The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

[The Cadet]

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.

You know where the standard changed? It was the point where professional evolutionary biologists know what they're talking about, and you don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

No, as I have tried to explain to you before, this is not an accurate description of what goes on.

Evolution, like any theory explaining natural phenomena, is a model. This model works according to certain rules and mechanisms. From there, predictions can be made about the consequences of such model.

One would expect to find x, y and z while one wouldn't expect to find a, b and c.

This is very, very different from speculating about hypothetical responses to hypothetical finds, while lacking any kind of expertise on the subject matter.

From this thought experiment they claim to demonstrate support for the theory...

No. Evolution is supported by very real evidence.
That's the entire point...

The actual REAL evidence, the ACTUAL data, supports the evolutionary model.

There is no REAL evidence that contradicts the evolutionary model.

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

Wrong again. Evolution is strong because different independent lines of real, actual evidence all converge on this model.

Knowing what the model is about, we can infer what kind of things we would not expect to find if the model is accurate. And, surprise, we don't find such things in reality.

What we DO find, fits the model.
Again, evolution is supported by real evidence.

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.

The only thing obvious here, is that either of two things is going on:
- you really still don't get it
- you get it, but prefer to argue a strawman.

I've provided plenty of reasoning for my disputes

And all have been exposed as either being the result of you not understanding the subject matter, or you misrepresenting the subject matter.

And since you have no counter-argument

I don't need a counter-argument to a strawman.
I only need to point it out.

, your response is to simply try and make the subject of discussion forbidden,

I don't forbid discussion on any subject. I'll leave that to the religious authorities of certain religions or to the dictators of certain nations.

 

[lifepsyop]

Knowing what the model is about, we can infer what kind of things we would not expect to find if the model is accurate.

You just said it yourself. This involves a discussion of hypothetical discoveries and how they would potentially falsify a theory. You're simultaneously admitting it and then denying it. Your position is completely nonsensical.

Now can we move past this irrational objection of yours or shall we keep wasting time?

 

[[serious]]

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.



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.

Hypotheticals are fine. The are a great tool for communicating ideas. However, you seem to want to pose a hypothetical, assert that scientists would take a specific position, then, when you are told by people with formal training that that would likely not be the response, you want to try and dismiss that.

So lets recap:
If a specific protein was found in humans and chickens but not chimps (BTW, no such protein exists outside of Gish's imagination to the best of our knowledge), it very well could cause serious problems for the model. The unlikely scenario that such a gene would be highly conserved across two classes of vertebrate, but very recently became inactivates in chimps is testable though. We could say, "if this is a recent loss, we should be able to find a reasonably intact inactive copy of the gene in chimps, and active copies in gorillas and orangutans" among many other tests available for that hypothesis. This would not be left as a hypothetical, but extensively tested. Something not quite so extreme happened in primates about 63 million years ago with loss of function of the GULO gene in the primate suborder Haplorhini, but retained in the suborder Strepsirrhini. Of course, the GULO gene isn't terribly highly conserved when reliable dietary sources of vitamin C are present and appears to have lost function in multiple lineages. Now, before you jump in and say, "Ha! Told you scientists would just explain it away!" let me remind you again that similar function or appearance is not what the nested hierarchy is based on, but rather the isolated genetic changes. between lineages. As such, chimps and humans should have similar inactivated GULO genes, but genetically dissimilar to any remnants of the inactivated gene in guinea pigs. Why? because even loss of function must follow the nested hierarchy to be explained by the evolutionary model.

If a bat was more genetically similar to a pigeon than other mammals, the theory could not explain that, and the current model would fall.

 

[[serious]]

You just said it yourself. This involves a discussion of hypothetical discoveries and how they would potentially falsify a theory. You're simultaneously admitting it and then denying it. Your position is completely nonsensical.

Now can we move past this irrational objection of yours or shall we keep wasting time?

Right. We can come up with something that could falsify evolution, then look for it. We've done that. A lot.

The trouble is then you turn around and say, "ah, but if we found evidence for evolution being wrong, it would just be ignored, because..." and we are still waiting for that "because". You've asserted that you think I would cling desperately to evolution even if clear evidence of it's falsehood were found, but you've not supported that at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You just said it yourself. This involves a discussion of hypothetical discoveries and how they would potentially falsify a theory.

No, it doesn't.

"To infer things from data" is not synonymous to "discussing hypothetical discoveries". In fact, it literally has nothing to do with it. I can't see any sense in what you are saying.

