ancestry and which was not?

 

It certainly helps, but there's no reason a god couldn't create organisms with similarities. What I do maintain is that the pattern of similarities, that forms a nested hierarchy, is evidence for evolution. Cases of convergent evolution support that.

 

How does convergent evolution support organisms with similarities forming a nested hierarchy?

 

You do realise that the nested hierarchy is a human construct?

[Dataforge 7]

So assuming things are possible is science now... Well that makes sense...

 

Well...yeah. If you're going to argue something contradicts evolution, how can you argue that unless you assume evolution is true for the sake of argument? Remember, it's for the sake of this argument, I'm not asking you to convert right here, right now.

 

Bats and dolphins use the exact same gene for their sonar..... Kinda debunks your assumptions hey

 

Yes, that is interesting. As with morphology, I don't see any reason genes couldn't convergantly evolve as well.

 

However this is ignoring my point, how can evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, whilst at the same time know that there are organisms that are similar and yet have no ancestry... They cherry-pick what they want to believe occured / assume (as you aptly said above), and go from there.

 

I thought I made that clear. They're only similar in function. Morphologically they're more similar to whatever evolution says they evolved from. Again, the assumption is only for the purpose of argument.

 

Then why is it assumed in terms of ancestry?

 

Because, assuming evolution is true (again, only for the sake of argument), what else would it indicate?

 

When evolutionists look at fossils all they can do is compare similarities and that is how they define whether one is related to another... Therefore how can this assumption be valid when we know that similar traits can be acquired outside of ancestry... How do they KNOW what trait was due to ancestry and which was not?

 

Like you said, it's the similarity. But, different aspects of similarity are given different weight. Things that are easy to evolve, or more likely to converge, are weighted less heavily than things that are less likely to evolve or converge.

 

How does convergent evolution support organisms with similarities forming a nested hierarchy?

 

According to evolution a structure on one branch cannot simply jump to the other branch. If it evolves on each branch separately then differences are to be expected. It's expected that it would be more similar to other structures on its branch, having evolved from them, rather than structures on the other branch.

 

For example, a kiwi's feathers are much like fur. Yet, they're still feathers. It makes sense that feathers would evolve similar properties to fur, rather than fur evolving again on a kiwi. There's no reason a god couldn't create kiwis with fur.

 

You do realise that the nested hierarchy is a human construct?

 

Of course, just like a map is a human construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't represent something real.

[gilbo12345 858]

Yes, that is interesting. As with morphology, I don't see any reason genes couldn't convergantly evolve as well.

 

.... As I asked you how can evolutionists assume similarities = ancestry, when they have observed examples to the contrary?...

 

I thought I made that clear. They're only similar in function. Morphologically they're more similar to whatever evolution says they evolved from. Again, the assumption is only for the purpose of argument.

 

Firstly evolution cannot say anything... Its not sentient, (although many evolutionists talk and act like it is).

 

I gave you the example of dolphin and bats sharing the same gene for sonar... Which debunks this argument of yours... You've ignored my example and claimed the same thing again, which my example debunks...

 

Dolphins and bats share the same function and the same gene for said function, therefore you cannot say its only the same in function... (unless you are ignoring my example).

 

.... As I asked in the OP how can evolutionists assume similarities = ancestry, when they have observed examples to the contrary?...

 

Because, assuming evolution is true (again, only for the sake of argument), what else would it indicate?

 

Huh? How is this a reply?

 

I wouldn't say two organisms having similarities is evidence of evolution.

 

gilbo12345, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:39, said:

Then why is it assumed in terms of ancestry?

 

So why are similarities assumed to be due to ancestry? When we already know that some similarities are not... Seems evolutionists are stacking the deck by making assumptions that they try to fit into their beliefs...

 

 

Like you said, it's the similarity. But, different aspects of similarity are given different weight. Things that are easy to evolve, or more likely to converge, are weighted less heavily than things that are less likely to evolve or converge.

 

As I asked how do they KNOW which traits are due to ancestry?... What you have given here is simply subjective assessments from evolutionists.... Subjective / opinion based assessment doesn't equate to reality.

 

According to evolution a structure on one branch cannot simply jump to the other branch. If it evolves on each branch separately then differences are to be expected. It's expected that it would be more similar to other structures on its branch, having evolved from them, rather than structures on the other branch.

 

Yet this is based on assuming similarities = ancestry... Perhaps the traits making one of the supposed horse transitions similar was not due to ancestry, this means it cannot be a transitional... However it is assumed to be because it is assumed that similarities = ancestry.

