Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Catfish Convergence

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

There are two kinds of evolutionists: Those who deny the massive convergence in biology, and those who deny the implications of the massive convergence in biology. Let me explain. The similarities between species are one of the favorite evidences of evolutionist’s. They argue these similarities, sometimes striking, reveal the underlying evolutionary pathways. There’s only one problem: Striking similarities also show up in patterns that cannot be ascribed to common descent. In fact, such convergences are abundant in biology. But you would hardly know it from talking to evolutionists who say the species form a neat common descent pattern. Yes, they do fit a neat common descent pattern with the data are pre filtered according to the neat common descent pattern. And what about those similarites that do not fit the pattern? No big deal. According to evolutionists, those similarities evolved independently. Here is a typical example dealing with venom glands in poisonous catfish:  Read more

Comments
osteonecin, so from your post (even though it's a bit garbled) it seems that you have better comprehension than I do. Could you then explain to me what the actual argument is?hrun0815
March 11, 2010
March
03
Mar
11
11
2010
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
As with so many other posts by Cornelius, I am simply confused. Is there an argument here? Is it simply first a statement of fact followed by an assertion of option? Many people apparently mistake this combo as an argument.
For your comprehension it might have advantagous to use T. cynocephalus and C. lupus as an example rather than catfish because the similarities are more obvious in this case. A picture carefully selected is telling more than 1000 words.osteonectin
March 11, 2010
March
03
Mar
11
11
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
As with so many other posts by Cornelius, I am simply confused. Is there an argument here? Is it simply first a statement of fact followed by an assertion of option? Many people apparently mistake this combo as an argument.
Compared to catfish it might have advantagous to use T. cynocephalus and C. lupus as an example because the similarities are more obvious in this case. Especially, if the right pictures are shown.osteonectin
March 11, 2010
March
03
Mar
11
11
2010
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Isn't it their relative intactness (decay) that makes them useful, as much as the fact that some genomes share them and some do not?Nakashima
March 11, 2010
March
03
Mar
11
11
2010
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Thanks to the myriad examples of similarities and convergence, and the inherent confusions of the lay language that describes them, this will be a never-ending source of discussion and confusion for the ID movement. hrun0815 said:
When different structures are similar there is convergence.
This is the crux of the whole thing. Many people naturally assume that "different structures" being "similar" is an oxymoron — are the structures similar or aren't they? Until they understand why it's not a contradiction, they'll keep asserting what the OP does. An area where highly similar structures have produced a not-yet-totally-solved problem in biology would be conserved non-coding DNA. The most common current hypothesis for it is that it is regulatory, but the science on it hasn't been fully worked out. But independently evolved venom production methods are a far, far cry from that sort of thing.Lenoxus
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
I'm not so sure that venom production in fish violates common descent. Piscine venom production is very common with many species of fish most notably with the spiney-ray fishes but venom production is also found in cartilagenous and lobe-finned fishes as well. The interesting thing with fish venoms is that they are often composed of only one or a few components that are biologically active unlike the cone snails and terrestrial animals which often contain hundreds of biologically active constituents in their venom. What would be surprising is to not find venom production in many spiney-rayed fishes.Acipenser
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Similarities are used to argue for common descent, but when similarities exist that violate common descent, they are explained by a different mechanism.
Yes. When see same structures are similar there is common descent. When different structures are similar there is convergence. Two different things. Easy to keep apart. So far you are correct.
Even if the explanation of common descent + convergence is true, the process of deduction is cicrular!
No. Why would you say that?
So the evolutionary explanations are circular at best, and possibly wrong at worst.
No. Why would you say that?
hrun0815
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
As with so many other posts by Cornelius, I am simply confused. Is there an argument here? Is it simply first a statement of fact followed by an assertion of option? Many people apparently mistake this combo as an argument.
Similarities are used to argue for common descent, but when similarities exist that violate common descent, they are explained by a different mechanism. Even if the explanation of common descent + convergence is true, the process of deduction is cicrular! So the evolutionary explanations are circular at best, and possibly wrong at worst.scordova
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
As with so many other posts by Cornelius, I am simply confused. Is there an argument here? Is it simply first a statement of fact followed by an assertion of option? Many people apparently mistake this combo as an argument.hrun0815
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
And BTW Dr Hunter- we can allegedly tell the difference between Common Descent and convergence due to the number of similarities. Ya see there is no way for convergence to hit on some number of similarities- that is the creators of cladograms will tell you anyway...Joseph
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, Why would the same old viruses stay in the old same place and intact enough to be used as a genetic marker after many thousands/ millions of generations? Or is that your obfuscation agenda showing?Joseph
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Dr Hunter, Not making any distinction between functional convergences (such as venom production)and non-functional convergences (such as the same old viruses in th esame place in the genome, which reveal patterns of common descent)? Why could that be? Oh, I just remembered, religion drives your science, and it matters. Your obfuscation agenda. Its showing.Nakashima
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Just wanted to alert you to a very interesting article about how "The largest meat-eating plant in the world is designed not to eat small animals, but small animal poo." http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8552000/8552157.stmKyrilluk
March 10, 2010
March
03
Mar
10
10
2010
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply