The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

[[serious]]

You mean your theory predicted that two similar looking mammals will be more similar to each other than either is to a chicken? Amazing.

Also, Evolution could accommodate that discordance by just having the gene similarly conserved in human, chimp, and chicken lineages until the human-chimp split. At which point the gene becomes rapidly non-conserved in the chimp lineage over 6+ million years, while the conservation (similarity) remains stable in human and chicken lineages.

All species of bats are more genetically similar to pigs than to pigeons. If the reverse were true, even for 1 species, the tree of life would be uprooted.

 

[[serious]]

You mean your theory predicted that two similar looking mammals will be more similar to each other than either is to a chicken? Amazing.

Also, Evolution could accommodate that discordance by just having the gene similarly conserved in human, chimp, and chicken lineages until the human-chimp split. At which point the gene becomes rapidly non-conserved in the chimp lineage over 6+ million years, while the conservation (similarity) remains stable in human and chicken lineages.

please name the gene that is conserved that way. I've seen such a claim by Duane Gish (of Gish Gallop fame) claiming such sequences exist for bullfrogs and chickens. The bullfrog one was ultimately traced back to a clear joke about distinguishing a frog prince from a regular frog sans kissing. The chicken example wasn't even given that much defense.

If such a sequence actually exists, I'd love to see it. If you are just repeating Gish's claim, I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked by a dishonest doubt peddler.

 

[lifepsyop]

All species of bats are more genetically similar to pigs than to pigeons. If the reverse were true, even for 1 species, the tree of life would be uprooted.

Speaking of bats...

In the past, Evolutionists have debated whether all bats are part of one group, or if some 'bats' are more closely related to primates and independently evolved bat wings.

Wings or Brain? Convergent Evolution in the Origin of Bats - Pettigrew 1991
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/SPwingsorbrain.pdf

While such a finding would uproot the model of bat phylogeny, we can see that Evolution theory would easily absorb such discordant data.

We can extrapolate this idea to see that major discrepancies in numerous animal trait patterns could be 'resolved' by invoking convergent evolution.

 

[[serious]]

Speaking of bats...

In the past, Evolutionists have debated whether all bats are part of one group, or if some 'bats' are more closely related to primates and independently evolved bat wings.

Wings or Brain? Convergent Evolution in the Origin of Bats - Pettigrew 1991
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/SPwingsorbrain.pdf

While such a finding would uproot the model of bat phylogeny, we can see that Evolution theory would easily absorb such discordant data.

We can extrapolate this idea to see that major discrepancies in numerous animal trait patterns could be 'resolved' by invoking convergent evolution.

In the past ONE evolutionist (we assume) proposed an alternate tree much closer to the present tree than i was discussing. I tree which I'd say would be at the very edge of what would be considered a reasonable accommodation. Such a specific type of wing evolving twice would certainly strain my credulity and is certainly a vastly larger departure from existing models than anything else I know of.

But let's follow this logic through. We have a scientist forwarding a theory that would probably pose serious issues for evolution. He is able to publish, and his work is critiqued by his peers, his theories are addressed, and further work is done to test those theories. Ultimately, further research shows there isn't nearly as much similarity between the brains of megachiroptera and primates as the guy thought.

So we have an example of a test of evolutionary theory, no conspiracy to deny legitimate minority views from the discussion, and ultimately a win for the current model. You've basically just undermined your own position.

 

[[serious]]

And still waiting on that chicken example. If you got tricked by someone referencing Gish, let me know and it's water under the bridge.

 

[lifepsyop]

But let's follow this logic through. We have a scientist forwarding a theory that would probably pose serious issues for evolution.

But it wouldn't, that's the point. It would be accommodated as an unexpected discovery of what evolution did.

 

[[serious]]

But it wouldn't, that's the point. It would be accommodated as an unexpected discovery of what evolution did.

