The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

[The Cadet]

What about those examples that don't fit?

You mean all the ones that have never been found?

Can you give me five examples of this?

Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Lucy (the Australopithecus), Ambulocetus, and Amphistium all come to mind.

 

[[serious]]

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.

Because there is no mechanism for wholesale lateral gene transfer in vertebrates.

Because convergent evolution results only in surface similarities, not underlying genetic sequence

Because convergent evolution produces analogous structures, not homologous structures.

We aren't shouting at you, we are explaining what evolution actually says.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Why should morphology be tied to sequence for genes that have nothing to do with morphology?

"As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

Also, Evolution could accommodate that discordance . . .

No, it couldn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

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...

The problem is that you ignore the very real evidence. The evidence isn't hypothetical, and it matches the predictions made by the theory of evolution. It also does not match the potential falsifications.

When you are ready to deal with reality, let us know.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Imagine if the same argument were made in a court of law. The prosecution presents multiple pieces of consilient forensic evidence. Fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, fibers . . . all of it can be confidently tied to the suspect. In response, the defense attorney argues that if all of those forensic results were different that they would still try to tie it to his suspect. Since the forensic evidence is not falsifiable, the defense argues, then none of the forensic evidence should be allowed.

Would you buy this argument?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

They DON'T invoke that reasoning. See my post above, and see if you can explain why forensic evidence is still used in court.

 

[[serious]]

What about those examples that don't fit?

I'm not aware of any that don't fit. Please give me a specific example and I'll look into it though.

This is widely accepted by creationists as well.

Good! It's always good to establish common ground. We've established that two subpopulations of a species can become reproductively isolated as a result of natural changes in the genetic code of the species. (in short, speciation). This provides us with a way forward to work further into the logic of the argument.

Can you give me five examples of this?

Absolutely!

Let's take the example of whale evolution. We knew of Pakicetus, an early branch off the Cetacea clade which lived ~48 million years ago. We also of course know of whales and dolphins starting ~40 million years ago. Now, whales have a nose on the top of their skull, and pakicetus has a nose in the more conventional location right above the mouth. I recall growing up hearing a dismissal of evolution based on the silliness of the expected transitional with a nose on the forehead. After all, can you imagine such a thing? Well, sometime between 48 million years ago and 40 million years ago, such a creature should have existed as an intermediary between pakicetus like cetaceans and modern whales. And so it did. It's called the Dorudon, and indeed has a nasal opening intermediate between the front of the snout and top of the head. It also has greatly reduced hind legs. And sure enough, it was found in strata consistent with 40-48 million years ago.

Now, this is just one intermediary. We also have other like the basilosaurus and the ambulocetus as intermediaries on either side of our dorudon, along with other intermediaries.

Berkley has a good rundown of whale evolution if you want more:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

 

[lifepsyop]

Because there is no mechanism for wholesale lateral gene transfer in vertebrates.

And I have clearly never suggested such a mechanism would be invoked.

Because convergent evolution results only in surface similarities, not underlying genetic sequence.

Here's the thing, shared genetics are resolved by positing inheritance from an imaginary common ancestor. In the case of convergence of bat wings with similar underlying genetics, it would be argued that both lineages already possessed the genes before the split, and these genes were then similarly "recruited" for bat wing organization in multiple lineages. Thus there is no need to invoke convergence of the genes themselves.

And yes similar types of explanations are routinely invoked in the literature.

Because convergent evolution produces analogous structures, not homologous structures.

Evolutionists can't definitively identify a homologous structure. Traits are labeled homologies ad-hoc by whether or not they resolve a phylogenetic model. A trait can be a homology one day and a homoplasy the next.

We aren't shouting at you, we are explaining what evolution actually says.

I think I'm explaining to you what evolution actually says.

 

[Loudmouth]

And I have clearly never suggested such a mechanism would be invoked.

You have clearly dreamt it up. Will you be facing the evidence that does exist any time soon?

Here's the thing, shared genetics are resolved by positing inheritance from an imaginary common ancestor. In the case of convergence of bat wings with similar underlying genetics, it would be argued that both lineages already possessed the genes before the split, and these genes were then similarly "recruited" for bat wing organization in multiple lineages. Thus there is no need to invoke convergence of the genes themselves.

Again, that only exists in your head. Fantasies do not trump real evidence, and the real evidence is that there is a correlation between phylogenies based on morphology and DNA sequence. Will you be addressing the real world any time soon?

