More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus

Anyway can you explain your response more in details? - Four sentences would be enough I suppose.
What species did they compare? Did they combine all mammalian species with all insect species, or they combined only all extant species from family Geomyidae with all extant lice species from order Phthiraptera? Or they compared only pocket gopher species with lice species that parasites on them?--I don’t know why you haven’t give this simple explanation in the beginning of the discussion. You would have spared me reading nonsensical answers. For instance Wepwawet in his latest response gave no direct answer again but reccommended me to use google and to observe biblical proverbs instead. To my simple question almost all responses are like that from Wepwawet - long, without any coherent answer but full of nonsenses. If you would like to reduce number of posts that are full of nonsenses you should better start by yourself and your darwinistic friends here. It would help much more I guess.(Anyway feel free if you prefer to start your answer with ancient proverbs, ethernal thruths and how good you and your friends are in phylogenetic analysis, math, statistics etc...)

I have a sense that four pages wouldn't be sufficient to correct your misunderstandings. But, I'll try.p=0.01 refers to the chance of two randomly-generated phylogenies matching to the extent that the phylogenies developed for Geomyidae and Geomydoecus groups matched. In other words - the convergence has less than a 1% chance of being due to chance. They list them in the paper. We've been giving this simple explanation throughout. Percy was the first to do it but this explanation has appeared in nearly every post to you in this thread. The problem is that you saw the word "chance" in the paper and in our posts and assumed we were talking about mutations, when we were not. We've been explaining that for several pages, now. The question is - why did it take you so long to listen?

First you answered this: Now your answer is this: I would say your first answer deal with existing phylogenis from which we choose randomly. The second answer deal with "randomly generated phylogenies" (by computer or phantasy or how?).In fig.2 we see Orthogeomys hispidus connected with line with Geomydoecus chapiny. This is existing cospeciation of two species. Give me please one exmple now that is "randomly generated" or "two species chosen completely at random".You could use also "randomly generated" ingroup nodes instead - if it is crux of cospeciation.Just one example would help very.

By any means. By generating them at random. By picking a species at random and generating its phylogeny. What you term the "first" and the "second" are just saying the same thing in different ways.The odds of two species converging by chance are less than 1%. Therefore we know that convergence in this case is not due to chance, but rather, because these two organisms have been ecologically constrained to speciate together. I don't see why it's necessary to do so. How would it help? I suspect this is just further confusion on your part.

Ok, thank you for you assistan
ICDESIGN

...just for the record, I do know how to spell assistance. I was in a hurry while eating some dinner at the same time....
ICDESIGN

I see. You have compared two cladograms of models and their parasites and these cladograms are so similar that making up such similarity by chance alone - having same species on both sides connencted - is less than 1 percent.Anyway existing cladogram describing evolution of parasites originated by chance too. If there hadn't been random mutation there wouldn't have been cladogram of parasites that copied evolution of models. It is interesting that when speciation occurs on the side of model (due random mutation) there is always random mutation at hand by parasites too that somehow follows this speciation of model. When gopher change lice change too. It's hardly to believe that mutation of lice following changes of gopher occur so regularly - there must be some constraints at least. Such constraints that direct possible mutation seems to be so strong that cospeciation of lice seems to more support some sort of directed mutations and no random ones. Btw lice (or other species) having such mechanism that control mutation would have great survival advantage, don't you think? Origin of such mechanism that control mutation could - if you are atheist - be explained by "random mutation" too. Anyway once in effect it would spread automatically.Discussed cospeciation would be nice example also of evolution of lice that is not directed by darwinistic dyada "random mutation and natural selection" but due to "internal forces".

This example disproves internal forces.If organisms speciated according to internal forces - pre-programming - then there would be no convergence of these two groups of organisms, because they would speciate on their individual schedules, unaffected by their ecological relationship. Rather, the convergence confirms the evolutionary view that speciation is the result of natural selection and random mutation. It affirms the Darwinian view that organisms are shaped by their environment.

Not at all. Convergence contradicts neodarwinian conception. Convergence says that many similar organs/structures of different taxa evolved independently. Many convergence of unrelated species and taxa are so striking that some other mechanism should be behind them. As Leo Berg claimed:

quote:

---

Eyes with a lens are independently met with in annelid worms, arthropoda, and cephalopoda. In the latter we meet with retina, cornea, iris, ciliary process, and even (in some) with eye-lids.

---

Geomyidae and Geomydoecus you have given as main topic of this thread do not support random mutation and natural selection as explanation of it. It doesn't prove it as a mechanism behind it at all. Of course you can claim it - you have no proof and no experiment to prove it.

