Intelligent Reasoning

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

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Refuting nested hierarchy as evidence for Common Descent- AGAIN!

Zachriel continues to use nested hierarchy as evidence for common descent even though the scientific data says that such classification would not be expected under the current theory of evolution. That is beacuse structures and genetic sequences can be lost along the way. IOW the theory of evolution predicts both- nested hierarchy and no nested hierarchy- which in reality means it predicts neither.

It is also worth repeating that nested hierarchy was FIRST used as evidence for a common design and all evos did when they took over was to replace archetype with common ancestor:

One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.-- Ernst Mayr


Simpson echoed those comments.

It appears that is what evos do- take ideas from Creationists and/ or IDists, bastardize them and then use them as if they were always theirs. Zachriel may be fooled by this tactic but people who deal with reality shouldn't be.

For further reading and the thorough refutation of the premise, please see chapter 6 "The System Naturae from Aristotle to Cladistics" in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

30 Comments:

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    I note you apparently still believe you need the handicap of delaying and suppressing my comments.

    First, please define what you believe to be a nested hierarchy (as opposed to a heterarchy).

    Then, please let us know whether it is possible to categorize items based on independently derived characteristics; e.g. which one of these doesn't belong; apple, orange, pear, rock.

    Then, whether items can be grouped into a hierarchy based on independently derived characteristics; e.g. apple, orange, pear, twig, root, rock.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    I note you apparently still believe you need the handicap of delaying and suppressing my comments.

    I have explained this illusion of yours several times. That you don't or just refuse to understand just further exposes your ignorance.

    But once again-

    I do NOT have the time to get on the internet everyday. Some days I only get 1/2 hour to "surf". And seeing I have a very slow dial-up connection I have to choose what gets priority. Believe me Zachriel YOU are dead last- especially seeing you have added NOTHING NEW-> just the same ole circumstantial and very subjective "evidence" that no objective person should mistake for science.

    Zachriel:
    First, please define what you believe to be a nested hierarchy (as opposed to a heterarchy).

    Just as I assume everyone else define's it:

    Nested Hierarchy

    Now please deal with the fact that Common Descent, the way you use it, can predict either NH or Not NH, for the reasons provided in this OP and other threads.

    And also deal with the fact that NH, as it is used today, is virtually the same as was used as evidence for common design- well BEFORE Darwin.

    Stop avoiding the point and for once deal with reality.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    From your reference:

    "'Nested hierarchy' refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups."

    Exactly. Then they discuss how biological taxa form a nested hierarchy, but that e.g. "motor vehicles do not show conservation of traits to single taxonomic groups, no matter how you choose to define your taxonomy."

    Finally, they conclude "a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible".

    Well, that settles that. Thank you.

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I know what Wikipedia "concludes". However it appears that "conclusion" isn't based on anything except their pre-conceived and ill-conceived biases.

    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.

    The second reason CD does NOT expect NH:

    "For if it is true, as the Darwinian model of evolution implies,that all the character traits of living things were gained in the first place as a result of a gradual random evolutionary process, then why should they have remained so fundamentally immune to that same process of change, especially considering that many diagnostic character traits are only of dubious adaptive significance? It was precisely this fundamental constancy of the unique character traits, or homologies, of every defined taxa which led nineteenth-century biology to the theory of types!" page 135 of "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis"

    So the bottom-line is evos merely accomodated nested hierarchy and that Common Descent doesn't predict that pattern unless one contorts reality to fit one's ill-conceived biases.

    Nested hierarchy is almost always the result of intention- just as explained in chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". One example is one can start with "Transportation" and then have three cats- "Land", "Water" and "Air" and then fill it in from there. Then there are examples of military rank & file.

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible".

    In a gradual Darwinian model one would expect a transfer of traits. Only in a "hopeful monster" scenario would we not expect that. Also descent with modification can mean lossing traits as well as gaining them. And seeing one cannot predict which will occur any objective person would understand that NH is not a prediction of CD and anyone who sez it is is simply FoS.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: " know what Wikipedia "concludes"."

