Evidence? for common descent
“Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.” Henry Schaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Sherlock Holmes
“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown
Common descent, that being that all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be verified. The concept isn’t even of any practical use. Yet it endures as a scientific concept. And people wonder what has happened to science education.
“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor”. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.” Michael Denton
“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.” Sir Alistor Hardy
Fossil record:
How was the fossil record formed?
Was it formed by one or a series of catstrophies? Was it formed by slow and gradual sedimentray deposition? Or was it a combination? For any combination scenario how can we tell which sediments were laid down via some catastrophy and which were deposited via some gradual process?
Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fossils can’t tell us anything about a mechanism.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between divergent and convergent evolution.
Fossils can’t tell us anything about how the species originated. Just that it existed.
Not every organism that has lived gets fossilized. IOW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fossilization requires a rapid burial of the organism to protect it from scavengers and weathering.
Fossilization does not require millions of years.
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.87 2006
The first issue I have with that article is the definitions of micro and macro evolution:
The issues are:
1) Species is a vague/ ambiguous concept at best
2) Creationists have accepted that the "Created Kinds" were most likely close to today's classification of Genus. Meaning with the above definitions even YECs are macroevolutionists. IOW there isn't any distinction.
The following offers a better insight into the debate:
glossary
evolution, biological n.
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
The ERV argument for CD is especially weak. We are expected to believe that an ERV will hang around at the same chromosomal position and in intact enough to be recognizable as an ERV for millions of generations, all the while other genetic changes are occurring that will bring about the morphological differences in the diverging species. Now why would a useless piece of genetic material be afforded that type of preservation? Why would it be kept at all?
Do evolutionists understand the process of meiosis? The ERV argument tells me they do not.
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Sherlock Holmes
“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown
Common descent, that being that all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be verified. The concept isn’t even of any practical use. Yet it endures as a scientific concept. And people wonder what has happened to science education.
“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor”. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.” Michael Denton
“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.” Sir Alistor Hardy
Fossil record:
How was the fossil record formed?
Was it formed by one or a series of catstrophies? Was it formed by slow and gradual sedimentray deposition? Or was it a combination? For any combination scenario how can we tell which sediments were laid down via some catastrophy and which were deposited via some gradual process?
Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fossils can’t tell us anything about a mechanism.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between divergent and convergent evolution.
Fossils can’t tell us anything about how the species originated. Just that it existed.
Not every organism that has lived gets fossilized. IOW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fossilization requires a rapid burial of the organism to protect it from scavengers and weathering.
Fossilization does not require millions of years.
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.87 2006
The first issue I have with that article is the definitions of micro and macro evolution:
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.
The issues are:
1) Species is a vague/ ambiguous concept at best
2) Creationists have accepted that the "Created Kinds" were most likely close to today's classification of Genus. Meaning with the above definitions even YECs are macroevolutionists. IOW there isn't any distinction.
The following offers a better insight into the debate:
glossary
evolution, biological n.
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
The ERV argument for CD is especially weak. We are expected to believe that an ERV will hang around at the same chromosomal position and in intact enough to be recognizable as an ERV for millions of generations, all the while other genetic changes are occurring that will bring about the morphological differences in the diverging species. Now why would a useless piece of genetic material be afforded that type of preservation? Why would it be kept at all?
Do evolutionists understand the process of meiosis? The ERV argument tells me they do not.
posted by Joe G @ 9:32 AM
39 Comments:
At 6:46 PM,
Zachriel said…
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern. Contrariwise, if life was designed, we would expect substantial violations of any nested hierarchy. In fact, for metazoans, we see a clear nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy of morphology, embryonics, fossils, and genomes.
Genetics is by far the most important evidence of Common Descent, but let's start with the fossil record.
Geologists have known since before Darwin that strata were laid down over eons. From the Principle of Superposition, we can surmise that of undisturbed strata, those above are newer than those below. This allows the *relative* dating of the strata . (And we can individually confirm this by examining our local geology and comparing it to geological survey maps, perhaps even finding a few common fossils, perhaps even having some dfun out-of-doors.) Modern radiometrics allows us to fix *absolute* dates and these dates confirm the original *relative* dating.
To take an example from a previous thread, if humans evolved from a common ancestor with other apes, then there should be intermediate forms of organisms. And in fact, organisms that have intermediate characteristics have been found. There is a general progression from earlier times to more modern times of larger brains, shorter arm-to-leg ratio, more upright stance, and so on. Just as predicted.
In the early 1970's, though many hominid species had been identified, the earliest human ancestors were still unknown. Data indicated that they should be found in strata of 3-4 million years of age. Johanson consulted geologists who pointed to the appropriate strata in Africa. Mounting an expedition, he found an organism that had intermediate characteristics between early hominids and non-hominid apes. He didn't find it in Albuquerque. He didn't find it in the Pre-Cambrian. He found it in the predicted strata. And its brain, arm-leg ratio and gait were such that it was intermediate between hominids and non-human apes.
Lucy exists. She exists where and when predicted. And she is not the only specimen. Many of her kind have been found.
Just a lucky guess?
Each such discovery, whether in paleontology, geology, biology, embryology, or genetics, adds confidence to the Theory of Evolution. And each discovery is an opportunity to falsify at least some aspect of the Theory.
There is just no getting away from the fact of Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis, or Maiasaurus. "Ape-men" walked the Earth, just as Darwin predicted. And when all the hand-waving is done, their fossil remains will still be there.
At 8:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Zach:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
For reasons already given we know that is false.
Zach:
Contrariwise, if life was designed, we would expect substantial violations of any nested hierarchy.
No, we wouldn't expect anything of the kind. We would expect some genetic commonality for nutrition reasons alone.
Zach:
Genetics is by far the most important evidence of Common Descent, but let's start with the fossil record.
But genetics is not evolutionism's friend. If it were there wouldn't be one geneticist who was an IDist or a Creationist. But we see many.
ZAch:
Geologists have known since before Darwin that strata were laid down over eons.
Many have assumed that but how can it be tested? We see what catastrophies do in very little time.
Rad dating depends on how the rocks were formed. Which depends on how the Earth was formed. Which depends on how the solar system, yada, yada, yada, were formed.
