What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[leroy]

Come back when you have actually learned enough biology to understand why this tiny little coincidence is not the bomb you think it is.

Ok sounds like you are saying

“yes Leroy you were correct all along, the article is referring g to the same genetic variations in the same genes”

But…

This is not the big bong that you think it is”

Correct me if this doesn’t represents your current position.



So I will ask for the 5th time

At what point would this be a “big bomb”… what if we find another similar “little coincidence” in bats and dolphins……… what if we find 2 more or 3 more or 10 more or 100 more? At what point would you say that this is an issue?

 

[metis]

Imagine that we have a mutation presentent in humans and gorillas but not in chimps, (this would be a discordance).. now imagine that we have 2 mutations or 3 or 10 or 20 or 100………… at what point would you say that the discordances are relevant?

Each difference is relevant if it gets passed down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

from the article

"We previously reported that the Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat [3]. Here we report that this gene has also undergone convergent amino acid substitutions in echolocating dolphins, which group with echolocating bats in a phylogenetic tree"

According the research the exact same Ts where substituted by the same As (and so on) in the exact same gene, in the exact same location.

this is not like the Guinea Pig

Vitamine C : 2 different clades had a different "spellling mistake" in the same sentence

Echolocation: 2 different clades had the same "spelling mitakes" in the same sentence in the same letter

do you see the difference..............? do you see why is this a "problem" for evolution by random mutations + natural selection?

LOL! You put it in bold but you did not even understand it. The word "convergent" does not mean identical.

Please show where the article supports identical changes in the DNA. It is not there. If they found that it would have been headline news everywhere.

Once again, the exact same gene is broken in apes, like you and me, and guinea pigs. But the break in guinea pigs is in a different location than it is in great apes. All of the great apes have the exact same break in the same location in the same gene. That shows relatedness. The break in guinea pigs is in a different location. That does not show relatedness.

When two species that are not closely related undergo the same evolutionary pressures the same genes may evolve. There are even different areas of genes that do different jobs so convergent evolution may even be in the same general location as in the other. What you won't find, if the theory of evolution is correct, is repeated examples of the exact same mutation occurring. The article says nothing about that at all and by using the term "convergent" they imply that is not what happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok sounds like you are saying

“yes Leroy you were correct all along, the article is referring g to the same genetic variations in the same genes”

But…

This is not the big bong that you think it is”

Correct me if this doesn’t represents your current position.



So I will ask for the 5th time

At what point would this be a “big bomb”… what if we find another similar “little coincidence” in bats and dolphins……… what if we find 2 more or 3 more or 10 more or 100 more? At what point would you say that this is an issue?

Similarities under similar pressures is not a "big bomb". Once again, if the changes were exactly the same that is what would refute evolution. I told you that at the start. I explained to you how all the great apes have the same break. The exact same break in their Vitamin C gene.

Just a little FYI: A gene can be easily 10,000 codons long. It can be over 100,000 codons long. If dolphins and bats shared a single mutation that arose after their split long ago the odds of that would be less than one out of 10,000 because the one in ten thousand only refers to the exact location. If it is a point mutation then you would have to multiply that by nine. If it was some sort of intron then it would be far far worse. One is enough to seriously question the theory. Two would refute it. But if you see the same gene mutating in different ways that is just convergent evolution.

This should not be so hard to understand.

 

[leroy]

LOL! You put it in bold but you did not even understand it. The word "convergent" does not mean identical.

Please show where the article supports identical changes in the DNA. It is not there. If they found that it would have been headline news everywhere.

Once again, the exact same gene is broken in apes, like you and me, and guinea pigs. But the break in guinea pigs is in a different location than it is in great apes. All of the great apes have the exact same break in the same location in the same gene. That shows relatedness. The break in guinea pigs is in a different location. That does not show relatedness.

When two species that are not closely related undergo the same evolutionary pressures the same genes may evolve. There are even different areas of genes that do different jobs so convergent evolution may even be in the same general location as in the other. What you won't find, if the theory of evolution is correct, is repeated examples of the exact same mutation occurring. The article says nothing about that at all and by using the term "convergent" they imply that is not what happened.

