Common descent- explain the DIFFERENCES
Nested hierarchies are alleged evidence for common descent. However one would also expect nested hierarchies in a common design scenario. Common being the operative word. Army ranks form a nested hierarchy without any requirement of troop relationship.
So in order for common descent to separate itself from common design it needs to explain the differences. It pretends to do so with the "decent with modification" motif, but that only explains minor variations of an already existing body plan. And from observations we know that those variations oscillate- the beak of the finch is a prime example.
Yet all we know about organisms and their body plans is summed up nicely:
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
I would even say that common descent, as in all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested. To date the only "tests" we have assume coomon descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that.
For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate. However that is about the most stupid way to present a case. But I digress.
So here is the chance for Zachriel or any other evo to ante up. The following site demonstrates the differences between humans & chimps. Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the differences and you may be on to something scientific:
Chimps become Human?
So in order for common descent to separate itself from common design it needs to explain the differences. It pretends to do so with the "decent with modification" motif, but that only explains minor variations of an already existing body plan. And from observations we know that those variations oscillate- the beak of the finch is a prime example.
Yet all we know about organisms and their body plans is summed up nicely:
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
I would even say that common descent, as in all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested. To date the only "tests" we have assume coomon descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that.
For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate. However that is about the most stupid way to present a case. But I digress.
So here is the chance for Zachriel or any other evo to ante up. The following site demonstrates the differences between humans & chimps. Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the differences and you may be on to something scientific:
Chimps become Human?
posted by Joe G @ 10:21 AM
41 Comments:
At 11:17 AM,
Thought Provoker said…
I will let Zachriel handle the details.
I am focused on avoiding a "double standard" and having a "level playing field".
So let's do an even-up compare and contrast between humans having common ancestors with great apes and an alternative proposal.
What is the alternative proposal?
Front-loaded design of life?
(How does this conflict with a common ancestor)
Special Creation?
In true debates, the default remains the status quo (right or wrong) until a positive proposal is made to change it.
What are you proposing as an alternative?
At 11:32 AM,
Zachriel said…
I tried explaining the nested hierarchy before, but you really weren't interested.
Yes, a military hierarchy is a nested hierarchy. Each level of command is neatly contained within a higher level of command. However, a fundamental aspect of this type of hierarchy is that we can rearrange members of the hierarchy. A private in one brigade is the same as a private in another brigade. This indicates that the nested hierarchy is an arbitrary construct.
Now consider a different hierarchy. Automobiles. We can arrange autos into a nested hierarchy, for instance, by make and model. But it turns out that we can arrange autos in a number of differing nested hierarchies depending on the characteristics we choose. We could arrange them according to materials. This will result in a *different* hierarchy. That's because makers borrow from each other and from makers of other products. Once plastic is invented, it shows up in all autos. Once a maker adopts disk brakes, other makers copy the design. When radios are invented, they are integrated into autos, crossing the nested hierarchy of both radio and auto design.
Indeed, this crossing is always found in design.
Now, biology might have been otherwise. Centaurs are conceivable. But that is not the biology we find ourselves confronted with. Rather, we have branching lines of descent that are distinct. This creates a natural nested hierarchy. If we look at skeletons, we have the nested hierarchy. If we look at skin tissue, we have the same nested hierarchy. If we look at teeth, we have the same nested hierarchy. If we look at fossils, we have the same nested hierarchy in time. And incredibly, if we look at genomes, we have the same nested hieararchy.
Unlike a military hierarchy, we can't take dolphins and put them in the fish clad. It violates all the other evidence we have about skeletons or lungs or genomes. It's not that dolphins are merely similar to other mammals, but that they form a nested hierarchy of characteristics that puts them squarely in the mammal clad.
At 12:46 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: " And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate."
You still have your scientific inferences backwards. If we hypothesize that humans and other apes have a common ancestor, then we predict that there should exist intermediate organisms over the last few million years since their diverence (leaving aside the fact that knuckle-walking is an intermediate characteristic between quadrapedal and bipedal locomotion). And, indeed, intermediate organisms have been found in the predicted strata that have intermediate arm-leg ratios, intermediate brain size, intermediate hands, feet, etc. Lucky guess? That people can mount successful expeditions to the far reaches of the world and find such fossil evidence is strong confirmation.
At 6:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
I tried explaining the nested hierarchy before, but you really weren't interested.
I have known about NH probably longer than you have been alive. That is why I say what I do.
For example I know that the alleged nested hierarchy of life is based on cherry-picked data.
