If mammals would have had inactive genes for feathers, why would that be a problem from evolution, in what way would that “destroy” the tree pattern.
If you rearrange the entire thing and have it still form a tree, then obviously it won't break the tree pattern.
And once again we are back to the useless tautology: "
if everything were different then everything would be different".
The fact of the matter is that
mammals do not have such genes. Instead, they have genes for hair.
So if tomorrow you find such a mammal,
while all other mammals (and non-mammals) studied till today remain the same, then the tree pattern breaks.
Sheesh dude.
How many times do you need it spelled out for you?
You are so far gone you have even lost track on the core issue. That core issue was:
what if tomorrow we find a mammal with feathers?
As explained above, and several other multiple times,
then it would be in conflict with all other data and it would be a violation of the nested hierarchical structure of anatomy and dna.
Because finding a mammals with feathers tomorrow,
wouldn't change anything about all the mammals we already know and have studied to date.
If mean if mammals would have had inactive genes for feathrs
But they don't.
The point. You keep missing it. Or perhaps better said: you keep
ignoring it.
, that would simply indicate that feathers evolved before mammals and birds split, and that for some reason (selective pressure maybe) mammals lost their feathers……………..evolution would be consistent with this idea.
But mammals don't have such genes.
And finding a mammal with feathers tomorrow, won't magically make such genes appear in all genomes sequenced to date, where such genes aren't present.
SO, finding a mammal with feathers tomorrow, would break the phylogenetic tree.
So we have a parallel universe where everything remains the same, except that in this universe some mammals in the fossil record with feathers where discovered.(Darwin was aware of these fossils)
In what way would that falsify the theory of evolution?
In what way would that falsify say universal common ancestry?
It would not fit a nested hierachy.
Also note that you are now resorting to arguing about hypothetical parallel universes to get your silly point accross.
You have now entered the level of "well if pigs could fly, then pigs could fly".
Well big whoop.
Call me when you actually find a mammal with feathers.
You won't though. I'm certain of this. Mammals have hair.
In fact, it could be even argued that if you find a creature with feathers, that already disqualifies it as a mammal. Because one of the charecteristics of mammals, is that they have hair.
And that is the result of evolution. This is how we know that we won't be finding a feline with feathers. Because feathers sit an on entirely different branch of the tree of life, and evolution (common ancestry of species) is pretty much a fact. This is how we KNOW that we won't be finding any felines with feathers. Finding a feline with feathers would be the equivalent of finding a massive object that is unaffected by gravity.
IF you would encounter such, you'ld pretty much instantly think that there must be some anti-gravity technology going on.
Similarly, a feline with feathers, my first idea would be "result of artificial genetic manipulation", because natural origins of such a trait would be pretty much ruled out.
If it could be shown to have a natural origin, evolution as currently understood would be successfully disproven.
Ow, and I can make "supernatural" predictions also.
I predict that none of this will sink into that brain of yours and that within 2 posts, you'll be back making the same dumb claims again, as if none of the points made in this post (and all previous posts - and not just by yours truly) were never made. Instead, you'll just double down on your strawmen and intellectual dishonesty.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