Convergent amino acid substitutions means that the same mutations occurred, for example both had the same ´´A´´ substituted by the same “G” in the same loci ……….. if you make a tree using just this gene dolphins would appear more closely related to bats than to whales. (this is what the article is saying)

What you won't find, if the theory of evolution is correct, is repeated examples of the exact same mutation occurring.

Exact same amino acid substitution = same mutation.



The article is not even ambiguous, it is clearly talking about the same mutations

 

[leroy]

Similarities under similar pressures is not a "big bomb". Once again, if the changes were exactly the same that is what would refute evolution. I told you that at the start. I explained to you how all the great apes have the same break. The exact same break in their Vitamin C gene.

Just a little FYI: A gene can be easily 10,000 codons long. It can be over 100,000 codons long. If dolphins and bats shared a single mutation that arose after their split long ago the odds of that would be less than one out of 10,000 because the one in ten thousand only refers to the exact location. If it is a point mutation then you would have to multiply that by nine. If it was some sort of intron then it would be far far worse. One is enough to seriously question the theory. Two would refute it. But if you see the same gene mutating in different ways that is just convergent evolution.

This should not be so hard to understand.

well evolution has been refuted by your standards........we have an example of 200 loci

Here we analyse genomic sequence data in mammals that have independently evolved echolocation and show that convergence is not a rare process restricted to several loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus. Systematic analyses of convergent sequence evolution in 805,053 amino acids within 2,326 orthologous coding gene sequences compared across 22 mammals (including four newly sequenced bat genomes) revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12511

so 200 regions in echolocation related genes, where bats and dolphins are analogous , what else do you whant?

But if you see the same gene mutating in different ways that is just convergent evolution.

we have the same gene mutating in the same way

 

[Subduction Zone]

well evolution has been refuted by your standards........



we have the same gene mutating in the same way

You really have some problems with reading comprehension when your myths are threatened. And as you know, quoting out of context is a method lying.

Here is what you need to show, and it can be found these days if it exists. This is not an unreasonable demand:

You have to show that the exact same mutations occurred in the exact same places on the two genomes. That both species had mutations in even the same general location of a gene does not help you. That is just convergent evolution and is well understood.

Think about it, we can show that the mutation across all of the great apes in the vitamin C gene is exactly the same. Show that with bats and dolphins and you will get a Nobel Prize.

 

[leroy]

You really have some problems with reading comprehension when your myths are threatened. And as you know, quoting out of context is a method lying.

Here is what you need to show, and it can be found these days if it exists. This is not an unreasonable demand:

You have to show that the exact same mutations occurred in the exact same places on the two genomes. That both species had mutations in even the same general location of a gene does not help you. That is just convergent evolution and is well understood.

Think about it, we can show that the mutation across all of the great apes in the vitamin C gene is exactly the same. Show that with bats and dolphins and you will get a Nobel Prize.

Why would I get a Nobel Price if I didn’t worte the paper?

The paper clearly describes the same variations in the same loci……………..


"The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene –"

 

[Pogo]

Similarities under similar pressures is not a "big bomb". Once again, if the changes were exactly the same that is what would refute evolution. I told you that at the start. I explained to you how all the great apes have the same break. The exact same break in their Vitamin C gene.

Just a little FYI: A gene can be easily 10,000 codons long. It can be over 100,000 codons long. If dolphins and bats shared a single mutation that arose after their split long ago the odds of that would be less than one out of 10,000 because the one in ten thousand only refers to the exact location. If it is a point mutation then you would have to multiply that by nine. If it was some sort of intron then it would be far far worse. One is enough to seriously question the theory. Two would refute it. But if you see the same gene mutating in different ways that is just convergent evolution.

This should not be so hard to understand.

Do Genetic Similarities in Bats and Dolphins Echo Evolutionary Convergence?​

Surprise Surprise it is Answers in Genesis which explains that total lack of understanding of science.

Which to be fair does link to;

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals​

A 2013 paper in Nature which is quite readable.

