Ewert seems to accept the reality of the tree and then tries to develop a model within Intelligent Design to explain it. That seems like a much more fruitful pursuit than trying to deny the existence of phylogenetic signals.
3 Likes
I need a spit-take emoji, and a towel.
mung:
It doesn’t sound like ID to me because I have never encountered an ID author who clams that “evolution predicts a perfect tree.” You seem to have been learning a cartoon version of ID.
evograd:
I presume you’ve heard of Casey Luskin?
It’s always a bad sign when the premier organization for promoting a scientific area presents so much cartoonish stuff. It’s like hanging around with anti-vaxxers or HIV denialists: You pay a big price in credibility by doing so. The area really needs to clean up its act, scientifically, and jettison the dross.
3 Likes
Am I supposed to clutch my pearls because some random authors used the term “Darwinian model” in a (pretty poor) paper?
2 Likes
I finally was able to listen to the two radio programs interviewing Evert on Discovery.
he does a excellent insight in how to approach the glaring error of evolutionism in demanding a exclusivity of options to explain likeness in biology.
Or in YEC terms God on creatin week created everyone with eyeballs because its a good idea in a common blueprint. Don’t jump so quick that ity shows a eyebally original male/female and all later eyballed critters come from this pair. WAIT A MINUTE Einstein’s!!
Common design explains better, more likely, biblical, likeness in biology.
Where do you start in showing how common features could of come/only come from later use of a common blueprint.
He brings up elocution in bats, Dolphines(add some birds wiki) and possibly on a curve great numbers of creatures now extinct. as evidence of a feature impossible from a common descent origin. Good point.
So a common design allows the feature appear when needed etc.
Now he gets into intimate gene concepts people, like me, are lightweights in.
Yet the great idea is that other options must be a option if investigation into biology origins has any claim to be scientific.
Bio sci ORIGINS has little claim and the tree things is their last hope.
This now is being debunked very well, intro, by Ewert.
I know that’s an auto-incorrect error, but if someone found that bats could talk, then ID might have a case! 
7 Likes
Einstein’s what?
Oh yeah. Spelling check doesn’t check everything.
1 Like
I just mean they should think harder. Not so quickly draw conclusions especially ones that only work after other options are excluded out of the gate.
The first conclusion was God created biology after a blueprint. It was presumed by historic Christian thought.
Then, UTTERLY REJECTING THIS OPTION IN A DUMB WAY OF INVESTIGATION, they said BEGOLD the likeness in eyeballs amongst the many. COMMON DESCENT IS PROVED they said.
Nope! Think harder!
Complete oxymoron.
In science, you need a testable hypothesis in order to be included. Ewert has attempted to construct a hypothesis, but it has a lot to be desired. He still has a long way to go in order to fully test it, and the predictions aren’t that clear to begin with.
For example, humans have the ability to use echolocation:
Ewert’s model also fails to tie in DNA sequence within his hypothesis. Any ID model is going to have to explain why we see a statistical correlation between phylogenies based on morphology and phylogenies based on DNA sequence, and Ewert has yet to do that.
1 Like
its an aside but i have also seen these examples of blind people using very well, impressively, echolocation.
This is not an example of common descent with bats but makes Everts point a little.
Anyways.
One does not need the new ideas on DNA. Otherwise one could not of had a hypothesis before DNA was suspected to exist.
THE DNA phylogenies would just mimic morphological phylogenies.
Why not? If morphology/body plan is the result of dna then dna should be hand in glove with morphology results.
The body/dna are the same thing. I never understand why evolutiondom says these are two different things.?!
Because not all DNA determines morphology. Many genes are entirely unrelated to morphology, so there’s no reason to think phylogenies built with these genes should mirror morphological trees. Then there’s neutral variation - why should that mirror morphology on a phylogeny?
1 Like
What would that point be?
You can have drastically different DNA and still have nearly identical morphology. For example, you can change the 3rd base in many codons and still produce the same protein.
On top of that, there are many genes that have nothing to do with morphology (e.g. cytochrome genes) and yet they follow the same pattern. There is no reason for DNA phylogenies to correlate to phylogenies based on morphology other than common descent.
2 Likes
And yet, in spite of all the reasons that we would not expect trees constructed from DNA sequences to match trees created from morphological characters, we are told they do match and to such an astounding degree that no one should doubt common descent.
Isn’t that the way the argument goes. Twin nested hierarchy and all that?
ETA:
See. 
Pretty much. Common descent is the best explanation for it. I’ve yet to hear any compelling counter argument from creationists/IDers that reject common descent.
1 Like
We would expect a statistically significant correlation above the noise created by mechanisms such as ILS and homoplasies. This has always been the prediction, and it is supported by evidence.
1 Like
I think you’re missing the point. Byers claimed that DNA phylogenies should mirror morphological ones because
If that is the case, there is no reason for silent changes or non morphological DNA sequences to mirror morphological phylogenies.
But they do.
2 Likes
What percentage is “Not all”? If many genes are not related to morphology why not that is just special cases or not accurate sampling of the whole case.
There probably is details but morphology fitting hand in glove with dna is what anyone would predict. its not two good points for common descent. I bump into this a lot from evolutionists.
Apes look like us. I expect apes to have like dna with us to the degree they are like us.
I conclude there is a common design to dna being the parts department for the morphological results.
OTHERWISE one should expect no relationship between apes and people in dna if there is no relationship .
We have like dna with apes because we have like morphology. Its not TWO evidences for common descent with apes.
(its not even one but thats another subject)
The echolocation with people is making a , minor, point that the ability is not from common descent. Likewise bats/dolphins/birds etc etc. its from common design as a option .
I think the first hunch/hypothesis would be to expect morphology/dna to match. Your side is saying AHA these are two trails showing common descent. Thats a wrong line of reasoning if so exclusive. Like looks would equal like atomic elements.
There is great reason for DNA?morphology phylogenies to match . Especially from common design option.
Its simple and reductionist just like concepts in physics.
Its like in a factory. A parts department has a number for that part.
So getting a hand would have the same number, atomic/dna, whether it was a ape or a human. Yet its just a part and not a trail for common descent.
No reason to see it that way.
Common design better explains biology as a blueprint.
I think thy finf echolocation atomic numbers are the same in bats/whales but need refresher on this point. i read it somewhere.