Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails

What about the following?

What about it? It is a lamentably shoddy reference clearly quote mined from a creationist site. What paper was it in? Who was the author? None of this is addressed.It is not, as you seemed to suggest in the 'Vowles and Amos' thread, from a textbook but from a paper in the journal 'Systematic Zoology'. The quote is also nearly twenty years old, well before molecular developmental genetics and evo-devo really took off.I have tracked down the reference, it is... TTFN,WK

It depends on the exact context: homologous structures between examples of convergent evolution do not share developmental patterns or genes. This does not refute evolution but does provide a weak argument against design-hypothesises.

Such structures are usually termed analogous rather than homologous in order to emphasise this distinction. As more has been learnt about the genetic basis of development it has become clear that even structures traditionally thought to be strictly analogous, such as the avian wing and the drosophila wing, have deep levels of homology. Many of the genes important in the patterning of the fly wing have close homologues expressed in discrete domains of the chick wing bud.TTFN,WK

So they have similar genes for parallel functions.And?The assumption is homology but why could we not assume the genes independently arose?How hard is it for new "genes" to arise?

We could assume it, the burden is rather on you however to give us any reason at all why we should assume it. Hard enough that it is considerably less likely that genes sharing such close sequence homology should arise independently than that they should have a common ancestor.This is another one of your fabulously vague questions which doens't reallly address anything, it certainly doesn't address the issue of homology against convergence. The requirement isn't for new genes to arise but for whole suites of virtually the same genes to arise in many divergent species.As to how hard it is simply to get a 'new' gene, ir depends entirely on your definition of 'new'. A single bp mutation can functionally alter an existing gene, is that new? What about a duplicated copy of that gene? Does a 'new' gene have to spring up de novo like one of the nylon digesting enzymes is thought to have as the result of a frame-shift mutation (Ohno, 1984)?TTFN,WK

JohnRay

quote:

---

"Evolution does not predict that atavisms will be present, but what evolution does predict is the pattern of atavisms if they DO exist."

​

Actually evolution does not predict a pattern. There could be zero, one, or many atavisms according to evolution. I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings). We don't observe wings on people, and evolution predicts that we should not observe wings on people. This is hardly a meaningful prediction.

---

Evolution theory does not predict that atavisms will occur, or how many. What it does predict is the type or pattern of atavism that can occur. The prediction is that an atavism can only appear if it is of a feature carried by an ancestor species. You are trying to make the argument sound circular, which it is not.

quote:

---

On the other hand, development is not conserved but this is never counted against evolution by the prediction pundits. So it's funny how these "predictions" get tallied up. If I didn't know better I'd think there might be some bias in the counting.

---

What do you mean by "development is not conserved"?

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

So where has anyone ever witnessed a species being born from parents with whom it is not capable of breeding? The theory of evolution is something that could be found in the National Enquirer.

I think you misunderstand the theory of evolution. Change is expected to be gradual, with children only slightly different from parents. And notice that we do see children as a little different from their parents. Evolution is about the accumulation of many small changes over multiple generations.

I know little about this topic---in fact, I can make neither heads nor tails of it... But I did see some points brought up that struck a chord in my common sense:1) Great opening post, by the way. You DO know how to format a presentation.2) 3) Welcome to EvC, by the way, JohnRay! There is a button on your reply box called PEEK. Press that button and you will see how we make these clever little boxes around other peoples quotes...it makes your replies look more professional!As for me, I am merely interested in this discussion. I have no knowledge one way or the other about this stuff...but I DO use my common sense when I read and ponder the points that all of you are making! Why do you suspect that there is some sort of plot? Tell me about your education in these matters, JohnRay. Where did you learn what you know and how open minded are you to any new knowledge?? This message has been edited by Phat, 12-06-2005 05:38 PM

---

Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.
Pensées (1670)We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.
Pensées (1670)Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit--speaking through the Apostle Paul

Evolution doesn't usually work by huge jumps in a single generation like that. It is a gradual process - the transition from, for example, early hominids to modern humans took a long time. There was never a chimp who gave birth to a human or anything like that. Rather, there was a population of hominids which changed gradually over thousands of years, eventually becoming more human-like as it went. It broke into several side populations as well, all of which have since died off - which is why you don't see Neanderthals anymore.Plants have produced offspring that can't reproduce with their parents. That is caused by a duplication of the whole genome of the plant, and so the offspring has to reproduce asexually, at least until it has built up a breeding population. In that case, the offspring would be classified into a different species.This message has been edited by Gary, 12-07-2005 02:29 PM

I'll remind all that this topic is in the "Human Origins" forum.Keys words in the topic title are "Man", "Monkey", and "Tails".Essentially, this is a "Tails" topic. All messages should have something to do with "Tails". If you post a message, it would be nice if you could make clear what the "Tails" connection is.Or something like that.Adminnemooseus

---

You missed my point completely. A species simply cannot produce offspring of a different species with whom it cannot breed. It is simply a fact that animals and humans cannot interbreed. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for a human to be the descendant of an ape. So evolutionists need to address their faulty premise before even beinginng to consider elaborating on it!

Evolution does not say this. We don't expect a dog to breed with a mouse or somesuch.Do you have siblings? You look different from them right? Slight genetic variations lead you all to look different. Compound those genetic variations by millions of years and imagine how different you will look! You may even be a different species by that point.This is an oversimplification, but your current understanding on how the ToE works is an absurdity. That's a stupid claim. No one is descended from an ape. We share a COMMON ANCESTOR with apes.Think about it this way, are you descended from your cusin? No. But you share a common ancestor (your grandparents). Likewise, somewhere way WAY back in time, we share an ancestor with modern apes. You don't understand evolution.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 01:02 PM

Hello, CaricoI guess you've jumped in the deep end and some of us have jumped on you.Welcome, even if belatedly.The major point that others are making you to is this:You do not understand evolutionary theory at all. Not in the tiniest little, wee, small bit. It is not sensible (or polite) to critisize something that you haven't a clue about.Fortunately this is a great place to learn. If you are polite and ask questions there are many knowledeable people here to help you. Some of us are more patient than others of course so you also have to take a bit of flak perhaps. Generally you will do better by asking questions rather than making assertions; by accepting that most people here are really interested in helpingl and that, in spite of lies you have been told most here will try to give you the truth as best they can.Again, welcome.