Do you think a defense attorney can make all of the evidence in a murder trial go away by claiming that any possible outcome would indicate guilt?

Evolutionists can't definitively identify a homologous structure.

We can and have.

 

[lifepsyop]

Imagine if the same argument were made in a court of law. The prosecution presents multiple pieces of consilient forensic evidence. Fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, fibers . . . all of it can be confidently tied to the suspect. In response, the defense attorney argues that if all of those forensic results were different that they would still try to tie it to his suspect. Since the forensic evidence is not falsifiable, the defense argues, then none of the forensic evidence should be allowed.

Would you buy this argument?

Indeed, in a legal situation, if it could be shown that multiple pieces of "evidence" could be significantly different and yet still alleged to be linked to the suspect, then this would reveal that it was never confirming evidence to begin with, but merely an illusion cooked up by the prosecution team.

And that's why you're dancing around and kicking up dust to try and prevent me from exposing just that with regards to evolution. Because this gets at the very heart of what evolution theory actually is. You hate that to be revealed.

 

[[serious]]

And I have clearly never suggested such a mechanism would be invoked.



Here's the thing, shared genetics are resolved by positing inheritance from an imaginary common ancestor. In the case of convergence of bat wings with similar underlying genetics, it would be argued that both lineages already possessed the genes before the split, and these genes were then similarly "recruited" for bat wing organization in multiple lineages. Thus there is no need to invoke convergence of the genes themselves.

How would an ancestral population to both bats and primates have those genes, and have every other mammal completely drop those genes without even a degraded version remaining? No, it isn't possible to square that circle. We've been over this.

And yes similar types of explanations are routinely invoked in the literature.

source? I've never seen something that outlandish ever proposed.

Evolutionists can't definitively identify a homologous structure. Traits are labeled homologies ad-hoc by whether or not they resolve a phylogenetic model. A trait can be a homology one day and a homoplasy the next.

Actually we can. The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures. For example, human limb development in a general sense is controlled by TBX genes. Animals with homologous structures will also have limb development controlled by these genes. A cow has TBX genes that trigger limb development.

An insect also has legs. These are analogous structures. insects do not have any form of TBX gene.

We've been over this.

I think I'm explaining to you what evolution actually says.

Not even close.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed, in a legal situation, if it could be shown that multiple pieces of "evidence" could be significantly different and yet still alleged to be linked to the suspect, then this would reveal that it was never confirming evidence to begin with, but merely an illusion cooked up by the prosecution team.

By "if it could be shown", do you mean "if some crackpot can make the claim on an internet forum"?

It would seem to me that all the defense attorney needs to do is make the same argument you are making by simply creating a fantasy world.

And that's why you're dancing around and kicking up dust to try and prevent me from exposing just that with regards to evolution. Because this gets at the very heart of what evolution theory actually is. You hate that to be revealed.

All you have done is reveal your inability to cope with reality.

 

[crjmurray]

"Your honor, this is an open and shut case in my opinion. Sure, my clients fingerprints are on the victims neck. Sure, the victim died from strangulation. Sure, hair fibers belonging to my client we're found in the victims hand. Sure, we have 17 eyewitnesses that saw the victims l killed by my client at the victims bar mitzvah. Sure, we have video of it. Sure, we have a recorded voicemail message where my client threatened to kill the victim at a celebration, specifying that it would most likely be one of Jewish orientation. BUT! Can you imagine for a minute that all this evidence..... Was different!!!! I rest my case."

 

[lifepsyop]

How would an ancestral population to both bats and primates have those genes, and have every other mammal completely drop those genes without even a degraded version remaining? No, it isn't possible to square that circle. We've been over this.

You're jumping around. I was addressing your claim that evolutionists would have to invoke convergent genes for convergent anatomy. I explained why they wouldn't. You dodged.

source? I've never seen something that outlandish ever proposed.

You've never seen "recruitment" of the same genes for similar purposes in multiple lineages as an evolutionary explanation?

Actually we can. The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures. For example, human limb development in a general sense is controlled by TBX genes. Animals with homologous structures will also have limb development controlled by these genes. A cow has TBX genes that trigger limb development.

You're wrong. There are many examples of assumed homologous anatomy being organized by non-homologous genes, and homologous genes producing non-homologous anatomy. Here we see again that Evolution can completely fail predictions yet still the data is accommodated.