 

Additionally as per the "evolution did it" thread there is no experiment that can verify such an assumption... So evolutionists believe this assumption...

 

1- Despite there being no experimental evidence for it

2- There are observed occurrences which defy this assumption

 

For example, a kiwi's feathers are much like fur. Yet, they're still feathers. It makes sense that feathers would evolve similar properties to fur, rather than fur evolving again on a kiwi. There's no reason a god couldn't create kiwis with fur.

 

How does this explain anything?

 

Of course, just like a map is a human construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't represent something real.

 

Yet a map is based on what is observed in reality... Nested Hierarchy is based on what is assumed...

[Dataforge 7]

Firstly evolution cannot say anything... Its not sentient, (although many evolutionists talk and act like it is).

 

When someone says "evolution says...", what they mean is "the theory of evolution says...". We're all well aware that the process and history of evolution can't actually speak.

 

I gave you the example of dolphin and bats sharing the same gene for sonar... Which debunks this argument of yours... You've ignored my example and claimed the same thing again, which my example debunks...

 

I thought I quite clearly addressed your example: If you assume(only for the sake of argument) that morphology can evolve convergantly there's no reason genes can't either.

 

Dolphins and bats share the same function and the same gene for said function, therefore you cannot say its only the same in function... (unless you are ignoring my example).

 

Yes, these two genes are remarkably similar. But, it's not a common occurrence, is it? Surely some exceptions can be expected.

 

Huh? How is this a reply?

 

How is it not a reply? That was a joke, you don't have to answer that. In all seriousness we can trade vague questions all day. If you go back and answer the question I asked then we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

 

As I asked how do they KNOW which traits are due to ancestry?... What you have given here is simply subjective assessments from evolutionists.... Subjective / opinion based assessment doesn't equate to reality.

 

I never said the process was simple. Perhaps it would be best if you gave two organisms who's evolutionary ancestry you find contentious, and I'll explain how we determine their position in the nested hierarchy.

 

Yet this is based on assuming similarities = ancestry... Perhaps the traits making one of the supposed horse transitions similar was not due to ancestry, this means it cannot be a transitional... However it is assumed to be because it is assumed that similarities = ancestry.

 

The nature of a fossil being transitional or not isn't based on assumptions of direct ancestry. Either way, I gave some criteria for how to determine the closeness of two organisms.

 

Additionally as per the "evolution did it" thread there is no experiment that can verify such an assumption... So evolutionists believe this assumption...

 

1- Despite there being no experimental evidence for it

2- There are observed occurrences which defy this assumption

 

I didn't think anybody rejected the idea that two organisms more closely related are going to be more similar. I thought that was sufficiently demonstrated through just basic observation of any organism's breeding, even if they hadn't undergone speciation.

 

How does this explain anything?

 

Again, can we avoid the vague questions? Can you tell me specifically what you think my example with the kiwi didn't explain?

 

Yet a map is based on what is observed in reality... Nested Hierarchy is based on what is assumed...

 

Are taxonomic groupings not observed in reality?

[lifepsyop 230]

Convergent evolution isn't a problem for evolution.

 

If you assume that it's possible for a feature to evolve then there's no reason a similar feature couldn't evolve to perform a similar function.

 

The thing is, there are a near infinite potential arrangements and pathways for a feature that performs a particular function, so the odds of two features evolving independently and turning out exactly the same is astronomical.

Since when are astronomical odds a problem for Evolution theory? What, do you think, are the odds that culled genetic accidents are going to create feathers? Or any piece of complex functional anatomy? Do you have any idea? I'd love to hear the mathematical odds you've worked out....

 

 

So, we'd expect all cases of convergent evolution to be similar in function, yet different in morphology.

 

Yet as soon as you are shown examples to the contrary, you will instantly absorb it into your thinking of "Look what evolution did..."

 

 

 

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-032511-142302?journalCode=ecolsys

 

Developmental Patterns in Mesozoic Evolution of Mammal Ears

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2011

 

Complex structures with significant biological function can arise multiple times in evolution by common gene patterning and developmental pathways. The mammalian middle ear, with its significant hearing function, is such a complex structure and a key evolutionary innovation. Newly discovered fossils have now shown that the detachment of the ear from the jaw, an important transformation of the middle ear in early mammals, has major homoplasies; the morphogenesis of these homoplasies is also illuminated by new genetic studies of ear development in extant mammals. By extrapolating the developmental morphogenesis of genetic studies into the early mammal fossil record, evolution of the middle ear in early mammals provides an integrated case study of how development has impacted, mechanistically, the transformation of a major structural complex in evolution.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21956253

Invasive implantation and intimate placental associations in a placentotrophic African lizard, Trachylepis ivensi (scincidae).

