Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[PsychoSarah]

you don't know what you are talking about.. all breeds in less than 3 generations. because all male lines all breed true once you know some of the parameters , and # basic male lines within the composition of that "Breed" . and they don't see females at all.
race and breed and dna and it's theories is so far only controlled by males , their genes , and their little minds.
(( ok yes in really really high resolution and maybe only by some geneticist they just might be able to find one or two genes that aren't there in the late made buffalo ... but there will be no nincompoops with an agenda AKA" intellectuals" able to "Observe " any difference at all ( now isn't this 'Observation' is it not the so called bases of your religion and most all it's theories? ) or was Darwin using observation in a metaphysical sense?

Um no, genetics is not only controlled by males. After all, in many species, humans somewhat included, females choose their mate, not the other way around. And the the theories don't just belong to men either. In fact, we can trace decent in humans using either the Y chromosome of men or the mitochondria of women.

Also, 6 individuals is not enough genetic variation to establish a population, unless you are talking about how breeds originate, which sometimes has establishing characteristics start with one individual, however involves far more when populations are eventually established.

 

[USincognito]

Neither you or Theobald has provided an explanation. Theobald vaguely asserts it would be a "mix and match". You vaguely assert it would be a "swapped module". Neither of you explain why it would falsify Evolution, you just know that it's safe to say that we're not going to find mammals with feathers so you're claiming it's an evolutionary prediction when it isn't.

Have you ever actually read 29 Evidences or Camp's response to it? It's right there in the section above the potential falsification titled Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species.

The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.​

Common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy. Swapped modules or mixed and matched parts (especially of highly derived characteristics) violate a nested hierarchy. Evolution, since it's central premise is common ancestry, predicts a nested hierarchy of life and, any violations of that nested hierarchy - like bird feathers on a mammal - would falsify the theory.

Hypothetically, let's say certain types of mammals with feathers were well-known in Darwin's time. Do you think a theory of evolution and phylogeny would have been developed around this observation, or ToE would have been stopped dead in its tracks at some point? If the latter, why?

I'm not interested in chasing hypothetical rabbits through hypothetical Cambrian fields. The theory, as formulated is rooted in the prediction I stated above:
- Common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy.
- Swapped modules would violate a nested hierarchy.
- Swapped modules would therefore falsify evolution.

The problem is that, like many evolutionary "potential falsifications", you are only presenting them from the safety of already firmly established knowledge.

And what exactly are they supposed to be predicated on? Pipe dreams and unicorn farts? If you go back to the scientific method, you make predictions based on observations. You know what else you base on observations? Potential falsifications.

As Ashby Camp correctly notes, you are taking mere observations and reading them back into a plastic theory... a theory that could potentially have accommodated the contradiction if it had presented itself at the time the theory was being developed.

I would expect a Creationist lawyer without scientific training to make such an assertion. I especially love "mere observations" as if they weren't the most powerful method for making predictions and potential falsifications.

 

[lifepsyop]

Have you ever actually read 29 Evidences or Camp's response to it?

Yup. Once upon a time I was actually quite intimidated by Theobald's smoke and mirrors. Wizard of Oz syndrome.

Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species.

The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression​

Evolution could also have accommodated non-nested patterns.

Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution;

Could be accommodated.

the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity.

but the evolutionary branching order is not specific whatsoever. Evolution may accommodate numerous "branching orders" and numerous different nested hierarchies.

Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.

​

Designed objects can, of course, be organized into nested hierarchies. But notice the keyword "objective". Actual common ancestors between major groups and their branching nodes are not objectively known whatsoever, and biological character traits cannot be objectively distinguished between homologies and convergent evolution thus the "nested hierarchy of common descent" is far from objective. There is too much room for 'common descent' to accommodate multiple nested hierarchies.

Common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy.

It could also produce a non-nested hierarchy. "Evolution" could have proceeded in such a way that selection pressures rapidly removed the very traits that would define a nested group.

"The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them." - Walter ReMine

Swapped modules or mixed and matched parts (especially of highly derived characteristics) violate a nested hierarchy.