Again saying "Lucy" was found where and when predicted is pure horse-pucky. Dating strata is based on untestable assumptions.
Embryology doesn't offer any support for evolutionism. Evo-devo is just "hopeful monsters" brought back to life.
Evolutionism needs to explain the differences in chimps and humans if its proponents want to be taken seriously:
Chimps and Humans do NOT share a common ancestor
And just how the hell can anyone falsify the premise that humans evolved from some non-human population via random variations culled by natural selection? You have just shown it is all speculation based on the assumption.
Something to chew on:
"Evolutionist, Professor Charles Oxnard of the University of Western Australia used objective ‘un-biased’ computerized multivariate analysis of many measurements on australopithecine bones.15 He (and an increasing number of other researchers who are not associated with the discovery of any of these creatures) found that all of the australopithecines, grouped together anatomically, are further away from both apes and humans than these two groups are from each other. They conclude that the australopithecines were a unique group of extinct creatures, not anatomically intermediate between apes and humans, so were not evolutionary ‘links’ at all."
the above from Lunatics, Lucy and a little book for the school library
Lucy dethroned
At 10:51 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
joe g: "For reasons already given we know that is false."
What reasons were those?
Zachriel: Contrariwise, if life was designed, we would expect substantial violations of any nested hierarchy.
joe g: "No, we wouldn't expect anything of the kind. We would expect some genetic commonality for nutrition reasons alone."
You clearly don't understand the nested hierarchy. It allows correlations between unrelated structures, e.g. mammary glands implies having three ear bones.
The Y-chromosome of paternal descent forms a nested hierarchy of descent, mutations and all.
As long as you are confused on the nature of this specific pattern, you won't understand the evidence.
joe g: "But genetics is not evolutionism's friend. If it were there wouldn't be one geneticist who was an IDist or a Creationist. But we see many."
The vast majority of geneticists accept the Theory of Evolution. Try a scientific journal such as Genetics. Even a cursory look will reveal nearly all substantial work in genetics is done within the framework of evolution, which is constantly being observed, tested and investigated. Here are a some articles from Genetics on a few different topics:
"evolution", 56800 articles.
"Natural Selection", 13100 articles.
"Intelligent Design", 0 articles.
joe g: "Many have assumed that but how can it be tested?"
By looking, as I said. Geology is not a secret. You can examine the geological surveys and compare them to your local geology. Many areas have excellent formations within driving distance, and finding common fossils is not only easy but fun. That way you can be sure that the geological maps match the actual facts. There really are strata of sedimentary and volcanic rocks.
joe g: "Rad dating depends on how the rocks were formed. Which depends on how the Earth was formed. Which depends on how the solar system, yada, yada, yada, were formed."
*Relative* dating of the strata doesn't require radiometrics or fossils. This ordering was determined well before Darwin.
Now, in order to support your views, not only are the biologists wrong, but so are the geologists, the physicists, and even the astronomers. They're all wrong. But you are right, but for some reason lack convincing evidence.
joe g: "Again saying 'Lucy' was found where and when predicted is pure horse-pucky."
Classic hand-waving. Johanson went on an expedition half-way around the world to search a specific strata in the Afar region of Africa to look for hominid ancestors. He wasn't sight-seeing, or kick rocks in his backyard.
joe g: "And just how the hell can anyone falsify the premise that humans evolved from some non-human population via random variations culled by natural selection?"
Leave aside the mechanism of change, which is not at issue when determining Common Descent. To falsify Common Descent, find a metazoan organism that substantially violates the nested hierarchy.
Charles Oxnard: "They conclude that the australopithecines were a unique group of extinct creatures"
Oxnard's is a minority opinion on the placement of Australopithecus, and his decades-old conclusions were based on fragmentary evidence; — but citing him is rather odd. Oxnard claims that humans and apes share a common ancestor with Australopithecines, and has come to agree that they were bipedal. He just thinks they separated from apes earlier than the line leading to humans.
About that bipedal ape found in three million year old strata: the fossils don't disappear because they are inconvenient.
At 9:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Netsed hierarchy:
Humans can and do place things in a nested hierarchy that don't have any relationship whatsoever.
We can also do it (and have done it) with any number of artifacts.
In biology there are far more deviations from the "expected" NH than there are "confirming" data.
For example mito protein comparisons place chickens next to fish.
Relative dating of strata requires the rad dating of any bedrock beneath it. ALL dating is related to rad dating for a baseline on the timeline.
Then there is the fact that catastrophies dump more sediments in a place at a given time than geologists account for in their uniformitarian ways.
joe g: "And just how the hell can anyone falsify the premise that humans evolved from some non-human population via random variations culled by natural selection?"
Zach:
Leave aside the mechanism of change, which is not at issue when determining Common Descent.
Wrong. The mechanism is the debate.
Zach:
To falsify Common Descent, find a metazoan organism that substantially violates the nested hierarchy.
But nested hierarchy isn't a prediction of evolutionism. Evolutionism accomodates NH but that is because evolutionitwits just don't know any better.
BTW there are many scientists who doubt "Lucy" was bipedal.
The Truth about Lucy:
Adrienne Zihlman remarked: "Lucy's fossil remains match
up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp."
But I do love your continued bald assertions:
Zach:
Now, in order to support your views, not only are the biologists wrong, but so are the geologists, the physicists, and even the astronomers.
There are many physicists, astronomers, geologists and biologists who also agree with me. Go figure. There aren't any of those type of scientists who can affirm the anti-ID position- that being that our existence is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. There isn't even a way to test that position.
At 12:17 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Humans can and do place things in a nested hierarchy that don't have any relationship whatsoever."
Immaterial.
joe g: "We can also do it (and have done it) with any number of artifacts."
Artifacts routinely violate the nested hierarchy. It's a hallmark of design.
joe g: "Relative dating of strata requires the rad dating of any bedrock beneath it."
Relative dating of strata precedes the discovery of radioactivity.
joe g: "Then there is the fact that catastrophies dump more sediments in a place at a given time than geologists account for in their uniformitarian ways."
Geologists have no concept of how sediments form? But you do apparently.
joe g: "Wrong. The mechanism is the debate."
Mutation and natural selection can be directly observed, though they are not the only mechanisms of evolutionary change. I assume this means you reject Common Descent.
joe g: "But nested hierarchy isn't a prediction of evolutionism."