Blackburn 2011

 

In the viviparous lizard Trachylepis ivensi (Scincidae) of central Africa, reproducing females ovulate tiny ∼1 mm eggs and supply the nutrients for development by placental means. Histological study shows that this species has evolved an extraordinary placental pattern long thought to be confined to mammals, in which fetal tissues invade the uterine lining to contact maternal blood vessels.... T. ivensi represents a new extreme in placental specializations of reptiles, and is the most striking case of convergence on the developmental features of viviparous mammals known.

 

[lifepsyop 230]

According to evolution a structure on one branch cannot simply jump to the other branch. If it evolves on each branch separately then differences are to be expected. It's expected that it would be more similar to other structures on its branch, having evolved from them, rather than structures on the other branch.

Yet the phylogenetic branches themselves are largely determined by the very structures in question. If those 'out of place' structures contrast too heavily with an assumed lineage, then the species phylogeny can be arranged accordingly. The absence of any actual common ancestry data makes this possible.

 

 

For example, a kiwi's feathers are much like fur. Yet, they're still feathers. It makes sense that feathers would evolve similar properties to fur, rather than fur evolving again on a kiwi. There's no reason a god couldn't create kiwis with fur.

 

Oh good. Can you please tell me the evolutionary rule that says birds can not convergently evolve mammal-like hair and fur? I would like to know what empirical data allows you to predict that this could not have happened over tens of millions of years.

[gilbo12345 858]

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

When someone says "evolution says...", what they mean is "the theory of evolution says...". We're all well aware that the process and history of evolution can't actually speak.

Then don't say that evolution can say things... Simple.

 

We've had others claim that there is rationale behind evolution as well as evolution designing like engineers, so its a running theme that evolutionists see evolution as sentient...

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

I thought I quite clearly addressed your example: If you assume(only for the sake of argument) that morphology can evolve convergantly there's no reason genes can't either.

 

Yes, these two genes are remarkably similar. But, it's not a common occurrence, is it? Surely some exceptions can be expected.

Huh? How does this solve anything?

 

So you just assume that its ok.... So evolutionists are allowed to assume that similarities = ancestry and simply ignore the cases that demonstrate that this isn't always so... If there is a contradiction in the assumption of similarities = ancestry then doubt would be imposed onto all of the assumption, How do evolutionists KNOW that X trait really is due to ancestry?.... And no, claiming that they can assume it is, is not a valid response...

 

Considering your reply how can you claim any of this to be scientific?

 

Its the same with the evolutionist argument of finding a single rabbit in the cambrian, they claim that would falsify their ideas about geology... The same happens here, this one contradiction, (lifepsyop has given another as per hearing), contradicts what is believed and thus the assumption of similarities = ancestry is now invalid... Since how can anyone know what traits were due to ancestry and which weren't?

 

ANY contradiction is enough to make the assumption invalid you have been given two examples.

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

How is it not a reply? That was a joke, you don't have to answer that. In all seriousness we can trade vague questions all day. If you go back and answer the question I asked then we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

Its not a reply because you haven't demonstrated anything... All you are saying is that if people assume evolution is true then they can make said assumptions... That does nothing to solve the issue, in fact you're making evolutionists' look more and more unscientific.

 

You said

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:31, said:

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:31, said:

I wouldn't say two organisms having similarities is evidence of evolution.

I asked you why is it assumed in terms of ancestry?

 

WHY... WHY is similarities assumed to be related to ancestry? Even when we know of examples to the contrary, which breaks this assumption...

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

I never said the process was simple. Perhaps it would be best if you gave two organisms who's evolutionary ancestry you find contentious, and I'll explain how we determine their position in the nested hierarchy.

Did I say you said it was simple?

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

The nature of a fossil being transitional or not isn't based on assumptions of direct ancestry. Either way, I gave some criteria for how to determine the closeness of two organisms.

And I pointed out how its based on assuming similarities = ancestry... Yet we know that this assumption doesn't hold water due to observed contradictions, (convergent evolution)... Which means for evolutionists to claim similarities = ancestry for some, and then claim the opposite for others is evolutionists cherry picking whatever they want out of the data... Very unscientific.

