leroy
Well-Known Member
I think you haven't understood @TagliatelliMonster 's definition of evidence.
The whole underlying principle of it appears to be that evidence should be relevant to the question posed.
So since in your imaginary hypothesis it has in common with the real hypothesis that mammals evolved, NH is evidence for evolution, because in both hypothesis the common question is did mammals evolve, the common evidence is NH, and the common answer is that mammals evolved.
But if you change the question to did mammals evolve from prokarites and eukaryotes or only from one of them you need evidence that distinguishes between the two hypothesis.
It is like this. A description of an individual that accurately fits both jim and Bob as being at a murder scene is not enough to prosecute either one (say for example if they are identical twins). You would need some piece of evidence which can place only Jim at the murder scene.
Now suppose Jim does not have an identical twin. In this case if one investigator proposes Jim committed the murder with a knife and another proposes Jim committed the murder with a gun. If we are asking the question did Jim commit the murder a description fitting only Jim would be evidence that Jim is our murder. But if we change the question to what was the murder weapon used, a knife or a gun? Then a description of Jim is not evidence relevant to the question. We would need either a description of the weapon or evidence such as a bullet in the body or slash wound etc. In this case our description of Jim is not evidence relevant to the question being asked.
So the first case of Jim having a twin is analogous to explaining an event using miracles. God could have miraculously caused Jesus to be resurrected, or could have miraculously caused Paul to die for a delusion. In this case miracles fit literally any scenario and thus it is not even like giving a description of Jim. Your description may as well be that a human did it, it is a description (or evidence) that fits everyone.
The second case of a description fitting only Jim, but approaching the case with two different questions is analogous to your imaginary hypothesis about evolution.
Because your evidence (NH) is relevant to the question did evolution occur, but not relevant to the question which pathway did evolution take.
Consider yourself refuted in my view.
If you find a bit of information (call it X) that puts Jim and Bob as the only 2 possible suspects.(and X excludes all the other 10 possible murderes) then X would count as evidence against Bob and Jim……. (perhaps not conclusive evidence) but evidence.Consider yourself refuted in my view.
If you agree with that statement, then you agree with me, and disagree with @TagliatelliMonster
As for NH all I am saying is that NH only show that we are related to some organism, but NH by itself doesn’t takes you to universal common descend. NH doestn show that humans and bacteria are related. (other lines of evidence do, not not NH)
It could be the case that abiogenesis occurred twice, and that both “lines “ survived and evolved independently ………. This is far form being “ridiculous hypothesis”
Given that hypothesis then current observations of NH would also be consistent and predicted.......... we woudl also predict no mammals with feathers and no NH pattern when comparring humans and bacteria............... both universal common ancestry and (2 common ancestors) woudl make the same prediction.
If you agree with this statement about NH, you agree with me and disagree with @TagliatelliMonster