    And yet when I asked for a definition, that is the source you provided. You really have no idea what constitues a nested hierarchy.

    joe g: "NO ANCESTRAL OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS CAN BE PERMITTED TO SURVIVE "

    This is absolutely incorrect and shows you do not understand the nested hierarchy. The end-twigs, the leaves, of a tree represent a nested hierarchy. Branches on trees die out all the time. Sometimes they send out twigs which die out, but other twigs from the same branch may survive and create new branches. But each year, every new leaf can trace a singular ancestry back to shared branches and trunk.

    Nothing else you posted indicates you understand the nested hierarchy — much less the concept of independently derived characteristics. There is no purpose in proceeding until you do. So to return to the beginning.

    --
    First, please define what you believe to be a nested hierarchy (as opposed to a heterarchy).

    Then, please let us know whether it is possible to categorize items based on independently derived characteristics; e.g. which one of these doesn't belong; apple, orange, pear, rock.

    Then, whether items can be grouped into a hierarchy based on independently derived characteristics; e.g. apple, orange, pear, twig, root, rock.

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: " know what Wikipedia "concludes"."

    Zachriel:
    And yet when I asked for a definition, that is the source you provided.

    Because it provided a valid definition. Their conclusion was NOT part of the definition.

    Zachriel:
    You really have no idea what constitues a nested hierarchy.

    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    joe g: "NO ANCESTRAL OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS CAN BE PERMITTED TO SURVIVE "

    Zachriel:
    This is absolutely incorrect and shows you do not understand the nested hierarchy.

    It is absolutely correct and demonstrates you are FoS.

    Reality demonstrates you do not know what you are talking about- as usual. You lost the argument and now have to flail relentlessly in order to distract from that fact.

    I played your game, beat you at it and now all you have left is whining. Very typical.

    And the following is just PURE projection:

    Zachriel:
    Nothing else you posted indicates you understand the nested hierarchy — much less the concept of independently derived characteristics. There is no purpose in proceeding until you do.

    You are a clueless mental midget who isn't worth my time. I will leave it to the readers to see through your stupidity.

     
  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    You didn't really add a lot of content, but we do have this.

    joe g: "Because it provided a valid definition."

    Good. "'Nested hierarchy' refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups."

    The prototypical nested hierarchy is a tree or bush. Twigs can be grouped by branch, branches can be groups into bigger branches, all having a common ancestor in the trunk. Each twig can trace one and only one ancestral path to the trunk.

    Your cite indicates that metazoans form a nested hierarchy (assuming conservation of traits to single taxonomic groups). That means that if mammals are a taxonomic group within vertebrates, then if a bat is a mammal, then it is also a vertebrate. Do you have a problem with this analysis?

    Your cite then indicates that cars do not form a nested hierarchy (assuming conservation of traits to single taxonomic groups). Though you can arrange cars into a nested hierarchy (such as by make and model), the independently derived traits (such as brake design or steering mechanism) are not conserved. Do you have a problem with this analysis?

    joe g: "NO ANCESTRAL OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS CAN BE PERMITTED TO SURVIVE""

    This is incorrect. Consider a single branch with a single twig. If the twig sprouts a new twig, leaving the original twig, this still maintains the nested hierarchy. This is typical for how trees grow. The result is that each twig can trace a singular ancestry, and any two twigs or branches have a common ancestral branch somewhere in the hierarchy.

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Let's make it even easier. Do the twigs of a tree form a nested hierarchy?

     
  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    You didn't really add a lot of content, but we do have this.

    And you have never added anything at all. All you have done is to confirm what I have said for decades- the "evidence" for Common Descent, and especially the current theory of evolution, is based entirely on speculations about circumstantial evidence.

    Fact 1- Nested Hierarchy WAS originally used as "evidence" for a COMMON design. This was demonstrated by Mayr. But here is what Simpson had to say- "the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different." That seals that deal.