The nested hierarchy is a prediction of Common Descent. It is the very same pattern that y-choromosomes form in paternal lines of descent.
joe g: "BTW there are many scientists who doubt 'Lucy' was bipedal."
Your own cited expert has been convinced by the evidence that Lucy was bipedal. The vast majority of paleontologists are in agreement. There are always those who disagree. You can probably find a physicist who thinks the world is flat, but they are unable to convince their peers of this.
I would point out that the fact that it is difficult to distinguish various hominid species from one another is a validation of the concept of intermediate characteristics. They are close because they are related.
joe g: "Adrienne Zihlman remarked..."
That's funny. Zihlman teaches human evolutionary theory at UC Santa Cruz.
joe g: "There are many physicists, astronomers, geologists and biologists who also agree with me."
The vast majority of physicists and astronomers do not agree with you concerning the age of the Earth, or geologists concerning the strata, or biologists concerning evolution. While I have cited peer-reviewed scientific journals, the few actual scientists you mentioned do not even agree with you.
If your previous statement on the matter of the Earth's age is any indicator, then you have no grasp of science whatsoever. The issue of Common Descent is minor in the scheme or your misunderstandings.
At 1:50 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "There aren't any of those type of scientists who can affirm the anti-ID position- that being that our existence is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes."
It is well-established that the cometary apparitions can be scientifically explained by the Theory of Gravity and the contingencies of planetary history, not some notion of design.
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "There aren't any of those type of scientists who can affirm the anti-ID position- that being that our existence is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes."
Zach:
It is well-established that the cometary apparitions can be scientifically explained by the Theory of Gravity and the contingencies of planetary history, not some notion of design.
So tell us Zach- how did gravity come about in your anti-ID scenario?
Did the laws of nature just "poof" into existence? Or is it more like the greatest scientists in our history proclaim when they inferred:
"God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon." (Morris Kline of Galileo, Newton, Copernicus and Kepler in his book "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty")
At 10:31 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Humans can and do place things in a nested hierarchy that don't have any relationship whatsoever."
Zach:
Immaterial.
It's very material because it demonstrates that hierarchies are a mental construct that do not require any real relationship.
joe g: "We can also do it (and have done it) with any number of artifacts."
Zach:
Artifacts routinely violate the nested hierarchy. It's a hallmark of design.
Artifacts can violate NH nut it isn't a hallmark of design. Microsoft products, cars and furniture refute your premise.
joe g: "Relative dating of strata requires the rad dating of any bedrock beneath it."
Zach:
Relative dating of strata precedes the discovery of radioactivity.
How can that be? IOW how can you have "relative dating" without some baseline to relate it to?
joe g: "Then there is the fact that catastrophies dump more sediments in a place at a given time than geologists account for in their uniformitarian ways."
Zach:
Geologists have no concept of how sediments form? But you do apparently.
I never said nor implied that. There are plenty of geologists who disagree with uniformitarianism.
joe g: "Wrong. The mechanism is the debate."
Zach:
Mutation and natural selection can be directly observed, though they are not the only mechanisms of evolutionary change.
Again the mechanism you speak of has only been observed to provide small scale oscillating changes. Genetic homeostasis seems to be the rule with NS acting as a conserving process.
Zach:
I assume this means you reject Common Descent.
I reject it as being scientific for the reasons it is based on purely circumstantial evidence. Evidence that cannot be objectively tested nor verified.
joe g: "But nested hierarchy isn't a prediction of evolutionism."
Zach:
The nested hierarchy is a prediction of Common Descent.
Again ONLY in a very limited sense.
Zach:
It is the very same pattern that y-choromosomes form in paternal lines of descent.
Right, limited common descent.
Without a known mechanism for bringing about the required morphological changes it is impossible to say you can predict NH. And by now most scientists realize that macroevolution is not just accumulations of microevolution- IOW the talk origins' position in the link I provided is totally bogus.
NH places chickens next to fish!
IOW NH supports CD only by cherry-picking the data.
The age of the Earth depends on how it was formed. That is just a fact of life. Astronomy has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. The universe could be old and the Earth still be very young.
At 1:36 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "how did gravity come about in your anti-ID scenario?"
The scientific answer is that no one knows. If you want to adopt a philosophical or religious explanation, that's quite alright. Just don't conflate that with science, as Intelligent Design does.
joe g: "It's very material because it demonstrates that hierarchies are a mental construct that do not require any real relationship."
The nested hierarchy of life is not a mental construct anymore than the nested hierarchy of your paternal ancestry is.
joe g: "Artifacts can violate NH nut it isn't a hallmark of design. Microsoft products, cars and furniture refute your premise."
You clearly do not understand the nested hierarchy. Different lineages of artifacts constantly adopt features from other lines. Design typically violates the nested hierarchy. The first airplane was built by combining an internal combustion engine and bicycle parts . All car manufacturers offer disk brakes and seat belts. Microsoft got it from Apple. And everything that used to be made of wood is now made of plastic.
Designers always borrow from one another. This does not happen in the history of life. The 'designer' of each lineage is blindly making ad hoc modifications without knowledge of what the other 'designers' are doing. The 'designer' of the bat never saw a bird.
I suggested before that if you didn't understand the nested hierarchy, you couldn't understand the evidence of common descent.
joe g: "How can that be? IOW how can you have "relative dating" without some baseline to relate it to?"
From Principles of Geology developed by scientific researchers well before Darwin.
The Principle of Superposition states that a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed sequence is younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it. This allows the *relative* dating of the strata.
And the evidence further reveals that the order of the first appearance of various organisms is as follows (tracing a single lineage): prokaryotes, eukaryotes, metazoans, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, hominids, humans. Life forms a nested hierarchy in time of diversification and extinction.
joe g: "There are plenty of geologists who disagree with uniformitarianism."
You will find that you also misunderstand uniformitarianism, which is not incompatible with catastrophic events, such as floods. It merely notes that processes observed today also occurred in the past. The 18th century geologist Charles Lyell thought that large sections of North America had experienced catastrophic flooding.
Zachriel: The nested hierarchy is a prediction of Common Descent.
joe g: "Again ONLY in a very limited sense."