I also know that different data points to differing NH and sometimes no hierarchy at all.
And also only an imbecile would attempt to put dolphins in with a fish clad. I have seen and handled both. There are only "similar" to those with blurry vision.
joe g: " And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate."
Zachriel:
You still have your scientific inferences backwards.
That is not my thinking. That is what how evolutionists do it.
Zachriel:
If we hypothesize that humans and other apes have a common ancestor, then we predict that there should exist intermediate organisms over the last few million years since their diverence (leaving aside the fact that knuckle-walking is an intermediate characteristic between quadrapedal and bipedal locomotion).
Imaginations are a good thing but sooner or later the rubber has to meet the road. And right now all you have is imagination.
At 6:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Thought Provoker:
In true debates, the default remains the status quo (right or wrong) until a positive proposal is made to change it.
In true debates the default would be "we don't know". Or else you beg the question- who decides what the default is and why is it the default?
In real science it doesn't matter about defaults or alternatives. It matters what the data demonstrates.
And right now there isn't any genetic or biological data that explains the differences between chimps and humans. And pretty soon it will be understood that there is number of mutations that had to have become fixed every generation just to account for the number of differences observed between the genomes. What then?
At 7:48 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe wrote...
"And right now there isn't any genetic or biological data that explains the differences between chimps and humans. And pretty soon it will be understood that there is number of mutations that had to have become fixed every generation just to account for the number of differences observed between the genomes. What then?"
Since you just disavowed any default position and there is to be no "double standards", what is your answer to your own question?
At 8:21 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I have known about NH probably longer than you have been alive. That is why I say what I do."
If you understood the nested hierarchy, I doubt you would make statements such as this:
joe g: "For example I know that the alleged nested hierarchy of life is based on cherry-picked data."
In fact, the nested hierarchy, the Tree-of-Life was identified before Darwin. Modern mathematical methods strongly support an independent determination of the nested hierarchy. Turns out that the same basic Tree-of-Life identified by Linnaeus matches the nested hierarchy of genomes.
joe g: "And also only an imbecile would attempt to put dolphins in with a fish clad."
That's funny. Cladistics is a systematic method of determining phylogenetics, the evolutionary relationship between organisms based on shared characteristics (synapomorphies). When you put organisms in clads, you are hypothesizing an evolutionary relationship. It allows specific predictions of characteristics, such as why having mammaries implies having three ear bones, whether the organism walks, runs, swims or flies.
joe g: "And right now there isn't any genetic or biological data that explains the differences between chimps and humans."
This is an obvious strawman. According to your reasoning, the moment a chemical basis for genetics was discovered, it meant every mutation had to be determined for a stochastic process that took place over millions of years.
Meanwhile, scientists not encumbered by your preconceptions continue to study nature in order to answer evolutionary questions, such as what makes humans what they are. Not knowing everything does not mean we don't know anything.
What Makes us Different?
At 8:41 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "In real science it doesn't matter about defaults or alternatives. It matters what the data demonstrates."
Scientific Method
1. Observe some aspect of the natural world.
2. Form a consistent generalization (theory) about those observations.
3. Make a prediction (hypothesis) from the generalization.
4. Test the prediction with new observations. Attempt to falsify the assertion.
5. Confirm, modify or discard the generalization.
6. Publish so that others can replicate and extend your findings.
7. Repeat.
Glad to help. Now let's try an application of this process. From the Theory of Common Descent, we can hypothesize that there were once organisms intermediate between land mammals and whales. From other fossil evidence, we can predict that they existed about 40 million years ago in the late Eocene. From geological evidence, we can determine where we can examine exposed strata from that epoch, perhaps a shallow sea that was once suitable for such organisms to be fossilized, e.g. the wastelands of Egypt.
You keep avoiding the implications from these sorts of predictions, whales with legs, fish with flexible necks, dinosaur nests, hominids; each found in specific strata by scientists who predicted their existence.
Whales with legs.
At 8:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Thought Provoker:
Since you just disavowed any default position
Wrong. I said the default position was "we don't know".
Thought Provoker:
and there is to be no "double standards", what is your answer to your own question?
Why don't YOU stay on topic and tell us what accounts for the differences we see between chimps and humans?
At 9:01 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "In real science it doesn't matter about defaults or alternatives. It matters what the data demonstrates."
