yes i did. if evolution of whale predict a series of fossil progression like 12345, and instead we find something like 21354, these fossils are “out of order”.
we arent talking about nested hierarchy right now but about fossil progression. and i already explained why nested hierarchy exist in nature:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/scd-and-nested-hierarchies/11559/82
No. Evolution doesn’t predict an order in which species should happen to become fossilized so that paleontologists can find them. Given that fossilization is essentially random, and that species with both basal and derived characteristics can coexist in the biosphere, there’s no problem with finding a taxon with derived characters chronologically prior to more basal ones. As such, the goodness of fit of the chronology of fossils must be assessed statistically. You have not shown that there is a problem with the fossil record.
Done.
Yes we are talking about a nested hierarchy. Only in the context of an evolutionary transition implied by a phylogenetic tree does the idea of a transitional form make sense. The fact that you don’t even understand that the nested hierarchy is intrinsic to this argument show you don’t even undestand the subject. And your assertions have been explained to be wrong in my previous post.
Do the work, show that independent creation entails a nested hierarchy. Until you do this work, you’re just lying by saying that you know something that you know that you don’t.
I’ve just followed your link and the assertion you made:
the majority of fossils are actually “out of place”(and thus dont show a progression), as i showed here
Is not an accurate portrayal of the conversation or any evidence presented by you, as any fair-minded reader can learn for themselves.
How did the whales lose their hind flippers? Did they accidentally leave them at a restaurant? HOW?
Is that a date you agree with? If not, when did humpback whales lose their hind flippers under your scenario?
We do expect that on the whole, there should be correlations between phylogenetic position and the age of fossils, but of course that’s quite different from saying that more derived forms must always be younger than more basal ones.
And of course the former is what we see, especially in clades with decent sampling:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/255/5052/1690.full.pdf
Exactly. Because the processes that lead to fossilization are unpredictable and have many independent causes, the patterns it produces must be evaluated in quantitative ways that go well beyond naive ideas of “out of place” positions. It is about comparing models to data, and the congruence of different data sets, which comes in degrees.
first, do you have a link to the original paper? secondly, do we agree that in my fig above the majority of cases show a contradiction between morphology and genetics?
do you agree that the molecular tree here contradict the morphological one?:
by a mutation of course.
lets say that i do for the sake of the argument.
i never said that it always should be the case.
I agree that the two diagrams differ. What data went into producing them?
So you agree macroevolution is real and is caused by mutations. Great!
Why don’t you just answer the question honestly instead of dodging? When do YOU think humpback whales lost their hind flippers?
That’s like saying “how could humans evolve from monkeys if there are still monkeys”.
they are base on genetics and morphological data. and if they are different then it means that the majority of fossils dont fit well with their evolutionery progression.
this is only a trait loss.
its not the same since in this case monkeys appearing first in the fossil record so the order is ok. but in my case above is more similar to find human first and then monkeys.
So hind limbs are a “trait” now? Wow. Was walking and living on land a “trait” whales lost too? 
I understand. I’d like to see what data were used to produce the diagrams. Link to where you copied them from and I can then see for myself. Is that any problem?
se here (read the description below):
So you don’t know what the trees are based on, and you have no idea what the conflict actually means. It certainly has nothing to do with fossils.
yes i do. again, look at the description below the image.
we can apply it to fossils and this is what i did.
It’s only a vague nod in the direction of some kind of data. You don’t know, and I think we’ve established that.
You didn’t. You only posted the tree, with a few x’s on it. Nothing at all about fossils. If you think that tells you anything about out of place fossils, you are seriously misreading the tree. Since you have grossly misread trees before on many occasions, this is no surprise.
OK so your diagram came from a paper published in 2004 (PDF of the full paper here).
quoting the description attached to the diagram:
Figure 1. The prevailing morphological tree (a) and the emerging molecular tree (b) of the placental orders. (a) Morphology generally places Xenarthra (sloths, anteaters and armadillos) as basal, and most of the remaining orders into three well-established clades: Ungulata (thought to be derived from CONDYLARTH ancestors, Archonta and Anagalida. The depicted tree is from Shoshani and McKenna [3]. The tree obtained by Liu et al. [4] is identical, apart from placing cetaceans as sister group to the perissodactyl-paenungulate clade. The tree of Novacek places Pholidota (pangolins) as basal sister to Xenarthra, makes Primates and Scandentia (tree shrews) sister groups, and collapses several clades (black dotted lines). Novacek [5] subsequently collapses some further clades (gray dotted lines), which increases reconciliation with the molecular tree. (b) The molecular tree recognizes four major clades: Afrotheria, Xenarthra, Laurasiatheria and Euarchontoglires, of which the latter two are joined into Boreoeutheria. The presented placental ordinal topology is according to Murphy et al. [21]. Placing Marsupialia as sister to Placentalia is based on Phillips and Penny [54] and references therein. Clades indicated by solid lines are, with rare exceptions, supported independently by all other molecular data and analyses [24 –29]. Notable exceptions are the strong tendency of mitochondrial protein sequences to place hedgehogs and rodents as basal in the tree [14]. Colors distinguish the four basal placental clades in the molecular tree.
I’m not seeing a problem. Molecular phylogenetics is refining the tree based purely on comparative morphology.
ETA some minor editing to correct line breaks
SCD, you still forgot to tell me when you think humpback whales lost their hind limbs. Thanks!
the problem isnt with the paper but with the implication of it. it means that if we take a bunch of fossils that show a progression (image below), many of them in fact are out of order:
so here is a theoretical example of progression in the fossil record:
so according to the first tree 3 is closer to 4 than to other fossils, but base on the second tree (the true tree that base on genetics) 2 is the closest to 4.
