Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

This is why I add the qualifier "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Right here:"Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even."So I will ask again.According to you, it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if:
​
1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Makes specific predictions no other theory makes, and those predictions are supported by observations.
​
Could you explain? I will quote the same reference for the third time.

quote:

---

Hierarchical clustering (or hierarchical merging) is the process by which larger structures are formed through the continuous merging of smaller structures. The structures we see in the Universe today (galaxies, clusters, filaments, sheets and voids) are predicted to have formed in this way according to Cold Dark Matter cosmology (the current concordance model).
​
For example, the formation of galaxies is thought to begin when small structures (perhaps no more massive than globular clusters) merge to form larger objects. These larger objects then merge to from even larger objects, which continue to merge until we arrive at the massive galaxies we see today in the local Universe.
Hierarchical Clustering | COSMOS

---

That's false. The nested hierarchy was recognized 100 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. Linnaeus was the first to document the nested hierarchy, and he did so without any "clustering methods".Also, you might as well claim that mass only exists because weight balances exist. What you and nearly all ID/creationists fail to understand is that tree-like structure in data is objectively and empirically measured.

quote:

---

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
https://www.talkorigins.org/...ection1.html#nested_hierarchy

---

If you throw in a matrix of morphological features with randomly assigned features then you get really low measurements of phylogenetic signal. With actual data from biology, you get high scores. The same for DNA sequences. Exactly. Therefore, ID/creationism does not predict an objective and empircally measurable nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution does make this prediction, and that prediction is borne out in the data.This is why I stated that there is no other explanation for the data other than common descent and evolution. It seems you agree with me. No, you don't. You falsely claim that phylogenetic signal is just an artefact of the method. Randomized data does not produce a phylogenetic signal when using these methods.

One has to wonder if any creationists take a step back and ask a really simple question. Do you really think that millions of biologists from every culture and faith are all conspiring to support a fake scientific theory devoid of any empirical evidence, and have done so for 150 years?It's as silly as creationists who think the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Do they really think a scientific concept they learn about in high school is something biologists just happened to overlook?If only there were more honest creationists like Todd Wood.

quote:

---

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

​

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

​

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.
--Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

---

I've already given the evidence and reasoning in multiple posts throughout this thread. Just to refresh your memory:1. A nested hierarchy
2. A specific pattern of transition and transversion mutations.
3. A specific pattern of sequence conservation in introns and exons.
4. Transitional fossils.
5. 200,000 shared Endogenous Retroviruses.And that's just the tip of the iceberg.But let's get a refresher on what was said.

quote:

---

Taq: In science, when you have a theory that predicts one thing and that thing is observed it is preferred over a theory that predicts anything and everything.

​

sensei: So first you claimed common ancestry had evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. And now you weaken it down to being the "preferred" theory over others.

​

Taq: The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory. It seems you are obsessed with rhetoric and semantics instead of actual data. This is a common thread in ID/creationism, at least in my experience.

​

sensei: Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even.​
I'm not even gonna continue arguing against you. You come up with one ad hoc rule after another.

---

I have given two characteristics for a preferred theory:1. It makes specific predictions that are then supported by observations. This is preferred over a theory that predicts anything and everything.2. The preferred theory is one that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Again, why are either of these not a characteristic of a preferred theory?Added in edit:We can use general relativity as analogy. We have two theories:1. General Relativity
2. Planets move about the solar system because invisible fairies are pushing them.General relativity predicts one specific orbit for each planet. The Invisible Fairy theory makes no predictions about what paths planets should take around the Sun because Invisible Fairies can move the planets wherever they want.General relativity is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and is considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the community of physicists.I say that General Relativity is the preferred theory because:1. It makes specific predictions that are borne out in experiments. The competing theory predicts anything and everything.2. General Relativity is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not what I said. I said that the theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt makes it the preferred theory. Do you think theories that are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt are the preferred theory? Not necessarily, no. It seems you still don't understand what a nested hierarchy is.Let's say that we found a species with the following features here on Earth:1. Three middle ear bones (like those found in mammals)
2. Teats (like those found in mammals)
3. Flow through lungs (like those found in birds)
4. Feathers (like those found in birds)All of the features found in this species are similar to other species found on Earth. So would this fit into a nested hierarchy with the rest of life on Earth? NO!!!!!!! This species would be a massive violation of a nested hierarchy.A species with a mixture of mammal and bird features would seriously challenge common ancestry. If these sort of violations were common place, then we would have to throw common ancestry out of the window, even if all of these features were shared between multiple species.A nested hierarchy isn't simply shared features between species. IT IS THE PATTERN OF BOTH SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES THAT MATTER.