Zachriel:
Scientific Method
1. Observe some aspect of the natural world.
2. Form a consistent generalization (theory) about those observations.
3. Make a prediction (hypothesis) from the generalization.
4. Test the prediction with new observations. Attempt to falsify the assertion.
5. Confirm, modify or discard the generalization.
6. Publish so that others can replicate and extend your findings.
7. Repeat.
Did you know that even false theories can make correct predictions? Geocentism is just one example and I know there are more.
Also you may find the following very interesting:
Science is a process
There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”
But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom “concludes” and never “proves.”
Right now we have no way to confirm any alleged predictions made by evolutionism. Why? Because we don't know what makes an organism what it is and therefore we don't know what changes, if any, to some genome can afford/allow the changes required by the theory.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Whales with legs- one more time-
Whales do not have legs and never did. There are some structures on extinct cetaceans that "look like" ankle bones. However in order to be an ankle bone it must connect a leg to a foot. Whales have neither. The ONLY way to anyone would say a whale had legs, ankle bones and feet is to first assume they evolved from a population that had legs, ankles and feet.
Otherwise it is OK to say life is designed because it looks designed.
And one more thing the only way to get another post published is to explain the differences as I asked in the OP.
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "For example I know that the alleged nested hierarchy of life is based on cherry-picked data."
Zachriel:
In fact, the nested hierarchy, the Tree-of-Life was identified before Darwin.
Based on cherry-picked data. And now we know it is really more like a bush than a tree and a bush is a tangled mess of interwoven branches- IOW no NH.
Zachriel:
Turns out that the same basic Tree-of-Life identified by Linnaeus matches the nested hierarchy of genomes.
Lol! Linne was a Creationist who thought NH was a fine example of the Creator's plan.
joe g: "And right now there isn't any genetic or biological data that explains the differences between chimps and humans."
Zachriel:
This is an obvious strawman.
It is an obvious fact.
At 11:59 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Did you know that even false theories can make correct predictions? Geocentism is just one example and I know there are more."
Of course. That's why we continue to collect evidence and test the boundaries of existing theory.
joe g: "It seldom 'concludes' and never 'proves.'"
That's correct. All scientific assertions are considered tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Science is an iterative process of matching theory to observation, and each individual scientist may only work on certain aspects of a problem. Scientific assertions still must at some point be verified with specific empirical predictions.
joe g: "Right now we have no way to confirm any alleged predictions made by evolutionism."
Every time a new species is discovered, extant or extinct, it represents a possible falsification of predictions from the Theory of Common Descent. E.g., Gingerich predicted that he would find 'whales with legs' in the Egyptian desert. And that's what he did.
joe g: "Whales do not have legs and never did."
Even extant whales have a vestigial pelvis. The fossils continue to exist even when you wave your hands. Anyone can examine the fossil and see you are wrong. Whales with legs.
joe g: "And one more thing the only way to get another post published is to explain the differences as I asked in the OP."
I already provided a reference, What Makes us Different?.
You are more than welcome to ban me. That would amply demonstrate the vacuity of your argument.
joe g: "now we know it is really more like a bush than a tree and a bush is a tangled mess of interwoven branches- IOW no NH."
A bush is a nested hierarchy and topologically equivalent to a tree. The branches do not merge. Once a branch diverges, it remains distinct. The reason the bush metaphor has supplanted the tree metaphor is because of the larger number of branchings per lineage.
joe g: "Linne was a Creationist who thought NH was a fine example of the Creator's plan."
As Linnaeus was generations before Darwin, the term "creationist" has little relevance to today's Creationist Movement. Linnaeus originally proposed (incorrectly) that species were 'fixed'. Nevertheless, Linnaeus was a careful scientist, e.g., he placed humans in the same category as apes.
joe g: "joe g: And right now there isn't any genetic or biological data that explains the differences between chimps and humans."
Even if true (it's not), it's a strawman because it suggests that the Theory of Evolution should be able to answer the exact mutational pathway linking species that diverged millions of years ago.
However, we can make specific predictions. Viruses have invaded the genomes of various organisms. They mutate over time. If the genome of a common ancestor of humans and other apes had been invaded in such a manner, then the virus should form a nested hierarchy. And that is exactly the pattern in evidence.
At 12:26 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe asked...
"Why don't YOU stay on topic and tell us what accounts for the differences we see between chimps and humans?"
I personally don't know, but their is at least one proposal that attempts to explain it. It goes something like "...the survival of the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
I haven't seen another proposal on this blog that even attempts to make a better explaination. Have you?
At 12:31 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe asked...
"Why don't YOU stay on topic and tell us what accounts for the differences we see between chimps and humans?"