Whatever that means.
You clearly misunderstand the scientific method. The Theory states that organisms share a common ancestry. If true, then we should expect a nested hierarchy of all organisms that share a common ancestry. A substantial violation of this nested hierarchy would represent strong evidence against common descent.
So, to falsify this prediction, we could examine strata for yet to be discovered organisms. If they don't fit the nested hierarchy, we would have to abandon or modify our hypothesis. We could search the jungles of the Amazon, and finding new species determine if they fit the nested hierarchy. And with modern technology, we could sequence genomes and see if they fit the nested hierarchy. So far, the Theory of Common Descent has been strongly supported by the evidence.
Zachriel: It is the very same pattern that y-choromosomes form in paternal lines of descent.
joe g: "Right, limited common descent."
Whatever that means. Paternal lines form a nested hierarchy and the y-chromosome, being passed from father to son, matches this nested hierarchy. You and your father's brother share the same y-chromosome. If your uncle has a mutation, his sons will have it, but your sons will not. We can use this information of accumulated mutations to determine ancestry.
joe g: "Without a known mechanism for bringing about the required morphological changes it is impossible to say you can predict NH."
You have it exactly backwards. The nested hierarchy is the fact that needs explanation. As the particular nested hierarchy includes both extant and extinct life, it is clear evidence of common descent.
joe g: "The age of the Earth depends on how it was formed. That is just a fact of life. Astronomy has nothing to do with the age of the Earth."
That is incorrect. Astronomers have studied how the Solar System was formed. And it turns out that astronomers concur with physicists, geologists and biologists about the ancient age of the Earth. There is no serious scientific doubt on this.
At 10:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "NH places chickens next to fish!"
Keep in mind that genomic data, like all scientific measurement (especially of a stochastic process), includes noise. The data for vertebrates resulted in the predicted pattern, but when the nested hierarchy was rooted in sea urchins, it produced an anomalous result. That's why multiple lines of evidence are normally required to build confidence in a theory.
Several reasons were put forth to explain the anomaly. Of course, only further observations could resolve the conundrum.
Since then, studies have shown that the anomaly is explained by accounting for the differing rates of evolution between vertebrates and invertebrates.
Correct and Incorrect Vertebrate Phylogenies Obtained by the Entire
Mitochondrial DNA Sequences
"it is important to accumulate
the sequence data from many genes in order to determine the phylogenetic relationships."
Naoko Takezaki and Takashi Gojobori
National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan
At 9:47 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "There are plenty of geologists who disagree with uniformitarianism."
After rereading your post, it seems you are working with a strawman version of "uniformitarianism". Nearly all geologists agree that the Earth formed with the Solar System billions of years ago, and that the Earth today is not like it was before, and during the interim there were a variety of catastrophic events including planetary collisions, huge volcanos, floods, ice ages, etc. Evidence to support this history is also found in the strata and like all science these conclusions are subject to revision based on new information.
Astronomers concur with this conclusion concerning the Earth's age, and believe the Solar System to be just one of many such systems throughout the galaxy and the universe. Recent observations of planets around other stars validates these predictions (first proposed by Giordano Bruno) and extends modern theories of planetary formation.
At 10:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Zach:
Astronomers concur with this conclusion concerning the Earth's age, and believe the Solar System to be just one of many such systems throughout the galaxy and the universe. Recent observations of planets around other stars validates these predictions (first proposed by Giordano Bruno) and extends modern theories of planetary formation.
LoL! In reality the scientific data that brought forth the books "The Rare Earth" and "The Privileged Planet"- peer reviewed scientific data- demonstrates Earth-like planets would be extremely rare in all non-ID scenarios.
All observed solar systems demonstrate ours is NOT typical- again that is peer-reviewed data. All extra-solar planets discovered so far have been gas giants with orbits too close to the parent star to allow for an Earth-like planet in those systems. Our Sun is rare in our galaxy. We know know there are certain habitable zones- both galactic and circumstellar.
And guess what- we still don't know how planets form- especially rocky, terrestrial planets.
As far as geology is concerned-
we know fosillization requires rapid burial. Therefore if geologists tell us that such-n-such strata were formed over X millions of years, but the fossils contained in those/ that strata had to be completely buried in a matter of less than a couple years, there is a problem.
At 10:46 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "NH places chickens next to fish!"
Zach:
Keep in mind that genomic data, like all scientific measurement (especially of a stochastic process), includes noise.
Avtually Zach, your responses include noise.
Ya see the problem with CD is that is focuses too much on the similarities when it is the differences that need to be explained.
As for an evolutionist giving us a reason why NH is NOT a prediction of common descent:
"When we look at what happens to the genotype during evolutionary change, particularly relating to such extreme phenomena as highly rapid evolution and complete stasis, we must admit that we do not fully understand them. The reason for this is that evolution is not a matter of changes in single genes; evolution consists of the changes of entire genotypes."
That was Ernst Mayr in "What Evolution Is". Bottom line is if we do not fully understand something we cannot say we would expect a nested hierarchy or not. And if entire genotypes change we shouldn't expect NH.
At 11:07 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "how did gravity come about in your anti-ID scenario?"
Zach:
The scientific answer is that no one knows.
There are only 3 options Zach:
1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes (the anti- ID position)
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes
3) A combination of 1 & 2
If no one knows the answer and the options are limited, why is it that option 2 is discarded without consideration? Especially in light of the data presented in "The Privileged Planet"?
joe g: "It's very material because it demonstrates that hierarchies are a mental construct that do not require any real relationship."
Zach:
The nested hierarchy of life is not a mental construct anymore than the nested hierarchy of your paternal ancestry is.
Is THAT your answer? Evolutionism = dogma.
joe g: "Artifacts can violate NH nut it isn't a hallmark of design. Microsoft products, cars and furniture refute your premise."
Zach:
You clearly do not understand the nested hierarchy.
And you clearly can't separate science from science fiction. You also can't quite get a grip on reality.
Designers can violate NH but they do not have to. Designers can and often do follow a nested hierarchy pattern. Designs often fall neatly into a NH pattern.
"It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution." (Hunter, 108.)
"Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically. Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution." (Ridley 1985, 8.)
"A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food. Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn’t work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function." (Gish, 277.)