 

Are you going to respond to this or be intentionally vague and miss the point?

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

I didn't think anybody rejected the idea that two organisms more closely related are going to be more similar. I thought that was sufficiently demonstrated through just basic observation of any organism's breeding, even if they hadn't undergone speciation.

Can that idea be extrapolated to ancestry beyond observations of the same form of organism?... You can extrapolate but realise that ideas are not scientific until experimentally demonstrated. If you want to hold to this line of argumentation you will be required to admit that evolutionary ideas are not scientific.

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

Again, can we avoid the vague questions? Can you tell me specifically what you think my example with the kiwi didn't explain?

You are the one being vague...

 

It had nothing to do with what you were responding to.

 

gilbo12345, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:39, said:

How does convergent evolution support organisms with similarities forming a nested hierarchy?

Perhaps I'll put it a bit more simply... How does the knowledge that similar traits are found in organisms without similar ancestry support the belief that organisms with similarities form a nested hierarchy

Dataforge, on 13 Feb 2014 - 13:10, said:

Are taxonomic groupings not observed in reality?

Humans class taxonomic groups, its a human construct... So a human construct supports a human construct... So how does it relate to reality?

[gilbo12345 858]

 

Since when are astronomical odds a problem for Evolution theory? What, do you think, are the odds that culled genetic accidents are going to create feathers? Or any piece of complex functional anatomy? Do you have any idea? I'd love to hear the mathematical odds you've worked out....

I'd like to see those odds too

 

Yet as soon as you are shown examples to the contrary, you will instantly absorb it into your thinking of "Look what evolution did..."

 

Hence the idea of "convergent evolution", slap the "evolution" label to it and people don't realise that evolutionists uphold two contradictory ideas....

 

The point which is being intentionally skipped over here is the contradiction and how evolutionists can assume that similarities = ancestry... Despite being knowing of examples where this is not the case. If its not the case sometimes then how can they KNOW that the cases they claim are due to ancestry really are due to ancestry...

 

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-032511-142302?journalCode=ecolsys

 

Developmental Patterns in Mesozoic Evolution of Mammal Ears

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2011

 

Complex structures with significant biological function can arise multiple times in evolution by common gene patterning and developmental pathways. The mammalian middle ear, with its significant hearing function, is such a complex structure and a key evolutionary innovation. Newly discovered fossils have now shown that the detachment of the ear from the jaw, an important transformation of the middle ear in early mammals, has major homoplasies; the morphogenesis of these homoplasies is also illuminated by new genetic studies of ear development in extant mammals. By extrapolating the developmental morphogenesis of genetic studies into the early mammal fossil record, evolution of the middle ear in early mammals provides an integrated case study of how development has impacted, mechanistically, the transformation of a major structural complex in evolution.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21956253

Invasive implantation and intimate placental associations in a placentotrophic African lizard, Trachylepis ivensi (scincidae).

Blackburn 2011

 

In the viviparous lizard Trachylepis ivensi (Scincidae) of central Africa, reproducing females ovulate tiny ∼1 mm eggs and supply the nutrients for development by placental means. Histological study shows that this species has evolved an extraordinary placental pattern long thought to be confined to mammals, in which fetal tissues invade the uterine lining to contact maternal blood vessels.... T. ivensi represents a new extreme in placental specializations of reptiles, and is the most striking case of convergence on the developmental features of viviparous mammals known.

 

 

Great example Lifepsyop

 

Its sad that data has decided to ignore this from my post #14

 

 

Yet this is based on assuming similarities = ancestry... Perhaps the traits making one of the supposed horse transitions similar was not due to ancestry, this means it cannot be a transitional... However it is assumed to be because it is assumed that similarities = ancestry.

 

Additionally as per the "evolution did it" thread there is no experiment that can verify such an assumption... So evolutionists believe this assumption...

 

1- Despite there being no experimental evidence for it

2- There are observed occurrences which defy this assumption

[lifepsyop 230]

What gets me is how straight-jacketed the data is in the evolutionary worldview.

 

By definition the very existence of a character trait is either plesiomorphic (retained from an ancestor) or apomorphic (an evolutionary innovation) So the argument from "homology" is based on the automatic assumption that any contradictory data is accounted for by "non-homology". So you have to first believe in evolution/universal common descent before an argument from homology becomes rational.

[gilbo12345 858]

Exactly, all of the "evidence" for evolution is founded on first assuming "evolution did it", and from there they build constructs and relationships etc... all the while claiming that such constructs are definitive of reality yet not realizing that its all predicated on assuming evolution from the onset.. Its most certainly not science, its a worldview.