Personally I am open for suggestions. There is at least one proposal that attempts to explain it. It goes something like "...the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
I haven't seen another proposal on this blog that attempts to offer a better explanation. Have you?
At 9:06 AM,
Joe G said…
By linking to an article in Time magazine Zachriel shows that evolutionism is a joke.
Linneaus was a Creationists despite any handwaving by Zachriel. One of his research programs was an attempt to identify the originally Created Kinds. That is when he developled binomial nomenclature. And although it is true that he first thought that species was that level, he changed that to Genus after further investigation.
And again whales only have "legs" if one ASSUMES they evolved from organisms that once had legs. Without that assumption and without the fleshy parts from fossilized cetaceans all one is doing by saying "whale with legs" is redefining the word "leg".
Bushes do NOT form nested hierarchies. They form a tangled mess of interwoven branches in which no one really knows what is ancestral to what.
At 9:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe asked...
"Why don't YOU stay on topic and tell us what accounts for the differences we see between chimps and humans?"
Thought Provoker:
I personally don't know, but their is at least one proposal that attempts to explain it. It goes something like "...the survival of the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
It is that type of non-scientific "explanation" that demonstrated to me that evolutionism is pure non-sense. And basically that is why I am no longer an evolutionist.
At 1:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Linneaus was a Creationists despite any handwaving by Zachriel."
Gee whiz, Joe, Charles Darwin wasn't even born yet.
joe g: "And again whales only have 'legs' if one ASSUMES they evolved from organisms that once had legs."
Cetacean foot from Gingerich expedition. The evidence doesn't go away just because you refuse to look. There is a nearly complete skeleton including forelimbs and vestigial rearlimbs; a series of mammalian ankle bones; and photos of fossils in situ. Beautiful discoveries.
joe g: "Bushes do NOT form nested hierarchies."
Your ignorance of basic botany, and even gardening, is astounding. Please. Go outside. Look at a bush. Start at its base. Now trace the main stems out. You will see that bushes are nested hierarchies, even when on first glance they might appear to be a "tangled mess of interwoven branches". Every twig has a single line of descent.
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Linneaus was a Creationists despite any handwaving by Zachriel."
Zachriel:
Gee whiz, Joe, Charles Darwin wasn't even born yet.
That is irrelevant as "evolution" did NOT originate with Charles Darwin and Creation was around long before him also.
joe g: "Bushes do NOT form nested hierarchies."
Zachriel:
our ignorance of basic botany, and even gardening, is astounding.
It is obvious the ignorance is all yours. It is obvious when you start comparing the bush of common descent to a bush grown oin a garden. With the bush of common descent it is two dimensional and one canNOT differentiate between the tangled mess of interwoven branches and actual ancestors.
At 8:13 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And again whales only have 'legs' if one ASSUMES they evolved from organisms that once had legs."
Zachriel:
Cetacean foot from Gingerich expedition.
And once again= It may "look like" a foot but if you want to use that line of reasoning then ID is scientific because living organisms "look" designed. As I have stated several times now the ONLY reason to call that structure a "foot" is to have preconceived biases that cetaceans evolved from walking land animals.
Zachriel:
The evidence doesn't go away just because you refuse to look.
I looked and the evidence does NOT say it is a foot just because you want it to be a foot.
And again it is ONLY an "ankle" bone if one first assumes that cetaceans evolved from walking land animals. That is just a fact of life.
The evidence doesn't go away just because you refuse to look. There is a nearly complete skeleton including forelimbs and vestigial rearlimbs; a series of mammalian ankle bones; and photos of fossils in situ. Beautiful discoveries.
At 8:40 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "That is irrelevant as "evolution" did NOT originate with Charles Darwin and Creation was around long before him also."
A valid scientific Theory of Evolution did not exist in Linnaeus's time. He couldn't adopt a theory that did not yet exist. Ironically, you pin your hopes on the views of 18th century science.
joe g: "As I have stated several times now the ONLY reason to call that structure a "foot" is to have preconceived biases that cetaceans evolved from walking land animals."
You can't possibly look at those fossils and make that sort of claim. They have nearly complete skeletons of Durodon, including forelimbs, yet you claim they aren't forelimbs. The good news is that anyone can examine the fossils.
joe g: "I looked and the evidence does NOT say it is a foot just because you want it to be a foot."
Huh? Gingerich makes specific reference to feet, ankle and limb. A look at Durodon clearly shows limb structures, including ankles and flanges. Other ankles are provided, and anyone with some rudimentary anatomy can easily recognize the structures.
joe g: "It is obvious the ignorance is all yours. It is obvious when you start comparing the bush of common descent to a bush grown oin a garden."
