The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
For homology? You have none. Like I've been saying.

I already posted the evidence. Are you telling me you can't spot the evidence for homology in this picture?

3331851919_a8a1429011_n.jpg



Evolutionists using the very same phylogenetic methodology you hold as gospel proof of common descent, are now suggesting that tetrapod digits have evolved again independently through novel evolutionary pathways. This is the exact opposite of homology that you previously asserted. This is the evolutionists' "peer-reviewed" argument, not mine. Deal with it. Or keep dancing and show everyone how much denial you're in.

And I disagree with them. Since they don't have any real evidence of a completely novel feature evolving, your claims sit there without much punch.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I already posted the evidence. Are you telling me you can't spot the evidence for homology in this picture?

3331851919_a8a1429011_n.jpg

argument - noun
: a statement or series of statements for or against something

You have none, as usual.

And I disagree with them. Since they don't have any real evidence of a completely novel feature evolving, your claims sit there without much punch.

Your opinion is irrelevant. We can clearly see that the evolutionary community has no problem accommodating the falsification of the prior predictions of tetrapod trait homology.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
argument - noun
: a statement or series of statements for or against something

You have none, as usual.

I have your rather obvious avoidance of homologous structures. You are the best evidence I have for my argument.

Your opinion is irrelevant. We can clearly see that the evolutionary community has no problem accommodating the falsification of the prior predictions of tetrapod trait homology.

You didn't demonstrate that the trait was non-homologous. We see atavisms happen all of the time. Even human babies are born with tails from time to time, complete with caudal vertebrae. They are not independently evolving a tail. That is left over genes from an ancestor who did have a tail. The authors of the paper have a really, really bad argument.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You didn't demonstrate that the trait was non-homologous.

Evolutionists say that phylogenetics point to the trait as being non-homologous, and not an "atavism". Not only do you have no homology argument, but you are now fighting against the peer-reviewed literature of the evolutionary community. You really do manage to twist yourself into knots.

You know, it's okay to admit when you're wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where is the evidence to back their conclusion?

That was the conclusion drawn from phylogenetic analysis. You're free to read the details if you want. Nobody seems to have a problem with the conclusion except for you, because it makes your homology assertion look foolish.

Where's your evidence that all those types of traits are homologous? Oh that's right, you don't have any. You just believe.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How did the phylogenetic analysis rule out atavisms?

By concluding that the traits were formed through "novel evolutionary pathways", i.e. the opposite of an atavism. Again, you are free to read the paper yourself if you want more detail.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
By concluding that the traits were formed through "novel evolutionary pathways", i.e. the opposite of an atavism. Again, you are free to read the paper yourself if you want more detail.

Where is the evidence that supports that conclusion? What did they do to rule out atavisms?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where is the evidence that supports that conclusion? What did they do to rule out atavisms?

I'm not here to translate journal articles for you. I only pointed out that the scientific literature itself now suggests that tetrapod phalanges are not all homologous, contradicting your prior assertion. (an assertion you never supported to begin with)

And I keep turning this back onto you, to which you flee every single time.
What evidence do you have that all of such traits are homologous?
You have none. You merely assume it, just like you assume Universal Common Descent in general, because it is your faith.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And to repeat the significance....

Tetrapod homology has been a widespread evolutionary claim in general, and they've beaten the public over the heads with it for decades.

(from the Department of Biology at Miami U)
"Structures derived from a common ancestral structure (that may or may not be used for the same function in the species in which it occurs) are called homologous structures.

A classic example of homology is seen in the skeletal components of vertebrates..."

homologous_forelimbs.jpg

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/160S13_5.html


Yet more recently, evolutionists themselves are now proposing that major elements of the vertebrate limb arose independently in separate lineages, that is, the phalanges "evolved" independently in a group of lizards, which I just linked to on this page.

If that isn't a failed prediction, I don't know what is. But that's exactly the point. When evolutionary predictions fail, even the failures can be accommodated into the theory. This is because Evolution is not a real scientific theory, but an amorphous blob that absorbs whatever data it rolls over.

the_blob.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Yet more recently, evolutionists themselves are now proposing that major elements of the vertebrate limb arose independently in separate lineages, that is, the phalanges "evolved" independently in a group of lizards, which I just linked to on this page.

Where is the evidence that backs their conclusions?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I'm not here to translate journal articles for you.

If you don't understand the article, then you can't make claims about what is in it.

Where is the evidence backing the conclusion that these arose through independent evolutionary pathways?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
If that isn't a failed prediction, I don't know what is. But that's exactly the point. When evolutionary predictions fail, even the failures can be accommodated into the theory. This is because Evolution is not a real scientific theory, but an amorphous blob that absorbs whatever data it rolls over.

Agreed, just as they asserted that speciation occurred in Darwin's Finches - until of course someone got around to actually studying them and doing DNA analysis. Now we find they have been interbreeding from the moment they got to the islands - showing that speciation never occurred in the first place.

Yet despite the DNA evidence and their own conclusions of interbreeding from the beginning, they continue to spout off speciation and separate species, even if the science is totally against their claims. More like "Silly Putty" which can accommodate any claim one wants to make, being as they define everything however it suits them at that particular moment to do so. The sad part is they won't even use the definitions which they have set - because doing so would give lie to their claims.

And you and I both know they are NOT going to read anything which might shatter their religious and dogmatic views of evolution, which is why not a single one of them have read the article you cited.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you don't understand the article, then you can't make claims about what is in it.

Where is the evidence backing the conclusion that these arose through independent evolutionary pathways?

And I keep turning this back onto you, to which you flee every single time.
What evidence do you have that all of such traits are homologous?
You have none. You merely assume it, just like you assume Universal Common Descent in general, because it is your faith.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Agreed, just as they asserted that speciation occurred in Darwin's Finches - until of course someone got around to actually studying them and doing DNA analysis. Now we find they have been interbreeding from the moment they got to the islands - showing that speciation never occurred in the first place.

How did you get the different breeds?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
And I keep turning this back onto you, to which you flee every single time.
What evidence do you have that all of such traits are homologous?
You have none. You merely assume it, just like you assume Universal Common Descent in general, because it is your faith.

If you can't see how they are homologous, then I really can't help you.

_47112338_human_ape_hands_spl.jpg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums