I am reading through "29 evidences for Macroevolution." I will discuss them in groups. First up:
"One True Polygenic Tree"
#1
"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life."
FALSIFICATION: Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8); each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material.
Well, to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.
# 2
"Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies."
CONFIRMATION: Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme.
FALSIFICATION: It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.
As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew).
As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings. Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model.
# 3
"If there is one true historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance."
FALSIFICATION: In fact, in the absence of common descent or any other reason to suppose that these two types of trees should be similar, the most likely result by far is that they will be radically different. This is precisely why it is possible to falsify the macroevolutionary prediction that independently derived phylogenies should be similar.
The problem with this is that the current tree that evolutionists propose now could easily be replaced by other trees. So if evolutionary assumptions lead to a certain tree, what is to say that these evolutionary assumptions are correct? Therefore, the idea that it can be falsified is not neccesarily true, because any new evidence would cause the tree to change instead of cause scientists to doubt the idea of common descent.
I think you can find alot more at trueorigins.org
# 4
"Any fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms, just like there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human."
CONFIRMATION: In this example, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Sereno 1999). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, and Caudipteryx which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with feathers (Chen, Dong et al. 1998; Qiang, Currie et al. 1998). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
FALSIFICATION: Any finding of a striking mammal-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent. Many other examples of prohibited intermediates can be thought of, based on the standard tree.
First of all, the falsification is not really very good. Even the author admits that a mammal-bird intermediate would be merely "highly inconsistent" with the theory.
Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link. Therefore, one can only assume Archaeopteryx is the best example available. But when I look at the Archaeopteryx, I see fully functional feathers. How did these get there?
Thirdly, I don't see why an intermediate would not be created by an intelligent designer. Archaeopteryx seems like a wonderful creation, and if God made reptiles and birds, why should he be expected to not make an organism that has (fully functional) characteristics of both?
I will add # 5 to my list when I have time.
™ Version 4.2
