Convergent evolution: tenrecs and hedgehogs

| 73 Comments

The hedgehog and tenrec diverged from one another over 100 million years ago. To put that in perspective the lineages leading to human and mouse also diverged roughly 100 million years ago (maybe closer to 90ish). And yet, the tenrec and hedgehog have independently evolved very similar features, likely because of similar environmental pressures. This independent evolution of features is called convergent evolution, and it is just fantastic to observe.

Tenrecs are found in Madagascar and Africa:

Tenrecs at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Own work

Hedgehogs are found in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Hedgehog, by Nino Barbieri, via Wikimedia Commons

Based on their physical features, hedgehogs and tenrecs were once thought to be closely related species. But, Murphy et al. (2007) showed that their genomes are very different from each other, suggesting the two species have been separated for more than 100 million years.

Extra tidbit: 

Recent efforts have begun to domesticate hedgehogs, and the result of some of those efforts is the long-eared hedgehog:


It looks like a bat-eared hedgehog to me. 

Have a great day.

73 Comments

A few things to note:

1. Tenrecs are a moderately diverse and highly disparate family of 30+ species, only a few of which look like hedgehogs. Others look like shrews, rodents, or otters. (That last bunch lives in mainland Africa.) So “the tenrec” is a bit of a misnomer.

2. They belong to the major clade Afrotheria, and so are related to elephants, manatees, hyraxes, and such. Which is way cool.

As long as they don’t make nervous yappy hedgehogs, they can do anything they want with them.

Glen Davidson

Where did the new information for those ears come from? 111 11! :)

As a hedgehog owner I approve of this post. Their reflexes are amazing, truly masters of self-defense. Haven’t seen a Tenrec in person but I know from video they have similar (but somewhat different) behavioral adaptations in terms of how they use their quills and sudden loud huffing to scare off predators. They’re an excellent example of convergent evolution!

I do not accept there is any such thing as convergent evolution. I insist marsupials are just pouchy placentals and many others in the fossil record. i did once try to read up on MAD tenrecs because i thought it would add evidence to my case. hOwever I couldn’t access info. I suspect they are the same creatures as who they are convergent with and the TENREC details are from simply mutual adaptation upon migration back in the day. The genes only being a manifestation of the change. The traits that are used to group their classification are the point here. Rather then the few points of tenrecism why not first group by major morphology. anyways I can’t study them as info is too limited.

Robert Byers said:

I do not accept there is any such thing as convergent evolution.

Or any other kind of standard evolution, huh Robert Byers. Only your special, post-Fall or post-Flood or some other kind of fairy-tale evolution, right?

Why should anyone care what you believe or don’t believe? Why should anyone pay any attention to what you insist? You cannot make even the simplest coherent rational arguments to support your contentions.

You’re as bad as FL. You’re as bad as Ken Ham.

Does anyone know of a book or a sufficiently-detailed article that explains the patterns of convergent evolution in a non-hand-wavy manner? I’m really interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead different lineages to converge on very similar morphological (or molecular) features. Thanks in advance.

Tenrecs at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Own work

Well they look a little stiff, you know.

Glen Davidson

Rhazes said:

Does anyone know of a book or a sufficiently-detailed article that explains the patterns of convergent evolution in a non-hand-wavy manner? I’m really interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead different lineages to converge on very similar morphological (or molecular) features. Thanks in advance.

Sean Carroll, “The Making of the Fittest” gives simple mathematical examples, using melanism as a test case. That is good for the mechanism of CE.

I also recommemd googling Kevin Padian’s testimony at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, which is online with slide images, and focuses on convergent evolution in anatomical detail, particularly marsupials. But that refutes creo falsehoods about convergent evolution; it is not focused on the mechanism.

hemm. interesting topic.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

Tenrecs at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Own work

Well they look a little stiff, you know.

Glen Davidson

I’ll have to work on my personal interaction skills to get them to relax next time.