[Dataforge 7]

 

Since when are astronomical odds a problem for Evolution theory? What, do you think, are the odds that culled genetic accidents are going to create feathers? Or any piece of complex functional anatomy? Do you have any idea? I'd love to hear the mathematical odds you've worked out....

 

People in this forum do like going off on tangents .

 

I don't know, I've never done the calculations, and I don't know how I would. Do you know what the odds are?

 

Yet as soon as you are shown examples to the contrary, you will instantly absorb it into your thinking of "Look what evolution did..."

 

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-032511-142302?journalCode=ecolsys

 

Developmental Patterns in Mesozoic Evolution of Mammal Ears

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2011

 

Complex structures with significant biological function can arise multiple times in evolution by common gene patterning and developmental pathways. The mammalian middle ear, with its significant hearing function, is such a complex structure and a key evolutionary innovation. Newly discovered fossils have now shown that the detachment of the ear from the jaw, an important transformation of the middle ear in early mammals, has major homoplasies; the morphogenesis of these homoplasies is also illuminated by new genetic studies of ear development in extant mammals. By extrapolating the developmental morphogenesis of genetic studies into the early mammal fossil record, evolution of the middle ear in early mammals provides an integrated case study of how development has impacted, mechanistically, the transformation of a major structural complex in evolution.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21956253

Invasive implantation and intimate placental associations in a placentotrophic African lizard, Trachylepis ivensi (scincidae).

Blackburn 2011

 

In the viviparous lizard Trachylepis ivensi (Scincidae) of central Africa, reproducing females ovulate tiny ∼1 mm eggs and supply the nutrients for development by placental means. Histological study shows that this species has evolved an extraordinary placental pattern long thought to be confined to mammals, in which fetal tissues invade the uterine lining to contact maternal blood vessels.... T. ivensi represents a new extreme in placental specializations of reptiles, and is the most striking case of convergence on the developmental features of viviparous mammals known.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what I'm looking at here. Are these examples of features on different branches that are exactly the same, in both function and morphology? I can only read the abstracts, and they mention striking similarity, but neither say they're exactly the same, nor is there any mention of the magnitude of similarity.

 

 

Yet the phylogenetic branches themselves are largely determined by the very structures in question. If those 'out of place' structures contrast too heavily with an assumed lineage, then the species phylogeny can be arranged accordingly. The absence of any actual common ancestry data makes this possible.

 

Sure, they could be rearranged a little. But, you'll find if you try to arrange something non-living into a nested hierarchy there are patterns of features that simple cannot be put into a nested hierarchy, no matter how you try to rearrange it.

 

Oh good. Can you please tell me the evolutionary rule that says birds can not convergently evolve mammal-like hair and fur? I would like to know what empirical data allows you to predict that this could not have happened over tens of millions of years.

 

I don't have the empirical data. I'm sorry, you'll just have to make do with basic logic: It's easier to turn feathers into fur like than it is to evolve fur from feathers. Do you disagree?

 

 

Then don't say that evolution can say things... Simple.

 

But the theory of evolution does say things, and the word "evolution" can refer to "the theory of evolution", so I don't really know what your problem is

 

We've had others claim that there is rationale behind evolution as well as evolution designing like engineers, so its a running theme that evolutionists see evolution as sentient...

 

Perhaps that's because some things are easier to explain when you personify them.

 

Huh? How does this solve anything?

 

Gilbo, I'm really trying to discuss these issues but you seem intent to stonewall these discussions. Considering evolutionists wasting time seems to be an issue on this forum I would think you would all be happy to keep discussions moving. You are continuously stonewalling debates with vague unhelpful questions(like above), "I know you are but what am I?" type responses,refusal to discuss or consider hypotheticals, refusal to make assumptions for the sake of argument, changing the subject, refusal to argue logic and refusal to answer any and all questions.

 

I have already asked you many questions, and if you answer them we can have a proper discussion. I'll even tell you exactly what they have to do with this discussion in case you're not sure or distrustful:

 

Assuming evolution is true(relax, only for the sake of argument), what would similarity indicate besides closer relatedness? If you believe similarities would indicate something else if evolution is true, then you should say what it is. If there's no alternative, then that proves my point.