Not if they are accommodated into the nested hierarchy via proposing new phylogenies or convergent evolution.

Case in point: mammal feathers could either resolve as a common ancestor between birds and mammals, or as convergent evolution of feathers.

Evolution, since it's central premise is common ancestry, predicts a nested hierarchy of life

It can also predict a non-nested hierarchy depending on the scenario.

and, any violations of that nested hierarchy - like bird feathers on a mammal - would falsify the theory.

Nope. You have yet to support this assertion.

I'm not interested in chasing hypothetical rabbits through hypothetical Cambrian fields.

These hypotheticals go right to the heart of how plastic the theory of evolution really is, so I understand why you're not interested. You may have to start actually questioning what you believe.

The theory, as formulated is rooted in the prediction I stated above:
- Common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy.
- Swapped modules would violate a nested hierarchy.
- Swapped modules would therefore falsify evolution.

-Common ancestry may or may not produce a nested hierarchy.

-You have yet to define what a swapped module actually is. You say "mammal feathers" is a swapped module, yet phylogeny can be reinterpreted to make it something else so your claim does not make sense.

How exactly do you objectively identify a "swapped module"? Not based relative to standard phylogeny which is subject to change, but actual objective identification.

Your problem is, that you cannot positively identify a "swapped module" without first having absolute knowledge of phylogeny, something you clearly do not have.

And what exactly are they supposed to be predicated on? Pipe dreams and unicorn farts? If you go back to the scientific method, you make predictions based on observations. You know what else you base on observations? Potential falsifications.

Actually real predictions tend to be made made before the observations are known.

The type of "potential falsifications" you're advocating can be made for practically any hypothesis no matter how flimsy.

Hypothesis: A giant blanket envelopes the Earth every night which causes it to get dark out.
Prediction: It will get dark out every night.
Potential falsification: If it fails to get dark out one night, my theory is falsified.

Crude example, but that is essentially how falsification is being clumsily wielded by you and Theobald. Now that it is well known that mammals consistently lack feathers, you turn it into a "prediction" and a "potential falsification".

And more importantly, Evolution never even had the theoretical constraints to predict this. If a type of feathered mammal was known in Darwin's time, it most certainly would have been written into a distinct phylogeny. You don't seem too eager to comment on this. I wonder why.

Even if such a thing were discovered today, while admittedly being embarrassing for evolutionists just because of their rhetoric over the years, they would still lack any real scientific criteria with which to claim it as a falsification or a "swapped module" rather than the discovery of a previously unknown aspect of phylogeny and/or convergent evolution.

You continue to try and dodge this problem. You want to ignore the very core of what your theory actually says.

I would expect a Creationist lawyer without scientific training to make such an assertion.

Yawn.

I especially love "mere observations" as if they weren't the most powerful method for making predictions and potential falsifications.

No, it's just that your predictions don't have power if you can't explain why you're making them in regards to your theory, and if you make them after the observation.

 

[Split Rock]

Yup. Once upon a time I was actually quite intimidated by Theobald's smoke and mirrors. Wizard of Oz syndrome.

Evolution could also have accommodated non-nested patterns.



Could be accommodated.





but the evolutionary branching order is not specific whatsoever. Evolution may accommodate numerous "branching orders" and numerous different nested hierarchies.




​

Designed objects can, of course, be organized into nested hierarchies. But notice the keyword "objective". Actual common ancestors between major groups and their branching nodes are not objectively known whatsoever, and biological character traits cannot be objectively distinguished between homologies and convergent evolution thus the "nested hierarchy of common descent" is far from objective. There is too much room for 'common descent' to accommodate multiple nested hierarchies.




It could also produce a non-nested hierarchy. "Evolution" could have proceeded in such a way that selection pressures rapidly removed the very traits that would define a nested group.

"The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them." - Walter ReMine





Not if they are accommodated into the nested hierarchy via proposing new phylogenies or convergent evolution.

Case in point: mammal feathers could either resolve as a common ancestor between birds and mammals, or as convergent evolution of feathers.




It can also predict a non-nested hierarchy depending on the scenario.



Nope. You have yet to support this assertion.




