Hi Jac,Jac3510 wrote:I have a question that I hope someone can offer me a relatively basic answer for.
It seems to me that a ToE necessarily predicts perfect hierarchical nesting. Thus, the observation of such nesting in nature provides a powerful argument in favor of the ToE, insofar as we have an important and fundamental validated prediction. But the flip side suggests that the modus tollens here provides an equally strong defeater of the ToE. Thus, observations of violations of such nesting actually work as a violation or disconfirmation of that same prediction. If, on the other hand, such violations of the nesting prediction are not defeaters or disconfirmers, then is the basic prediction no prediction at all insofar as it becomes unfalsifiable?
If I've understood the basic approach, then I wonder what the common response is to the widely recognized examples of violations of the nesting principle? This is one of the things that makes me skeptical of evolutionary claims. Clearly, however, people have encountered this problem and I have to believe they have addressed it. So can someone give me an overview of the general overview to how such exceptions are approached? I think knowing that would help ensure I don't misrepresent the theory in either my own thinking or my discussion about it with others.
Thanks in advance
Whether there are violations, that is the question isn't it?
Many would say there are none they have come across that would falsify common descent (and as such evolution).
For example, Dennis Jones who I linked to previously. He's also actually agnostic as to intelligent design and open to the complex and specified information seen in the natural order.
I really found his article on universal common descent a good read. Very detailed.
He shows some courtesy and tactfulness in his writing. Not just out to drive a knife in if you know what I mean (at least that's what I felt).
Would highly recommend it to you or anyone else.
