Theobald D.L. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 2010; 465:219-223.
No it doesn’t. It supports common descent. That’s the nested hierarchy. It’s certainly not a better fit to an ad hoc dependency diagram.
Word salad is not a useful response.
Nested hierarchy falsifies that possibility.
Why ask me?
It would be better to ask the DI. They claim to have been working on this for 32 years, and have nothing to show other than “it looks designed to me, so it must be designed”.
I make no claims as to whether there was a special creation. However, if there was a special creation, it was not as described in Genesis.
We may never have an answer to “why is there something rather than nothing?”
Two long and tortuous threads on the Howe Venn diagram and you learned absolutely nothing.
The Venn diagram below was built the same way as Howe’s Venn diagram. Are the members in the diagram specially created or not?
@CaveatLector, watch how Bill is going to evade answering my question. Enjoy!
All the evidence we have points to bacteriae having been the first creatures, and everything else evolving from those. Is this what is mentioned in the Bible?
If you mean a detailed explanation then we have common ground 
Theobald"s test is restricted by methodological naturalism.
It is not based the challenge of explaining new genes emerging and becoming fixed in a population along with gene loss being fixed in a population.
Based on what standard of falsification?
If that’s anything more than empty posturing, you should be able to explain how this supposed restriction prevents the test from working properly.
That wasn’t a grammatical sentence, in a way that makes it hard to understand what you were trying to say. Now of course we know how new genes emerge, how they are lost, and how fixation happens.
And of course none of that is relevant to the question of common descent, which depends only on the pattern, not the reasons for the individual events that make up the pattern. This is once again your central confusion.
No idea what you’re trying to ask.
What the test does not show is that the mechanisms of reproduction and modification explains the origin of the eukaryotic cell. Special creation explains the origin.
Special creation easily explains the mixing and matching of genes between vertebrate groups. Common descent alone does not.
You made the claim of falsification. What is the method used to determine a hypothesis is falsified? Does it require methodological naturalism?
Special creation does not explain anything, unless there actually was a special creation. You need evidence to support that.
And, again, special creation does not explain anything unless there was an actual special creation. And, again, supporting evidence is required for that.
Your central confusion is in action again. The test doesn’t show things it isn’t intended to show. It’s a test of universal common descent, which is what you asked for. It’s not a test of any mechanisms of reproduction and modification. And of course special creation explains nothing.
Special creation explains nothing, since it’s theoretically compatible with anything at all. And there is no mixing an matching. There is nested hierarchy. Why?
More word salad.
Then do it, give the “special creation” explanation. Remember, you need to account for all of the data. Every single basepair in every single eukaryotic gene and every single attribute or character in every single eukaryote. Explain all of it.
Pick a gene, pick a nucleotide in it, explain why that one instead of another, then on to the next. And remember, no “just so” stories.
Science 101: a testable hypothesis makes verifiable predictions. If predictions derived from a hypothesis don’t match observations then it is not supported. Period!
That was just an empty reassertion, Mikkel. Please don’t present your inferences as others’ implications.
There ya go! What you’re missing is that those abstract concepts are routinely represented physically. The key is that they didn’t originate from physical objects.
That definition doesn’t help you either. There’s a much better one on the linked page:
Thought of apart from any particular instances or material objects; not concrete.
This fits both ASCII and secret codes (a subset of all codes), even if I make a physical code wheel to illustrate the abstraction:
In these, the abstraction is represented physically by different-colored rings. The original, abstract mapping between them had no origins in any material objects. The fact that we represent these codes physically does not erase the abstraction used to create them.
In this case:
While all of the letters are from codes that we have devised to discuss this among humans, there is no biological step between rings involving any abstractions. Every step directly involves material objects in biology that have been measured.
The fact that human designers produce the abstractions in true codes is the reason why IDcreationists are so hot on pronouncing that biology uses codes–it’s a backhanded way to insert a Designer.
And the Howe diagram (which you clearly don’t understand) isn’t?
The rules are the key. They are abstract. They were designed by humans. Their origins as abstractions are not negated by their implementation in computer hardware or in a paper code wheel.
None of those “rules” are abstract. All steps are concrete. No one made any abstract assignments at any point.
As we get more genetic evidence it looks like the descriptions below are pretty accurate. We need a pretty sophisticated mechanism to explain both the origin of life and all the creatures with unique gene sets.
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Then please explain this pattern. And please explain what you think my additions to the diagram show.
The greatest irony here is that I think Bill isn’t joking.
The Venn diagram shows the shared and not shared genes between 4 vertebrate.
The marks show your assumption of where on the vertebrate tree the changes occurred.
What it does not show is a mechanism that could logically account for the change. Common descent does not account for your theoretical red and green dashes.
It makes more sense that these animals were seeded on earth separately.