 

Can you name two organisms who's evolutionary ancestry you find contentious, and I'll explain how we determine their position in the nested hierarchy? This is because you seem to be unaware how similarities can determine ancestry, so with two specific examples it would be easier to explain. Otherwise, you should ask me questions about how the method I gave you works, rather than dismissing the whole thing as subjective.

 

I'll go through the rest of your post that did actually respond. The parts I leave out were already answered with the above two questions.

 

Can that idea be extrapolated to ancestry beyond observations of the same form of organism?

 

Yes, because A. Wouldn't you expect two organisms that are closely related be more similar to two organisms that are less closely related? and B. There's no reason everything we understand about ancestry and similarity would be different once you cross the "kind" line. Feel free to explain why it would be different if you disagree.

 

It had nothing to do with what you were responding to.

 

gilbo12345, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:39, said:

Perhaps I'll put it a bit more simply... How does the knowledge that similar traits are found in organisms without similar ancestry support the belief that organisms with similarities form a nested hierarchy

 

I did offer you an explanation. If you have problems with my explanation you should ask questions about it, or tell me specifically what you find wrong with it:

 

According to evolution a structure on one branch cannot simply jump to the other branch. If it evolves on each branch separately then differences are to be expected. It's expected that it would be more similar to other structures on its branch, having evolved from them, rather than structures on the other branch.

For example, a kiwi's feathers are much like fur. Yet, they're still feathers. It makes sense that feathers would evolve similar properties to fur, rather than fur evolving again on a kiwi. There's no reason a god couldn't create kiwis with fur.

 

Humans class taxonomic groups, its a human construct... So a human construct supports a human construct... So how does it relate to reality?

 

Yes, but are the features we classify these groups by not observed in reality?

[gilbo12345 858]

But the theory of evolution does say things, and the word "evolution" can refer to "the theory of evolution", so I don't really know what your problem is

 

Sigh.... So evolution (or the "theory" of evolution) has a voicebox?.....

 

Perhaps that's because some things are easier to explain when you personify them.

 

Or perhaps its because there is an intelligence behind the design... You're attempting to fit a God-sized hole with evolution and so proclaim it has the properties of God in order to do so..

 

Gilbo, I'm really trying to discuss these issues but you seem intent to stonewall these discussions. Considering evolutionists wasting time seems to be an issue on this forum I would think you would all be happy to keep discussions moving. You are continuously stonewalling debates with vague unhelpful questions(like above), "I know you are but what am I?" type responses,refusal to discuss or consider hypotheticals, refusal to make assumptions for the sake of argument, changing the subject, refusal to argue logic and refusal to answer any and all questions.

 

Perhaps if you quoted the entirety of what I wrote it won't be so unhelpful..... (You know people can go back and see what I said, right?)

 

Here is the full quote

 

 

"Huh? How does this solve anything?

 

So you just assume that its ok.... So evolutionists are allowed to assume that similarities = ancestry and simply ignore the cases that demonstrate that this isn't always so... If there is a contradiction in the assumption of similarities = ancestry then doubt would be imposed onto all of the assumption, How do evolutionists KNOW that X trait really is due to ancestry?.... And no, claiming that they can assume it is, is not a valid response...

 

Considering your reply how can you claim any of this to be scientific?

 

Its the same with the evolutionist argument of finding a single rabbit in the cambrian, they claim that would falsify their ideas about geology... The same happens here, this one contradiction, (lifepsyop has given another as per hearing), contradicts what is believed and thus the assumption of similarities = ancestry is now invalid... Since how can anyone know what traits were due to ancestry and which weren't?

 

ANY contradiction is enough to make the assumption invalid you have been given two examples."

 

 

 

So in fact it is you who is stonewalling discussions when you ignore and cut out the relevant parts of what is said to you

 

In fact you are accusing me of what you are doing... I find that highly dishonest.

 

I have already asked you many questions, and if you answer them we can have a proper discussion. I'll even tell you exactly what they have to do with this discussion in case you're not sure or distrustful:

 

I have answered them, go back and look.... (If you can stop ignoring my points and cutting them out of your replies)

 

Assuming evolution is true(relax, only for the sake of argument), what would similarity indicate besides closer relatedness? If you believe similarities would indicate something else if evolution is true, then you should say what it is. If there's no alternative, then that proves my point.

 

Wrong... Just because there is no alternative means your claims are not correct, you have created a false dichotomy... Additionally, the fact that you had to assume your conclusion in order to support it is the begging the question fallacy...

