How theory of evolution is useful: predicting food allergies!

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@NonlinOrg

No, that’s not what I said. All our knowledge including the information used in the study you quote comes from observed similarities. There is no other information.

@NonlinOrg has a point. As far as is explained in this study, they did not do the control of comparing phylogeny to similarity alone. So it cannot be interpreted as evidence for evolution. It is possible the original studies to which she referred did, but I did not have time to find and read them. However, as written here in Scientific American the study is specious

So it is possible in @NonlinOrg’s hypothesis is correct…

@NonlinOrg

if you are allergic to tomatoes, all you need to know is that potatoes are more similar to tomatoes than mint or figs. Which one came first and when it’s irrelevant.

The right response to this is to actually do the controlled study. To be clear, however, that sort of work that compares similarity to phylogeny HAS been done elsewhere, with very clear results…

Phylogeny vs Similarity and Function

At a genetic level we see a great deal of similarity between organisms. This similarity is a fundamental feature of life, that has to be explained by any theory. Evolution explains that this similarity as largely caused by shared history, by way of common descent. We see function often aligning in sensible ways on phylogenetic trees of sequences and organisms. Of course, this is not perfect, because we also know that life changes over time. As the YEC Walter ReMine accurately points out in The …

We find that this hypothesis is false…

@NonlinOrg

Nature doesn’t come with the imaginary lines you call nested hierarchies.

If you doubt it, you need to provide evidence. But when you look at the evidence, you will find that nature does come with nested hierarchies.

And moreover, you will find that function follows phylogeny closer than it follows similarity. The deficiencies of this study do not negate this observation.