These hypotheticals go right to the heart of how plastic the theory of evolution really is, so I understand why you're not interested. You may have to start actually questioning what you believe.




-Common ancestry may or may not produce a nested hierarchy.

-You have yet to define what a swapped module actually is. You say "mammal feathers" is a swapped module, yet phylogeny can be reinterpreted to make it something else so your claim does not make sense.

How exactly do you objectively identify a "swapped module"? Not based relative to standard phylogeny which is subject to change, but actual objective identification.

Your problem is, that you cannot positively identify a "swapped module" without first having absolute knowledge of phylogeny, something you clearly do not have.




Actually real predictions tend to be made made before the observations are known.

The type of "potential falsifications" you're advocating can be made for practically any hypothesis no matter how flimsy.

Hypothesis: A giant blanket envelopes the Earth every night which causes it to get dark out.
Prediction: It will get dark out every night.
Potential falsification: If it fails to get dark out one night, my theory is falsified.

Crude example, but that is essentially how falsification is being clumsily wielded by you and Theobald. Now that it is well known that mammals consistently lack feathers, you turn it into a "prediction" and a "potential falsification".

And more importantly, Evolution never even had the theoretical constraints to predict this. If a type of feathered mammal was known in Darwin's time, it most certainly would have been written into a distinct phylogeny. You don't seem too eager to comment on this. I wonder why.

Even if such a thing were discovered today, while admittedly being embarrassing for evolutionists just because of their rhetoric over the years, they would still lack any real scientific criteria with which to claim it as a falsification or a "swapped module" rather than the discovery of a previously unknown aspect of phylogeny and/or convergent evolution.

You continue to try and dodge this problem. You want to ignore the very core of what your theory actually says.



Yawn.



No, it's just that your predictions don't have power if you can't explain why you're making them in regards to your theory, and if you make them after the observation.

1. Heredity produces nested hierarchies. Therefore related species will fall into a nested hierarchy. Yes, some related traits can be lost, but one cannot escape one's ancestry. Even whales, which are a good case of lost intermediates and derived adaptations are still clearly mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc.

2. There are many predictions not observable during Darwin's time, which uphold the predictions of the theory. Case in point: the genetic sequences of species fitting into the same nested hierarchy (with some minor exceptions).

3. If chimera's were widespread, such as winged horses, feathered whales, satyrs, minotaurs, manticores, hippogriffs, etc., then probably Darwin would never have come up with his theory. If remote island chains had the same life as on the continents he would never have come up with his theory. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

 

[lifepsyop]

1. Heredity produces nested hierarchies. Therefore related species will fall into a nested hierarchy.

Okay but you missed the point which is that depending on the rate of loss or replacement of traits driven by extreme selection pressures, it does not necessarily leave evidence of a nested hierarchy.

Thus Evolution could potentially accommodate things that did not conform to a nested hierarchy.

2. There are many predictions not observable during Darwin's time, which uphold the predictions of the theory. Case in point: the genetic sequences of species fitting into the same nested hierarchy (with some minor exceptions).

Hardly "minor". Even supposedly closely related organisms may have homologous organs which are governed by different genetic and developmental pathways, while the opposite also occurs: 'distantly related' organisms may have "non-homologous" organs which are governed by similar genetic and developmental pathways. Those molecular developmental systems can also be said to be convergent.

But of course this is accommodated since Evolution "predicts" almost anything.

3. If chimera's were widespread, such as winged horses, feathered whales, satyrs, minotaurs, manticores, hippogriffs, etc., then probably Darwin would never have come up with his theory.

You're making the same mistake that USIcognito is, where you are assuming a "chimera" can be positively identified instead of being accommodated into a phylogenetic sheme and/or convergent evolution.

Bringing up greek mythology is a nice touch, though. Bravo.

If remote island chains had the same life as on the continents he would never have come up with his theory. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

That's a rather dubious claim. How do you know he would not have accommodated such an observation into Evolution? Later on we have seen evolutionists explain the distribution of monkeys and other terrestrial animals by proposing vast ocean crossing events in the past. This alone apparently defeats your argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

To use an analogy . . .