As has been said in this thread many times, there are things the theory can absorb with minor revisions (such as new understanding of when the ancestors of raccoons split from other members of carnivora), others that it can't (mammals, like bats, being more genetically similar to avians than other mammals). The bat thing straddles that line. It strains credulity that a bat wing could evolve twice so similarly. We don't have any evidence of wings that similar ever appearing independently of one another. Whether such a shock could be absorbed while maintaining our current model generally is dubious, despite your claims to the contrary.

And still waiting on details about that alleged chicken protein.

 

[lifepsyop]

It strains credulity that a bat wing could evolve twice so similarly. We don't have any evidence of wings that similar ever appearing independently of one another. Whether such a shock could be absorbed while maintaining our current model generally is dubious, despite your claims to the contrary.

You don't have a shred of actual scientific criteria to say bat-like wings couldn't evolve multiple times independently, and such a thing was actually proposed by evolutionists without any counter-claim of this level of convergence being impossible. (which couldn't be claimed even in principle)

It only "strains credulity" until it is realized that such a level of convergence is the only way to harmonize evolution theory. At that point it becomes accepted as self-evidently true.

 

[The Cadet]

Because evolution/natural selection did it. That is always the "explanation" for unexpected molecular patterns.

Uh... No. Try again. There is actually a reason why certain genes tend to be more or less conserved. I'll give you a hint: it's why fairly useless non-coding regions are not well-conserved, while the gene that create proteins responsible for the nucleosome structure of the chromosomal fiber in eukaryotes are.

 

[lifepsyop]

Uh... No. Try again. There is actually a reason why certain genes tend to be more or less conserved. I'll give you a hint: it's why fairly useless non-coding regions are not well-conserved, while the gene that create proteins responsible for the nucleosome structure of the chromosomal fiber in eukaryotes are.

Yes, as I said, it's called natural selection. That's what conservation means. It was either conserved by being selected for, or non-conserved by being selected against and/or neutral drift.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes, as I said, it's called natural selection. That's what conservation means. It was either conserved by being selected for, or non-conserved by being selected against and/or neutral drift.

Yes, and there tends to be a reason why individual mutations to particular sections of the genome are selected for or against more or less consistently throughout the tree of life. Why would that be?

 

[[serious]]

You don't have a shred of actual scientific criteria to say bat-like wings couldn't evolve multiple times independently, and such a thing was actually proposed by evolutionists without any counter-claim of this level of convergence being impossible. (which couldn't be claimed even in principle)

It only "strains credulity" until it is realized that such a level of convergence is the only way to harmonize evolution theory. At that point it becomes accepted as self-evidently true.

Speaking as someone with a degree in biology, it would strain MY credulity.

If you know someone with any formal education in the matter who could easily accept such a proposition, perhaps you should speak to them directly. As long as you are speaking to me, I'd have an issue with such a situation under the current model.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, and there tends to be a reason why individual mutations to particular sections of the genome are selected for or against more or less consistently throughout the tree of life. Why would that be?

The point is that it will be assumed ad-hoc to harmonize models of phylogeny. If animal groups are assumed to be closely related but show unexpected levels of molecular divergence, then the explanation will be that the element in question had a pronounced shift in conservation in one or more lineages. (i.e. changing selection pressures on that element in that lineage)

This is why molecular 'clocks' are now considered unreliable because there have been so many unexpected patterns of discordance. It is yet one more example of evolution theory's gelatinous and absorbing nature.

 

[lifepsyop]

Speaking as someone with a degree in biology, it would strain MY credulity.

If you know someone with any formal education in the matter who could easily accept such a proposition, perhaps you should speak to them directly. As long as you are speaking to me, I'd have an issue with such a situation under the current model.

I'm sure you would... the problem is that you can't give us any scientific criteria supporting your reservations on the limitations of "convergent evolution"... it's just sort of a vague expectation.

Put simply... if you were faced with two possible explanations... A) Bat-like wings/morphology evolved twice, or B) Common Descent is Disproven... what do you think the choice of the evolutionary community is going to be? It's a no-brainer...

