Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Beating a dead horse- Nested Hierarchy

First so that when Zachriel misrepresents this post it will be obvious:

Common Descent refers to the premise that all of the extant living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown popuklation(s) of single-celled organisms.

common descent refers to the premise that I am directly related to my parents and my children. There are subsequent degrees of separation in both directions, each with varying degrees of genetic connectivity.

My only argument is using nested hieararchy as evidence for Capital C capital D, ie Common Descent. The scientific reasosn and references have been provided that demonstrate traits can be lost. And if the premise of Common Descent is true traits can also be gained. That fact alone says that a nested hierarchy is not an expected outcome of Common Descent.


However, The MAIN reason NH is NOT an expected outcome of common descent- NO ANCESTRAL OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS CAN BE PERMITTED TO SURVIVE (page 136 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"). For if they do that would do away with the nice neat distinctive divisions as then the classes and traits would be blurred due to overlapping.

Confirmed by Darwin:

Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other- for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate classes from each other- by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate classes.


Zachriel's response- ignore that and instead falsely accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy.

Then Zachriel trys deception by attempting a (false) analogy with a real tree. Everyone knows the alleged "tree of life" is just a methaphor, IOW a piece of imagination. And even on that imagined tree all we have to observe are the imagined twigs.

Agassiz:

What we call branches expresses, in fact, a purely ideal connection between animals, the intellectual conception which unites them in creative thought. It seems to me the more we examine the true significance of this kind of group, the more we shall be convinced that they are not founded upon material relations.



With a real tree and its alleged nested hierarchy I could pull off 20 twigs from different branches and no one could even hope to place them back in the correct places.

I also provided the following as a reference:

Nested Hierarchy
Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.

While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird (class Aves). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two seperate groups.


Oops! Did someone say something about a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the platypus

Zachriel's next tactic? Use a nested hierarchy of common descent.

26 Comments:

  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "My only argument is using nested hieararchy as evidence for Capital C capital D, ie Common Descent. The scientific reasosn and references have been provided that demonstrate traits can be lost. And if the premise of Common Descent is true traits can also be gained. That fact alone says that a nested hierarchy is not an expected outcome of Common Descent."

    These are actually points worth pondering. However, until you have a firm grasp on the nested hierarchy, there is no point discussing the Theory of Common Descent.

    And it is not possible to have any reasonable discussion as long as you continue to delay and suppress my comments. Either move the discussion to another forum such as news:talk.origins or Languedoc Diary A neutral venue, or change your blogger settings.

     
  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel, your bullsh!t is duly noted. There isn't any "reasonable discussion" with you. That is a direct contradiction.

    As for "suppressing comments" if you had something to say I would post it. But when you continually misrepresent what is being debated it is obvious you are a waste of bandwidth.

    I have a firm grasp on nested hierarchy. No one has produced any evidence to the contrary. And all you have provided time and time again- are baseless accusations. IOW you are nothing but an internet punk, spewing junk.

    I will also take my knowledge of Common Descent over yours any and every day.

    And just a word of advice- before you go thumping your chest it is best to make sure you have a chest to thump.

     
  • At 6:40 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "But when you continually misrepresent what is being debated it is obvious you are a waste of bandwidth."

    Um, the thread topic is about the "Nested Hierarchy". For the record ...

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again Zachriel- as usual. The topic is about nested hierarchy as evidence for Common Descent. Go see someone to help you with your problem.

    However I will gladly post your drivel just to show how intellectually bankrupt you are.

    Only a moron would use data supporting a limited view of a family hierarchy as evidence for Common Descent.

    This is the EXACT reason why posting anything from you is a waste of time. You posts are full of irrelevant clap-trap, out-of-context nonsense and/ or blatant misrepresentations.

    Of course not lost in all of this is your total failure to substantiate any of your claims or the claims made by evolutionism.

     
  • At 8:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I take it your "For the record" link is to demonstrate just how twisted you are- as if anyone reading what you post here requires any further data...

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "I have a firm grasp on nested hierarchy."

    I don't think so. If you disagree, explain this one:

    http://www.proweb.org/myosin/trees/gifs/tree.jpg

    "No one has produced any evidence to the contrary."

    Your claim that no one has ever explained the differences is clear evidence that you have no grasp on the concept of nested hierarchy, Joe.

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote:
    "I have a firm grasp on nested hierarchy."

    Smokey asserts:
    I don't think so.

    I don't care what you think.

    "No one has produced any evidence to the contrary."

    Smokey:
    Your claim that no one has ever explained the differences is clear evidence that you have no grasp on the concept of nested hierarchy, Joe.