The first reference to "bush" on this thread is by you. A bush is a nested hierarchy. It is sometimes hard to see that on first glance, but if you look closely at the actual evidence, you will see that is exactly what it is. Just like the Common Descent.
At 9:36 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "That is irrelevant as "evolution" did NOT originate with Charles Darwin and Creation was around long before him also."
Zachriel:
A valid scientific Theory of Evolution did not exist in Linnaeus's time.He couldn't adopt a theory that did not yet exist.
Ideas of "evolution" have existed since long before Linne.
Zachriel:
Ironically, you pin your hopes on the views of 18th century science.
That is false. I was merely demonstrating that scientists once held that NH was a sure sign of Creation. That today's scientists have twisted it to mean common descent is irreleavnt.
joe g: "As I have stated several times now the ONLY reason to call that structure a "foot" is to have preconceived biases that cetaceans evolved from walking land animals."
Zachriel:
You can't possibly look at those fossils and make that sort of claim.
I can because I have worked with cetaceans up close. What we cannot tell from fossils is what the missing fleshy part was.
Zachriel:
They have nearly complete skeletons of Durodon, including forelimbs, yet you claim they aren't forelimbs.
I NEVER made that claim. What is your problem? I said it wasn't a foot nor was it an ankle bone. They aren't. They are a flipper and the joint that allows flipper movement.
That they look similar to ankle and foot bones is a sign of common design.
Zachriel:
The good news is that anyone can examine the fossils.
And the bad news is anyone can use their imagination to fill-in-the-blanks.
joe g: "I looked and the evidence does NOT say it is a foot just because you want it to be a foot."
Zachriel:
Huh? Gingerich makes specific reference to feet, ankle and limb.
I know what he does but more importantly I know WHY he does so. He does so because he has some preconceived bias that whales evolved from walking land mammals.
Zachriel:
A look at Durodon clearly shows limb structures, including ankles and flanges. Other ankles are provided, and anyone with some rudimentary anatomy can easily recognize the structures.
That they "look like" ankles does not make them ankles. And again the ONLY reason to call them "ankles" is to have some preconceived bias that whales evolved from walking land mammals.
joe g: "It is obvious the ignorance is all yours. It is obvious when you start comparing the bush of common descent to a bush grown oin a garden."
Zachriel:
The first reference to "bush" on this thread is by you.
Perhaps but the first mention of a "bush" in reference to common descent was not by me but by paleos.
Zachriel:
A bush is a nested hierarchy.
No it isn't for reasonms already provided- that being there is no way to trace ancestry in a two dimensional bush.
At 11:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I was merely demonstrating that scientists once held that NH was a sure sign of Creation."
As they did the planetary orbits. And the coming of the rainy season. However, it has been shown that God-of-the-Gap arguments are devoid of scientific merit.
joe g: "He does so because he has some preconceived bias that whales evolved from walking land mammals."
And Gingerich used this knowledge to predict that such organisms once existed, when they existed, where they existed, and what strata to examine to find their fossils. And the prediction was validated. Please explain how his knowledge of evolution allowed him to locate whales with limbs. (I have asked this question repeatedly.)
joe g: "No it isn't for reasonms already provided- that being there is no way to trace ancestry in a two dimensional bush."
A bush is a nested hierarchy in three dimensions. I just can't imagine why you say otherwise. Actual cladistic analysis is often done in multiple dimensions. (Of course, if you see a picture of a tree in a book or on a computer monitor, it will be represented in two dimensions.)
At 12:28 PM,
Joe G said…
It is also very telling that when I blogged about Evolutionism and Nested Hierarchies this past spring, Zachriel was noticeably absent from the discussion.
It is also interesting to note the only person who responded didn't try to refute the premise I made in the OP but rather attempted to focus on the ridiculous notion that natural selection is non-random.
At 7:18 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "It is also interesting to note the only person who responded didn't try to refute the premise I made in the OP but rather attempted to focus on the ridiculous notion that natural selection is non-random."
I really don't understand why you continue with this argument. Clearly, the non-random aspects of natural selection can be directly observed both in nature and in the lab. You can find voluminous such observations in the journals Nature, Genetics or Science.
joe g (from referenced thread): "As anyone familiar with evolutionism should know, evolution can select any direction. Therefore nested hierarchies are not a prediction, ie not expected, of evolutionism."
