Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What could be found that would falsify nested hierarchy?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 about the bird like genes of the Platypus?A modern bird with the mammalian gene for teats.
Nope, sorry. Those traits would simply be inferred to have evolved convergently in a diapsid/dinosaurian lineage.
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?Those same genes are found in humans.
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.
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?
A modern bird with the mammalian gene for teats.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?