Even if DNA is somehow a common solution, there are other features that we strongly suspect are arbitrary. One such example is codon usage where there is an apparent arbitrary relationship between the amino acid and 3 base anti-codon on the same tRNA. If humans wanted to we could create a genetic system where codon usage is entirely different. Precisely. We wouldn't expect to see a single cell organism that shared 90% of it's DNA sequence with E. coli, as an example. In other words, it wouldn't nest within a family or genera of bacteria. Instead, it would branch off at the very base of the tree of life on Earth.

What I was trying to do is show you how theories are assessed. For example:Theory A makes very specific predictions.Theory B can accommodate any possible observation.In this case, Theory A is the preferred theory. In the case of the theory of evolution and common design, the theory of evolution makes a very specific prediction which is a nested hierarchy. Common design does not. Common design can accommodate any and all combinations of features and DNA sequences. On its face, the theory of evolution is already ahead. This is before we even look at the evidence.Your response to this basic explanation of assessing theories was to say that I had downgraded evolution from proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to just the preferred theory. This is a complete mischaracterization. Because that is what ID/creationists are asking us to do. We are explaining why common design doesn't measure up to the theory of evolution, both from a theoretical basis (makes better predictions) and from an evidentiary basis (proven beyond a reasonable doubt).This was all hashed out 140 years ago:

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
. . .
Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

It would be strong evidence for common ancestry. As mentioned by Percy, panspermia is a thing. It could also be that aliens seeded our planet with life by bringing in a microorganism from their planet, or seeded both planets. They are applied consistently.I also find it rather telling that you use imagined evidence against the theory. Why not look at the evidence that actually exists?

I tend to think that this type of behavior in general is a mixture of cognitive dissonance and conditioning from ID/creationist literature.ID/creationism is almost entirely rhetoric and semantics. This is why we see them arguing over the semantics of how theories are described instead of actually addressing the data. In fact, they will use imaginary evidence as a rhetorical device, as seen in this very thread. ID/creationist literature is all about how words are defined, so that is what they are conditioned to do. For example, they will argue incessantly that DNA is designed because they have defined DNA as a code. What they won't do is reference actual DNA sequence data.What we have is two groups with different purposes. Science is trying to explain the data using the scientific method. ID/creationism is trying to justify their religious beliefs using rhetoric and semantics.

You can force any group of items into a tree. The big question is how good is the fit. For scientists, it needs to have a number on it in order to be science. This is why scientists constructed several methods for objectively measuring how well a data set fit a tree-like structure. As it turns out, complex life gets a much higher score than random distributions of characters, as we would expect to see if common ancestry is true.The other question we could ask is what we would expect to see if common design is true. The answer is anything. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect to see tree-like structures in the data if common design is true. We would just as likely expect a species to have fur and three middle ear bones as we would a species with feathers and three middle ear bones.

"Descent with modification" was the definition Darwin used, and it still works as a good general description. Allele frequencies incorporates a modern understanding of genetics

If abiogenesis did occur 4.2 billion years ago it also indicates that simple life should be somewhat common in the universe (i.e. where there is a rocky planet with liquid water).David Kipping put out a paper just a couple of years ago that looked at the chances of abiogenesis being easy or rare. In 2020, his analysis had a 2.8 times higher chance for easy abiogenesis over rare based on a much later date for abiogenesis. However, one of Kipping's latest videos on his Cool Worlds youtube channel reanalyzes the odds with this new data, and the chances are now statistically significant at 13.8 to 1 in favor of easy abiogenesis.