    More bald assertions and accusations.

    Ok buckwheat- explain the differences observed between chimps and humans- that is a scientific explanation, not some imbecilic unsupported assertion.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't know what your myosin link was supposed to do but just so you know I read schematics- advanced micros, their primary, secondary and tertiary busses, their peripherals, etc., with a more difficult nodal analysis layout than anything you could throw at me from a biological setting.

    And I have a real good feeling that what scientists are doing to understand genomes would be like an engineer to try to figure out a C++ program by looking at the ones & zeros on the various data lines (busses).

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "I don't know what your myosin link was supposed to do..."

    It was offered to illustrate your lack of understanding of NH. If you disagree, explain it.

    "... but just so you know I read schematics- advanced micros, their primary, secondary and tertiary busses, their peripherals, etc., with a more difficult nodal analysis layout than anything you could throw at me from a biological setting."

    Good. Then you have no excuse for your inability to explain and discuss this particular NH.

    1) Do you see that the myosins are from a multitude of different species, even crossing phyla?

    2) Do you see that one can superimpose the evolutionary tree of the organisms that have those myosins upon this tree?

    3) Do you realize that this NH is merely a mathematical description of the data, not a hypothesis, not a theory?

    "And I have a real good feeling that what scientists are doing to understand genomes would be like an engineer to try to figure out a C++ program by looking at the ones & zeros on the various data lines (busses)."

    This isn't done to understand genomes, Joe. It is done to understand the evolutionary relationships between members of a huge protein family. Since you have concluded that they were designed, what do these relationships say about the mechanisms of their design?

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "Ok buckwheat- explain the differences observed between chimps and humans- that is a scientific explanation, not some imbecilic unsupported assertion."

    That page is laughable, Joe. It tries to contrast degrees of similarity between noncoding regions (lower) with degrees of similarity between coding ones (very high).

    For starters, humans aren't anywhere near 100% identity. If they were, how could paternity testing possibly work, since it detects genetic differences between humans?

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    That page is laughable, Joe.

    Your responses are laughable, Smokey.

    Smokey:
    It tries to contrast degrees of similarity between noncoding regions (lower) with degrees of similarity between coding ones (very high).

    It also shows the differences observed between chimps and humans. Differences- such as upright walking- that you nor anyone else has explained.

    Smokey:
    For starters, humans aren't anywhere near 100% identity.

    Neither I nor that sire said or implied they were.

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote:
    "I don't know what your myosin link was supposed to do..."


    Smokey:
    It was offered to illustrate your lack of understanding of NH.

    I don't see how it could possibly do that.

    Smokey:
    If you disagree, explain it.

    What's to explain? You assume that this myosin NH means Common Descent and I assume it means Common Design.

    If you want to use this as evidence for Common Descent there is much more to explain.

    1) Do you see that the myosins are from a multitude of different species, even crossing phyla?

    Yes. Common Design explains that.

    2) Do you see that one can superimpose the evolutionary tree of the organisms that have those myosins upon this tree?

    I am sure one could. I am also sure that does NOT mean an evolutionary relationship exists.

    3) Do you realize that this NH is merely a mathematical description of the data, not a hypothesis, not a theory?

    I know NH's are mental constructs and circumstantial evidence- at best.

    Opps I missed this from your other post:

    Since you have concluded that they were designed, what do these relationships say about the mechanisms of their design?

    That different organisms require similar proteins and it doesn't make any sense to give all different organisms very dis-similar proteins to do the same job.

    But OK Smokey it appears that you are not going to explain the differences observed between us and our alleged closest alleged evolutionary relative. I can only assume that you cannot.

    And if with all the differences seen in myosin alone, and those still perform the same job, one must scratch their heads and say "what is it that can account for the morphological differences when even the genetic differences observed still allow for the same function"?

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    I asked:

    "1) Do you see that the myosins are from a multitude of different species, even crossing phyla?"

    Joe wrote:

    "Yes. Common Design explains that."

    Then please provide an explanation for the observation that the distances between the orthologous myosins of different organisms correspond to the predicted evolutionary distances between them, as well as the observation that the distances between orthologous myosins are congruent with the distances observed within other protein families.

    S: 2) Do you see that one can superimpose the evolutionary tree of the organisms that have those myosins upon this tree?

    J: "I am sure one could. I am also sure that does NOT mean an evolutionary relationship exists."

    Why not? Have you tried?

    S: 3) Do you realize that this NH is merely a mathematical description of the data, not a hypothesis, not a theory?

    J: "I know NH's are mental constructs and circumstantial evidence- at best."