John Harshman said:

A few things to note:

1. Tenrecs are a moderately diverse and highly disparate family of 30+ species, only a few of which look like hedgehogs. Others look like shrews, rodents, or otters. (That last bunch lives in mainland Africa.) So “the tenrec” is a bit of a misnomer.

2. They belong to the major clade Afrotheria, and so are related to elephants, manatees, hyraxes, and such. Which is way cool.

You’re totally right. I should have listed the specific species names here. I’ll have to see what other tenrecs are at the museum.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Rhazes said:

Does anyone know of a book or a sufficiently-detailed article that explains the patterns of convergent evolution in a non-hand-wavy manner? I’m really interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead different lineages to converge on very similar morphological (or molecular) features. Thanks in advance.

Sean Carroll, “The Making of the Fittest” gives simple mathematical examples, using melanism as a test case. That is good for the mechanism of CE.

I also recommemd googling Kevin Padian’s testimony at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, which is online with slide images, and focuses on convergent evolution in anatomical detail, particularly marsupials. But that refutes creo falsehoods about convergent evolution; it is not focused on the mechanism.

Also, we are still understanding the mechanisms of convergent evolution.

There is convergent morphological evolution, like the critters above, and also convergent molecular evolution, as has been observed in the MAVS protein across primates, a component of innate immunity (Patel et al, 2012). The specific mechanisms leading to similar morphological features may be very different molecular pathways.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

As long as they don’t make nervous yappy hedgehogs, they can do anything they want with them.

Glen Davidson

I wonder whether all small animals have “nervous” tendencies. It would make sense for a small critter to be more aware/concerned of its environment. But, if my 12lb dog is any indication, then small animals can definitely be laid back, and lazy. :)

I think creationists have a vested interest in representing convergence as being total. All characters converge, giving a misleading conclusion as to the affinities of the organism. In reality convergence is on suites of characters, especially external characters. A more detailed examination of the morphology shows that many characters remain divergent, and even the convergences are achieved by means that differ in detail. And the molecular sequences show the affinities clearly, even when external morphology looks similar.

So, for example a flying squirrel and a “sugar glider” look somewhat similar and “fly” in quite similar ways, but there is no mistaking that one is a placental mammal and the other a marsupial.

Joe Felsenstein said:

I think creationists have a vested interest in representing convergence as being total. All characters converge, giving a misleading conclusion as to the affinities of the organism. In reality convergence is on suites of characters, especially external characters. A more detailed examination of the morphology shows that many characters remain divergent, and even the convergences are achieved by means that differ in detail. And the molecular sequences show the affinities clearly, even when external morphology looks similar.

So, for example a flying squirrel and a “sugar glider” look somewhat similar and “fly” in quite similar ways, but there is no mistaking that one is a placental mammal and the other a marsupial.

Lets examine what you said. I say internal or external characters of same shaped creatures are 95% the same. Only a few traits, relative, are different. These from common adaptions in a area upon migration. Then the dna simply follows the changes. It could only be that the dna is alike for like traits. Yet its not demanding to see these creatures as from a common origin. How you group traits dominates classification systems.

I don’t say a sugar glider is a squirrel. I would have to investigate. Yet I know marsupials are just placentals with minor details of diffeence. the tenrecs, again not much info for me ,most likely are just their neighbors in Africa with minor mutual trais that came about upon migration to the isle. further the fossil record shows these things in a constant pattern. Its unlikely that convergence comes to exactly the same conclusion in numerous orders/families throughout history.

Let the evolutionists show here why these tenrecs should be seen as a family from convergence as opposed to being from creatures they look like !! A poster here said the tenrecs have shrew, rodent, otter members. Why not say they are those with a few detail differences. if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man? I’m not sure they are these other creatures as I can’t study them but i got a hunch they are just within the spectrum like marsupials.

