Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Naturalism]

Prove it. Show us how to construct a nested hierarchy of cars using shared and derived traits.

Your whole argument really does rest on this one claim. If you can't show how cars can be put into a single objective nested hierarchy, then the rest of your argument crumbles.

Another like EternalDragon who bit off way more than he could chew, I can't wait.

 

[Split Rock]

I already explained this to Split_Rock. According to your theory of evolution, the *evidence* for a nested hierarchy could have been lost due to a high rate of loss and/or replacement of traits that define such nested groups.

Thus evolution could accommodate the lack of a nested hierarchy, while still proposing it exists, only 'masked'.

And I already gave you an example of this in whales and that they still fit in the nested hierarchy.

 

[lifepsyop]

Loudmouth:
If you can't show how cars can be put into a single objective nested hierarchy, then the rest of your argument crumbles.

Nice try. I never said that cars could be put into an "objective" nested hierarchy. And neither is there an"objective" nested hierarchy of common descent. For instance, birds could potentially nest within a common ancestor shared with mammals, instead of within reptiles/dinosaurs. Proposed phylogenies are not objective.

Both types of nested hierarchies are affected by subjective interpretation and in both hierarchies, non-nesting character traits may be assumed "independent convergences" or "swapped modules" as usincognito likes to call them.

Another example is found in bats, where the wings of megabats, (proposed to be more closely related to primates than microbats), were seriously considered to have evolved their wings independently of other bats. So we see a trait as complex as bat wings could be potentially 'swapped' out of their nesting within the common bat body-plan if it led to a more greatly 'resolved' phylogeny.

 

[CabVet]

Nice try. I never said that cars could be put into an "objective" nested hierarchy. And neither is there an"objective" nested hierarchy of common descent. For instance, birds could potentially nest within a common ancestor shared with mammals, instead of within reptiles/dinosaurs. Proposed phylogenies are not objective.

That is simply incorrect. Since birds share many more derived characters with reptiles than they do with mammals, they cannot be places as sister group to mammals.

Both types of nested hierarchies are affected by subjective interpretation and in both hierarchies, non-nesting character traits may be assumed "independent convergences" or "swapped modules" as usincognito likes to call them.

DNA sequences are not affected by subjective interpretations. They support a close relationship between reptiles and birds, just like morphology and fossils do.

Another example is found in bats, where the wings of megabats, (proposed to be more closely related to primates than microbats), were seriously considered to have evolved their wings independently of other bats. So we see a trait as complex as bat wings could be potentially 'swapped' out of their nesting within the common bat body-plan if it led to a more greatly 'resolved' phylogeny.

And what exactly is the problem with convergent evolution? If anything, it is evidence against creationism. Why would an all-powerful God create two completely different organisms to fill the same role in the environment?

 

[lifepsyop]

And I already gave you an example of this in whales and that they still fit in the nested hierarchy.

You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?

Loss of lactation, hair, being warm blooded, and the other traits? As if that would happen within our lifetime. But yes, if they lost those traits that define them as mammals, they would no longer be mammals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth:
If you can't show how cars can be put into a single objective nested hierarchy, then the rest of your argument crumbles.

Nice try. I never said that cars could be put into an "objective" nested hierarchy.

Moving the goal posts, aren't you? You already know that life can and is put into objective nested hierarchies, and cars do not fall into objective nested hierarchies.

This is how we tell the difference between intelligent design and evolved designs. Evolved designs fall into objective nested hierarchies.

And neither is there an"objective" nested hierarchy of common descent. For instance, birds could potentially nest within a common ancestor shared with mammals, instead of within reptiles/dinosaurs.

They could? Now you are just making stuff up.

Proposed phylogenies are not objective.

Baloney. No one would ever argue that wolves are more distant to humans than ants. Yet another claim you haven't backed up.

Both types of nested hierarchies are affected by subjective interpretation and in both hierarchies, non-nesting character traits may be assumed "independent convergences" or "swapped modules" as usincognito likes to call them.

You also ignore the fact that convergence can be separated from homology. The bat and bird converged on wings, but those wings are not homologous. They are analogous.

Another example is found in bats, where the wings of megabats, (proposed to be more closely related to primates than microbats), were seriously considered to have evolved their wings independently of other bats. So we see a trait as complex as bat wings could be potentially 'swapped' out of their nesting within the common bat body-plan if it led to a more greatly 'resolved' phylogeny.

Reference?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?

They would be replaced by derived features specific to that lineage, not the derived features of another lineage. The nested hierarchy would remain.

 

[lifepsyop]

Loss of lactation, hair, being warm blooded, and the other traits? As if that would happen within our lifetime.

Huh? The point is that this would have happened over millions of years of unobservable mystical evolution time.