Common design would also predict NH.
As I said in the OP the evidence for evolutionism is circumstantial. Now we are showing people that it isn't even exclusive. Thanks.
joe g: "How can that be? IOW how can you have "relative dating" without some baseline to relate it to?"
Zach:
From Principles of Geology developed by scientific researchers well before Darwin.
The Principle of Superposition states that a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed sequence is younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it. This allows the *relative* dating of the strata.
Please tell me you are joking. Knowing something is younger or older than something else does not tell me the age of either.
joe g: "The age of the Earth depends on how it was formed. That is just a fact of life. Astronomy has nothing to do with the age of the Earth."
Zach:
That is incorrect. Astronomers have studied how the Solar System was formed. And it turns out that astronomers concur with physicists, geologists and biologists about the ancient age of the Earth. There is no serious scientific doubt on this.
No one knows how the solar system was formed. No one knows how the Earth was formed. And no one knows how the Earth-Moon system was formed. We can guess but that is all we really have.
At 11:26 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "All extra-solar planets discovered so far have been gas giants with orbits too close to the parent star to allow for an Earth-like planet in those systems."
Gee whiz, joe g. That's because current methodology preferentially detects large gas giants with orbits close to their parent star.
joe g: "Therefore if geologists tell us that such-n-such strata were formed over X millions of years, but the fossils contained in those/ that strata had to be completely buried in a matter of less than a couple years, there is a problem."
The process of various sediments forming can be directly observed, as can their history. We can also observe organisms being trapped in sediments. However you believe these organisms got trapped in the rocks that look exactly like sediments, they form a nested hierarchy.
joe g: "As for an evolutionist giving us a reason why NH is NOT a prediction of common descent"
Ironically, the title of Mayr's book you cite is "What evolution is", and the author considered evolution a fact. Also, I can't find that quote anywhere, "evolution consists of the changes of entire genotypes."
joe g: "Bottom line is if we do not fully understand something we cannot say we would expect a nested hierarchy or not. And if entire genotypes change we shouldn't expect NH."
Once again, the nested hierarchy is an observation.
Both your statements are false and reveal your refusal to accept scientific findings that you think are contrary to your preconceptions. Omniscience is not a requirement of the scientific method.
I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that you have little grasp of the scientific method and really couldn't care less about the evidence. I doubt you will convince anyone but the already convinced.
At 12:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "If no one knows the answer and the options are limited, why is it that option 2 is discarded without consideration?"
You are more than welcome to attempt the formulation of a scientific hypothesis that includes an intelligent designer; but to be scientific, it must be a falsifiable proposition and make explicit predictions about empirical phenomena that distinguish it from any other such tentative assertion.
I would note that the Theory of Gravity does an excellent job of predicting cometary apparitions without the invocation of an 'intelligent designer'.
joe g: "Especially in light of the data presented in 'The Privileged Planet'?"
Puddle-logic is not data.
Zachriel: The nested hierarchy of life is not a mental construct anymore than the nested hierarchy of your paternal ancestry is.
joe g: "Is THAT your answer? Evolutionism = dogma."
Sigh. It is not dogma to point to facts. The nested hierarchy is a specific pattern that is *observed*. It is observed in your paternal ancestry, your y-chromosome, your mtDNA. It is observed in the pattern of organic morphology.
joe g: "Designers can violate NH but they do not have to."
Finally, an attempt to grapple with facts. That is correct. Designers do not have to violate the nested hierarchy, but in fact, they nearly always do.
joe g: "Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern."
Again, that is correct. The nested hierarchy is a result of common descent. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolutionary change.
joe g: "Chairs, ... are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, ..."
The key is the word "perhaps".
The creation of chairs regularly violates any single nested hierarchy. For instance, plastics invented for one purpose are readily adapted for chairs. When one line of design adopts the extendable ottoman, others do too. That's why chairs do not form a single natural nested hierarchy. The design of even something as simple as a chair consistently violates the nested hierarchy. All rational designers borrow from one another.
On the other hand, it can be shown that the morphology and genetic structure of life naturally forms the *same* nested hierarchy.
The classification of life into a "tree" was devised before Darwin. The nested hierarchy exists independent of any theory or explanation. It is observed.
joe g: "A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms"
We aren't discussing a mere similarity, but a distinct nested hierarchy.
joe g: "Common design would also predict NH."
No it wouldn't. We would predict a consistent pattern of integrating ideas and processes across lineages.
joe g: "Please tell me you are joking. Knowing something is younger or older than something else does not tell me the age of either."
Please tell me you can keep track of the conversation. The claim was that it would provide a *relative* dating. And it does. This allows us to understand that life has changed over time, and forms a nested hierarchy in time.
However, geologists had already determined well before Darwin that the process of stratiication must have taken millions of years. The modern method of fixing an *absolute* date is with radiometrics. That's done by physicists, not biologists or geologists.
joe g: "No one knows how the solar system was formed."
That is incorrect. We can see observe stellar systems being formed in all stages of their development. That doesn't mean that every detail is known with precision, but it is sophistry to say that we must know everything to know anything. That extra-solar planets are being identified after having been predicted for centuries is a profound confirmation of the scientific validity of prevoius research.
At 6:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Nested hierarchy, like our classification system, is a mental construct. That is a fact.
Common design provides nested hierarchies. That is also a fact.
joe g: "Common design would also predict NH."
Zach:
No it wouldn't. We would predict a consistent pattern of integrating ideas and processes across lineages.
Now you know what common design would consist of? You are just out-to-lunch.
MY parental ancestry is LIMITED common descent. To extrapolate that to equal chimps and humans have a common ancestor is ridiculous and unfounded given the differences in the two populations.
BTW the "tree" no longer exists. It has been replaced by a "bush" because of the issue of to many deviations in the accepted NH. Don't you stay current with the current accepted evolutionary nonsense?
BTW I KNOW what the title of Mayr's book is- I posted it.
One more- you can't have any dates if you don't have a baseline. IOW relative dating- the way you describe it- is an oxymoron.
At 7:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Zach,
Your dismissal of The Privileged Planet just demonstrates your inability to grasp reality. It also exposes your anti-logic rational. You didn't even read the book or watch the video! How closed-minded can a person be?