Joe, I presume your aim was not to educate Byers, which as we can see is impossible, but to point out his fundamental error to others, which you have done.

Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

Robert Byers said: if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man?

Convergence isn’t uniformly likely between just any species in a similar environment. You’ll reject this premise out of hand but I’d say it’s contingent based on shared genetic history. Both have quills that are modified hairs (perhaps even caused by a similar gene that they share from back when their ancestral populations split) but the actual patterning of the quills is different. Hedgehogs have two large strips of quills overlapping going down their backs with a naked ridge in the middle, pulled up by two large bands of muscle along the sides of the back. The lowland streaked tenrec’s quills are arranged totally haphazardly. Look at this picture of one. The quills look mangy and random, not neat and patterned as you see in hedgehogs http://www.rockjumperbirding.com/wp[…]-rossouw.jpg

Clearly god wanted this tenrec to look ugly but the hedgehog to look well groomed. Does the bible tell us anything about why he might have done that? Why would the fall of man (most sharp objects in nature seem to be caused by that according to your camp, Bob) give one creature neat quills and another one mangy quills? I would love to see some genomic comparisons between all tenrec species and hedgehog species, that might reveal a little more useful information about their relationship than entertaining pseudo-YEC speculation. Doubt you’ll get grant money for something like that though :-(

John Harshman said: Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

I like to see his gears turning. He gets ignored a lot on Sandwalk and on NCSE he never responds to getting called out

Robert Byers said: if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man?

There totally could have been! Which is to say, we could’ve initially concluded different human populations were evolutionarily the same, and then found out through genetics that they weren’t. But we didn’t. That is the difference between science and religion, Robert - science revises its conclusions based on new data. You don’t. We genetically test tenrecs vs. hedgehogs and say “huh, we were wrong. They aren’t closely related.” But we find Lucy and Ardi, neanderthal genetics and loads of other data, and you never revise your conclusion. Never say “huh, we were wrong.”

Nope, there’s never any point in actually responding to him. It’s even dubious that it’s worth pointing out his semiliteracy and incoherence. Those, at least, should be readily apparent to anyone who takes the pains necessary to read him.

Because here’s the thing: if you really can’t see on first reading how illiterate and incoherent Byers is, and how plainly false to fact his assertions are, you’re a lost cause anyway.

Dave Luckett said: his semiliteracy and incoherence.

Some of his rants on Sandwalk are absolutely hilarious. Random capitalization, a new paragraph for every sentence, loose punctuation out the wazoo - It’s like trying to read a YEC apologist bottle of Dr. Bronner’s Soap

What I find to be occasionally interesting is that Byers will actually make some factual claims. Unlike FL, he seldom, if ever, relies on Bible verses to make his point, other than in the most general ways (e.g. there was a great flood). The amusing part is to try to lead him around by his “logic”. You might be able to get him to commit to one or two steps of logic, and then, *poof*: “Well I believe this absurd thing, which proves my point”. Such as, “marsupials are just placentals with a few minor differences, proving that evolution doesn’t exist.”

Heck, humans are just fish, with a few minor differences.

John Harshman said:

Joe, I presume your aim was not to educate Byers, which as we can see is impossible, but to point out his fundamental error to others, which you have done.

Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

I generally don’t respond to him as he has no ability to deal with any response sensibly. That comment was more generally pointing out that there were ID advocates or creationists who invoke convergent evolution as a reason to think we can’t infer phylogenies. They are wrong about that.

Someone’s probably already asked this, but is our Beyers related Ezra Beyer, i.e. this nutjob?

The style, not to mention the striking ability to disregard reality, seems very similar.

stevaroni said:

Someone’s probably already asked this, but is our Beyers related Ezra Beyer, i.e. this nutjob?

The style, not to mention the striking ability to disregard reality, seems very similar.

It’s probably just convergent evolution. There’s no reason to assume that trolls form a clade.