But yes, if they lost those traits that define them as mammals, they would no longer be mammals.

That's the point. They would fall outside of a nested grouping within mammals due to a rapid loss of defining characteristics, even if they had actually evolved from mammals originally.

Thus common descent can still potentially accommodate non-nested hierarchies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Huh? The point is that this would have happened over millions of years of unobservable mystical evolution time.

We have the genomes of living species and fossils that we can observe.

That's the point. They would fall outside of a nested grouping within mammals due to a rapid loss of defining characteristics, even if they had actually evolved from mammals originally.

They would just have a lot of derived characteristics that wouldn't force them outside of the mammalian clade. Besides, whales do have mammalian and they do fall into the mammal clade.

How the heck do you get rid of all of the mammalian features, anyway? We humans still have reptillian features, for Pete's sake. We still have features that carried over from the earliest vertebrates in the Cambrian.

 

[Naturalism]

That's the point. They would fall outside of a nested grouping within mammals due to a rapid loss of defining characteristics, even if they had actually evolved from mammals originally.

This is purely hypothetical and in no way is observed in how any organisms are nested now. That's the point. Organisms are nested based on the traits they have & share not the on the ones they don't.

Besides where would you put them? They would still be vertebrates, still belong to chordata, still be animals, and still have eukaryotic cells, etc.

 

[Split Rock]

You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?

Once a mammal, always a mammal. You cannot escape your ancestry. Even with the high level of derivation in whales with no extant intermediates known, it was only at the Order level that there was a question as to their position in the nested hierarchy. Even worse for your argument, this question had nothing to do with mismatches in morphological features, like my example of a feathered whale would. Where are the feathered whales, btw? It works for ducks and penguins, why not whales? Feathers make great insulation, after all. Why didn't the "designer' make them? I can explain why there aren't any using the theory of evolution. Can you explain with I.D.?


I gave the example earlier of motor vehicles, which you claim can fit into a nested hierarchy just like life. You are wrong. There is no nested hierarchy you can make from these that would feature an acceptable parsimony level. Your "designer" could have made feathered whales, for example. He/she/it could have made whales with gills... or swim bladders. He could have made all three... in different combinations. The theory of evolution would have never been proposed if he/she/it had.

 

[lifepsyop]

That is simply incorrect. Since birds share many more derived characters with reptiles than they do with mammals, they cannot be places as sister group to mammals.

Birds could potentially be placed much closer to mammals. That was the whole point of this discussion, not what is observed today, but what Evolution could accommodate if observations were different - that Evolution theory could accommodate multiple positions of birds, etc., thus it is not fulfilling any predictions of some "objective" nested hierarchy.

Evolutionary phylogeny could potentially accommodate multiple, highly contrasting outcomes, so it can not then claim one of those outcomes as evidence for Evolution.

Also since much of this discussion was based around the possible discovery of "mammal feathers"... far from falsifying evolution, this character trait would simply strengthen an alternative view of phylogeny.

DNA sequences are not affected by subjective interpretations.

Of course they are. Just look at molecular clock assumptions and incomplete lineage sorting. Extremely subjective.

Almost everything is subjective when you're dealing with imaginary common ancestors.

And what exactly is the problem with convergent evolution?

It's a device that can be used to rescue non-nested traits in phylogeny the same way it could be used to explain "swapped modules" on designed objects like cars.

 

[lifepsyop]

Once a mammal, always a mammal. You cannot escape your ancestry.

If you don't want to address my argument then that is your choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

Birds could potentially be placed much closer to mammals.

Again, this is just something you have made up. Your entire argument is made up.

 

[CabVet]

Birds could potentially be placed much closer to mammals. That was the whole point of this discussion, not what is observed today, but what Evolution could accommodate if observations were different - that Evolution theory could accommodate multiple positions of birds, etc., thus it is not fulfilling any predictions of some "objective" nested hierarchy.

Yet, it doesn't.

Evolutionary phylogeny could potentially accommodate multiple, highly contrasting outcomes, so it can not then claim one of those outcomes as evidence for Evolution.

Yet, it doesn't.

Also since much of this discussion was based around the possible discovery of "mammal feathers"... far from falsifying evolution, this character trait would simply strengthen an alternative view of phylogeny.

Did you find feathers in a mammal? Are they produced by the same embryological processes and are they structurally identical? Do you have a link for that study? After that we can talk about rejecting evolution. How about a rabbit in the Cambrian? If you find that we can also talk about rejecting evolution.

Of course they are. Just look at molecular clock assumptions and incomplete lineage sorting. Extremely subjective.

Molecular clocks are only relevant when we are giving times to the trees, and here we are not. Incomplete lineage sorting is only an issue in very shallow phylogenies, and these are deep. Furthermore, the sheer amount of data that we have today (hundreds of thousands of loci per species) eliminates most of these problems.

