One of the major underlying premises of evolutionary theory is that we can classify organisms based on certain similarities and create phylogenies based on those similarities. Cladistics seeks to classify evolutionary relationships based on similarities. The underlying premise is that a repetitive trait stems from a common ancestor.
Similar traits equal common ancestry.
How can this be falsified? One way would be to find similar traits arising that cannot due to other factors be considered to be the result of common ancestry. In fact, we see quite a lot of this such as with Marsupial and Placental Mammalian "pairs."
The evo solution is to hypothesize convergent or parallel evolution. In other words, to claim that the exact same traits emerged independetly via evolution, but is this really a viable, testable claim?
First off, in making this claim, there is no way then to falsify whether similar traits necessarily mean common ancestry or something else? It could be either, and so the basic assumption of common ancestry is unfalsifiable.
Secondly, the explanations of random mutation and natural selection producing the same designs is piss-poor really. It defies logic, data and common sense. One argument bantered by evos is that such traits are just "surface-traits" as a result of natural selection and the environment. This was just ad hoc nonsense when you realize some designs actually do different things environmentally, and other areas are not "surface" at all, such as the Mammalian ear.
Why would the design of the Mammalian ear emerge due to environmental factors independently? There is no real reason environmentally. In fact, as evos like to point out when they criticize the concept of a Designer, these designs are actually quite poor often. But when you think about it, the fact the same poor designs emerge is evidence against evo models, not for it. Evos argue better designs emerge from poorer designs due to natural selection, but why the heck then would bad designs emerge continually independently of one another?
The simple answer is that evo models are wrong. There is something else affecting these designs being the same. One can argue a common designer, a common force, or if you want to stick with universal common descent (evo theory), then you would have to say something is affecting or guiding evolutionary processes dictating these designs besides random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.....In other words, environmental pressures are not sufficient as evos claim to produce identical or near identical features in all of these cases. Evos make that claim, but fail to show why or how or any real testing of the claim, and it defies common sense as to why imperfect designs like the mammalian ear would emerge.
But more importantly, if evo science is to be truly scientific, then it must deal with the fact that the very concept of common traits as of necessity being the result of common ancestry is an assumption that is not always true, maybe never true for macroevolution, and certainly not falsifiable. Evos have to come up with ways to actually falsify their ideas instead of ad hoc via imagination just making a claim and insisting it has to be so, such as saying it's natural selection creating similar traits even when those traits exist in different environments or there appears to be little reason to think environmental pressures would not create a better design.
Evos need to admit this and go back to the drawing board instead of defending the indefensible because they are concerned about losing support in the general population to their critics, imo.
You cannot find a common trait and classify creatures as related to one other via common descent because the simple fact is there is no scientific way to verify that the trait emerged via common ancestry or not. It is not a falsifiable claim at present and so not an empirical one.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2