When is homology not homology? -Wray, Abouheif 1998
Although genes have specific phenotypic consequences in a given species, this functional relationship can clearly change during the course of evolution. Many cases of evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous morphological features are now known. These dissociations have interesting and important implications for understanding the genetic basis for evolutionary change in morphology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914205

This is referred to as the "Homology Problem". It's been known by evolutionists since the 1970's yet the public is never made aware of it, for obvious reasons.

 

[lifepsyop]

By "if it could be shown", do you mean "if some crackpot can make the claim on an internet forum"?

It would seem to me that all the defense attorney needs to do is make the same argument you are making by simply creating a fantasy world.

All you have done is reveal your inability to cope with reality.

As usual. Hand-waving and insults, and dodging my responses because you have no counter-argument. Have you made one substantial post this entire thread?

 

[[serious]]

You're jumping around. I was addressing your claim that evolutionists would have to invoke convergent genes for convergent anatomy. I explained why they wouldn't. You dodged.

you explained how you thought scientists would respond. I explained why you were wrong.

You've never seen "recruitment" of the same genes for similar purposes in multiple lineages as an evolutionary explanation?

Source? I'm not even sure what you mean by "recruitment"

You're wrong. There are many examples of assumed homologous anatomy being organized by non-homologous genes, and homologous genes producing non-homologous anatomy. Here we see again that Evolution can completely fail predictions yet still the data is accommodated.

When is homology not homology? -Wray, Abouheif 1998
Although genes have specific phenotypic consequences in a given species, this functional relationship can clearly change during the course of evolution. Many cases of evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous morphological features are now known. These dissociations have interesting and important implications for understanding the genetic basis for evolutionary change in morphology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914205

This is referred to as the "Homology Problem". It's been known by evolutionists since the 1970's yet the public is never made aware of it, for obvious reasons.

What? That altered proteins can be used for things that the ancestral protein wasn't used for? That isn't a problem, that's a feature.

 

[lifepsyop]

What? That altered proteins can be used for things that the ancestral protein wasn't used for? That isn't a problem, that's a feature.

It's amazing how you guys can be totally refuted and you just dance around it like it didn't happen. You're now taking the failure of your evolutionary prediction and claiming it as a feature. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just absorb anything into your blob like theory.

Let's look at that again.

The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures.

"Many cases of evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous morphological features are now known."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914205

 

[The Cadet]

This is referred to as the "Homology Problem". It's been known by evolutionists since the 1970's yet the public is never made aware of it, for obvious reasons.

Yes, the obvious reasons being that it's highly complex and the conclusions thereof are not particularly meaningful for the general public, nor do they make a good headline. The only good headline you could make of this is "Theory of evolution has serious problems" which would be woefully inaccurate.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, the obvious reasons being that it's highly complex and the conclusions thereof are not particularly meaningful for the general public

Yes, I'm sure you believe any information which paints Evolution in an uncertain light is not *meaningful* for the public. The public only needs to see highly sanitized "Why Evolution is True" PR info-packets. They don't need to see any of those pesky facts that will only confuse the issue.

And it's not complex at all.

Homologous anatomy can be organized by non-homologous genes.
Homologous genes can organize non-homologous anatomy.

It's very simple, but it's embarrassing for evolutionists because it reveals the self-contradictory nature of their whole basis for inferring homology. So of course it gets swept under the rug just like everything else that casts uncertainty on evolutionary claims.

It's also a good example showing that Evolution theory is not really being tested. Evolution is an amorphous fog enveloping whatever data it comes across.

 

[[serious]]

It's amazing how you guys can be totally refuted and you just dance around it like it didn't happen. You're now taking the failure of your evolutionary prediction and claiming it as a feature. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just absorb anything into your blob like theory.

Let's look at that again.



"Many cases of evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous morphological features are now known."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914205

Refuted? Do you have any idea how many times we've had to correct creationists who try and argue that novel functions are impossible by pretending that novel function requires a brand new gene rather than alteration of an existing one? There's a whole Talkorigins thing on that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html

Now, the fact that you are now accepting that novel function can arise from existing genes actually puts you ahead of your creationist fellows. If you could now realize that such changes are are known and expected part of evolution, we'd have some real solid progress.