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.
Creationists have claimed that Macroevolution is not testable. They couldn't be farther from the truth. Here is the test for macroevolution as described clear back in 1965 before we had any real DNA sequence data:
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
In short, it was predicted 50 years ago that there should be a match between independent DNA based trees and morphological trees.
So does macroevolution pass that test? Yep, sure does:
"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree . . . In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies . . . Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence
For 30 groups there are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to organize them into a tree. There is just 1 tree out of those billions and billions of possible trees that is a perfect match to the predictions made the theory of macroevolution. We see that exact tree.
That is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
Where is your evidence?
Creationists have claimed that Macroevolution is not testable. They couldn't be farther from the truth. Here is the test for macroevolution as described clear back in 1965 before we had any real DNA sequence data:
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
In short, it was predicted 50 years ago that there should be a match between independent DNA based trees and morphological trees.
So does macroevolution pass that test? Yep, sure does:
"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree . . . In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies . . . Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence
For 30 groups there are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to organize them into a tree. There is just 1 tree out of those billions and billions of possible trees that is a perfect match to the predictions made the theory of macroevolution. We see that exact tree.
That is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
Phylogenetics is the scientific discipline concerned with describing and reconstructing the patterns of genetic relationships among species which represent the created taxa. Phylogenetic trees can be a convenient way of visually representing the similarities of life as created by a common creator.
Why would a common creator necessarily produce a nested hierarchy? A common creator could create a species with an exact copy of a jellyfish gene, a human gene, and a mouse gene. A common creator would not be forced to put more differences in introns than in exons. A common creator would not be forced to make LTRs more divergent for ERVs that are shared by many primate species. A common creator does not explain this pattern.
Who says God was forced to do anything?
Why would a common creator necessarily produce a nested hierarchy?
Wouldn't necessarily do so, but might. If you look at tool design, for example, it tends to follow a nested hierarchical structure.
The idea of general commonality that drills down to particular trait variations for specialized use is not an unreasonable design framework.
If you access a major online catalog for tools, you might select "cutting tools," then "saws," then "hand saws," "rotary hand saws," "circular saws," then refine by blade length or speed settings. You can do this in dozens of different tool categories.
Convergent evolution exists in the creature world, as well. Similarities between the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial wolf violate nested hierarchy. Shared eye design across different taxa violates nested hierarchy.You will also find that the same motors are shared with other cutting tools, thereby violating a nested hierarchy. You will also find that a circular saw uses the same tooth pattern as a hand saw while two different hand saws use two different tooth patterns, again violating a nested hierarchy.
If God is not forced to produce nested hierarchy, then we shouldn't see one if creationism is true. We do see a nested hierarchy.
You will also find that the same motors are shared with other cutting tools, thereby violating a nested hierarchy. You will also find that a circular saw uses the same tooth pattern as a hand saw while two different hand saws use two different tooth patterns, again violating a nested hierarchy.
Some mammals use different forms of echo-location...
That makes no sense at all. Why couldn't creation not use a nested hierarchy?
Should God have created wings on a turtle so it could have flow through the air?
Convergent evolution exists in the creature world, as well. Similarities between the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial wolf violate nested hierarchy.
Shared eye design across different taxa violates nested hierarchy.
Because the stem species don't have eyes. Eyes evolved independently about 20 times according to the current model.No, they don't. Those similarities are only superficial. The actual skeletal features are different. It's a bit like the dolphin front fin and the shark front fin. They are superficially similar, but the skeletal structure under the skin is completely different.
How do the shared eye designs violate a nested hierarchy. Remember, shared features should follow a branching pattern for a nested hierarchy.
Similarities between the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial wolf violate nested hierarchy.
The Volkswagen A1 platform blows this argument out of the water. The same basic design was used for:Wouldn't necessarily do so, but might. If you look at tool design, for example, it tends to follow a nested hierarchical structure. The idea of general commonality that drills down to particular trait variations for specialized use is not an unreasonable design framework.
Dolphins echo-locate using sound produced in their melons whereas bat emit screeches from their throats.Some mammals use different forms of echo-location...violating a nested hierarchy within mammals.
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?