    Then you don't understand them. The tree is a graphic representation derived by a purely mathematical algorithm, not a mere mental construct.

    What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? Do you have any noncircumstantial evidence to support your conclusion, Joe? And what if I use this tree to predict the position of a new sequence from a different organism?

    S: "Since you have concluded that they were designed, what do these relationships say about the mechanisms of their design?"

    J: "That different organisms require similar proteins and it doesn't make any sense to give all different organisms very dis-similar proteins to do the same job."

    But wouldn't an intelligent designer use the SAME protein to do the SAME job? How do you explain the differences, particularly the functionally irrelevant ones?

    "But OK Smokey it appears that you are not going to explain the differences observed between us and our alleged closest alleged evolutionary relative. I can only assume that you cannot."

    I explained the misrepresentations of the site you love so much in the other thread. Whether you look at the actual data so that you can understand my explanation is another matter entirely.

    I predict you won't look at the actual data.

    "And if with all the differences seen in myosin alone, and those still perform the same job,..."

    Whoa, Joe? What on Earth made you assume that they still perform the same job?

    "... one must scratch their heads and say "what is it that can account for the morphological differences when even the genetic differences observed still allow for the same function"?"

    Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.

     
  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    Then please provide an explanation for the observation that the distances between the orthologous myosins of different organisms correspond to the predicted evolutionary distances between them, as well as the observation that the distances between orthologous myosins are congruent with the distances observed within other protein families.

    I wouldlike to see the reference in which Commoin Descent predicted myosin and then predicted its evolutionary distributation.

    Then I would love to see the data that demonstrates such transformations are even possible- that is the transformations required if Common Descent was indicative of reality.

    Smokey why don't you focus on the data the demonstrates Common Descent can live with NH or can live without it. IOW NH is not expected in a Common Descent scenario for the many reasons already provided.

     
  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Smokey:
    Then please provide an explanation for the observation that the distances between the orthologous myosins of different organisms correspond to the predicted evolutionary distances between them, as well as the observation that the distances between orthologous myosins are congruent with the distances observed within other protein families.

    Joe: I wouldlike to see the reference in which Commoin Descent predicted myosin and then predicted its evolutionary distributation."

    Joe, I would like you to provide the explanation requested above. Since you won't, I'll point out that "Commoin Descent predicted myosin" is meaningless. Common descent predicts the nature of relationships, both similarities and differences, between myosins.

    BTW, you still haven't explained why you thought all of them did the same thing. It should be painfully obvious that they don't, given that their structures were provided as well.

    "Then I would love to see the data that demonstrates such transformations are even possible- that is the transformations required if Common Descent was indicative of reality."

    To what "transformations" do you refer, Joe?

    "Smokey why don't you focus on the data the demonstrates Common Descent can live with NH or can live without it."

    What data, Joe?

    "IOW NH is not expected in a Common Descent scenario for the many reasons already provided."

    That's not data. It's just your misunderstanding. Common descent REQUIRES that things fit into NHs. That's why it is falsifiable, and it is tested every day when hundreds of things are newly sequenced and compared to databases, something you clearly have never done.

     
  • At 5:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    Common descent predicts the nature of relationships, both similarities and differences, between myosins.

    That is just an assertion.

    Smokey:
    BTW, you still haven't explained why you thought all of them did the same thing.

    I didn't think that. You should have asked for clarification BEFORE jumping to your ill-conceived inference.

    Smokey:
    To what "transformations" do you refer, Joe?

    Listen if you are going to jump into the middle of something- do your own research in order to catch up. Dealing with one imbecile is trying enough.

    But I will grant you this one-

    Transformations, ie all the alleged transitionals and intermediates that must have existed.

    Common Descent can live with or without NH. THat is the reality.

     
  • At 7:24 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Smokey:
    For starters, humans aren't anywhere near 100% identity.

    Joe: Neither I nor that sire said or implied they were.

    From the site:

    Joe wrote:
    "I don't know what your myosin link was supposed to do..."

    Smokey:
    It was offered to illustrate your lack of understanding of NH.

    Joe: I don't see how it could possibly do that.

    QED. You don't understand NH.

    And if with all the differences seen in myosin alone, and those still perform the same job, one must scratch their heads and say "what is it that can account for the morphological differences when even the genetic differences observed still allow for the same function"?

    Smokey:
    BTW, you still haven't explained why you thought all of them did the same thing. It should be painfully obvious that they don't, given that their structures were provided as well.

    Joe: I didn't think that. You should have asked for clarification BEFORE jumping to your ill-conceived inference.