There's nothing hypothetical about real data.

You're simultaneously admitting it and then denying it. Your position is completely nonsensical.

I'm trying to explain to you that infering thins from real data is not the same as assuming things about hypothetical discoveries.

That's what you do. You assume and imagine what scientists would say about hypothetical discoveries and use that as an argument against a scientific theory which is actually build on real data.

Now can we move past this irrational objection of yours or shall we keep wasting time?

The irony is so out of proportion, it's not even funny.

 

[lifepsyop]

"To infer things from data" is not synonymous to "discussing hypothetical discoveries". In fact, it literally has nothing to do with it. I can't see any sense in what you are saying.

There's nothing hypothetical about real data.

In your view, what does the term 'potential' refer to in regards to 'potential falsification'?

 

[[serious]]

In your view, what does the term 'potential' refer to in regards to 'potential falsification'?

"Not observed" as in,

"Evolution has a mountain of real data that supports it, but all potential falsifications creationists have thought up have failed to turn up."

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Not observed" as in,

"Evolution has a mountain of real data that supports it, but all potential falsifications creationists have thought up have failed to turn up."

Mountains of real data for evolution is hard to quantify. What is all this evidence supporting? Can you tell me in your own words what you feel the evidence is supporting and what evidence there is for it?

 

[lifepsyop]

"Not observed" as in,

"Evolution has a mountain of real data that supports it, but all potential falsifications creationists have thought up have failed to turn up."

Potential falsification is a universal concept applied to all scientific theories. It's not something that "creationists have thought up".

Half of the evolutionists' online bible "TalkOrigins" deals in the subject of potential falsifications, i.e. hypothetical scenarios and how they would affect the theory.

So again we are back to DogmaHunter's irrational position that nobody should be allowed to critically examine the reasoning behind such alleged potential falsifications by discussing how the theory would be affected by such hypothetical scenarios.

 

[[serious]]

Mountains of real data for evolution is hard to quantify. What is all this evidence supporting? Can you tell me in your own words what you feel the evidence is supporting and what evidence there is for it?

To avoid a gish gallop, I'll do the top 3:

That morphological structural differences fit into a nested hierarchy and that genetic analysis builds the same nested hierarchy (double nested hierarchy)
Observed speciation both in the wild and in the lab
Fossil evidence sorted into layers showing changes in skeletal structures over time.

 

[[serious]]

Potential falsification is a universal concept applied to all scientific theories. It's not something that "creationists have thought up".

Half of the evolutionists' online bible "TalkOrigins" deals in the subject of potential falsifications, i.e. hypothetical scenarios and how they would affect the theory.

So again we are back to DogmaHunter's irrational position that nobody should be allowed to critically examine the reasoning behind such alleged potential falsifications by discussing how the theory would be affected by such hypothetical scenarios.

Well, the supposed chicken protein found in humans but not chimps appears to made up whole cloth by Gish. I'd say, "made up by creationists" fits that to a T.

As far as proposed things we could look for if evolution is false, there are lots of those. We've given you a bunch in this very thread. Happy hunting!

 

[DogmaHunter]

In your view, what does the term 'potential' refer to in regards to 'potential falsification'?

It's a conclusion of real data. Not a speculation about an imagined reaction to an imagined find.

If you have a theory that says that footballs are bigger then golfballs, what exactly would be the problem in stating that finding a golfball bigger then a football, would falsify that theory?

This is not speculation.
This is not imagination.
This is not hypothetical shenannigans.

This is rather a theory that was modeled around real data. Within the context of the model, there are certain things one expects to find and other things one doesn't expect to find.

What is the problem in stating what these things are?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So again we are back to DogmaHunter's irrational position that nobody should be allowed to critically examine the reasoning behind such alleged potential falsifications by discussing how the theory would be affected by such hypothetical scenarios.

This is not at all what I have said and you are being incredibly dishonest by pretending that I did.

 

[lifepsyop]

Hypotheticals are fine. The are a great tool for communicating ideas.

I agree. It's too bad we had to get sidetracked by posters trying to forbid that line of reasoning.

However, you seem to want to pose a hypothetical, assert that scientists would take a specific position, then, when you are told by people with formal training that that would likely not be the response, you want to try and dismiss that.