John Harshman said:

Joe, I presume your aim was not to educate Byers, which as we can see is impossible, but to point out his fundamental error to others, which you have done.

Can anyone think of a reason to respond to Byers directly, ever?

I don’t reply to him all that often, and am not replying here, but, sometimes, yes.

He’s on topic, seems able to control his temper (a rare trait for a creationist), and although his comments can be hard to understand, he occasionally raises a point which is interesting enough, or a common enough misunderstanding, that it’s worth replying to.

Dave Luckett said:

Nope, there’s never any point in actually responding to him.

Temptation often gets the better of me and I respond. But when it does, I try to write my responses with the assumption that there’s a 10-year-old lurker out there who may have a similar question/believe something similar, and is honestly searching for what mainstream science says about it.

Because here’s the thing: if you really can’t see on first reading how illiterate and incoherent Byers is, and how plainly false to fact his assertions are, you’re a lost cause anyway.

I don’t believe that. That may be true for the majority of well-educated adults, but not everyone browsing the web is either well-educated or adult.

All things considered, not responding is still probably better than responding. But I figure if I’m going to respond, hey, I should at least try and make my post educational.

beatgroover said:

Robert Byers said: if convergence is so likely then why not a tenrec ape or a tenrec man?

Convergence isn’t uniformly likely between just any species in a similar environment. You’ll reject this premise out of hand but I’d say it’s contingent based on shared genetic history. Both have quills that are modified hairs (perhaps even caused by a similar gene that they share from back when their ancestral populations split) but the actual patterning of the quills is different. Hedgehogs have two large strips of quills overlapping going down their backs with a naked ridge in the middle, pulled up by two large bands of muscle along the sides of the back. The lowland streaked tenrec’s quills are arranged totally haphazardly. Look at this picture of one. The quills look mangy and random, not neat and patterned as you see in hedgehogs http://www.rockjumperbirding.com/wp[…]-rossouw.jpg

Clearly god wanted this tenrec to look ugly but the hedgehog to look well groomed. Does the bible tell us anything about why he might have done that? Why would the fall of man (most sharp objects in nature seem to be caused by that according to your camp, Bob) give one creature neat quills and another one mangy quills? I would love to see some genomic comparisons between all tenrec species and hedgehog species, that might reveal a little more useful information about their relationship than entertaining pseudo-YEC speculation. Doubt you’ll get grant money for something like that though :-(

Okay you addrees my criticism about classification rules. Its not that the tenrec hedgehog or the other hedgehogs have like traits. They both could be a twist off a original type. Common descent if you will. both hairs on the back etc are from minor adaption needs. Yet the shape of the anatomy is the dominating point. not hair but bones etc. i have little info on tenrecs but I tried a few years ago to investigate as i read they were convergent with African types but said to be a special group. I put to the evolutionists here again. Educate us as to why these critters are not exactly the same ones as the african look alikes across the channel!! what are the traits that say they are tenrecs? Whats the list? no pictures please but a list of traits. I heard the debate is above 5 million people and heading for 500 million. If you can’t deal with me then how can you deal with Mr Ham and millions of creationists existing and the new converts. Its interesting and I’m not a bad student or guy. Why engage in a forum but ignore the other posters? Evolutionists can’t afford to preach just to the choir. I am mini-Ham. Do a better job then a mechanical engineer.

Robert Byers said:

I am mini-Ham.

You’re a micro-Ham, Byers.

Robert Byers said:

The backward tracking is not evidence for your conclusion I insist.

Could you insist a little louder, Byers? Stomp your wittle feet? Hold your breath? Maybe then you’ll convince someone.