    And again one would totally expect nested hierarchy under a common design scenario. On the other hand, for the many reasons ALREADY provided and totally ognored by Zachriel, one would NOT expect NH in a non-design scenario.

    joe g: "NO ANCESTRAL OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS CAN BE PERMITTED TO SURVIVE""

    Zachriel:
    This is incorrect.

    What I posted came from a published scientist. The reasoning was provided. A reference was given. YOU have ignored all of that- which is your MO- ignore reality and create some strawman then try to sell it.

    Also Zachriel, try reading "On the Origins of Species..."- the fourth chapter. Darwin confirms what Denton said. Read also page 432 (6th edition).

     
  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    You didn't answer a single query. We need to make absolutely clear about our terminology.

    Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy? Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy? Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy? Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

    Darwin: "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during former years may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have at all times overmastered other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was young, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few have left living and modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these fallen branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin, straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications."

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    You didn't answer a single query.

    I am finished playing your games.

    Zachriel:
    We need to make absolutely clear about our terminology.

    It is already clear that you could care less about reality.

    It would be nice if you addressed the points already raised and actually read the refernces provided.

    Another fact is that Linneaus, the father of taxonomy, was a Creationist in search of the Created Kinds.

    IOW everything I stated is true- that is according to the facts- and that includes evolutionary biologists AND Darwin.

    And this demonstrates you are completely "out-of-it":

    Zachriel:
    Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

    You have no clue what COMMON design means. For if you did you most certainly wouldn't have posted that.


    Stop ignoring this:

    Fact 1- Nested Hierarchy WAS originally used as "evidence" for a COMMON design. This was demonstrated by Mayr. (read the OP)

    But here is what Simpson had to say- "the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different." That seals that deal.

    And one more time- there isn't anything in Common Descent, especially the sheer-dumb-luck type that you support, that expects distinct classes of organisms. All it would take to make that go away is a few surviving "missing links", ie populations and individuals with a mixture of traits- reptiles giving birth to live young and feeding them via mammary glands (yet keeping everything else that makes a reptile distinct).

    Bottom-line Zachriel, I will go with the experts everytime over your bald assertions and false accusations. And the experts agree with me. Go figure...

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It would be nice if you addressed the points already raised and actually read the refernces provided."

    I would be happy to, but you can't begin to talk about homology or why the nested hierarchy is evidence for common descent until we have a grasp of what constitutes a nested hierarchy, and how we use independently derived traits. So again,

    Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy? Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy? Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy? Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

    joe g: "And the experts agree with me. Go figure..."

    Huh? The vast majority of biological scientists strongly support the Theory of Evolution.

    NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "It would be nice if you addressed the points already raised and actually read the refernces provided."

    Zachriel:
    I would be happy to, but you can't begin to talk about homology or why the nested hierarchy is evidence for common descent until we have a grasp of what constitutes a nested hierarchy, and how we use independently derived traits.

    If you would read chapter 6 of "Evolution" A Theory in Crisis" you would see why you are wrong to infer NH as evidence for commom descent. It is that simple. That chapter also explains that the branching you employ does not do what you insist it does.

    Then we have Keith Thompson of Yale telling us that it is antithetical to describe the relationship of cladism to evolutionary biology.

    joe g: "And the experts agree with me. Go figure..."

    Zachriel:
    Huh? The vast majority of biological scientists strongly support the Theory of Evolution.

    Ya see- you can't even follow a discussion! The experts agree that nested hierarchy was once used as evidence for a common design. The experts demonstrated that all that was done was to make a couple of changes to the common design scheme and then abbra-cadabra- we now have common descent.

    Then we have the issue of transitionals- that being if every alleged transitional was still alive we could NOT put living organisms into the distinct cats that NH requires.

    What part of the above don't you understand?

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The bottom-line is Common Design can't live without nested hierarchy. That is why it was first used as evidence for just that. But Common Descent can live with it or without it.

    IOW NH is a prediction of the former but not the latter. But the latter can, with a little bit of speculative lucky extinctions, accomodate NH. (Common Descent "predicts" NH AND not NH, which means it predicts neither)

     
  • At 3:20 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: you can't begin to talk about homology or why the nested hierarchy is evidence for common descent until we have a grasp of what constitutes a nested hierarchy, and how we use independently derived traits.

    joe g: "If you would read chapter 6 of "Evolution" A Theory in Crisis" you would see why you are wrong to infer NH as evidence for commom descent."