Lifepsyop's argument boils down to a fantasy that if the evidence were different, then scientists still wouldn't give up the theory of evolution.

This is like a defense attorney asking to throw out all of the forensic evidence that clearly points to his client because of a completely made up claim that if the forensic evidence didn't match his client then the forensic scientist would still say that his client committed the crime.

According the Lifepsyop's logic, each piece of new evidence that supports the theory of evolution is yet another reason to reject the theory. As usual, creationists are from Bizzaro world.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Okay but you missed the point which is that depending on the rate of loss or replacement of traits driven by extreme selection pressures, it does not necessarily leave evidence of a nested hierarchy.

Thus Evolution could potentially accommodate things that did not conform to a nested hierarchy.



Hardly "minor". Even supposedly closely related organisms may have homologous organs which are governed by different genetic and developmental pathways, while the opposite also occurs: 'distantly related' organisms may have "non-homologous" organs which are governed by similar genetic and developmental pathways. Those molecular developmental systems can also be said to be convergent.

But of course this is accommodated since Evolution "predicts" almost anything.



You're making the same mistake that USIcognito is, where you are assuming a "chimera" can be positively identified instead of being accommodated into a phylogenetic sheme and/or convergent evolution.

Bringing up greek mythology is a nice touch, though. Bravo.



That's a rather dubious claim. How do you know he would not have accommodated such an observation into Evolution? Later on we have seen evolutionists explain the distribution of monkeys and other terrestrial animals by proposing vast ocean crossing events in the past. This alone apparently defeats your argument.

The above argument that evolutionists would twist anything into supporting evolution and actually nothing really supports evolution was written by a man with vestigial ear wiggling muscles. He cannot use them as our species has settled into fixed ears, the better to use our fancy phase analysis of incoming sounds. But they are a silent witness of a previous species that could actually turn its ears to good effect.

He has a vestigial set of tail bones, his coccyx. Rarely, a human will also have the muscle attached to it for lifting the tail. That vestigial muscle is on its way out . . . having no use at all . . . but its presence in some of us is mute testimony of a time when our ancestors according to the flesh could lift their tails.

He has a tiny little bump in the inner corner of his eyes. This little bump does nothing, it is the vestige of a nictating membrane in the eye possessed by a previous species.

And if you take off his shoes and socks, you will find he has been hiding vestigial digits on his feet, mute evidence of a previous species that could grasp tree branches with its hind limbs.

 

[EternalDragon]

1. Heredity produces nested hierarchies. Therefore related species will fall into a nested hierarchy. Yes, some related traits can be lost, but one cannot escape one's ancestry. Even whales, which are a good case of lost intermediates and derived adaptations are still clearly mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc.

2. There are many predictions not observable during Darwin's time, which uphold the predictions of the theory. Case in point: the genetic sequences of species fitting into the same nested hierarchy (with some minor exceptions).

3. If chimera's were widespread, such as winged horses, feathered whales, satyrs, minotaurs, manticores, hippogriffs, etc., then probably Darwin would never have come up with his theory. If remote island chains had the same life as on the continents he would never have come up with his theory. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

So God created the beginning kinds of life, using whatever method, but one can easily assume God used the same blueprints for all life on earth. He designed them to be able to diversify through natural selection to ensure survival.

Life has had thousands of years to diversify from there which is what we are observing now. I don't see why that would not equally fit with the evidence other than it isn't an all natural cause.

 

[EternalDragon]

To use an analogy . . .

Lifepsyop's argument boils down to a fantasy that if the evidence were different, then scientists still wouldn't give up the theory of evolution.

This is like a defense attorney asking to throw out all of the forensic evidence that clearly points to his client because of a completely made up claim that if the forensic evidence didn't match his client then the forensic scientist would still say that his client committed the crime.

According the Lifepsyop's logic, each piece of new evidence that supports the theory of evolution is yet another reason to reject the theory. As usual, creationists are from Bizzaro world.

Basically what he is saying is that evolutionists would always use the naturalist reasoning, always leaving God or an ID or some other cause out of the equation.