Robert Byers said:

i’m not against reasoning BUT am against reasoning being claimed as scientific evidence. A creationist can not kill a EVIDENCE for evolution said to be based on science IF its just reasoning. Reasoning, logic, extrapolation is NOT scientific evidence for genetic claims of common descent. Show me why i’m wrong? You show me with your posts you persuade yourself DNA is a trail of evolution JUST because you see like DNA in all of biology. YET it would be this way from a creator with basic common blueprint for biology.! Anyways the creator option shows your side has no evidence but oNL:Y as it where, as you see it, CORNERED THE MARKET on why biology has such like DNA and why very like looking creatures like man/ape have like DNA. Its not scientific evidence AT ALL. NONE!!! Its just extrapolation backwards. Its just saying one must only do this. NO. One has another option.

By the way DARWIN mentioned this and quickly ran from it but it occured to him.

Well booby, since you love evidence so much, why don’t you tell us, how many complete genomes have been sequenced? How many COI sequences are available? How many molecular phylogenies have been constructed? Exactly why don’t you think that this is biological evidence? Exactly why should anyone care what know nothing wannabe like you thinks?

All you have is a fault line of reasoning. All you can do is deny all of the evidence. All you can do is to desperately try to redefine the term evidence to suit your misrepresentations. Who exactly do you think is going to be fooled by this? Do you think that professional biologists who sequence DNA for a living are going to listen to your BS?

By the way, Darwin didn’t know anything about DNA. What are you talking about? Do you know?

Without the assimilation of backing evidence, insistence is futile.

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said:

AltairIV said:

The courts certainly don’t just look at human DNA. I was watching one of those forensic science documentaries the other day and its focus was on forensic entomology. One specific case involved a man who drove cross country to commit a murder and the evidence against him involved studying the insect carcasses that got trapped in the grill of his car. The procedures included using DNA testing to help determine exactly which species of insects were involved and where they originated. In the end they were able to pin down the exact route he traveled and even the approximate date.

I’m quite sure that the courts will accept and carefully consider DNA evidence in any situation involving the identification of non-human creatures. I have no doubt that it’s been invaluable in cases involving pedigreed animals, livestock, and GM crops, to give a few examples.

Unrelated to this subject. I insist DNA is not genetic scientific evidence for common descent.

Those of us in reality land know that it is - so OF COURSE you ‘insist’ that it isn’t (since you lack the intellect and honesty to accept it, and have no valid alternative model).

Even if it was all true. its just a extrapolation backwards from present reality. its just lines of reasoning. Its not science.

Actually, it IS science, given the extrapolations produce TESTABLE ideas (unlike your ‘alternative’ of gibbering Magical Skymanism).

Initiating standard Byers blubbering :

Evolutionists do have a intellectual optical illusion about how data results in relationship to other data results proves connections.

It is not an illusion - comparison of DNA sequences show that chimps are more closely related to humans than other primates (and primates are closer to humans than other critters).

Charting out who is most closely related to whom keep giving THE SAME TREE. A highly unlikely result if there was no common descent.

Sane and rational people use those OBSERVED characteristics to generate phylogenies.

Common descent is the best explanation for the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness.

How many hundreds of evolutionist supporters have told me my DNA sameness with my dad is SCIENTIFIC GENETIC PROOF for man being related with primates.

It demonstrates that DNA is inherited, and that patterns of relatedness is best explained by common descent. Again, twit : chimps are more closely related to humans than any of the other primates. Primates are more closely related to each other than to other mammals, etc.

Different genes give more or less the same pattern of relatedness. Common descent explains the pattern, given the FACT that DNA is the molecule of inheritance.

Its not proof. its just a line of reasoning.

A valid, well-tested line of reasoning well supported by decades of real world work.

What, PRECISELY, would a willfully ignorant, blubbering god-botherer like you consider evidence for common descent ?

Initiating standard creationut evasion :

A common blueprint would predict the same thing and so dissolve the reasoning and leave bare any claims to evidence.

RiiiIIiiIIight ! Got something besides your ignorant posturing to back that claim up ?

Descent with modification explains the OBSERVED PATTERNS of relatedness seen in living things.

