oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Crossposted:
| Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 06 2008,16:30) | | Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,14:12) | | News flash, I want to know *how* and *why* common descent supposedly proved to be better in terms of explaining differences & similarities, as well as in making predictions that have been verified by experiment. I want to know *everything*, and by God, I'll keep asking questions until they're answered to my satisfaction. I *sure* hope that your students question you further when you give pat answers like that that say absolutely nothing. |
Common descent appears to explain why every living thing ever is in a nested hierarchy.
monophyletic taxon — a grouping that includes all descendants, living and/or extinct, known and unknown, of an inferred common ancestor.
Here's a great link that explains really everything you might need to know right now
What is evolution and how does it work?
And look, they even "admit" it's not perfect
| Quote | | The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree. For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several "vertebrate twigs." |
However I think FTK you would be most intested in this section entitled
| Quote | | Has the explosion of phylogenetic research confirmed or overturned our ideas on relationships? The answer is: both! |
Tree of Life - Surprises
Especially this
| Quote | | Phylogenetic studies are also uncovering totally unexpected relationships. This is especially true for microorganisms, where little visible structural evidence is available. Here, DNA sequences are providing data that are fundamentally changing our understanding of relationships. |
As it appears to me that your question is answered there - if it seems to you that common descent can make sense of all this then can common design also make sense of the data?
On that same page they observe
| Quote | | We have also discovered that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants, and that within the animals the segmented worms (annelids) are more closely related to the unsegmented molluscs (snails, clams and squids) than they are to segmented arthropods (spiders, lobsters, millipedes and insects). |
Does common design predict that fungi are more closely related to animals then to plants?
Can common design explain the patterns shown at the links above and the image below?
A more mathematical approach is shown here
http://plus.maths.org/issue46/features/phylogenetics/index.html
where they conclude
| Quote | | Phylogenetics pushes the boundaries of known mathematics and more problems are sure to follow. Scientists are starting to think that Darwin's binary rooted tree may not be the best picture to have in mind. Certain species can hybridise and some bacteria can transfer genes directly from individual to individual. It may therefore be better to use more general graph theoretical objects, networks, rather than trees. Even if you do accept that evolution progresses in a largely tree-like fashion this is a useful approach. |
It seems to me that given all the ways of visualising the data (and yet more data is being produced every day) then "common design" would stick out like a sore thumb - it would not follow the pattern so far observed. It would be obvious that something was different.
This tree contains 3,000 species representing the lineages of some 30,000 flowering plants
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/treeoflife/challenge.html
FTK, would it look like that if common design was true? What would be different? If common design was true why would everything appear to branch? Would it not just be like straight spokes on a wheel? |
I PM'd the link to the post above to FTK back in 2007 and it said
| Quote | | Thank you. That post was very informative. I'm enjoying reading the links at the moment. |
Now that you've had 3+ years to digest the material, I ask you again.
FTK, would it look like that if common design was true? What would be different? If common design was true why would everything appear to branch? Would it not just be like straight spokes on a wheel?
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
