Independent Patterns and Homology

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

So the tested hierarchy does not test the claim that two species share a common ancestor?

It tests the claim that a group of species shares common ancestors and does not share uncommon ancestors. For example, all apes share a common ancestor, but chimps and humans share a common ancestor that is not shared by gorillas and orangutans.

You can’t test for a tree like structure with just two species. Can you show us a tree with multiple branches with just two species?

There are other pieces of evidence for testing the hypothesis that two species share a common ancestor, such as this evidence:

https://biologos.org/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations

Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry

In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.