Humans have damaged egg yolk proteins, YET DON’T LAY EGGS. Common descent explains their presence in the human genome (our distant ancestors laid eggs and had genes to make those proteins, but as time went on, genomes were modified and the yolk proteins weren’t used, and thus free to accumulate changes); how does gibbering Magical Skymanism explain it ?

Yet this means its not science but mere logic based on presumptions. Whoops! Where is my TENREC prize??

And those ‘presumptions’ have been demonstrated valid many times over; in fact, you’d have to be either incredibly ignorant or willfully stupid to pretend they can be brushed aside merely because they show that REALITY does not conform to your silly interpretations of ancient super hero stories.

Common descent explains the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness in living things better and more rationally than the ‘alternatives’ vomited up by ignoramuses - whose ‘understanding’ of real world biology is limited to standing back ten feet and looking.

All you said here is to repeat like DNA equals like common descent. Even if true it would still only be a extrapolation. Your not testing the extrapolating but only extrapolating. The backward tracking is not evidence for your conclusion I insist. its just logic from a presumption.

Similar DNA PATTERNS are evidence of common descent, based on the OBSERVED FACT that changes in DNA sequences are inheritable. It may be an extrapolation, but one based on OBSERVED REALITY.

It is tested each and every time a new gene is sequenced and compared to others.

It is tested each and every time a new creature’s genome is sequenced.

IT HAS YET TO BE SHOWN WRONG.

Initiating plaintive whining in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

REPLACE the presumption and there is no evidence THEREFORE its not evidence to begin with it. Its just reasoning from a present data source.

“REPLACE observed reality with my ridiculous, bible-based fantasies and I magically become right !!!”

The presumption (that similiar DNA patterns are due to common descent) has been tested for decades, an so far there has been no serious threat to it.

So sane and rational folk with go with it until a model DEMONSTRATED TO BE BETTER is presented and tested. Got one ?

IT ALSO would be that primate dNA looks like ours if there was a creator who separately created kinds but upon a single atomic model.

Now THAT is a level of sheer, gibbering STUPID I would not have believed humanly possible !

It is not the FACT that all life has DNA - it is the specific SEQUENCES and patterns of relatedness that are the evidence for common descent.

All primates have the same BROKEN gene for an enzyme in vitamin C sythesis - common descent explains WHY; drooling Magical Skymanism is impotent to anything but pretend to have an answer.

All creatures likewise. Eyes have a common atomic warehouse number. so likle dNA on that point but not evidence for a common descent.

You have no idea what you are blithering about, do you ?

By your ‘logic’, there is no real way to tell the difference between an Euglena’s eyespot, a housefly’s eye, a mouse’s eye or a human eye. Centuries of REAL WORLD SCIENTIFIC WORK contradicts you.

I’m not right now insisting on the common design but only making a logical point that DNA trees are just from reasoning backwards and not from actual scientific evidence.

The patterns of relatedness ARE the evidence twit !

Just what, EXACTLY, would you consider to be evidence for common descent ?

Its a optical intellectual illusion. It really is.

PROVE IT !

Provide the data you used to determine that the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness in all living things is just an illusion.

Any tree you show me can be explained by a common blueprint at a atomic level.

Wow ! Now THAT is some Olympic class STUPID right there !

A nested tree (groups within groups within groups) is generated via descent with modification - THIS IS WHAT IS OBSERVED IN THE REAL WORLD.

Humans DNA trail is only a special case.

No, it isn’t. Anything with DNA is amenable to analysis of relatedness. The FACT that reality contradicts your ridiculous interpretation of ancient superhero stories does not mean the techniques are faulty.

You don’t persuade me why I’m wrong here even with the twit comments!!

That’s because you’re too willfully IGNORANT to be persuaded of anything.

Researchers spend their lives trying to figure out how the real world works - and you just sit on your bloated arse and tell them they are wrong.

You don’t know anything about biology, yet you PRESUME your opinions are relevant ?

