ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,16:12) | | Quote | | Nested hierarchies are a fact. |
They are if you use a tree-like scheme in the first place. But the methodology had better not force the conclusion. |
Actually, this is what I should have said: "Nested hierarchies" is not a hypothesis; it's an observation. There are no known exceptions to the observation of nested hierarchies, when one looks at the totality of the evidence.
Common descent with modification was originally a hypothesis put forth to explain nested hierarchies. But common descent with modification is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it has achieved the status of a fact in need of an explanation, rather than a hypothesis in need of verification.
One possible explantion for common descent with modification is directed evolution, i.e., evolution directed by some sort of supernatural intelligence. Another possible explanation is embodied by neodarwinian evolution. But in either event, it is long past the point where it is possible to deny either nested hierarchies or common descent with modification.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
