Ewert's "Dependency Graph"

This is an attempt by one creationist to rationalise the nested hierarchy. I found Ewert's paper here:

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3

A Nested Hierarchy

Let us start with evolution...

Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. If a species, A, evolves into two new species, B and C, and then B evolves into B1 and B2, while C evolves into C1 and C2, there is a nested hierarchy. All the species descended from C form a group, which is quite distinct from those descended from B, but both nest within the group descended from A. That is a simple example, but the pattern holds true in even complex structures where every child species has just one parent species.

If you are familiar with HTML or XML, the same pattern is seen; every element nests inside the ones higher up the hierarchy. Or look at the file structure on your computer. Every sub-folder is nested inside a hierarchy of folders.

Linnaeus observed that same pattern in biology, even before Darwin. Chimps and gorilla are in the great ape clade. All great apes are in the ape clade, all apes are in the primate clade, all primates are in the mammal clade, and so on. The fact that this pattern is not just explained but also a necessary consequence of evolutoin is great evidence for it - and something creationists need to explain.

Ewert says, in the introduction:

Life exhibits an approximate nested hierarchy pattern rather than forming an exact nested hierarchy. Even if the resemblance is weak or the approximation very loose, it is still undeniably present and thus must be explained.​

So from that start, I have to say kudos to the guy for admitting there is an issue here for creationists, and then trying to resolve it.

Dependency Graph

So this is Ewert's alternative to evolution, where he attempts to explain the pattern, whilst rejecting the common ancestor.

If files and folders give an analogy for the nested hierarchy, module dependency give an analogy for dependency graph - albeit a less familiar one!

If you ever find yourself writing software you will undoubtedly use code written and published by someone else as part of your project. Someone else has already done the basics; rather than re-invent the wheel, you just import their module into your code.

And that module may well import other modules into it too. For a sizeable project, you might import a dozen modules, and each of those modules might import a bunch of other modules.What makes it more complicated is that some of those modules might all import the same module further up - or down, or one module might import another (and if they expect different versions of the same module, it is a nightmare, but that is by-the-by).

Designed Biology

So that is the theory, how does it apply to real biology...

There are some diagrams on pages 4 and 5 of Ewert's paper that illustrate this nicely. Figure 2 shows a subset of the nested hierarchy, with extant mammals descended from extinct ancestors. The evolutionary hypothesis.

Figure 3 gives a suggested dependency graph version. The same extent mammals, but now they are connected to "software modules". The dolphin is the most interesting here, as it imports the "artodactyla" module (as does the cow), the "echolocation" module (as does the bat) and the "marine" module, as does the seal and the manatee).

And that makes sense. The designer wants a cow that can swim in the sea and use echolocation, so when coding the dolphin, he imports those modules.

This gives us a strong prediction. If Ewert is right, the genes involves in echolocation will be the same in the bat as in the dolphin. Evolution predicts some connection, because both use ears and mouth. Evolution predicts there will be a degree of similarity as there is across all mammals (and more specifically Laurasiatheria). Ewert's model predicts a far greater genetic similarity between bats and dolphins specifically with regards to echolocation.

Similarly when it comes to modifications for marine life, Ewert's model predicts a strong genetic similarity for the genes responsible for dolphins, seals and manatees. For example, blowholes and smooth skin... Well, okay, they are not in seals and manatees, but you get the idea.

Maybe the "marine" module is nonsense, but it turns out the case for echolocation is pretty good. They really do use the same genes!

https://www.science.org/content/article/bats-and-dolphins-evolved-echolocation-same-way

Echolocation

So let us focus on this a bit more...

Fruit bats have a primitive form of echolocation, using the wings to produce the sound, not their mouths. How does that fit with Ewert's theory? Is there more than one module, and the designer forgot to import the advanced module for them?

Some other animals have echolocation:

Bats, whales, dolphins, a few birds like the nocturnal oilbird and some swiftlets, some shrews and the similar tenrec from Madagascar are all known to echolocate. Another possible candidate is the hedgehog, and incredibly some blind people have also developed the ability to echolocate.​

https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/what-is-echolocation

If Ewert is right, then the birds will have the same genes as bats and dolphins to support echolocation. It will be interesting to see what research creationists do to support this. I am guessing none whatsoever.

Wings and Eyes

Two obvious software modules we might consider are wings and eyes.

Evolution says wings have evolved independently a number of times; in insects, in birds, in bats, in pterosaurs. If Ewert is right, we would expect the same set of genes in bees and in birds that give rise to their wings.

Given how different their wings are, I am doubtful of that.

Eyes are similar in that evolution claims they evolved multiple times. The eyes of cephalopods are significantly different to those of vertebrates, and the multifaceted arthropod eye is very different to both. How does that fit with Ewert's theory? Why are they not the same if they all use the same "module"? If there are different modules available for eyes, why does the way they were assigned to different "kinds" match the nested hierarchy so well? That is, all animals in the vertebrate clade have the same eye type, regardless of their environmental niche and needs.

Vitamin C Pseudo-gene

According to the evolutionary thesis, the ability to synthesise vitamin C was lost in human ancestors a long time ago, and all related species similary lost that ability.

From Wiki:

Loss of GULO activity in the primate order occurred about 63 million years ago, at about the time it split into the suborders Haplorhini (which lost the enzyme activity) and Strepsirrhini (which retained it). The haplorhine ("simple-nosed") primates, which cannot make vitamin C enzymatically, include the tarsiers and the simians (apes, monkeys and humans). The strepsirrhine ("bent-nosed" or "wet-nosed") primates, which can still make vitamin C enzymatically, include lorises, galagos, pottos, and, to some extent, lemurs.

There are other examples of animals that have lost the ability; many birds, as well as some bats and guinea pigs too. The evolutionary explanation is that it has happened several times. For more details see here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

Note that the faulty gene is still present in humans. We have the gene to produce GULO, but cannot because it has an error.

How does a "Dependency Graph" explain this observation? Did the creator choose to import a faulty "module" into humans? And coincidentally into all related primates, but not strepsirrhine primates, because...

Cherry-picking

I am going to hold my hand up and say I did not read Ewert's paper in full. Life is too short and the paper too long. With that in mind, I think what is happening here is Ewert has cherry-picked echolocation in bats and whales because the genetics support his thesis, and is choosing to ignore the myriad ways his thesis fails, as mentioned.

This cherry-picking of data is what exposes it as pseudo-science. It gives the appearance of science, but it relies on others being to trusting or just too dumb to actually thinking about it too deeply.