The observation of the nested hierarchy was at the heart of Darwin's original proposal concerning Common Descent, and the unifying principle guiding generations of research. To claim that this isn't a fundamental to the Theory of Evolution is just nonsensical.
Leaving aside your usual strawman statement of the Theory of Evolution, the nested hierarchy is the natural result of common descent. This includes paternity testing of Y-chromosomes, mtDNA, endogenous retroviruses, or even the life history of HIV or of influenza. The nested hierarchy is the natural pattern of descent (of uncrossed lines). This is true regardless of whether natural selection is a mechanism affecting this change. You've never really grasped this, which is why you constantly conflate the two assertions.
At 8:43 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "It is also interesting to note the only person who responded didn't try to refute the premise I made in the OP but rather attempted to focus on the ridiculous notion that natural selection is non-random."
Zachriel:
I really don't understand why you continue with this argument. Clearly, the non-random aspects of natural selection can be directly observed both in nature and in the lab.
There may be some non-random aspects but there are more random aspects.
Zachriel:
The observation of the nested hierarchy was at the heart of Darwin's original proposal concerning Common Descent, and the unifying principle guiding generations of research. To claim that this isn't a fundamental to the Theory of Evolution is just nonsensical.
The observation of the nested hierarchy was first used as evidence for a Creator. It was then stolen by evolutionitwits- just as they stole natural selection and genetics and bastardized both to fit their fanatasy that is evolutionism.
Zachriel:
Leaving aside your usual strawman statement of the Theory of Evolution, the nested hierarchy is the natural result of common descent.
Leaving aside your usual stupidity NH is not the natural result of common descent for reasons already provided- the main reason being that "survival" is not a direction and evolution can any direction that is selected for. IOW mammals can also "evolve" into reptiles iuf the conditions are ripe for that.
However I would fully expect nested hierarchies in a common design scenrio for the same scientific reasons that Linne and Aristotle did. For the same reasons I have provided several times.
And in the end NH is a meaningless mental construct. That you try to rely on it just further demonstrates your lack of scientific understanding.
At 8:51 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I was merely demonstrating that scientists once held that NH was a sure sign of Creation."
Zachriel:
As they did the planetary orbits. And the coming of the rainy season.
Please provide a reference that demonstrates a scientist or scientists once used the comong of rainy seasons as a sure sign of Creation.
Zachriel:
However, it has been shown that God-of-the-Gap arguments are devoid of scientific merit.
It has also been shown that the sheer-dumb-luck plus eons of time scenario (the anti-ID position) is devoid of everything except fantasy and imagination.
joe g: "He does so because he has some preconceived bias that whales evolved from walking land mammals."
Zachriel:
And Gingerich used this knowledge to predict that such organisms once existed, when they existed, where they existed, and what strata to examine to find their fossils. And the prediction was validated. Please explain how his knowledge of evolution allowed him to locate whales with limbs. (I have asked this question repeatedly.)
Perhaps he was just lucky. Or perhaps he didn't find what he thinks he did. However that does nothing to demonstrate that whales have/ had legs, ankles or feet. Therefore you have failed to support your claim.
joe g: "No it isn't for reasonms already provided- that being there is no way to trace ancestry in a two dimensional bush."
Zachriel:
A bush is a nested hierarchy in three dimensions.
The "bush of life", just like the (former) "tree of life" is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL contruct.
It should also be noted that different scientists come up with differing bushes depending on the data used.
At 11:10 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And in the end NH is a meaningless mental construct."
My Goodness! I hope one day that you realize the number of contradictions in your viewpoint. First, you claim that the nested hierarchy was evidence of a Creator, that it was something tangible that was "stolen by evolutionitwits". Then you claim it is only a "mental construct".
joe g: "Leaving aside your usual stupidity NH is not the natural result of common descent for reasons already provided"
Better tell that to those who use the nested hierarchy to determine paternity. This is one of those assertions that is patently and demonstrably untrue.
joe g: "Perhaps he was just lucky."
That's hilarious. Walked out into the Egyptican wastelands and just happened to find the fossil of a whale with limbs. Ok. I think you've done enough convincing. Tee-hee.
joe g: "The "bush of life", just like the (former) "tree of life" is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL contruct."
You're not done yet! Now trees are two-dimensional. Do you happen to know if there whether a 2-d and a 3-d tree are topologically equivalent? I didn't think so.
At 4:57 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And in the end NH is a meaningless mental construct."