PA Poland said:

You don’t know anything about biology, yet you PRESUME your opinions are relevant ?

He doesn’t just presume, he insists. After all, he’s got his invisible, undetectable, non-existent creation gods to back him up.

Robert Byers said:

The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you).

- - - - - - - - -

In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the “designer” that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job???

Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your “designer” like pigs more than humans??? Does your “designer” like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your “designer” leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it???

Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don’t think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you).

- - - - - - - - -

In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the “designer” that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job???

Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your “designer” like pigs more than humans??? Does your “designer” like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your “designer” leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it???

Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don’t think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Byers can’t explain. All he can do is insist.

Byers is like a parasite, all he can do is encyst.

Speaking of great silence, what about it booby? I see you still have not answered my questions, or any others. why is that booby?

All right, here is an easier one for you. If your DNA comes from your parents, how many generations back do you have to go until until you find one of your ancestors who didn’t give you any of their dNa? Cause that’s basically what your claimin booby boy. now you would’t want to use just a line of reasonin would you booby? u would wanna have some evidences right? u wouldn’t want just great silence instead of answerin would ya? that’s what i thought oh king of great silence

P/A. Poland. We’re getting off thread here but it seems okay(Don’t blame me anyone) Your just repeating the evidence for common descent from genetics IS from DNA looking alike in like creatures. This is a logical fallacy. A common design would do likewise. YES eyes look the same in most creatures BUT its from a like creator with a single programme that is good enough. Why should gOD make every creatures eye different from the others to prove separate creation?? He doesn’t do that in physics.

You give no answer here as to why gentic likeness is scientific evidence for common descent. The Tenrecs would have like genes for the like changes upon migration. Yet its not a sign of being related to each other. one must prove that. Its perfectly predictable that a creator would use a common programme for biology and so everything has a atomic parts number from the warehouse. Extrapolation backwards is not scientific evidence for common descent EVEN IT WAS TRUE. It is just a line of reasoning that then confirms irself on the same reasoning. I expect common DNA for common traits at every level of biology. We have common DNA with apes because we look like them Yet its not scientific evidence of being related EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE. its just a hunch. A counter hunch is we have like DNA because of like parts from a creator who gave us a like body as it was the best one in the spectrum of biology which we must live in but are not a part of. We are made in Gods image and can’t have a body showing our true identity. Anyways. DNA is not scientific genetic evidence for common descent. Its just a line of reasoning. Saying it is evidence is a fallacy of logical thinking. Evolutionists make a blunder on these points.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you).

- - - - - - - - -

In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the “designer” that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job???

Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your “designer” like pigs more than humans??? Does your “designer” like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your “designer” leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it???

Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don’t think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Off thread but simply we have like DNA results for like causes. Theres no reason to see these mutations as evidence of common descent. Its just a line of reasoning anyways but anyways it need just be seen as reactions to old problems. I would expect it. Remember after the fall everything changed in biology. Death came.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you).

- - - - - - - - -

In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the “designer” that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job???

Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your “designer” like pigs more than humans??? Does your “designer” like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your “designer” leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it???

Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don’t think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Off thread but simply we have like DNA results for like causes. Theres no reason to see these mutations as evidence of common descent. Its just a line of reasoning anyways but anyways it need just be seen as reactions to old problems. I would expect it. Remember after the fall everything changed in biology. Death came.

Gods what a buffoon you are, Byers.

There was no “fall.” That’s a fairy tale. You lie when you say it was real.

So you really don’t want to answer my questions do you booby? Why is that? You can blubber all you want, but your ignorance is not going to convince anyone.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

The minute we creationists get down on facts there is the great silence.

You have a lot of boneheaded nerve to say this, Byers. Considering how often you have gone quiet on us (Byers, click here to see a small sample of what you have ignored, including one question you have ignored since Oct 2012 despite frequent reminders to you).