Evolution is typically thought to proceed through divergence of genes, proteins and ultimately phenotypes1,2,3. However, similar traits might also evolve convergently in unrelated taxa owing to similar selection pressures4,5. Adaptive phenotypic convergence is widespread in nature, and recent results from several genes have suggested that this phenomenon is powerful enough to also drive recurrent evolution at the sequence level6,7,8,9.

and things like

Echolocation is a complex phenotypic trait that has evolved independently in bats and whales, and which involves the production, reception and auditory processing of ultrasonic pulses for obstacle avoidance, orientation and hunting11,12. Recent phylogenetic studies have shown that echolocating bats are not a true group—one lineage also contains the non-echolocating Old World fruit bats (family Pteropodidae), indicating that echolocation has evolved at least twice in bats, or was lost early in the evolution of Old World fruit bats13,14,15. New evidence supports the former scenario: divergent clades of echolocating bats seem to have undergone convergent amino acid replacements in several genes implicated in hearing8,16,17,18. Furthermore, some candidate hearing genes also show parallel changes in echolocating bats and whales, again suggesting roles in high-frequency hearing10,16,18,19. Other genes that might function in echolocation have been identified from screens for selection in bat20 and cetacean sequence data21. Here, using the evolution of echolocation as a model of phenotypic convergence, we investigated the extent to which parallel changes have occurred across the genome during the independent evolution of echolocation in bats and cetaceans.

Needless to say it does not support the AIG nonsense, all it says is that convergent and parallel evolution can be powerful.

Haven't seen an AIG argument pushed this hard recently, but they haven't gotten any better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would I get a Nobel Price if I didn’t worte the paper?

The paper clearly describes the same variations in the same loci……………..


"The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene –"

That paper does not support you. You are adding meaning to it. Genes are huge. You can have the "same changes" in effect by different mutations. You need to show that the mutations are the same. And that is easy today. You will note that they did not claim that and implied that it was not a case of the exact same mutations by the use of the term "convergent".

You are not just repeating mistakes that have been corrected multiple times by multiple posters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do Genetic Similarities in Bats and Dolphins Echo Evolutionary Convergence?​

Surprise Surprise it is Answers in Genesis which explains that total lack of understanding of science.

Which to be fair does link to;

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals​

A 2013 paper in Nature which is quite readable.

and things like


Needless to say it does not support the AIG nonsense, all it says is that convergent and parallel evolution can be powerful.

Haven't seen an AIG argument pushed this hard recently, but they haven't gotten any better.

I have to give him some credit since I suggested that he should do what he has done. He got an idea from a pseudoscience sort, and rather than quoting the pseudoscience site he went to a more reliable source. But he refuses to drop the false interpretation of the pseudo science site. As your article bats alone refute his claims because they developed this trait. Bats have evolved it twice at least, but the only way to determine that is to investigate the genomes and see that they have different mutations that led to echo location. But for good measure they add in that cetacean evolution is convergent as well.

" Recent phylogenetic studies have shown that echolocating bats are not a true group—one lineage also contains the non-echolocating Old World fruit bats (family Pteropodidae), indicating that echolocation has evolved at least twice in bats, or was lost early in the evolution of Old World fruit bats13,14,15. New evidence supports the former scenario: divergent clades of echolocating bats seem to have undergone convergent amino acid replacements in several genes implicated in hearing8,16,17,18. Furthermore, some candidate hearing genes also show parallel changes in echolocating bats and whales, again suggesting roles in high-frequency hearing10,16,18,19. Other genes that might function in echolocation have been identified from screens for selection in bat20 and cetacean sequence data21. Here, using the evolution of echolocation as a model of phenotypic convergence, we investigated the extent to which parallel changes have occurred across the genome during the independent evolution of echolocation in bats and cetaceans."

@leroy, I do congratulate you on finding another way to test the theory of evolution. But the studies do not appear to support you.

 

[leroy]

That paper does not support you. You are adding meaning to it. Genes are huge. You can have the "same changes" in effect by different mutations. You need to show that the mutations are the same. And that is easy today. You will note that they did not claim that and implied that it was not a case of the exact same mutations by the use of the term "convergent".

You are not just repeating mistakes that have been corrected multiple times by multiple posters.

Well given that i don’t have a time machine, I cant tell for sure if the mutations where the same, but nether do you in the vitamine C example.

The fact is that both lines have the same variations in the same genes in the same 200 loci …….. such that if you make a tree with say the gene Pristine dolphins and bats appear more closely related to each other than say dolphins and whales.