Zachriel:
My Goodness! I hope one day that you realize the number of contradictions in your viewpoint. First, you claim that the nested hierarchy was evidence of a Creator, that it was something tangible that was "stolen by evolutionitwits". Then you claim it is only a "mental construct".
My Goodness! I hope one day that you develop a brain so that you can look back and see how stupid you were.
Sure Creationists FIRST used NH as evidence for a Creator. THAT does NOT make it valid. That is because NHes are mental constructs.
joe g: "Leaving aside your usual stupidity NH is not the natural result of common descent for reasons already provided"
Zachriel:
Better tell that to those who use the nested hierarchy to determine paternity. This is one of those assertions that is patently and demonstrably untrue.
I take it you love your usual stupidity. We have been down this road before. Paternity is in NO WAY indicative of the common descent we are talking about. The fact that you continue this stupidity demonstrates a lack of integrity and a definite penchent for deception.
All whales have limbs. That does NOT mean they "evolved" from land mammals. That does not mean those limbs were once legs, ankles and feet.
And the tree of life was always two dimensional.
At 11:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Paternity is in NO WAY indicative of the common descent we are talking about."
Um, y-chromosomes do form a nested hierarchy. It is the natural pattern of branched descent with modification.
joe g: "That does NOT mean they "evolved" from land mammals. That does not mean those limbs were once legs, ankles and feet."
So you are helpless to explain Gingerich's prediction. He was just "lucky".
I guess scientists have been just lucky to stumble across hominids that are distinctly different from modern humans, that have characteristics (e.g. brain-size, arm-leg ratio, hand, knee) intermediate between humans and other apes. And they just happen to form a nested hierarchy in strata over the last three million years. What are the chances?!
Gee. Don't you wish you were that lucky.
joe g: "And the tree of life was always two dimensional."
That is not correct as 3d depictions are common in phylogeny, but irrelevant. You didn't answer the question. Do you know whether a 2-d and a 3-d tree are topologically equivalent?
At 8:53 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Paternity is in NO WAY indicative of the common descent we are talking about."
Zachriel:
Um, y-chromosomes do form a nested hierarchy.
Yes to a very limited extent but definitely not across all populations.
joe g: "That does NOT mean they "evolved" from land mammals. That does not mean those limbs were once legs, ankles and feet."
Zachriel:
So you are helpless to explain Gingerich's prediction. He was just "lucky".
Yup as "lucky" as Ptolemy and Dr Humphreys who stated he predicted the strength on magnetic fields from Bible passages.
You see with the following we would expect many populations to "resemble" others, ie similarities:
Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming
Ya see Zachriel as I have stated many times there is NO WAY to tell the difference between convergence and divergence just by looking at fossils.
Therefore until we know what makes an organism what it is there is no way to objectively test the premise of common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms. IOW all you can possibly have is speculation based on the assumption.
Also people find "hominids" because of fame and $$$.
At 9:39 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Yes to a very limited extent but definitely not across all populations."
So you admit that the nested hierarchy exists within the human species, and is not some chimera of the imagination. The same nested hierarchy of y-chromosomes in simians is *inclusive* of the y-chromosomes of humans and all their male individuals. It's the same structural hierarchy and derived using the same tools. The very same tools used in courts to establish paternity or to help people determine their genealogy.
joe g: "Yup as "lucky" as Ptolemy and Dr Humphreys who stated he predicted the strength on magnetic fields from Bible passages."
That would explain how people could look in 375 million year old strata and find fish with limbs. Lucky guess. Or all those hominids. Or dinosaur nests in Montana.
The point is that these organisms once existed. The Theory of Evolution posits that there once existed non-human hominids, one to three million years ago. And there they are. The Theory of Evolution posits that fish evolved legs, three hundred seventy-five million years ago. And there they are. The Theory of Evolution posits that birds descended from reptiles, probably dinosaurs, about one hundred fifty million years ago. And there they are.
These fossil organisms are predicted to exist, predicted to fit the nested hierarchy in characteristics, predicted to fit the nested hierarchy in time. And there they are. 'Ape-men' exist. Feather-winged 'dinosaurs' with teeth and claws exist. Fish with limb bones exist. And anyone can look at these fossils.
Sorry, but you need to accept the truth. Life has evolved over eons of time from common ancestors.
joe g: "Ya see Zachriel as I have stated many times there is NO WAY to tell the difference between convergence and divergence just by looking at fossils."
Evidence, of course, that environmental selection is not random, but constrained by the underlying physics of the environment, including gravity, the diurnal cycle, the direction of the Sun, density of air and water, etc.