No no no, we're not talking about Convergent Evolution here. We're not talking about similar structures appearing independently. This thread is about Convergent Phylogentic Histories (for want of a better term, I'm sure someone will provide one if there is one). By this I mean, the two families underwent speciaction events at the same time repeatedly.Now why would two completely unrelated families undergo speciation events at the same time, over and over again? If you assert that speciation is driven by forces intrinsic to the species in question then this result cannot be explained. As has been mentioned many times, why should the gophers Evolutionary Clock follow the same script as the lices?The only reasonable explanation is that the speciation events are driven by external factors that are unconnected to the species (ie environmental factors), and the both the species are affected by this force.(I'd be interested to know if my summarisation of this thread is accurate).

No, it doesn't. It's not clear what you think you're talking about, here. What you describe is definately not convergence, and we're not talking about organs or structures in this example. The mechanism in this case is the close ecological relationship of the two groups of organisms; so close, in fact, that the population structure of the pocket gophers restricts the population structure of their lice. I'm not sure how you can claim that, given that you still don't understand the topic of discussion. Your view that this is about organs or something is proof of that.

Bot VerificationI just found this a few minutes ago. This guy Seth apparently psted Crash's OP over there and wants some clarification. Strange why he wouldn't think to simply ask Crash....Edited by Iname, : No reason given.

Interesting. Apparently it's one of those "debate" websites where they try as hard as possible to prevent the participation of evolutionists; as soon as I registered and identified as an atheist I found that I was not only unable to reply to the thread, I wasn't able to even read it anymore.Seth - I'm curious why, if you had questions, you didn't pose them in this thread, where I could try to answer them. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can help you understand:

quote:

---

I found this on another forum and I must apologize ahead of time for clipping this here but I read this several times and still don't think I have the faintiest idea what in world he's talking about. smile.gif
I've read a lot of evolutionary material in my time but for whatever reason this has got me scratching my head. How exactly is this lending support for the theory of "goo to you"?

---

I don't know what "goo to you" is, but I'll assume you're referring to the evolutionary model that posits that all existing lifeforms on Earth are the descendants, ultimately, of one common ancestor. (I don't know that there's any scientific consensus on whether that ancestor was gooey or not.)This specific example doesn't substantiate that position, except indirectly (as I'll explain); moreover I never claimed that it did.The reason that the scientific consensus has concluded common descent is because of evidence from molecular phylogeny. That's the scientific discipline that concerns itself with using genetic information found in individuals to establish putative evolutionary histories and ancestor-species relationships. Like, paternity testing. The basic lab techniques are identical and the data analysis is mathematically sound.Now, opponents of evolution such as yourself claim - perhaps implicitly - that the basic idea of molecular phylogeny is flawed; that the "evolutionary relationships" generated by those techniques are basically noise. Like cloud shapes or faces in a TV's static.The example of these two groups of organisms - the pocket gophers and their lice - prove that your position is inaccurate, by virtue of the convergence of the evolutionary histories.Does that make sense? When we read the species ancestry contained in the genes of the pocket gopher, we see a certain pattern. (The pattern is the tree diagram in the paper I linked to. Did you read it?) And when we read, independently, the species ancestry contained in the genes of the gopher's pubic lice, we see the same pattern.If the techniques of molecular phylogeny produced only noise, there would be no reason to see the same pattern. Random static is just that - random, and you would not expect it to be likely to get nearly the exact same pattern in two unconnected instances. It's like the same six numbers winning the lottery, two nights in a row. You know something's up.Something's up, here. If the results of molecular phylogeny produce accurate information about the ancestry of species (and these examples prove that it does) then the greater conclusions of molecular phylogeny are valid - such as the conclusion that all life on Earth evolved from a distant common ancestor.

quote:

---

But I'm getting the sense that they're assuming, again, that this "can" cause an isolation of species to eventually become a seperate species altogether.

---

It's not assumption. We've directly observed how the processes of natural selection and random mutation, accumulating under a condition of reproductive isolation, can lead to new species. Moreover, since the validity of molecular phylogeny is predicated on that fact, and since we've just independently established the veracity of molecular phylogeny, that's further proof that our conclusions about what leads to new species are correct.

quote:

---

Evolutionists use what I call the "insistence method" to prove their theory.

---

Your interlocutor is cute. I've noticed that creationists tend to use what I call the "denial" method to pretend that there's no evidence of evolution, even though hard-working scientists keep finding more and more of it.Hopefully that answers your questions, and I hope you'll find this forum - where people aren't restricted from participating because of bigotry against their irreligious beliefs - more condusive to the answers you seek.

"Can lead" or lead? What "new species" do you have on mind? Has it name?

"Can lead" or lead? What "new species" do you have on mind? Has it name?