-
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.
The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"
- Thread starter lifepsyop
- Start date
See what I mean? Now it's suddenly 'okay' for evolutionists to use hypothetical scenarios. They switch their reasoning every other post. They don't know how to argue with even a modicum of consistency. It's laughable.
Upvote
0
No you're not. You're discussing hypothetical scenarios that you believe would serve as potential falsification of a theory. Do you understand what potential falsification is?
Upvote
0
When scientists discuss potential falsification, are they discussing how they would respond to hypothetical scenarios... or not?
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Only in your make believe universe have violations of a nested hierarchy been observed. True or false?
Upvote
0
Of course it doesn't. Creationism inspires its adherents to engage in this obtuse and illusory bouts of 'gotcha' ranting to make their focus of belief seem to make sense.
Upvote
0
It is amusing to me how often the creationist will try to disparage evolution by calling it a religion. This is tantamount to an unwitting admission that all their beliefs consist of are, well, beliefs. The creationist really, really, really wants evolution to be a religion - just like what they merely believe - because that way, it is on the same playing field that YEC/OEC/IDism is.
One thing that is forever missing in threads like this - actual EVIDENCE that creationism as truth has any merit whatsoever.
Hilarious.
Upvote
0
It would appear that in the mind of the creationist, a "violation" of 'the nested hierarchy' produced by a new discovery warranting the rethinking of one twig of the thousands of major branches of the ToL falsifies not only the entire the entire concept of the nested hierarchy as evidence, but of evolution as such.
Of course, one will note that this "logic" is NEVER applied to their own position. After all - if it were, the fact that there even ARE old earth and young earth creationist would be sufficient to falsify the entire kit and kaboodle.
Upvote
0
That's right, the 'nested hierarchy of common descent' is not evidence because it is not being tested. It is an ad-hoc model consisting of assembling and reassembling of branches as new discoveries are made, or otherwise increasing claims of what "convergent evolution" can do.
Upvote
0
It is tested right here:
The phyologeny of ERV LTR divergence recapitulates the phylogeny based on morphology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/
Upvote
0
It is tested right here:
The phyologeny of ERV LTR divergence recapitulates the phylogeny based on morphology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/
That's not a test. The ERV's could be quite scrambled from their present state and be easily accommodated by invoking incomplete lineage sorting.
Good try, though.
Upvote
0
Yes, it is.
Except that didn't happen. Please refer to reality instead of your make believe world.
Upvote
0
So you believe that nested hierarchy was tested but at the same time you admit it could accommodate completely different results. That sums up the point of this thread nicely.
Upvote
0
I never said that it could accommodate completely different results. Please refer to the real world instead of your make believe world.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
