The argument, for example, for molecular studies to indicate common descent and nested heirarchies is that the only reason for genetic similarities is due to common ancestry.
So we see analogous structures, which would have been considered homologous, except evos cannot manage to fit them into a proper evolution sequence and so the claim is convergent or parallel evolution.
WK says there is a "deep homology" because of similar gene sequences, but all that really shows is that similar genes produce similar forms and features. So since we know these features are not the result of a common ancestor passing the forms down, according to everyone since evos state there was convergent evolution at work, well, then what we have is the fact that similar genes can occur with convergent evolution.
In other words, similar genes are not necessarily the result of common ancestry. The beleif that similar features meant common ancestry undergirded evolution, but some examples didn't fit. So evos speak of convergent evolution. The same features can simply be the result of converent evolution.
Well, now we see the same thing with genes. The same genes can be the result of convergent evolution, or perhaps evolution isn't really the answer at all.
If similar genes and similar features don't necessarily mean a common ancestor passing down these traits, then the whole basis of assumptions for evolution is very iffy.
What we have left is a clear case of design. Similar genes are just the result of similar design, and similar design, even according to evos, can emerge independently, and so it seems similar genes can to.
Why then assume similar genes and similar design are the result of common descent?
It'd be a stronger argument for evolution if identical features in convergent evolution were the result of different genes.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-08-2005 02:46 AM
™ Version 4.2
