The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

[lifepsyop]

I don't have to address evidence that doesn't exist. Why would I need to explain violations that don't exist?

Are you kidding me? Because you advanced it as falsification criteria.

So you think you can assert something would potentially violate or falsify the nested hierarchy of common descent, yet you don't have to explain how. Your position is completely nonsensical.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you kidding me? Because you advanced it as falsification criteria.

And since the potential falsifications are not observed, then the theory is kept. That's how it works.

So you think you can assert something would potentially violate or falsify the nested hierarchy of common descent, yet you don't have to explain how. Your position is completely nonsensical.

You don't understand why a mixture of derived dinosaur and mammal features would falsify the nested hierarchy? Really? And you claim to understand how cladistics works?

According to the nested hierarchy, three middle ear bones is a synapomorphy for the mammal clade. It is not a synapomorphy for the amniotes to which both mammals and dinosaurs belong. Therefore, three middle ear bones is a derived mammalian feature. Finding a mixture of derived mammal features and derived dinosaur features would break this nested hierarchy. That is how nested hierarchies work. If you don't understand why, you can read up on cladistics here:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html

 

[lifepsyop]

According to the nested hierarchy, three middle ear bones is a synapomorphy for the mammal clade. It is not a synapomorphy for the amniotes to which both mammals and dinosaurs belong. Therefore, three middle ear bones is a derived mammalian feature. Finding a mixture of derived mammal features and derived dinosaur features would break this nested hierarchy. That is how nested hierarchies work. If you don't understand why, you can read up on cladistics here:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html

Nope, sorry. Those traits would simply be inferred to have evolved convergently in a diapsid/dinosaurian lineage. It would definitely not falsify the nested hierarchy. We know this because you cannot demonstrate any evolutionary constraint preventing such a convergence.

 

[crjmurray]

Nope, sorry. Those traits would simply be inferred to have evolved convergently in a diapsid/dinosaurian lineage. It would definitely not falsify the nested hierarchy. We know this because you cannot demonstrate any evolutionary constraint preventing such a convergence.

This is kinda like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala.

 

[lifepsyop]

This is kinda like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala.

Nope, just using evolutionists' own explanatory devices.

"evolutionary experimentation"
"extreme cases of convergence"
"extreme mosaic evolution"

Don't fault me for the plasticity of your own theory.

 

[crjmurray]

Nope, just using evolutionists' own explanatory devices.

"evolutionary experimentation"
"extreme cases of convergence"
"extreme mosaic evolution"

Don't fault me for the plasticity of your own theory.

Plasticity in a scientific theory is not a bad thing. It allows you to accommodate new information. All of your threads seem to boil down to "If the evidence was different then the theory would be different! Therefore evolution is false!". Well duh, if we had different evidence we would have a different explanation. That certainly doesn't prove the theory wrong. That's just an imaginary scenario.

 

[lifepsyop]

Well duh, if we had different evidence we would have a different explanation. .

Exactly, the common descent nested hierarchy models change with new data, and seeming contradictions will be accommodated as newly discovered evolutionary pathways, therefore it is not a test or confirmation of Evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

Exactly, the common descent nested hierarchy models change with new data, and seeming contradictions will be accommodated as newly discovered evolutionary pathways, therefore it is not a test or confirmation of Evolution.

All theories change when faced with new information. That doesn't mean it can't be tested. If new evidence was found that could not be reconciled with the modern theory then it would be falsified and the theory would need an overhaul. But that hasn't happened.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All theories change when faced with new information. That doesn't mean it can't be tested. If new evidence was found that could not be reconciled with the modern theory then it would be falsified and the theory would need an overhaul. But that hasn't happened.

What could be found that would falsify nested hierarchy?

 

[crjmurray]

What could be found that would falsify nested hierarchy?

A modern bird with the mammalian gene for teats.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A modern bird with the mammalian gene for teats.

What about the bird like genes of the Platypus?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, sorry. Those traits would simply be inferred to have evolved convergently in a diapsid/dinosaurian lineage.

Your imagined fantasies do not trump reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

What about the bird like genes of the Platypus?

Those same genes are found in humans.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those same genes are found in humans.

Isn't true that humans also have the same genetics for vocalization as do certain vocal learning birds that are not present in non-vocal learning birds nor non-human primates?

 

[lifepsyop]

Your imagined fantasies do not trump reality.

Your responses do not even make sense. I simply listed typical evolutionary explanations for discordant data. You seem to be in denial about your own theory. I can't help you with that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your responses do not even make sense.

Where are the fossils with a mixture of derived mammal and dinosaur features that scientists have ignored or tried to cram into a phylogeny?

I simply listed typical evolutionary explanations for discordant data.

You invented one.

You seem to be in denial about your own theory. I can't help you with that.

Then show me where scientists have ignored a fossil with a mixture of derived mammal and dinosaur features. Or are you saying that it never happened?

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't true that humans also have the same genetics for vocalization as do certain vocal learning birds that are not present in non-vocal learning birds nor non-human primates?

Is it? Why don't you find the genes under question and align the DNA sequences.

What would the common designer paradigm predict? Would it predict that human and vocal learning birds have DNA that is more similar?

 

[lifepsyop]

A modern bird with the mammalian gene for teats.

Bird/mammal similarities would be inferred to be inherited from the common-ancestor of birds and mammals, in this case, synapsids.

The Mammary Gland and Its Origin During Synapsid Evolution
"...Mammary patch secretions were coopted to provide nutrients to hatchlings, but some constituents including lactose may have been secreted by ancestral apocrine-like glands in early synapsids."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022896515287

This paper already discusses the hypothesis that function related to mammary-gland precursors originated in early synapsid lineages. Therefore if genes involved in mammary gland expression were also found in birds, it would be said that the gene was present in synapsids and inherited in both lineages leading to mammals and birds. It may be argued that the gene was coopted for another use in the diapsid/dinosaur/bird lineage which is why it was conserved.

This would be easily accommodated by Evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is it? Why don't you find the genes under question and align the DNA sequences.

The new work on vocal learning relied on laser dissection of brain regions of zebra finches known to be involved in vocalizations and then analysis of gene activity there. The researchers then compared those levels to gene expression levels in human brains. They found that humans and birds share 55 genes between brain regions important for vocal learning, a good handful of which were involved in forming connections between neurons. Analysis of genes in other avian vocal learners — parrots and hummingbirds—echoed the finding.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-confirms-bird-songs-related-to-human-speech/

What would the common designer paradigm predict? Would it predict that human and vocal learning birds have DNA that is more similar?

Why wouldn't it?

 

[crjmurray]

Bird/mammal similarities would be inferred to be inherited from the common-ancestor of birds and mammals, in this case, synapsids.

The Mammary Gland and Its Origin During Synapsid Evolution
"...Mammary patch secretions were coopted to provide nutrients to hatchlings, but some constituents including lactose may have been secreted by ancestral apocrine-like glands in early synapsids."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022896515287

This paper already discusses the hypothesis that function related to mammary-gland precursors originated in early synapsid lineages. Therefore if genes involved in mammary gland expression were also found in birds, it would be said that the gene was present in synapsids and inherited in both lineages leading to mammals and birds. It may be argued that the gene was coopted for another use in the diapsid/dinosaur/bird lineage which is why it was conserved.

This would be easily accommodated by Evolution.

That's nice but I said a modern bird with the mammalian gene for teats. I assure you that a population of flightless pelicans walking around with a big ol set of jugs would leave quite a few scientists scratching their heads. It could not be explained through common descent.