Yes, like for example:
God created everything in such and such a specific way that causes taxonomy to be very confusing and difficult. Therefore, whenever there is a disagreement about taxonomy or cladistics, this is evidence that God created living things in just that specific manner.
Again, not that this thread is about ToE, but ToE does predict that taxonomy will be difficult and ambiguous, and explains why. Therefore, as usual, newhope's evidence supports ToE.
God did not create everything to be confusing. It is researchers trying to turn evidence into an evolutionary support that makes it all confusing for you. It's like talking to a brick wall. If there is little test of falibility you do not have a science at all. You cannot grasp this fact. Evos predicted smooth evolution and this was not found. They thought life would be very genetically different..it wasn't. Darwin predicted smooth transitions. Darwin was wrong. There is no test of falibility. And I'll say this again,,if you found a precambrian mammal or human you would still come up with some theory as to how this 'evolved'.
I see common ancestry of all species in your evidence and this IS creative evidence. It is an assumption not based on facts that there was cohorts for anything.
Hasn't evolution been cruel for you. You'd think of all the speices on the earth at least one of them might have been considerate enough to leave some evidence of other females or males. But darn...in every species not one has maintained any evidence of cohorts. In every line ALL other ancestors disappeared. This sounds like a bedtime story and not a good one at that.
Then there the minimum viable population which is meant to be 10,000. One of the magical numbers you've dreamed up with your probabilities. So how do you reckon those first cells went as a species? or doesn't that count?
Current tree of life showing horizontal gene transfers
Importance in evolution
Horizontal gene transfer is a potential
confounding factor in inferring
phylogenetic trees based on the
sequence of one
gene.
[28] For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene a
phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.
For example, the most common gene to be used for constructing phylogenetic relationships in
prokaryotes is the
16s rRNA gene since its sequences tend to be conserved among members with close phylogenetic distances, but variable enough that differences can be measured. However, in recent years it has also been argued that 16s rRNA genes can also be horizontally transferred. Although this may be infrequent the validity of 16s rRNA-constructed phylogenetic trees must be reevaluated.[
citation needed]
Biologist
Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes."
[9] There exist several methods to infer such
phylogenetic networks.
Using single
genes as
phylogenetic markers, it is difficult to trace organismal
phylogeny in the presence of horizontal gene transfer. Combining the simple
coalescence model of
cladogenesis with rare HGT horizontal gene transfer events suggest there was no single
most recent common ancestor that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of
life. Each contemporary
molecule has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule
cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times."
[9]
So you see above..I think your researchers are grabbing at straws trying to pull this ancestry together. Similar genes can be reflective of inhabiting same environments, eating similar foods, being exposed to the same virus.
Now you've come up with many cells that arose individually and apparently transfered genes to each other. So even though they arose individually, they were still biologically similar enough to effectively transfer genes. What does that tell you? It tells me that when life arises on this planet there is only one blueprint to follow. Otherwise the individual life would have been so different in biological structure that gene transfer should not have occured. What you are seeing is similarity due to other factors other than ancestry. So both of your models of single cell or multi cells arising makes no sence one way or the other.
There has been no evolution of genes and this is what was expected. The findings of such similarity beween species was surprising initially. Then of course that prediction went out the window and it was simailarity that supported Toe.
What you call similarity is not similarity at all. Each gene that you say is shared with other creatures is very different in other creatures and the same gene performs different functions in different species. Even in our own bodies the same dna 'knows' to produce an eye, a leg or a nervous system. The fact that all life appears to have similar genes, that aren't similar at all, shows God used a very clever blueprint to create life.
Then there's Ardi, who to me appears to be an evolutionary freak. She changed the look of things for evos. All life has some advantage. Ardi does not, in her current representation, have any advantage. She is not adept at bipedal walking and she cannot swing through trees, she doesn't appear to have the might of a gorilla. Ardi appears to have been very vulnerable to predators with no evolutionary advantage. I think Ardi has been misrepresented in some way, and has nothing to do with the ancestry of humans, just like Lucy.
So now with Ardi knuckle walking arose individually in gorrillas, orangutangs and chimps. You also say that humans are 99% similar chimps, using one method of comparison, another more holistic view suggests 30%. The thing is, these chimps underwent huge changes in morphology to knucklewalking tree swingers and humans grew the ability to reason. There should be loads of differences between us. The fact that science has not found them yet tells me science has a long way to go.
Really to sum up, I do not believe that your researcher really know what they are looking at yet, and continue to clutch at any straw.