At least I sat through lecture after lecture, lab after lab, rain forest field trip after desert field trip, all in the chance to become a zoologist or marine biologist. I learned about evolution from the best. I also learned it is based on conjecture and untestable assumptions.
BTW the new finding on proks devolving from euks puts a damper on your NH.
At 7:09 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "If no one knows the answer and the options are limited, why is it that option 2 is discarded without consideration?"
Zach:
You are more than welcome to attempt the formulation of a scientific hypothesis that includes an intelligent designer; but to be scientific, it must be a falsifiable proposition and make explicit predictions about empirical phenomena that distinguish it from any other such tentative assertion.
And what predictions does the anti-ID position make? Just how can "sheer dumb luck" be tested?
Zach:
I would note that the Theory of Gravity does an excellent job of predicting cometary apparitions without the invocation of an 'intelligent designer'.
I would note that gravity wouldn't exist without an intelligent designer. I will side with the greatest scientists this planet ever knew on that. And if that means I can only be as scientifically literate as those guys, then so be it.
You really should read "The Privileged Planet"...
At 12:09 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Nested hierarchy, like our classification system, is a mental construct. That is a fact."
No more than the claim that planetary orbits are elliptical.
joe g: "MY parental ancestry is LIMITED common descent."
Misstatement of the position. Your paternal ancestry forms a distinct nested hierarchy which is matched by the nested hierarchy of the y-chromosomes. The nested hierarchy is the natural consequence of such a descent.
joe g: "BTW the "tree" no longer exists. It has been replaced by a 'bush' because of the issue of to many deviations in the accepted NH."
Bushes are also nested hierarchies.
joe g: "IOW relative dating- the way you describe it- is an oxymoron."
I thought you claimed to have a scientific background. Relative dating means to put data in order by time. Absolute dating means to fix a specific date to each datum.
joe g: "BTW the new finding on proks devolving from euks puts a damper on your NH."
Please quit misrepresenting my views. My position has been consistent. The early evolution of eukaryotes is still only partly understood. Common Descent does not properly apply to the origins of cellular. The most strongly supported theory is endosymbiosis, but that may be supplanted as genomic data becomes available. All scientific theories are subject to revision upon new information.
joe g: "And what predictions does the anti-ID position make?"
I have asked for specific empirical predictions and for a valid scientific hypothesis. That is not an answer.
(I have provided specific empirical predictions from the Theory of Evolution previously. It includes predictions about the placement of fossils, the nature of mutation and natural selection, genetic drift and the plausible characteristics of new species.)
joe g: "I would note that gravity wouldn't exist without an intelligent designer."
As long as you don't conflate your belief with science, that's fine.
At 8:00 AM,
Joe G said…
NH is superficial "evidence" at best.
joe g: "Nested hierarchy, like our classification system, is a mental construct. That is a fact."
Zach:
No more than the claim that planetary orbits are elliptical.
I take it bald assertion is all you have.
joe g: "MY parental ancestry is LIMITED common descent."
Zach:
Misstatement of the position.
Mine was a statement of fact.
Zach:
Your paternal ancestry forms a distinct nested hierarchy which is matched by the nested hierarchy of the y-chromosomes. The nested hierarchy is the natural consequence of such a descent.
LIMITED common descent Zach- very limited. IOW you have to justify extrapolating limited CD with the big picture.
joe g: "BTW the "tree" no longer exists. It has been replaced by a 'bush' because of the issue of to many deviations in the accepted NH."
Zach:
Bushes are also nested hierarchies.
LoL! The bush was proposed because the "expected" NH didn't pan out from the real data.
joe g: "IOW relative dating- the way you describe it- is an oxymoron."
Zach:
I thought you claimed to have a scientific background. Relative dating means to put data in order by time. Absolute dating means to fix a specific date to each datum.
One more time- "relative dating" cannot give us a date except to say one strata is older or younger than another. It cannot even tell us what the time difference is between the two.
IOW it is useless.
joe g: "BTW the new finding on proks devolving from euks puts a damper on your NH."
Zach:
Please quit misrepresenting my views.
How is pointing out reality misrepresenting your views?
Zach:
My position has been consistent.
Yeah consistently full of BS.
Zach:
The early evolution of eukaryotes is still only partly understood.
What does that have to do with the data showing NH is BS?
Zach:
Common Descent does not properly apply to the origins of cellular. The most strongly supported theory is endosymbiosis, but that may be supplanted as genomic data becomes available.
Endo just took a big hit- other than the fact it can't be objectively tested.
joe g: "And what predictions does the anti-ID position make?"
Zach:
I have asked for specific empirical predictions and for a valid scientific hypothesis. That is not an answer.
(I have provided specific empirical predictions from the Theory of Evolution previously. It includes predictions about the placement of fossils, the nature of mutation and natural selection, genetic drift and the plausible characteristics of new species.)
Fossils cannot say anything about a mechanism. Therefor fossil evidence does NOT support your position. At best fossil finds can be considered "post-dictions". As Dennett tells us "There is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time." Meaning evolutionism cannot make any valid PREdictions.
joe g: "I would note that gravity wouldn't exist without an intelligent designer."
Zach:
As long as you don't conflate your belief with science, that's fine.
LoL! YOU seem to do just that on a daily basis.
At 12:17 PM,
Joe G said…
It appears I was correct again- that artifacts CAN be placed in nested hierarchies (as can the army for example):
More Monkey Business
Then there is the issue with convergence- again with fossils we can't tell the difference between convergence and divergence. Therefor using fossils in NH is deceptive at best.
Common design also explains NH. Just as the artifacts in the link demonstrate and just as Dr. Gish stated.
At 1:10 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "It appears I was correct again- that artifacts CAN be placed in nested hierarchies (as can the army for example):"
Sure they can. (And I'm gratified you are at least making an attempt to understand the nested hierarchy pattern.) But the people that populate a typical army can be rearranged. So a private in the first army can be interchanged with a private in the second army.
However, with the unique nested hierarchy of life, a mouse only belongs in the mammal clade and can't be reasonably switched with a finch.
At 1:28 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "It appears I was correct again- that artifacts CAN be placed in nested hierarchies (as can the army for example):"
Zach:
Sure they can. (And I'm gratified you are at least making an attempt to understand the nested hierarchy pattern.)
