I was wrong
True. But Iām not assuming my conclusion. Why would you say that? Didnāt you even read my original post?
I know that nothing will induce you to pay attention to what I say. But donāt confuse yourself with the public.
You are assuming your conclusion. If you observe similarity you have observed similarity. Due to common descent is only a possible explanation. There could be others and your method here cuts off inquiry. When people realize what you are doing they see science pushing ideology.
I am not alone in the opinion that evolutionary theory is built on circular reasoning. You are putting a target on your back with no real upside. The theory is robust on its own.
You were technically wrong but what you said should be the definition.
You understand that there are similarities that are not thought to be due to common descent? So no, itās not just assumed that something is similar due to common descent.
You have this all wrong as usual.
No, youāre not alone in having opinions based on falsehoods.
1 Like
How does one test a hypothesis in science?
Did you even read the original post where I explained the definition of homology and why it isnāt circular? Here, let me quote some relevant bits.
Now, what is your alternative explanation for nested hierarchy?
Sure, you arenāt alone in ignorance. But this notion is mostly limited to hard-core creationists.
1 Like
So your claim based on your circular reasoning is that a white flipper bone structure are similar to human limb bone structure due to common descent. Have you tested that hypothesis? No you are stating it as a fact. This is a con game that makes science look dishonest.
That hypothesis has been tested. If the similarity is homologous, we expect it to arise once, in an ancestral branch of a phylogenetic tree constructed using other data. Since whales are artiodactyls, the flipper is shown to be homologous to an artiodactyl forelimb. And of course thereās that detailed similarity in anatomy, relationships of parts, and embryology to further confirm the homology. Now, whatās your alternative explanation of the similarity? (You always ignore that question, presumably because you have none.)
1 Like
We donāt assume a phylogenetic signal. We measure it.
1 Like
What circular reasoning? Lay it out for me.
Itās been tested by consilience of independent phylogenies. As in other character (different physiological or genetic molecular data) sets yields a highly similar phylogeny. A fact for which you have no sensible explanation. Because only common descent makes sense of it.
No, your supremely incompetent excuses are what is a con game. A con game youāre playing because of the total intellectual vacuity that your position is based on. A toxic mix of faith and volitional denial.
2 Likes
You would need it to convince me that homology is evidence for common descent. You seem to be conceding that it is NOT evidence for common descent, and the evidence which has convinced you of common descent comes from elsewhere. So why are you even messing with homology at all? Isnāt because you have already accepted universal common descent is true and are interested in building a taxonomy based on that?
Why are ID theorists not allowed to do the same? Or are you allowing that?
Homology isnāt evidence of common descent. Nested hierarchies are evidence of common descent. It is the pattern of homologous features that points to evolution. If you found numerous species with a mixture of bird and bat features those homologous features would count against common descent.
Linnaeus didnāt believe in universal common descent, and he was still able to conclude that life falls into a nested hierarchy.
If species were created separately, why would we observe a nested hierarchy? Why couldnāt this designer mix and match features from bats and birds to create a new species group? Why would a designer be limited to the very specific and extremely limiting pattern of a nested hierarchy?
3 Likes
How does a phylogenetic signal test whether 2 species share a common ancestor? We have been down this road before. How do you know the signal is not due to partial ancestry within the nested hierarchy?
I have referenced this article many times, but it does a great job of explaining how the nested hierarchy was considered overwhelming evidence for common descent even back in the late 1800ās.
2 Likes
Dembski, No Free Lunch:
To count as a specification, patterns must be suitably independent of events. I refer to this relation of independence as detachabilityā¦Detachability can be understood as asking the following question: Given an event whose design is in question and a pattern describing it, would we be able to explicitly identify or exhibit that pattern if we had no knowledge of which event occurred?..
For detachability to hold, an item of background knowledge must enable us to identify a pattern to which an event conforms, yet without recourse to the actual event.
If thatās not good enough for you, I would recommend reading virtually any of Dembskiās books on this as he usually includes a lengthy discussion of the subject.
What is under question here, T, is how is āalikeā defined? Do you have such a definition that does not depend on first assuming common descent?
In the same way a patternbeing detected, predicted by a theory and not predicted by other theories, constitutes a test of that theory. That is to say by comparing predictions to observation. Textbook scientific method stuff.
Yes. Did you forget it again and now we have to explain that same thing for the hundreth time?
That question appears so badly stated I canāt make sense of it. Try again.
1 Like
Now please show your work. Use Dembskiās method to show that the sequence āAaabjtjr36bbg2surtrā is a specified pattern.
So basically an independent pattern is a pattern we can recognize without knowing what caused that pattern?