    If you didn't think that, why did you write, "And if with all the differences seen in myosin alone, and those still perform the same job, one must scratch their heads and say "what is it that can account for the morphological differences when even the genetic differences observed still allow for the same function"?

    I'm still waiting for a response to this:

    Then please provide an explanation for the observation that the distances between the orthologous myosins of different organisms correspond to the predicted evolutionary distances between them, as well as the observation that the distances between orthologous myosins are congruent with the distances observed within other protein families.

    If you understand NH and think that it provides evidence for common design, it should be easy to answer.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More accusations, but OK-

    Do the skeletal and cardiac myosins perform the same function, regardless of the organism?

    And again there isn't any evolutionary prediction of myosin or myosin differences. Evolutionary biologists just accomodated the data to fit their theory.

    And every scientist knows that before Darwin NH was used as evidence for Common Design. All that happened was that common ancestor replaced archetype.

    And I wouldn't attempt to explain it until I had deciphered the genomes. And right now they way we look at genomes is like trying to decipher/ understand a C++ program by looking at the ones and zeros on the data bus.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    "Do the skeletal and cardiac myosins perform the same function, regardless of the organism?"

    The orthologs do, pretty much. So how do you explain the differences between orthologs?

    "And again there isn't any evolutionary prediction of myosin or myosin differences."

    The prediction that any new myosin sequence has to fit the NH is absolute.

    "Evolutionary biologists just accomodated the data to fit their theory."

    Wrong. It wouldn't be called a theory unless it had made many predictions that turned out to be correct.

    "And every scientist knows that before Darwin NH was used as evidence for Common Design."

    There were no sequences before Darwin or during Darwin.

    "And I wouldn't attempt to explain it until I had deciphered the genomes."

    That's because you don't understand it.

    "And right now they way we look at genomes is like trying to decipher/ understand a C++ program by looking at the ones and zeros on the data bus."

    That's a poor analogy to use to justify your failure to grapple with actual data.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And every scientist knows that before Darwin NH was used as evidence for Common Design."

    Smokey:
    There were no sequences before Darwin or during Darwin.

    That didn't stop them from classifying organisms.

    "And I wouldn't attempt to explain it until I had deciphered the genomes."

    Smokey:
    That's because you don't understand it.

    No one understands genomes. Sure we have some grasp but we still don't know what makes a fly a fly or a horse a horse. We may know how each develops that that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

    "And right now they way we look at genomes is like trying to decipher/ understand a C++ program by looking at the ones and zeros on the data bus."

    Smokey:
    That's a poor analogy to use to justify your failure to grapple with actual data.

    Just because you are too stupid to understand it does not make it a poor analogy.

    And there isn't any actual data that demonstrates the physiological and anatomical changes that had to have taken place in your scenario, are even possible.

    So go choke on that you intellectual coward.

     
  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    "That didn't stop them from classifying organisms."

    No, it didn't. But the point is that sequences are much better, and have corrected some misclassifications based only on morphology.

    "So go choke on that you intellectual coward."

    That's pretty funny coming from a guy who is afraid to turn off his comment moderation.

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    But the point is that sequences are much better, and have corrected some misclassifications based only on morphology.

    So sequences are much better evidence for Common Design. Thanks.

    And turning on comment moderation has nothing to do with being afraid. It has everything to do with people like you who pollute the internet.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    I note you didn't answer smokey's question either.

    "Then please provide an explanation for the observation that the distances between the orthologous myosins of different organisms correspond to the predicted evolutionary distances between them, as well as the observation that the distances between orthologous myosins are congruent with the distances observed within other protein families."

    (You must realize that when you refuse to answer questions, it leads people to believe that you really don't want to discuss the evidence.)

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    I note you didn't answer smokey's question either.

    I squashed it instead. That's what I do with pests.

     
  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Have you ever wondered why everyone thinks you're wrong?

    Have you ever wondered why you feel that the entire, complete world of everyone is against you?

    I know; it's rough being the only rational, intelligent person on the entire planet, but you'll just have to deal with it.

    Find anything strange with that set of beliefs, Joe?

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Have you ever wondered why everyone thinks you're wrong?

    The thought never crossed my mind. And actually I find many people agree with me.

    What world do you live in? Definitely not mine.

    blipey:
    Have you ever wondered why you feel that the entire, complete world of everyone is against you?

    The thought never crossed my mind. And actually I find many people agree with me.

    What world do you live in? Definitely not mine.

    blipey:
    Find anything strange with that set of beliefs, Joe?

    Other than they come from an insignificant snapper? No projection and drivel is expected from you and your ilk.

    Raving lunatics indeed...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home