LoL! I've understood hierarchies for decades. THAT is why I have an issue with what you are doing!
Hierarchies ARE mental constructs. The SAME reasoning can be used for ID- "It LOOKS designed".
Zach:
But the people that populate a typical army can be rearranged. So a private in the first army can be interchanged with a private in the second army.
With minor adjustments and not always. But a private in the army can't be interchanged with a private in the air force (without major adjustments and sometimes it just can't be done).
Zach:
However, with the unique nested hierarchy of life, a mouse only belongs in the mammal clade and can't be reasonably switched with a finch.
And the mice always remain mice and finches always remain finches.
Birds share characteristics with reptiles and with mammals. They also have characteristics unique to aves.
Then we have placentals and marsupials- a great example of convergence.
And then there is the matter of humans with down syndrome. Can they fit in a NH with their family? Only if we ignore the genetic data. Would you classify down's as a separate clad? How about people with sickle-celled anemia? Are they all closely related? Red heads must be closely related. Albinos too.
Nested hierarchies are superficial mental constructs.
Linne used them for evidence of a common Creator. Go figure...
At 2:45 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I've understood hierarchies for decades."
Cleary not, as you will reveal in your comments.
joe g: "Hierarchies ARE mental constructs."
Some are purely human inventions, but not all. The pattern of your paternal descent and the associated y-chromosome forms a nested hierarchy regardless of human cognition of the pattern.
joe g: "But a private in the army can't be interchanged with a private in the air force (without major adjustments and sometimes it just can't be done)."
Interesting case of divergence from a common ancestor.
In any case, you miss the point. People can construct artificial nested hierarchies, and a military hierarchy is a typical example of such a nested hierarchy. But the members of these hierarchies can typically be rearranged.
joe g: "Birds share characteristics with reptiles and with mammals. They also have characteristics unique to aves."
Now you are starting to get it. Birds, reptiles and mammals are all in the vertebrate clade. They all share characteristics of vertebrates; spinal cord, internal skeleton, head with sensory organs, etc. They cannot reasonably be organized with starfish, unless you include the larger clade of animals. Going the other way, mice must be organized within rodentia and that within mammalia. These categories are strictly nested.
Another reason we know these categories are real and not cognitive is because we can use them to make predictions. E.g., there is a strong correlation between having mammary glands and having three ear bones, or having four limbs.
At 8:55 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I've understood hierarchies for decades."
Zach:
Cleary not, as you will reveal in your comments.
And your comments reveal you don't understand science, preditions (TRUE predictions), falsification nor how to objectively test a premise.
NH is a superficial facet. Circumstantial evidence at its best.
A common design and/ or a common plan will also result in NH- just as Linne and Aristotle said.
Then we have the fact that evolution can reverse traits. That means NH is not a prediction, as Dr. Theobald claims. And if it is not a prediction it is an accomodation.
NH could be falsified and evolutionism would still stand.
At 11:00 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "NH is a superficial facet. Circumstantial evidence at its best."
The nested hierarchy is an objective and verifiable fact with empirical implications. "Superficial" is an opinion of value.
joe g: "A common design and/ or a common plan will also result in NH"
All known designers (humans) violate the nested hierarchy. They combine aspects of different things with foresight to create something new. Evolution works without foresight by ad hoc modification for immediate purposes.
joe g: "NH could be falsified and evolutionism would still stand."
If the nested hierarchy is violated, it would seriously undermine current understanding of common descent. Let us know when you actually have some contrary evidence.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "NH is a superficial facet. Circumstantial evidence at its best."
Zach:
The nested hierarchy is an objective and verifiable fact with empirical implications.
Not the way you're abusing it. Ya see the paper on euks and proks demonstrates we should NOT have NH- evolution does NOT procede in a nice NH fashion. THAT is what the scientific data shows!
joe g: "A common design and/ or a common plan will also result in NH"
Zach:
All known designers (humans) violate the nested hierarchy.
Zach cannot follow along. A designer or designers with a common plan or a common design would NOT violate NH. What part of that don't you understand?
However, as we know, evolution doesn't have to follow a NH pattern. Populations can "evolve" any which way possible.
joe g: "NH could be falsified and evolutionism would still stand."
Zach:
If the nested hierarchy is violated, it would seriously undermine current understanding of common descent.
Not the common descent we are talking about and for reasons already provided. And from the paper on euks and proks we would expect NH to be violated. Duh.
At 4:48 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Ya see the paper on euks and proks demonstrates we should NOT have NH- evolution does NOT procede in a nice NH fashion. THAT is what the scientific data shows!"
The nested hierarchy doesn't necessarily apply to the evolution of eukaryotes, hence common descent may not be the appropriate model, but perhaps endosymbiosis .
joe g: "A designer or designers with a common plan or a common design would NOT violate NH."
That is incorrect. Any rational designer violates the nested hierarchy. There is no reason not to and every reason to do so.
joe g: "Populations can 'evolve' any which way possible."
Perhaps, but that's not the world as we find it. It turns out that metazoans diversified from common ancestors.
At 10:04 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Ya see the paper on euks and proks demonstrates we should NOT have NH- evolution does NOT procede in a nice NH fashion. THAT is what the scientific data shows!"
Zach:
The nested hierarchy doesn't necessarily apply to the evolution of eukaryotes, hence common descent may not be the appropriate model, but perhaps endosymbiosis .
The data also applies to metazoans. Hence my response is the same.
joe g: "A designer or designers with a common plan or a common design would NOT violate NH."
Zach:
That is incorrect.
You are truly clueless. There are so many examples of designs that fall into a NH pattern it is pathetic.
Zach:
Any rational designer violates the nested hierarchy.
As I said already- designers CAN violate NH. However they wouldn't if they had to stick to a common plan/ common design.
Zach:
There is no reason not to and every reason to do so.
There are plenty of reasons not to and very few reasons to do so.
joe g: "Populations can 'evolve' any which way possible."
Zach:
Perhaps, but that's not the world as we find it.
We really can't tell Zach. Because we cannot tell the difference between convergence and divergence.
Again NH was the prediction. However NH couldn't be "predicted" because what we do know about evolution and direction.