 

[[serious]]

I'm sure you would... the problem is that you can't give us any scientific criteria supporting your reservations on the limitations of "convergent evolution"... it's just sort of a vague expectation.

Put simply... if you were faced with two possible explanations... A) Bat-like wings/morphology evolved twice, or B) Common Descent is Disproven... what do you think the choice of the evolutionary community is going to be? It's a no-brainer...

Given those two options, I don't know where I'd fall. As I said, that one falls on the very edge of what could theoretically be possible. The fact that such a disruptive theory could be forwarded, taken seriously, and explored, undermines your argument substantially.

 

[The Cadet]

The point is that it will be assumed ad-hoc to harmonize models of phylogeny.

You're wrong. Try again.

 

[lifepsyop]

You're wrong. Try again.

Perhaps you should read up on criticisms of the molecular 'clock' in the literature.

 

[lifepsyop]

Given those two options, I don't know where I'd fall. As I said, that one falls on the very edge of what could theoretically be possible.

Fair enough. But I'm still willing to bet that you'd grudgingly accept it if the alternative meant rejecting common descent.

In any case, the next generation of students being raised up in Darwinian mysticism would be taught that it was simply a testament to the awesome powers of Evolution to converge on complex anatomy.

The fact that such a disruptive theory could be forwarded, taken seriously, and explored, undermines your argument substantially.

No, it confirms that the idea of bat-wing convergence was at least considerable by the evolutionary community. Nobody ever said "That's impossible!" It completely supports my argument of the plastic nature of the nested hierarchy of common descent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean your theory predicted that two similar looking mammals will be more similar to each other than either is to a chicken? Amazing.

I wonder how many times it must be repeated on this forum that mere "similarity" is not the same as "nested hierarchy", before it is actually understood and remembered.

It's certainly looking as if no amount will ever be enough.
Creationists seem to really insist on falling back on this strawman - no matter how many times it's been corrected already.

Also, Evolution could accommodate that discordance by just having the gene similarly conserved in human, chimp, and chicken lineages until the human-chimp split. At which point the gene becomes rapidly non-conserved in the chimp lineage over 6+ million years, while the conservation (similarity) remains stable in human and chicken lineages.

Such a dna sequence would have implications for plenty of birds as well as all mammals and it would not be explainable.

BTW: we are back to you imagining a hypothetical find, the likes of which we have NEVER discovered, and are then imagining what the response of biologists would be, followed by an attack on those imagined responses. And you use that as an argument against what is regarded as one of the most solid theories in all of science.........

Seriously........

 

[lifepsyop]

I wonder how many times it must be repeated on this forum that mere "similarity" is not the same as "nested hierarchy", before it is actually understood and remembered.

And if you could only quote me where I said "similarity = nested hierarchy" then you'd have a point. However my entire thesis so far has been that the nested hierarchy can accommodate vast differences, so good luck.

If you're going to pretend to correct me, put a little more effort into making it believable.

BTW: we are back to you imagining a hypothetical find, the likes of which we have NEVER discovered, and are then imagining what the response of biologists would be, followed by an attack on those imagined responses. And you use that as an argument against what is regarded as one of the most solid theories in all of science.........

Again, this is the exact method used by evolutionists when they discuss potential falsification of their theory. Evolutionists imagine a hypothetical find and then assert what their response would be to this hypothetical find. From this thought experiment they claim to demonstrate support for the theory...

again.... Evolutionists allege a strengthening of their theory by discussing how they would respond to a hypothetical discovery.

Read it again if you have to. I'm sure the double-standard is now obvious, but of course you can't admit being wrong.

What is basically comes down to is that you're fine with evolutionists discussing how they would respond to a hypothetical scenario, but you have to try and censor anyone disputing those claims. I've provided plenty of reasoning for my disputes. And since you have no counter-argument, your response is to simply try and make the subject of discussion forbidden, as you've just attempted here and several times prior. It's an excellent study in evolutionist debating tactics.