 

[Loudmouth]

So God created the beginning kinds of life, using whatever method, but one can easily assume God used the same blueprints for all life on earth. He designed them to be able to diversify through natural selection to ensure survival.

Then that gives us a testable hypothesis. If humans and apes are different kinds, then we should be able to use the concept of genetic equidistance to test that hypothesis.

The genetic equidistance phenomenon was first noted in 1963 by Emanuel Margoliash, who wrote: "It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged. If this is correct, the cytochrome c of all mammals should be equally different from the cytochrome c of all birds. Since fish diverges from the main stem of vertebrate evolution earlier than either birds or mammals, the cytochrome c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochrome c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochrome c should be equally different from the yeast protein."[2]
Molecular clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

For humans and apes, the ancestors of humans and the ancestors of apes would have started with a set distance between their genomes. As apes diversified, they would all move away from humans, as humans moved away from them due to mutations. This means that, if you are correct, that humans should share as much DNA with chimps as they do with gorillas and orangutans. Is that what we see? NOPE!!!

Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Your hypothesis is falsified. We share more DNA with chimps than we do with gorillas and orangutans respectively. This demonstrates that we are within the ape kind, and evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes.

Life has had thousands of years to diversify from there which is what we are observing now. I don't see why that would not equally fit with the evidence other than it isn't an all natural cause.

It doesn't fit because of what I discussed above. Diversification wouldn't make chimps become more like humans at the DNA level compared to other apes. All of the apes would drift away from humans at the same rate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Basically what he is saying is that evolutionists would always use the naturalist reasoning, always leaving God or an ID or some other cause out of the equation.

We would always use the mechanisms that are testable, falsifiable, and consistent with observation. It is not the fault of science that creationists can not produce mechanisms that have these characteristics. You might as well demand that forensic scientists include evidence-planting Leprechauns in their analysis.

 

[bhsmte]

We would always use the mechanisms that are testable, falsifiable, and consistent with observation. It is not the fault of science that creationists can not produce mechanisms that have these characteristics. You might as well demand that forensic scientists include evidence-planting Leprechauns in their analysis.

In the OJ case, I think the jury may have given some credence, to leprechauns planting evidence.

 

[lifepsyop]

Loudmouth says:

Lifepsyop's argument boils down to a fantasy that if the evidence were different, then scientists still wouldn't give up the theory of evolution.

Correct, but it's not a fantasy. I've demonstrated how evolutionists could accommodate very different data. If they could, they would.


This is like a defense attorney asking to throw out all of the forensic evidence that clearly points to his client because of a completely made up claim that if the forensic evidence didn't match his client then the forensic scientist would still say that his client committed the crime.

Only it's not a made up claim. I've demonstrated that evolution theory is plastic enough to accommodate the data even if it were contradictory to what it is today. In other words, it has no theoretical constraints to be rejected by such contradictory data, and thus can not correctly claim either fulfilled predictions or potential falsification concerning this type of data.

If a theory is comfortable with multiple outcomes, it can not go on to claim one of those outcomes as evidence. This is the smoke and mirrors magic show employed in the popular case made for Evolution theory.

 

[USincognito]

{responding to Theobold when he quoted me}
Evolution could also have accommodated non-nested patterns.

I'm sure "evolution" as it exists in your head could. The actual theory of evolution cannot.

{still responding to Theobald}
Could be accommodated.

See above.

{still responding to Theobald}
but the evolutionary branching order is not specific whatsoever. Evolution may accommodate numerous "branching orders" and numerous different nested hierarchies.

Simply untrue. If you think this is the case:
- please explain to us how the branching order is not specific
and
- please give us two examples (since you claim it could produce numerous different nested hierarchies).

{still responding to Theobald}
Designed objects can, of course, be organized into nested hierarchies.

Not true. Cars, for example, cannot. There is also a great problem with swapped modules - a perfect example being the early 80s VW Golf platform which, via mixing and matching, produced a hatchback, sedan, coupe and pick up.
Volkswagen Group A platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But notice the keyword "objective". Actual common ancestors between major groups and their branching nodes are not objectively known whatsoever, and biological character traits cannot be objectively distinguished between homologies and convergent evolution thus the "nested hierarchy of common descent" is far from objective. There is too much room for 'common descent' to accommodate multiple nested hierarchies.