    Again, you didn't respond to my comment. Your original post uses a term called the "nested hierarchy". In order to discuss aspects of this pattern, we must first have a grasp of what constitutes a nested hierarchy, and how we use independently derived traits to determine if something fits such a pattern.


    Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy? Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy? Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy? Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

     
  • At 8:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Again, you didn't respond to my comment.

    I have more than demonstrated that NH was once used as evidence of a common design and was then merely accomodated by evolutionism. There is nothing left for me to do. My claim has been more that satisfied.

    Zachriel:
    Your original post uses a term called the "nested hierarchy".

    Yes it does. I also provided a valid definition of the term.

    Now instead of just going with that definition you chose to harp on the irrelevant and unsupported claims from the site that provided the definition. IOW you used distraction in order to try to deceive. Which is very typical from you.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    You orginated a post concerning the nested hierarchy. I repeatedly asked a few simple questions concerning how we use independently derived traits to determine the existence of a nested hierarchy, and asked your opinion on the application of the nested hierarchy to a few simple examples such as the twigs on a tree.

    Alright, Joe G. I understand that you can't or won't answer these simple questions. Thank you for your time. I will archive this thread.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    You orginated a post concerning the nested hierarchy.

    I originated a thread concerning how NH is not evidence for Common Descent and was in fact first used as evidence for Common Design.

    And guess what? I more than substantiated both claims!

    Zachriel:
    I repeatedly asked a few simple questions concerning how we use independently derived traits to determine the existence of a nested hierarchy, and asked your opinion on the application of the nested hierarchy to a few simple examples such as the twigs on a tree.

    And I have posted a few facts that make you games irrelevant. Ya see I deal with reality as oppossed to some irrelevant games Zachriel chooses to play.

    Zachriel:
    Alright, Joe G. I understand that you can't or won't answer these simple questions. Thank you for your time. I will archive this thread.

    I will archive it also and use it to demonstrate that evos would rather play games than to face reality-> Which is something that I have known for decades.

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Joe G claims that a common designer predicts the existence of a nested hierarchy. It doesn't. A common designer is completely unrestricted in how much horizontal transfer they can use across designs. ("Hmm, let’s use this mammalian design in a mollusc over here.") So there won't be any hierarchy.

    On the other hand, a designer can make use of descent with modification in the design process. (Very common in products of human design!) So a nested hierarchy isn't evidence against a designer. It's just evidence against a designer who didn't use descent with modification.

    Or you could have a designer who intended to produce a hierarchy for another reason, e.g. to make the natural world more "understandable" for us. That's what early biologists said, not that hierarchy was the inevitable result of common design. It isn't.

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Linnean Taxonomy, the observed objective nested hierarchy, is based on the principle of common design.

    You are confusing a common design with a common designer.

    OTOH descent with modification would produce an overwhelming number of transitional forms and that means an objective nested hierarchy would not be expected from that process.

     
  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It doesn't. A common designer is completely unrestricted in how much horizontal transfer they can use across designs. ("Hmm, let’s use this mammalian design in a mollusc over here.")

    Strawman- nice try though- not

     
  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I'm not sure what the import is of your distinction between common design and common designer. Please explain how this supports your view.

    I would also need to hear more why my point about how a designer is unrestricted with respect to horizontal transfer across their designs is a straw man. How does it differ from the real claim? I thought your claim was: nested hierarchy is evidence for a designer.

    You've said a number of times that descent with modification would erase a nested hierarchy by producing too many transitional forms. So you're saying that descent with modification produces a continuum of variation? But it doesn't. Look at languages, for example.

    In addition, "transitional forms" that persist will not remain the same. Mutation and genetic drift will modify them, at least at the genetic and proteomic levels. These "transitional forms" are simply species that haven't split. All of this gets fed into the exhaustive analyses of common descent, e.g.http://www.livescience.com/48663-insect-family-tree-evolution.html .