 

[Pogo]

Well given that i don’t have a time machine, I can tell for sure if the mutations where the same, but nether do you in the vitamine C example.

The fact is that both lines have the same variations in the same genes in the same 200 loci …….. such that if you make a tree with say the gene Pristine dolphins and bats appear more closely related to each other than say dolphins and whales.

"There is no God" the bible
Is that a good statement about what the bible means or maybe as we have been telling you you are misinterpreting things due to lack of understanding of the context.

AIG is wrong and lying to you about what that paper is saying. Your interpretation of the paper is as valid as someone insisting there is no God is what the bible is saying but you don't understand why due to your lack of knowledge of evolution.

 

[leroy]

"There is no God" the bible
Is that a good statement about what the bible means or maybe as we have been telling you you are misinterpreting things due to lack of understanding of the context.

AIG is wrong and lying to you about what that paper is saying. Your interpretation of the paper is as valid as someone insisting there is no God is what the bible is saying but you don't understand why due to your lack of knowledge of evolution.

It is very easy to be you,

All you have to do is say “you misunderstood the paper because I say so” and AIG is lying because I say so.

Why don’t you justify your accusations?............... please explain with your own words what the paper actually says . and then support your version with actual quotes from the paper.

 

[Pogo]

It is very easy to be you,

All you have to do is say “you misunderstood the paper because I say so” and AIG is lying because I say so.

Why don’t you justify your accusations?............... please explain with your own words what the paper actually says . and then support your version with actual quotes from the paper.

Already told you, Convergence and parallel evolution may be more prevalent than priorly thought. Interesting but nothing that questions evolution basically. As for quotes I already posted enough of the paper, want more, read it that is what the blue link is for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well given that i don’t have a time machine, I cant tell for sure if the mutations where the same, but nether do you in the vitamine C example.

The fact is that both lines have the same variations in the same genes in the same 200 loci …….. such that if you make a tree with say the gene Pristine dolphins and bats appear more closely related to each other than say dolphins and whales.

Yes we can tell that the mutations are the same for great apes. That is the point that you refuse to understand. And we know that the mutations are not the same even in bats alone.

In humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans the gene is broken at an identical spot. The article that you misunderstood does not say that the mutations are exactly the same and in fact strongly implies the opposite.


We are now officially in "Been there, done that, bought the t shirt" territory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is very easy to be you,

All you have to do is say “you misunderstood the paper because I say so” and AIG is lying because I say so.

Why don’t you justify your accusations?............... please explain with your own words what the paper actually says . and then support your version with actual quotes from the paper.

We have. But we cannot force you to understand.

 

[Pogo]

Yes we can tell that the mutations are the same for great apes. That is the point that you refuse to understand. And we know that the mutations are not the same even in bats alone.

In humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans the gene is broken at an identical spot. The article that you misunderstood does not say that the mutations are exactly the same and in fact strongly implies the opposite.


We are now officially in "Been there, done that, bought the t shirt" territory.

Problem is that he wants a holy t-shirt book of revealed knowledge and that is not how education works. There is no one paper or god given book of evolution.

 

[leroy]

Already told you, Convergence and parallel evolution may be more prevalent than priorly thought. Interesting but nothing that questions evolution basically. As for quotes I already posted enough of the paper, want more, read it that is what the blue link is for.

Interesting but nothing that questions evolution basically.

That is a matter of interpretation, but nobody is forcing any interpretation on you…

All you need to do is admit the facts

The fact being that according to the article dolphins and bats have the same variations in the same genes in the same loci…………ether accept this fact, or prove that I am wrong.

if you accept this fact and interpreted such that it doesnt represent a problem for evolution, then good for you...............

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a matter of interpretation, but nobody is forcing any interpretation on you…

All you need to do is admit the facts

The fact being that according to the article dolphins and bats have the same variations in the same genes in the same loci…………ether accept this fact, or prove that I am wrong.

if you accept this fact and interpreted such that it doesnt represent a problem for evolution, then good for you...............

No, it is demonstrably not interpretation. The genes are still there. They can be fully sequenced AiG won't pay for it because they know that they are wrong.