Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Alright, important line of evidence #2: The Tree of Life. This is a huge one.
You will remember, from my description of how evolution works, that each new species branches off from an existing species. Later, other species branch off that one, and so forth. Eventually, the ancestor species will have gone extinct, and we will have many descendant species, all related to each other, but none of them the ancestor of another.
Therefore, ToE predicts that every species on earth will be related to the others in only one objective, measurable, sensible pattern, and that will be a tree pattern. There should be a single trunk, from the original ancestor species, that branches out into several ancestral limbs, those into branches, and so forth. At this point, we would be looking at millions of twiglets and leaves, but it should be possible to reconstruct the ancestral twigs and branches.
And it turns out that this is exactly what we see. Every organism on earth, every living species ever discovered, and every ancestor we can deduce from fossil and other evidence, is related to every other species in only one logical way, a branching tree, which we call a nested hierarchy.
In a way this was not a prediction, but an observation, because Linneaus, a creationist, had discovered it earlier. But it in turn generates literally thousands of predictions. What this tells us is that the pattern of resemblance and relationship among species will not follow their function or appearance, but their descent from ancestors. For example, if we just look at a penguin, a shark and a dolphin, we might group them together, since they look somewhat similar, eat fish, and swim. But if we probe beneath the surface, we find out that penguins are birds, and therefore will resemble eagles, that dolphins are mammals, and will therefore resemble mice, and that sharks are cartiliganous fish, and therefore resemble a Manta Ray, despite the fact that none of them look to us anything like these other creatures.
So, once we figure out that penguins are birds, we can predict that they will lay eggs, even if we have not seen them. We can predict that the bones of their fins will be in the same pattern as bird's wings, before we dissect them, and so forth. If we know that dolphins are mammals, we also know that they will bear live young and feed them milk, that they have a uterus, and that the bones of their flippers will resemble mice feet rather than penguins, and that they have lungs and breathe air. We also know that they have a backbone, even if we haven't dissected them, and that they are bilateraly symmetrical. And a pile of other things, every one of them a prediction. Why? Because, even though they look like fish, they were descended from a mammalian ancestor, so they are stuck with mammal parts, which adapted to an aquatic environment. And for sharks, that they lay eggs, have cartilage instead of bones, breath through gills, etc., etc.
We can understand each of these creatures best if we know their ancestral history, if we understand and accept ToE and what it tells us about where theses creatures came from.
And incidentally, we can make bold predictions about them, which creationism does not enable us to do, if we understand, accept and apply ToE.
So, I'm only #2 into the evidence discussion, and already we have literally thousands of predictions.
For me, this single line of evidence is so powerful, so complex and rewarding, that it alone confirms ToE. However, as we will see, it is only the beginning.
Heneni: Do you understand consilience, or do I need to explain it?
You will remember, from my description of how evolution works, that each new species branches off from an existing species. Later, other species branch off that one, and so forth. Eventually, the ancestor species will have gone extinct, and we will have many descendant species, all related to each other, but none of them the ancestor of another.
Therefore, ToE predicts that every species on earth will be related to the others in only one objective, measurable, sensible pattern, and that will be a tree pattern. There should be a single trunk, from the original ancestor species, that branches out into several ancestral limbs, those into branches, and so forth. At this point, we would be looking at millions of twiglets and leaves, but it should be possible to reconstruct the ancestral twigs and branches.
And it turns out that this is exactly what we see. Every organism on earth, every living species ever discovered, and every ancestor we can deduce from fossil and other evidence, is related to every other species in only one logical way, a branching tree, which we call a nested hierarchy.
In a way this was not a prediction, but an observation, because Linneaus, a creationist, had discovered it earlier. But it in turn generates literally thousands of predictions. What this tells us is that the pattern of resemblance and relationship among species will not follow their function or appearance, but their descent from ancestors. For example, if we just look at a penguin, a shark and a dolphin, we might group them together, since they look somewhat similar, eat fish, and swim. But if we probe beneath the surface, we find out that penguins are birds, and therefore will resemble eagles, that dolphins are mammals, and will therefore resemble mice, and that sharks are cartiliganous fish, and therefore resemble a Manta Ray, despite the fact that none of them look to us anything like these other creatures.
So, once we figure out that penguins are birds, we can predict that they will lay eggs, even if we have not seen them. We can predict that the bones of their fins will be in the same pattern as bird's wings, before we dissect them, and so forth. If we know that dolphins are mammals, we also know that they will bear live young and feed them milk, that they have a uterus, and that the bones of their flippers will resemble mice feet rather than penguins, and that they have lungs and breathe air. We also know that they have a backbone, even if we haven't dissected them, and that they are bilateraly symmetrical. And a pile of other things, every one of them a prediction. Why? Because, even though they look like fish, they were descended from a mammalian ancestor, so they are stuck with mammal parts, which adapted to an aquatic environment. And for sharks, that they lay eggs, have cartilage instead of bones, breath through gills, etc., etc.
We can understand each of these creatures best if we know their ancestral history, if we understand and accept ToE and what it tells us about where theses creatures came from.
And incidentally, we can make bold predictions about them, which creationism does not enable us to do, if we understand, accept and apply ToE.
So, I'm only #2 into the evidence discussion, and already we have literally thousands of predictions.
For me, this single line of evidence is so powerful, so complex and rewarding, that it alone confirms ToE. However, as we will see, it is only the beginning.
Heneni: Do you understand consilience, or do I need to explain it?
Last edited:
Yes and if I ever catch up with Noah, I'm going to ask him what he was thinking saving mosquitos!!! Will never understand that executive decision :no::no: