(August 19, 2016 at 1:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: The fact that the phylogenetic tree is not as predicted and has problems matching the data to the theory means there is still much to learn and still much to prove to get 'common ancestry' to the point where we know how it works. If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?
If you want a link:
Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352
Steve, first things first, study up on what a scientific theory is.
