Twin-Nested Heirarchy

Well of course we don't tell people that, it's not true.We are under no obligation to recite your propaganda for you.

No.Common descent (plus what we know from the fossil record) makes certain predictions about what we should see if we applies these techniques. We can, of course, test these predictions without assuming common descent to be true. In fact, when these techniques were developed, the creationist response should have been: "Whoopee! Those evilutionists predict that birds should have genes closer to crocodiles than to anything else --- now we're gonna show em! To the laboratory!"

​

For some reason this didn't happen, possibly because of intellectual cowardice but most likely because they don't actually have laboratories.Now, once one has been convinced by this and all the other evidence that evolution is correct, then one can use it to construct cladograms. It is not the cladograms themselves which are offered as proof of common descent, but rather that the theory predicts the data on which the cladograms are based.

Try:Hedges, S. B., and L. L. Poling. 1999. A molecular phylogeny. Science 83:998-1001Kumazawa, Y., and M. Nishida. 1999. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequences of the green turtle and blue-tailed mole skink, statistical evidence for archosaurian affinity of turtles. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:784-792Summary: birds are closer genetically to crocodiles and turtles than to anything else; crocodiles and turtles are closer genetically to each other and to birds than to other reptiles.---Here's another example. Evolutionary theory predicts that lobe-finned fish should be genetically closer to humans than to ray-finned fish.Guess what, it's true!

By "common design" I had understood you to mean designs for a common purpose having common features. As you put it in your OP: And if that is your reasoning, then we should be surprised that the lobe finned fish are closer to humans than to the ray-finned fish, shouldn't we? Unless we are evolutionists, in which case that's exactly what we should expect.---If you just mean that perhaps God decided to make all the creatures in such a way that their genes would conform exactly to the theory of evolution, then he might have done, in the same way that he might have appointed angels to push the planets round in exact conformance to the theory of gravity.But you cannot claim the conformity of genetics to the theory of evolution as evidence of common design, any more than you can claim the conformity of planetary orbits to the theory of gravity as evidence for angels.Because the hypothesis: "All creatures has a common designer" does not predict the observation: "All their genes will conform exactly to the predictions of the theory of evolution." Whereas the theory of evolution does predict that.Hence, the observation that all creatures' genes conform to the predictions of the theory of evolution is evidence for the theory of evolution and is not evidence for "common design". Compatible with it, yes, under the additional hypothesis that God made the world as a big hoax to fool scientists, something that, I think, neither of us believes."Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist Er nicht", said Einstein --- "The Lord God is subtle, but He is not malicious."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, the birds-and-turtles thing was something of a poor choice of example on the part of mark24, because the place of turtles within Reptilua has long been controversial --- not enough fossils, you see.On the other hand, the crocodile-bird affinity is, from the fossil record, indubitable --- they're both definitely archosaurs, and if turtles aren't archosaurs, then they're the only living archosaurs.

Something that creationists have proved by a rigorous process known as "wishful thinking". As I have pointed out, we do not have to assume common descent in order to use these genetic similarities as evidence for common descent. Rather, we have to observe that common descent (together with the fossil record) predicts the nature of these similarities. Accurately. But not that all of them do! Non-coding sections of DNA that have a function tend to be highly conserved. Most eukaryote DNA is not.This seems to be something of a side-issue.

Oh, it was just a leg-pull. Dr A.If you wanted help, you could just have asked for it, you know? Molecular Phylogeny

Well, in the first place most non-coding DNA is not conserved.In the second place, I believe I'm right in saying that people have made experimental organisms where they've snipped out large chunks of nonconserved noncoding DNA, with the organisms being none the worse for it. Well, your answer looks good to me. I don't think I can add much to that except the words: "Oh no they don't", or perhaps: "Bollocks". I believe that this exquisite example of the illustrator's craft was composed by one of the more talented of the new generation of artists, a young man who calls himself "Dr Adequate", using a highly sophisticated piece of software that those of us "in the know" refer to simply as "Microsoft Paint". Well, the SkepticWiki, like other wikis, is non-profit, non-copyright, take anything you like from it. That way, if I write an article on evolution, I can contribute to two wikis for the effort of contributing to one.However, I do think, strange that it may seem, that we ought to duplicate our efforts. When I'm writing an article like that, I look at talkorigins and the EvoWiki last, to see if there's anything I've missed. It's good that people come at it from different perspectives and different angles, using different examples and references.I see what you mean about the Archaeopteryx article. Here's mine.Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.---P.S: Not only is the phrase "twin-nested heirarchy" not an actual term in biology, but even if it was, it would be spelt "hierarchy".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.