- - - - - - - - -

In addtion Byers, please explain how gorillas, chimps and humans have the exact same beta-globin gene cluster in the exact same sequence in the exact same location. That is, six copies of the gene within the beta-globin gene cluster; five working copies but one (the fourth) being broken. Please explain further how this broken gene in gorillas, chimps, and humans have exact matching defects, one of the defects being three consecutive stop switches in the same spot. Is this really the “designer” that you have total unquestioned faith in and submit total authority??? Would you really approve of your city road engineer installing three consectutive stop signs close to each other in single file??? Do you really think motorists would not be dismayed and wonder if the engineer needs to be relieved of his/her job???

Oh Byers, you have also been silent on how humans, all apes and most primates have a broken GULO gene (all broken in the exact same spot at that). But some primates like lemurs and most other mammals like pigs have fully working GULO genes and thus lemurs, pigs, etc, can make their own Vitamin C. Yet humans and other primates must include Vitamin C in their diet or else they die of scruvy. Byers, does your “designer” like pigs more than humans??? Does your “designer” like lemur primates more than human primates? Why would your “designer” leave the rotting corpse of the broken GULO gene in humans in the first place instead of just removing it???

Byers, show some backbone and give detailed answers to these questions you have run away from. We don’t think you will do it, but prove us wrong.

Off thread but simply we have like DNA results for like causes. Theres no reason to see these mutations as evidence of common descent. Its just a line of reasoning anyways but anyways it need just be seen as reactions to old problems. I would expect it. Remember after the fall everything changed in biology. Death came.

We note that in addition to Byers regurgitating his standard parrot response of “just lines of reasoning” and such, he also disingenuously ignores the vast majority of the questions and points. He completely ignores this link that has multiple questions that Byres has not answered (including one from Oct 2012). He completely ignores that the mentioned pseudogenes - including the three consecutive stop signals within the pseudogene in the beta globin gene cluster - are just that, they are defects, they are broken. No discussion of SINE insertions. No chat about evo-devo. But did we expect anything different from Byres?

And Byers routinely leaves the post he’s replying to totally intact so one can easily see what Byers ignores (unlike FL, who disingenuously deletes parts of posts he replies to that he wants to avoid).

But regarding the “designer” that Byers has unquestioned faith in and total authority under, let us use an analogy that this “designer” uses items like bolts and light bulbs as part of the material in making humans, chimps, gorillas, etc. Again, figuratively speaking. When Byer’s “designer” separately creates humans, chimps and gorillas, this “designer” intentionally puts a wrong size nut and bolt in the exact same place in humans, chimps and gorillas. Then in another spot, a steel bolt and nut is in the exact same place in all three species instead of the copper (actually, brass) nuts and bolts used elsewhere and as a result the steel bolts/nuts in all three species are badly corroded (and have exact matching corrosion marks in all three species). In yet another place, this designer has one particular nut and bolt in the exact same place in humans, chimps and gorillas that was not only overtightened, the designer even makes sure this nut and bolt in all three species have exact same matching abrasion marks from the use of too much torque. In still yet another place is an open hole where the bolt is missing altogether, again in all three species and in the same exact place in all three species. In yet another location, the designer not only puts a burned out light bulb in the exact same location, this designer even has the filament burned through in the exact same place in all three species. In yet another spot, there is a second burned out bulb in the same place in all three species which have exact matching cracks in the glass of the bulb.

Folks, this is in effect what Byers wants us to believe. To borrow a saying from Dave Luckett, this is your mind on extreme fundamentalist religion. This more or less use to be my mind earlier in my life (and the mind of others here on Pandas Thumb), but I and other former anti-evolutionists and ex-YECs have managed to exorcise Morton’s Demon and we haven’t looked back.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by M. Wilson Sayres published on February 4, 2014 9:47 AM.

Petroica macrocephala was the previous entry in this blog.

Ten Commandments for debates with creationists is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter