more evidence for shared ancestry (NOT similarity)

Hi SLPxWhy not similarity?Are you forgetting what our claim is? We believe God created these genomes (that have drifted since). Why shouldn't physiologically simlar organims have simlar genomes and chromosomal arrangement? Your 'must haves' are simply assumptions.God could have created the genomes!

Joe TThe problem with your point is that it is based on outward appearence. Physiologically whales are more like hippos than sharks as we all know. They breathe air!

SLPxHold on - all I am asking is what is the 'more than' simple similarity? I can see it with the previous retroviral insert posts but not with the subject matter of this thread. I am not playing dumb. I carefully read your abstract to see where it went beyond similarity - it didn't.

ItzpapalotlNot neccesarily. I agree with the data but although your conclusions are logical they are not the only ones possible.If phenotypically similar bacteria for example share the same environment now that does not mean they always did. Due to potentially different past historiues they will have differnt gene loss histories.

SLPxYou're the one starting a thread trying to prove 'not just similar' (in the thread title). So you tell us what is 'not just similar' about the work.Of course the results are approximately monophyletic but you know as well as I do that that is an approximation and that whenever something is non-monophyletic it is lableled convergent or horizontally transferred.

ItzI think my previous post suggested already that I agree with you that the bacteria convergently evolved for that niche. The key point is that I believe they convergently evolved due to allelic mutation and loss of genes rather than gain. They had differnt starting points but ended up the same phenotypically. Due to their different genotypes I bet if you put them in non-wild type environments then you would find differential phenotypic characteristics.The really crucial point is that I doubt that any genes with novel biochemical functions evolved during this process. From the comparison of Bacillus genomes it is clear that evoltuionists ascibe novel gene families to differnetial loss rather than gain at least in that example.

SLPxYou aren't aware of the hundreds of quotes from cladistic people about 'choosing your characters carefully' to avoid convergent features so as to get better trees? Do I really have to post these?And in the genome comparisons non-monophyletic but clearly homologous genes are always suggested to be horizontally transferred whether there is evidence or not. Note that I do not critize this procedure (it is highly logical) but I do point out that it is an assumption that need not be true if God created the genomes.PS - and what's the 'more than similarity'? [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-03-2002]