 

Can you name two organisms who's evolutionary ancestry you find contentious, and I'll explain how we determine their position in the nested hierarchy? This is because you seem to be unaware how similarities can determine ancestry, so with two specific examples it would be easier to explain. Otherwise, you should ask me questions about how the method I gave you works, rather than dismissing the whole thing as subjective.

 

I'd much rather we sort out what is being discussed as per convergent evolution rather than you create a red herring to escape into, perhaps create your own thread...

 

I'll go through the rest of your post that did actually respond. The parts I leave out were already answered with the above two questions.

 

Oh so you admit to cutting out my responses in your post...... You haven't answered to the clear contradiction that is observed... Why do evolutionists assume that similarities are a function of ancestry when they already know of examples where this is not the case... If they know that it isn't always the case how can they know when to assume it is or isn't?... It becomes entirely subjective and thus not scientific.

 

Yes, because A. Wouldn't you expect two organisms that are closely related be more similar to two organisms that are less closely related? and B. There's no reason everything we understand about ancestry and similarity would be different once you cross the "kind" line. Feel free to explain why it would be different if you disagree.

 

So you are allowed to extrapolate it because you assume you can.... Yeah that is logical, not..

 

Why do you think that people are allowed to make assumptions and think that its scientific, riddle me that.

 

I did offer you an explanation. If you have problems with my explanation you should ask questions about it, or tell me specifically what you find wrong with it:

 

I already told you the issue.... Perhaps if you didn't ignore it we could discuss it... You're example had nothing to do with what you were responding to, I have already mentioned this, as per below... I have repeated and quoted what you were attempting to respond to, in order to stop your red herring.. Perhaps that is why you do not want to discuss the issue.

 

You are the one being vague...

 

It had nothing to do with what you were responding to.

 

gilbo12345, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:39, said:

gilbo12345, on 13 Feb 2014 - 10:39, said:

How does convergent evolution support organisms with similarities forming a nested hierarchy?

 

Perhaps I'll put it a bit more simply... How does the knowledge that similar traits are found in organisms without similar ancestry support the belief that organisms with similarities form a nested hierarchy

 

 

According to evolution a structure on one branch cannot simply jump to the other branch. If it evolves on each branch separately then differences are to be expected. It's expected that it would be more similar to other structures on its branch, having evolved from them, rather than structures on the other branch.

For example, a kiwi's feathers are much like fur. Yet, they're still feathers. It makes sense that feathers would evolve similar properties to fur, rather than fur evolving again on a kiwi. There's no reason a god couldn't create kiwis with fur.

 

Again this has nothing to do with what you were responding to....

 

How does convergent evolution support organisms with similarities forming a nested hierarchy?

 

Perhaps I'll put it a bit more simply... How does the knowledge that similar traits are found in organisms without similar ancestry support the belief that organisms with similarities form a nested hierarchy

 

Yes, but are the features we classify these groups by not observed in reality?

 

The features are, but not the classifications... That is the human subjective construct... You cannot try and force reality to bow down to your constructs.

[lifepsyop 230]

People in this forum do like going off on tangents .

 

I don't know, I've never done the calculations, and I don't know how I would. Do you know what the odds are?

How was that a tangent? I was directly responding to your line of argumentation:

 

Dataforge: The thing is, there are a near infinite potential arrangements and pathways for a feature that performs a particular function, so the odds of two features evolving independently and turning out exactly the same is astronomical.

 

You are arguing that evolution theory does not expect something because of "astronomical odds", so I asked you what the odds are of culled genetic accidents producing the specific feature once, as opposed to twice. The answer is that evolution theory has nothing even remotely representing statistical likelihood scenarios that culled genetic accidents will produce complex anatomical systems over millions of years. So you have no theoretical basis or reference point with which to be incredulous about the hypothetical convergence of those systems.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what I'm looking at here. Are these examples of features on different branches that are exactly the same, in both function and morphology? I can only read the abstracts, and they mention striking similarity, but neither say they're exactly the same, nor is there any mention of the magnitude of similarity.

 

You're moving the goalposts into dubious territory here. "Exactly the same" ? It's questionable whether this is even physically possible between two distinctly different body plans with different physiological constraints. What I showed you was the proposed convergent evolution of mammalian middle ear bones, which have long since been assumed to be shared by a single common ancestor with those features because of their complexity and indistinguishable appearance in extant mammalian groups. I also showed you a placental system found in lizards that was believed to be only found in mammals. How exactly is this substantially different than finding an anatomical structure (something long thought to be confined to birds and dinosaurs, like feathers) on a mammal?