And again, you cite experts to support your claims who assert exactly the opposite. "They said their findings have important implications for understanding factors that guide evolution by suggesting that many important functional characteristics of animal shape and locomotion are predictable from physics... The findings may have implications for understanding animal evolution."
joe g: "Also people find "hominids" because of fame and $$$."
Yeah, right. They do it for the babes. But the fossils are still there.
At 4:08 PM,
JohnADavison said…
Zachriel is a homozygous Darwimp and there is nothing that can be done for him.
At 10:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Strata do NOT come with dates. Mostly they are dated by the fossils they contain- "index fossils". And "index fossils" are in turn dated either by the strata or by our interpretation of the history of life- relative dating.
Absolute dating can only be conducted on certain materials- and even then some assumptions are used.
No one knows how the fossil record was formed- was it via catastrophes as much of it suggests thereby refuting the "millions of years" fallacy? Or was it formed gradually which goes against all we know about fossilization which requires a rapid burial of the organism?
And then what about the fact that in the most abundant portion of the fossil record, the marine inverts, we do not see anything but slight modifications such as plankton "evolving" into plankton?
Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
At 10:50 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Strata do NOT come with dates."
So now you reject geology, too.
Geologists established the great age of the Earth well before Darwin. They did this by observing how the strata had been formed, and the incredible depth of the strata. The Principle of Superposition allows the *relative* dating of undisturbed strata. This is all that is necessary to show the nested hierarchy in time of biological organisms, the succession of fossils.
Only much later was it possible to assign *absolute* dates to the strata. This is done independently by physicists. So you'll have to include the physicists in your grand conspiracy of lies.
By the way, paleontological evidence was crucial to finding a vast new oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Strata do NOT come with dates."
Zachriel:
So now you reject geology, too.
Nope just the geologists who bastardize the data. Ya see it was Snyder, a Creationist, who first proposed continental drift back in the 19th century. Yet it wasn't until later in the 20th that it was accepted.
Zachriel:
Geologists established the great age of the Earth well before Darwin.
No they just think they did. Ya see establishing the age of something requires knowledge about how it came to be.
Zachriel:
They did this by observing how the strata had been formed, and the incredible depth of the strata.
I know and it is sad isn't it?
My daughter once saw me driving home- well just down our dirt road- and I was traveling about 5 MPH. She said that it must take me a very long time to get home because I was driving so slow. Ya see she didn't see me speeding down the highway.
We don't know how the strata was formed. However we do observe catastrophes by observing the strata. Any strata with terestrial organisms was most likely laid down during one which negates the gradual build-up of sediments.
Zachriel:
By the way, paleontological evidence was crucial to finding a vast new oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico.
That may explain the horrid 10% success rate of finding oil fields.
At 2:45 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Nope just the geologists who bastardize the data."
Nearly all geologists, planetologists and astronomers accept the great age of the Earth.
At 7:20 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Nope just the geologists who bastardize the data."
Zachriel:
Nearly all geologists, planetologists and astronomers accept the great age of the Earth.
When reality conforms to what "nearly all" accept (that is 100% of the time), be sure to let me know.
At 7:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "When reality conforms to what 'nearly all' accept (that is 100% of the time), be sure to let me know."
Let's summarize your position.
Nearly all geologists, physicists, cosmologists, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, astronomers, biochemists, microbiologists, phylogenists, systematists, ecologists, climatologists, dendronologists, oceanographers, anatomists, biophysicists, molecular biologists, morphologists, botanists, paleobotanists and physiologists are wrong about the fundamentals of their respective fields of study. They have "bastardized the data".
And you have provided sufficient argument to lead us to accept this conclusion. Am I close?
At 10:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Ya see Zachriel IF you and your minions were correct there shouldn't be any scientists who disagree with you. However there are thousands who do just that.
Also the universe could be quite old. relatively speaking, and the Earth could still be very young, ie less than 100,000 years old. DR Humphreys explains that in "Starlight and Time"- the Creator created using general relativity!
Also until we know and understand HOW the Earth formed there isn't any way we can determine its age.
But now we are way off topic and you still cannot explain the differences.
NH "explains" the similarities. As do molecular comparisons. Yet no one even knows whether or not upright bipedal locomotion is even allowed or afforded by an accumulation of mutations/ variations.
At 1:42 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "However there are thousands who do just that."
Please provide a cite to support your claim. Also, please calculate the percentage of such scientists in the general population of scientists, especially with regard to relevant specialty.
Thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home