I don't assert. I provide reasoning based on the evolutionists' own explanatory framework. For example, as I have stated numerous times, Evolutionists simply do not have any specific criteria for what "Convergent Evolution" can and cannot accomplish. This in itself is tells us that they would be open to accommodating huge amounts of "convergence" if they were forced to do so to harmonize phylogenetic models. I even provided examples from the literature where it was considered that bat wings could evolve twice. This essentially proves that it would be accepted as an alternative to rejecting common descent.

It is you who are asserting that evolutionists wouldn't accommodate something (like bat wings) by invoking convergence, yet you can lay out absolutely zero criteria to back up your assertion.

Shortly after I pointed this out, other posters began hand-waving that I wasn't allowed to discuss hypothetical scenarios.

If a specific protein was found in humans and chickens but not chimps, it very well could cause serious problems for the model. The unlikely scenario that such a gene would be highly conserved across two classes of vertebrate, but very recently became inactivates in chimps is testable though. We could say, "if this is a recent loss, we should be able to find a reasonably intact inactive copy of the gene in chimps, and active copies in gorillas and orangutans" among many other tests available for that hypothesis. This would not be left as a hypothetical, but extensively tested. Something not quite so extreme happened in primates about 63 million years ago with loss of function of the GULO gene in the primate suborder Haplorhini, but retained in the suborder Strepsirrhini. Of course, the GULO gene isn't terribly highly conserved when reliable dietary sources of vitamin C are present and appears to have lost function in multiple lineages. Now, before you jump in and say, "Ha! Told you scientists would just explain it away!" let me remind you again that similar function or appearance is not what the nested hierarchy is based on, but rather the isolated genetic changes. between lineages. As such, chimps and humans should have similar inactivated GULO genes, but genetically dissimilar to any remnants of the inactivated gene in guinea pigs. Why? because even loss of function must follow the nested hierarchy to be explained by the evolutionary model.

Actually it wouldn't be a test. If there were no genetic remnants found in other primates, you could say those lineages never acquired the gene because of incomplete lineage sorting. You don't need to find traces of loss-of-function if you posit the function never existed in the first place. In Evolution, even if you get a Grade F on the test, you still pass.

If a bat was more genetically similar to a pigeon than other mammals, the theory could not explain that, and the current model would fall.

If a bat was more genetically similar to pigeons than other mammals... first of all it would probably not look as much like a mammal to begin with.... but even if it did, the bat lineage would be classified as the remnant of some ancient basal-mammalian divergence that had conserved much more of traits shared with the common ancestor of reptiles/birds. Sort of the same idea as monotremes. As far as pushing the origin of an animal group back in time...this is another benefit of using imaginary data... evolutionists can just make up mysterious "ghost lineages" of when they believe certain animals must have been evolving, yet left no fossil evidence.

 

[The Cadet]

If a bat was more genetically similar to pigeons than other mammals... first of all it would probably not look as much like a mammal to begin with.... but even if it did, the bat lineage would be classified as the remnant of some ancient basal-mammalian divergence that had conserved much more of traits shared with the common ancestor of reptiles/birds. Sort of the same idea as monotremes. As far as pushing the origin of an animal group back in time...this is another benefit of using imaginary data... evolutionists can just make up mysterious "ghost lineages" of when they believe certain animals must have been evolving, yet left no fossil evidence.

This is the point where your threads completely devolve. You make baseless hypothetical assertions, have those assertions directly rebuked by actual experts, and you say, "No, you're wrong, the experts would actually say X". It's a farce. You did this in geology, and you're now doing this with the tree of life, and it's not particularly reasonable.

 

[lifepsyop]

This is the point where your threads completely devolve. You make baseless hypothetical assertions, have those assertions directly rebuked by actual experts, and you say, "No, you're wrong, the experts would actually say X". It's a farce. You did this in geology, and you're now doing this with the tree of life, and it's not particularly reasonable.

Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.

While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.

I'm all ears.

 

[The Cadet]

Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.

While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.

I'm all ears.

I'm not entirely sure, but you've had at least one legitimate expert tell you what their reaction would be, so...

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.

While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.

I'm all ears.

This is exactly what I want to hear as well. You have made a very good argument for your point and all they are doing is saying that it wouldn't be addressed in that way but no reasons are given for that denial.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To avoid a gish gallop, I'll do the top 3:

That morphological structural differences fit into a nested hierarchy and that genetic analysis builds the same nested hierarchy (double nested hierarchy)

What about those examples that don't fit?

Observed speciation both in the wild and in the lab

This is widely accepted by creationists as well.

Fossil evidence sorted into layers showing changes in skeletal structures over time.

Can you give me five examples of this?