 

Sure, they could be rearranged a little. But, you'll find if you try to arrange something non-living into a nested hierarchy there are patterns of features that simple cannot be put into a nested hierarchy, no matter how you try to rearrange it.

 

Okay now you're trailing off into a different subject. (And by the way there are plenty of biological traits that violate the nested hierarchy of common descent, and are arbitrarily selected out of the NH criteria for this very reason)

 

You said that "evolution theory says structures can not jump branch to branch"... My point was that if structures violate conventional phylogeny, then the divergence of that group's lineage can be pushed back in mystical evolutionary time to a node that conforms better to the proposed nested hierarchy. Since evolution does not identify nodes or actual common ancestors, there is a lot of wiggle room here.

 

 

I don't have the empirical data. I'm sorry, you'll just have to make do with basic logic: It's easier to turn feathers into fur like than it is to evolve fur from feathers. Do you disagree?

 

This is like asking if it's easier for a man to leap to the Moon or leap to Jupiter. Both invoke a high level of superstition in the powers of culled genetic accidents over time to produce novel complex anatomical structures. But again, you're argument was that it is unexpected or somehow "against the odds" for a Kiwi to convergently evolve mammal-like fur. Yet you cannot provide any ballpark of these odds, or any kind of 'rule' of evolution theory that says a bird could not convergently evolve mammal-like fur. The reason is because Evolution doesn't have the theoretical basis to predict these things one way or the other. This is because Evolution (within the context of universal common ancestry) is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical belief system.

[Bonedigger 42]

I wouldn't say two organisms having similarities is evidence of evolution. It certainly helps, but there's no reason a god couldn't create organisms with similarities. What I do maintain is that the pattern of similarities, that forms a nested hierarchy, is evidence for evolution. Cases of convergent evolution support that.

Of course, just like a map is a human construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't represent something real.

Yet a map is based on what is observed in reality... Nested Hierarchy is based on what is assumed...

Are taxonomic groupings not observed in reality?

Humans class taxonomic groups, its a human construct... So a human construct supports a human construct... So how does it relate to reality?

Yes, but are the features we classify these groups by not observed in reality?

The features are, but not the classifications... That is the human subjective construct... You cannot try and force reality to bow down to your constructs.

 

Data, I've been covering this on the subfamily level for the Equinae in my Problem of Homoplasy thread, but here is an example on a much higher taxonomic level. Geisler and Theodor published a cladistic analysis for whales and hippos in 2009 that includes taxa all the way down to the "lowly" rat. They used more than 38,000 characters, most of which are molecular, but 216 of which are morphological. Their tnt and tre files can be downloaded from Geisler's page here, and the TNT software itself can be downloaded here.

 

Their final "nested hierarchy" is this:

 

 

Now that's a nice nested hierarchy. The question is, though, how well does the actual data fit within that nested hierarchy? The way to determine that is with a homoplasy count. Here is the homoplasy count table for the morphological characters only (molecular homoplasy counts literally go off the page and you only get the last several thousand characters).

 

 

The total count for the morphological characters alone is 1204 (assuming I didn't miscount along the way). I'm not even going to try to count the tens of thousands of instances of molecular homoplasy. Each count represents an independent duplicate origination of a character that, within the nested hierarchy, cannot be attributed to inheritance from a common ancestor...i.e. convergence including parallelism and reversal (the software doesn't distinguish between them).

 

A good way to visualize the discordance of the data within the nested hierarchy is to map the actual characters within it. Unfortunately, Geisler and Theodor did not add descriptions of the characters to their tnt file, but even without those descriptions, you can see the discordant pattern. Here is, for example, character 40, which has a homoplasy count of 25, with 5 character states.

 

 

And here is character 57, which also has a homoplasy count of 25 with 5 character states.

 

 

On a more moderate side, here is character 63, with a homoplasy count of 19, and 4 character states.

 

 

And here is character 64, with a homoplasy count of 15, but only 3 character states.

 

 

As you can see, characters pop in and out throughout the "best fit" nested hierarchy. The fact that we can IMPOSE a nested hierarchy on the data with sophisticated techniques is proof of the ingenious ability of humans to use abstracts to classify things, not some correspondence to a "reality" of evolutionary relationships.

 

In terms of evolutionary theory, nested hierarchies are constructed based on the ASSUMPTION that similarities are the product of common ancestry. To dismiss homoplasy as not being problematic for the TOE as you did in your first post in this thread, is nothing but illogical dismissive bravado and faith in evolution apart from the actual data.