Less vague claims. More details. Provide a few examples to support your claim.

It could also produce a non-nested hierarchy. "Evolution" could have proceeded in such a way that selection pressures rapidly removed the very traits that would define a nested group.

I don't know what "evolution" could have done, but I know actual evolution as described in the theory of evolution cannot produce a non-nested hierarchy.

"The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them." - Walter ReMine

Evolution - May 1998: Re: evolution-digest V1 #930
"Walter is simply wrong in what he says that evolution should expect. I know of no evolutionist that says that the higher animals are due to polygenetic origin of life. Why do flies and humans have similar HOX genes, the genes responsible for the embryonic development of morphological form? This is due to common descent. Multiple origins of life and multiple origins of the major groups by progressive creation would not necessarily expect that the insects should use the same HOX complex as man, yet they do use remarkably similar ones. Why would God necessarily use the same HOX complex? God could have ended the evolutionary argument simply by giving each major group, its own unique HOX complex. That situation would have clearly marked life as having separate origins. But God didn't do that." - Glenn Morton

Not if they are accommodated into the nested hierarchy via proposing new phylogenies or convergent evolution.

Case in point: mammal feathers could either resolve as a common ancestor between birds and mammals, or as convergent evolution of feathers.

Simply untrue. Convergent evolution does not produce swapped modules. A penguin fin and a dolphin fin are similar, but they are not identical. Pterosaur and bat wings are similar, but they are not identical. Bird feathers and mammal "feathers" would not be identical either. A mammal with bird feathers would violate the nested hierarchy and falsify the theory of evolution. And I'm sorry, but no. There's no appeal to common ancestry for highly derived characteristics. No characteristic ever evolves exactly the same way in two different lineages through convergent evolution.

cont. -

 

[USincognito]

It can also predict a non-nested hierarchy depending on the scenario.

No, it cannot. If you think it can, don't just assert so - demonstrate it.

Nope. You have yet to support this assertion.

I have. That you won't accept said support, because of your Creationist intransigence, is your problem, not mine.

These hypotheticals go right to the heart of how plastic the theory of evolution really is, so I understand why you're not interested. You may have to start actually questioning what you believe.

Jabba the Hutt - Mind trick won't work on me boy quote - YouTube

-Common ancestry may or may not produce a nested hierarchy.

Sorry, it does.

-You have yet to define what a swapped module actually is. You say "mammal feathers" is a swapped module, yet phylogeny can be reinterpreted to make it something else so your claim does not make sense.

Huh? I've defined swapped modules several dozen times. I've given numerous examples. I like to use CF to pass time, but I don't like to waste time.
- Birds with wings and arms
- Annelids with vertebrate brains
- Roses with melanocytes

How exactly do you objectively identify a "swapped module"? Not based relative to standard phylogeny which is subject to change, but actual objective identification.

Your problem is, that you cannot positively identify a "swapped module" without first having absolute knowledge of phylogeny, something you clearly do not have.

Actually real predictions tend to be made made before the observations are known.

Why don't you look in Origin and see what Darwin had to say about biogeography and hominan fossils. He made that prediction the same year as the first example was identified in Germany.

The type of "potential falsifications" you're advocating can be made for practically any hypothesis no matter how flimsy.

Of course you think that. But then you keep ignoring the crow with arms and wings potential falsification and going back to mammal "feathers". Why don't you address a bird with wings and arms (and legs, in case that needs to be said)?

Hypothesis: A giant blanket envelopes the Earth every night which causes it to get dark out.
Prediction: It will get dark out every night.
Potential falsification: If it fails to get dark out one night, my theory is falsified.

I think we're done here. I've got some work to do before my shift ends.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Basically what he is saying is that evolutionists would always use the naturalist reasoning, always leaving God or an ID or some other cause out of the equation.

Not exactly, remember many evolutionists support theistic evolution, which is god guided.