Zach:
It turns out that metazoans diversified from common ancestors.
That is the assertion.
At 1:52 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The data also applies to metazoans."
This statement makes no sense in context. Are you simply waving away the evidence? There is a single unique nested hierarchy that fits the data.
joe g: "You are truly clueless. There are so many examples of designs that fall into a NH pattern it is pathetic."
You forgot the examples. (Anything can be put into a nested hierarchy, but very few things can only be arranged in a single unique nested hierarchy.)
joe g: "We really can't tell Zach. Because we cannot tell the difference between convergence and divergence."
What the heck are you talking about? We collect evidence. That's what science does. We form generalizations, then try to find ways to test the limits of these generalizations.
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "The data also applies to metazoans."
Zach:
This statement makes no sense in context. Are you simply waving away the evidence? There is a single unique nested hierarchy that fits the data.
My point is, according to the data which demonstrates evolution can take any number of directions, NH should NOT be expected and therefore NH is NOT a prediction- as Dr. Theobald states.
joe g: "You are truly clueless. There are so many examples of designs that fall into a NH pattern it is pathetic."
Zach:
You forgot the examples.
Cars, bicycles, furniture, computers, computer programs and many more. OK.
Zach:
(Anything can be put into a nested hierarchy, but very few things can only be arranged in a single unique nested hierarchy.)
Living organisms can't be put in a single NH either- that is without excluding a whole lot of data.
joe g: "We really can't tell Zach. Because we cannot tell the difference between convergence and divergence."
Zach:
What the heck are you talking about?
Morphological AND genetic similarities can & do arise via convergent evolution. That is a fact. And we have no way to tell except to assume.
At 11:16 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "My point is, according to the data which demonstrates evolution can take any number of directions, NH should NOT be expected and therefore NH is NOT a prediction- as Dr. Theobald states."
Um, in populations of diverging non-interbreeding populations, the nested hierarchy is precisely the pattern expected, and the pattern observed.
At 10:17 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Morphological AND genetic similarities can & do arise via convergent evolution. That is a fact. And we have no way to tell except to assume."
You say don't bother with the evidence. There's nothing to see here. This is a pretty typical binary assertion that you make that has not validity.
In fact, it is quite possible to examine the evidence in detail to determine the different origins of convergent structures. For instance, the hydrodynamic shape of the fish and the cetaceans are clearly different. Cetaceans have skin like mammals, hair follicles, and their fins move up and down because of their basic mammalian skeletons. Fish have scales, not hair, and their fins move side to side. There is a strong non-random correlation between having mammary glands and having vestigial hair, lungs, heart, and a mammalian skeleton, even when they live in the water.
It is possible to actually examine the evidence and look for correlations.
At 8:40 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "My point is, according to the data which demonstrates evolution can take any number of directions, NH should NOT be expected and therefore NH is NOT a prediction- as Dr. Theobald states."
Zach:
Um, in populations of diverging non-interbreeding populations, the nested hierarchy is precisely the pattern expected, and the pattern observed.
Right. NH works OK in a limited fashion- like the scenario you just posted. However in real life we know convergence happens. It has been observed. And despite you handwaving we cannot tell the difference between convergence and divergence except to assume.
At 8:47 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Morphological AND genetic similarities can & do arise via convergent evolution. That is a fact. And we have no way to tell except to assume."
Zach:
You say don't bother with the evidence.
I don't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth. Only an intellectual coward does shit like that.
I am going with the evidence/ scientific data which demonstrates we cannot tell the difference between divergence and convergence.
Look at marsupials and their placenatl cousins. Then there is the orangutan with the SAME alleged shared mistake with humans. A "mistake" that isn't found in either the chimp or ape. Meaning that genetic similarities can form by convergence also.
Bottom line- with evolution being able to take ANY direction and considering convergence- NH would not be expected. That it is observed tells me it is just a mental construct.
Or perhaps Aristotle and Linne were correct.
At 10:04 AM,
Joe G said…
‘Thus, there is a C and an A shared by the gorilla and orangutan; a G shared by the baboon and rhesus; a C shared by the gorilla and pygmy chimpanzee; and a T shared by the orangutan and baboon. These examples of shared characters are discordant. The orangutan cannot have a recent common ancestry with the gorilla and with the baboon. The shared nucleotides can be interpreted as having arisen independently in two lineages. This raises the question of how many of such “shared nucleotides”, that have been used to support common ancestry, have actually arisen independently in two lineages?"
Hamdi, H. et al., "Origin and phylogenetic distribution of Alu DNA repeats", J. Molecular Biology 289:866–867, 1999
IOW we canNOT tell the difference between convergnece & divergence.
At 10:42 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "However in real life we know convergence happens. It has been observed. And despite you handwaving we cannot tell the difference between convergence and divergence except to assume."
That is just silly. You say we have observed convergence, but then say we can't distinguish it from divergence. That is a direct contradiction.
joe g: "Hamdi, H. et al., 'Origin and phylogenetic distribution of Alu DNA repeats', J. Molecular Biology 289:866–867, 1999
IOW we canNOT tell the difference between convergnece & divergence."
In fact, if you actually read the research, the authors point out that the stochastic process involved in point mutations can lead to statistical saturation of the data.
"The irreversible expansion of Alu s introduces a vector of time into the evolutionary process, and provides realistic (rather than statistical) answers to questions on phylogenies. In contrast to point mutations, the present distribution of individual Alu s is congruent with just one phylogeny."
In other words, your cited experts directly contradicts your assertion. Their research clearly indicates that you *can* tell the difference between convergence and divergence.
At 7:17 PM,
Joe G said…
In reality one can only "tell" the difference when one assumes the difference.
Convergent evolution was once frowned upon. Now it is commonly accepted because nothing else can explain the similarities between two (or more) allegedly unrelated populations.
So now convergent evolution is used whenever the data doesn't fit what divergence should yield. IOW it is all "smoke & mirrors".
It is also very telling that no one can tell us what the mutations were that led to the alleged changes. Not only that it is all an assumption that mutations can account for the changes. IOW it has NEVER been tested.
And when it comes to fossils there is no way to tell the difference between convergence and divergence nor the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a phenotype changing mutation.
Post a Comment
<< Home