Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 80 of 127 (266713)
12-08-2005 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by randman
12-08-2005 2:45 AM


Re: Is this true?
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.
The flight structures of insects and birds were never considered homologous. I’m sure we both agree that birds did not evolve from flies. Early insects actually did not have wings. So it should be clear that flight developed independently in these two cases. Both of these fit extremely well into evolutionary sequence.
Evolutionists do not often invoke the concept of convergence, but if the shoe fits .
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.
I suppose what you’re trying to say here, is that if the structures arose due to convergence, then surely the genes arose independently as well.
Well, you’re basically right, IF you’re talking specifically about the gene’s functional ability to produce wings . that possibly did arise independently.
But not if you’re talking about the gene sequence. The genes themselves are not the result of convergent evolution; they were present before flight in birds or insects evolved. If you examined the flightless ancestors of both birds and insects you will most likely find a homologue in them as well. This homologue was present in the last common ancestor of birds and insects, most likely some form of arthropod. It was passed down through both lineages, where it independently mutated, first in insects, then in birds, to create wings.

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 12-08-2005 2:45 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 12-08-2005 6:33 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 83 of 127 (266720)
12-08-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Wounded King
12-08-2005 6:33 AM


Re: Is this true?
Yes, WK, you're right and i am aware of this.
however, i thought that it might be easier for Randman to understand if i just stuck to the core concept, and left out any complexities.
what i was trying to get across is how convergent evolution and common descent aren't in conflict.

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 12-08-2005 6:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024