 

[Split Rock]

Okay but you missed the point which is that depending on the rate of loss or replacement of traits driven by extreme selection pressures, it does not necessarily leave evidence of a nested hierarchy.

And you conveniently cut out the example I gave of just such an example: whales. Whales are highly derived and have left behind no living examples of intermediates. Yet they still fit into the nested hierarchy of life.

Thus Evolution could potentially accommodate things that did not conform to a nested hierarchy.

No. Whales with feathers and frogs with placenta could not be accommodated in the same hierarchy with species we do find.

Hardly "minor". Even supposedly closely related organisms may have homologous organs which are governed by different genetic and developmental pathways, while the opposite also occurs: 'distantly related' organisms may have "non-homologous" organs which are governed by similar genetic and developmental pathways. Those molecular developmental systems can also be said to be convergent.

Give us some specific examples that violate accepted evolutionary theory. There is convergent and parallel evolution. Show us an example that doesn't explain the data.

But of course this is accommodated since Evolution "predicts" almost anything.

See above.

You're making the same mistake that USIcognito is, where you are assuming a "chimera" can be positively identified instead of being accommodated into a phylogenetic sheme and/or convergent evolution.

If we were in a world as I described with minotaurs, hippogrifs, chimeras, pegasus, etc., then Darwin would never have written about evolution. If life varied like motor vehicles do, he would never have written about evolution. It isn't about one species, it is about all of them. It is about the forest, not the trees.

Bringing up greek mythology is a nice touch, though. Bravo.

Mythology is the only place you find such chimeras... not in reality. Where else would you like me to find them as examples?

That's a rather dubious claim. How do you know he would not have accommodated such an observation into Evolution? Later on we have seen evolutionists explain the distribution of monkeys and other terrestrial animals by proposing vast ocean crossing events in the past. This alone apparently defeats your argument.

We don't see monkeys on remote island chains. I mentioned it because historically, it was a big influence on Darwin's theories.

 

[lifepsyop]

Simply untrue. If you think this is the case:
- please explain to us how the branching order is not specific
and
- please give us two examples (since you claim it could produce numerous different nested hierarchies).

The branching order is not specific because it can be drastically changed if need be. The reason this is possible is because common ancestor nodes are little more than imaginary data points.

Examples? Simple. The branching order of birds could be changed from theropods to archosaurs, which has been proposed by experts on 'bird evolution'. In this case, the morphological similarities between birds and theropods could simply be identified as convergent evolution, kind of like how the 'bird hips' of ornithischia are attributed to convergence. This would represent a major shift in phylogeny and reassessment of a plethora of character traits.

And a more extreme example would be shifting the position of birds to sharing a more recent common ancestor with mammals. This phylogeny was actually proposed and published in peer-reviewed literature in the 1990's based on analysis of multiple morphological and molecular similarities between birds and mammals. This shows how easy it would be for evolutionists to potentially accommodate something like mammal-feathers. Such a thing could be taken as 'evidence' of bird/mammal homology. And again, traits found in theropods could be labeled as convergent evolution if necessary.

Heck we could even open the door to the possibility that theropods evolved from birds afterwards which would eliminate the need to appeal to as much convergence.

You can hand-wave about this all day long, but what you can't do is identify what is ultimately 'wrong' about such a potential shift. Your plastic theory has no such constraints.

Not true. Cars, for example, cannot. There is also a great problem with swapped modules - a perfect example being the early 80s VW Golf platform which, via mixing and matching, produced a hatchback, sedan, coupe and pick up.

Of course cars can be placed into a nested hierarchy. Any designed objects can be by simply taking the most common traits and nesting from there. Any "swapped modules" that were left over from a most parsimonious hierarchy could be identified as if they are independent convergences as they are in evolution. This isn't that complicated.

Less vague claims. More details. Provide a few examples to support your claim.

Oh, right. Let me just wave my hands and say "swapped module" a dozen times like you. Can't get anymore detailed than that.

I was actually very specific. You can not positively distinguish between a homology and an independent convergence. You could have simply disagreed with me if you know this to be false, but it looks like you're waiting for some additional material with which to obfuscate with.