Almost everything is subjective when you're dealing with imaginary common ancestors.

They would only be imaginary if there were no fossils.

It's a device that can be used to rescue non-nested traits in phylogeny the same way it could be used to explain "swapped modules" on designed objects like cars.

It's funny how this "device" always demonstrates that evolution did, in fact, happened. Take bats and bird wings. Superficially very similar and serving a similar function. Structurally and genetically, completely different. A clear example of a morphotype that evolved twice to fill the same niche.

Now, if convergent evolution does not explain bird and bat wings, please do answer this: why would a creator that can do anything make birds with one type of wing and bats with another? Why not use the same type of wings on both since both use them for the exact same purpose?

To take this one step further, why would proteins that have the exact same function and amino-acid sequence in different animals have a different DNA sequence to code them? Further, why would those differences not only support a nested hierarchy but also agree with the fossil record?

 

[lifepsyop]

This is purely hypothetical and in no way is observed in how any organisms are nested now. That's the point. Organisms are nested based on the traits they have & share not the on the ones they don't.

Yes it is a hypothetical scenario. What is not hypothetical is that Evolution theory lacks the criteria to claim such an observation as a potential falsification.

Besides where would you put them? They would still be vertebrates, still belong to chordata, still be animals, and still have eukaryotic cells, etc.

Who knows... The point is that evolutionists would still be able to accommodate the non-nested pattern by invoking a rapid loss of traits that define the nested group.

It could be argued that selection pressures were so high on the loss/replacement of those traits, that fossil evidence may be totally lacking, thus the nested hierarchy signal would be masked. i.e. "natural selection did it."

 

[Dizredux]

The Theory of Evolution could absorb a lot of observational changes from what we see now. The theory however would have to change to reflect those different observations. If there were a large number of conflicting observations then the theory would have to be modified to the point where it would not resemble the original one very much and we would likely have to give it another name.

The Theory of Evolution is as it currently is because it reflects the observations we actually see to an acceptable degree of accuracy. That is pretty much the best any theory can do.

I really don't see what the problem. If things were quite different, the theory would be quite different or completely replaced by something that could deal with the observations. If there were no nested hierarchies, the Theory of Evolution would have to change to reflect that but the resultant theory would probably not resemble the current one all that much. It may have the same name but it would not be the same theory.

There is a moderate amount of plasticity in the current TOE but that is about it so whats the problem?

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Who knows... The point is that evolutionists would still be able to accommodate the non-nested pattern by invoking a rapid loss of traits that define the nested group.

Making up observations is not how science is done. Theories are meant to explain the observations we have made, and that is exactly what the theory of evolution does.

It could be argued that selection pressures were so high on the loss/replacement of those traits, that fossil evidence may be totally lacking, thus the nested hierarchy signal would be masked. i.e. "natural selection did it."

We lost our gills, yet we are still recognizable as sharing a common ancestor with fish, and even the most basal chordates who had gills. We have lost our fins, and many other features found in fish, and yet we can still find characteristics that we do share, genes that are still homologous, and transitional fossils that link us to those earlier stages of evolution.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yet, it doesn't.
Yet, it doesn't.

Does not follow.

Yet, it doesn't.Molecular clocks are only relevant when we are giving times to the trees, and here we are not.

If a proposed phylogeny is contradicted by molecular similarity, then it can be proposed that conservation rates increased or decreased dramatically in the appropriate groupings.

Incomplete lineage sorting is only an issue in very shallow phylogenies,

Is the entire group of placental mammals a "shallow phylogeny"? (see the OP)

Furthermore, the sheer amount of data that we have today (hundreds of thousands of loci per species) eliminates most of these problems.

I'm sure you believe that.

They would only be imaginary if there were no fossils.

Try and find a paleontologist who believes they've identified actual ancestors and descendents instead of "sister groups".

Interestingly the discovery of actual fossil ancestors was originally predicted by evolutionists, yet the prediction failed spectacularly. A carefully whitewashed bit of history.

It's funny how this "device" always demonstrates that evolution did, in fact, happened. Take bats and bird wings. Superficially very similar and serving a similar function. Structurally and genetically, completely different. A clear example of a morphotype that evolved twice to fill the same niche.

I referenced in the OP a scenario where similar anatomy is also governed by similar genetic pathways with electric fish organs, yet they are still proposed to be something convergent evolution did.

This refutes the notion you're attempting to convey that convergent evolution is somehow objectively identifiable.

Furthermore, a point the evolutionists have been tip-toeing around this entire thread, is that even proposed homologous traits may be governed by different genes. So what makes you think you can objectively identify convergences by genetic differences to begin with?