I could refer you back to Ornithischian dinosaur hip bones. Today these are classified as a convergence towards similarity with bird hip structure. If in the future, more data were discovered that pointed to an Ornithischian transition towards birds instead of Saurischian, then that same hip structure could be relabeled as homologous.

I don't know what "evolution" could have done, but I know actual evolution as described in the theory of evolution cannot produce a non-nested hierarchy.

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'.

Evolution - May 1998: Re: evolution-digest V1 #930
"Walter is simply wrong in what he says that evolution should expect. I know of no evolutionist that says that the higher animals are due to polygenetic origin of life. Why do flies and humans have similar HOX genes, the genes responsible for the embryonic development of morphological form? This is due to common descent. Multiple origins of life and multiple origins of the major groups by progressive creation would not necessarily expect that the insects should use the same HOX complex as man, yet they do use remarkably similar ones. Why would God necessarily use the same HOX complex? God could have ended the evolutionary argument simply by giving each major group, its own unique HOX complex. That situation would have clearly marked life as having separate origins. But God didn't do that." - Glenn Morton

Neither you nor Morton seem to understand ReMine's argument. An evolutionist would not have to resort to separate ancestries of life. They could propose just what was said: that the nested hierarchy signal was lost due to selection pressures driving high loss/replacement rates of character traits.

Morton says:
"Why do flies and humans have similar HOX genes, the genes responsible for the embryonic development of morphological form? This is due to common descent."

This is laughable. If homeosis was extremely different between flies and humans, it would simply be regarded as separately derived body-plan developmental systems from their ancient common ancestor.

To drive this point home I can refer you back to the studies in the OP. Even something as fundamental as sex-determination between closely related flies are controlled by different genes.

The rest of Morton's argument "Why would God do it this way?" is nothing but teleological argument - an evolutionist favorite.

Simply untrue. Convergent evolution does not produce swapped modules.

Again, you are begging the question. How would you know they are "swapped modules" ? You can't seem to get beyond this simple fallacy in reasoning.

A penguin fin and a dolphin fin are similar, but they are not identical. Pterosaur and bat wings are similar, but they are not identical. Bird feathers and mammal "feathers" would not be identical either.

Even the wings of different bat groups are not 100% "identical". Your argument is incredibly weak. You're adding special rules to something you don't even expect in closely related groups. This shows how desperate you are in constructing your "potential falsifications". You're on the verge of demanding physically impossible organisms as falsification.

I can do that, too. Let's see...
Genesis says God created life that reproduces ("multiplies"). Potential Falsification: find a type of life that can not reproduce. Boom.
As I've already explained and which you glibly ignored, it's really very easy to come up with 'potential falsifications'. The question is whether or not they are robust, true potential vulnerablities, or highly selective machinations carefully constructed to protect the theory.

I'm sure you'd prefer we don't examine such things, USIncognito.

A mammal with bird feathers would violate the nested hierarchy and falsify the theory of evolution.

No it wouldn't. You just keep saying it would.

And I'm sorry, but no. There's no appeal to common ancestry for highly derived characteristics.

No characteristic ever evolves exactly the same way in two different lineages through convergent evolution.

It's funny you believe in the ridiculous notion that a complex anatomical trait can evolve at all, yet the idea that it may evolve twice is utterly preposterous to you.

But, just to play along, here is how a committed evolutionist may deal with such a thing:
Greater similarities between convergences can be explained away as functional constraints. It would be argued that even slight differences reduce fitness, so selection pressures drove the extreme similarity. The similarity between such "convergences" would be taken as evidence for this.

Also, we can still invoke homologies to explain similarities at a deeper level, homologous molecular systems being "recruited" for the job.

USIncognito, if you continue to dance around these issues instead of addressing them, then I can't be bothered to keep responding to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct, but it's not a fantasy. I've demonstrated how evolutionists could accommodate very different data. If they could, they would.

You have dreamt it up.

Only it's not a made up claim.

Yes, it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course cars can be placed into a nested hierarchy.

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.