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

    A common designer would just mean that all of the designs have the same designer. A common design means all of the designs are based on a similar design principle. PC clones are an example of common design. Cars are an example of a common design. Anything built to the same standards has an element of a common design.

    I would also need to hear more why my point about how a designer is unrestricted with respect to horizontal transfer across their designs is a straw man.

    Because you don't have any idea- ie it is unsupported by anything.

    You've said a number of times that descent with modification would erase a nested hierarchy by producing too many transitional forms.

    Darwin said it and so did Denton. I am sure we are not the only three who understand that fact.

    So you're saying that descent with modification produces a continuum of variation?

    WRT biology and even according to Darwin, it should.

    But it doesn't. Look at languages, for example.

    What about them? Are you saying there wasn't some gradual processes that led to what we now use?

    In addition, "transitional forms" that persist will not remain the same.

    OK but irrelevant.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    OK, I get the difference between a common design and a common designer. Sometimes the explanation for a common design is a common designer. Other times it's because that common design was copied (in some sense). Finally, the common design across examples might not have a common origin, but come about because two unrelated design processes produced the same thing due to stringent constraints (functional or otherwise).

    We're discussing how it is that the nested hierarchy of common "designs" in organisms arose. I don't see where my alleged confusion lies, or how it supports your view.

    Next thing. Here's support for the claim that a designer is unrestricted with respect to horizontal transfer across their designs: the designer can pick and choose parts and features to combine as they see fit. The only restrictions are functional ones (the design must perform passably well) and physical ones (you can't combine parts if it would violate the laws of physics). Otherwise, I don't see any other kinds of restrictions.

    Whatever Darwin and Denton said, I can't fathom why anyone might think that descent with modification has to produce a continuum of variation. 1) Selection will destroy some (most!) points in the continuum. 2) Drift will destroy others. 3) Since change continues, all points will move away from where they were, destroying the continuum. (That's the relevance of the non-stasis of transitional forms.)

    You see this in languages. Yes, they were generated by a gradual process of change, with occasional splits along the way. We know this. It's a classic example of descent with modification. (Linguists use exactly the same tools as biologists do to discover trees of descent.) Yet we don't see continuous variation from French to Italian to Spanish, because the transitional forms have been lost. Exactly the same prediction is made in biology.

    So it seems really weird to say that descent with modification predicts a continuum. Is your only argument for this that Darwin and Denton said it?

     
  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here's support for the claim that a designer is unrestricted with respect to horizontal transfer across their designs: the designer can pick and choose parts and features to combine as they see fit.

    Great so you can put a V8 into a smartphone? And how do you know what applies to biology I n which the design has to redevelop with every offspring?

    Whatever Darwin and Denton said, I can't fathom why anyone might think that descent with modification has to produce a continuum of variation.

    Basically because that is what small incremental steps produce. Only saltation gets you out of the expected outcome of a continuum of variation.

    1) Selection will destroy some (most!) points in the continuum. 2) Drift will destroy others.

    And my mom, dad and grandparents are all dead. Does that mean they didn't exist and don't have to be included in any of my family trees?

    No one is saying that the continuum has to always exist. Only that it had to have existed and that means all of the organisms along that (branching) continuum have to be classified. You don't get to pick and choose. To do so means it is a SUBJECTIVE nested hierarchy.

    So yes, you are confused.

     
  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I meant the physical and functional constraints I mentioned to include developmental ones, no V8 in a smartphone, etc. The point is that there's no restriction on redeployment of features by a designer that would cause those features to be arranged in a nested hierarchy. Or at least you haven't given any reason why we should believe that they would.

    On the continuum: we're making some progress here. I agree that if you ignore time, there will be a continuum of variation across all the varieties of organisms that have ever existed. (Though of course some mutations, e.g. deletions, might be pretty big, but not from a bird's eye view. I'm OK with the bird's eye view.)

    Same thing for languages, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that languages are a product of common descent.

    If all the data you had was the continuum of languages, it would be difficult (in some cases impossible) to work out the pattern of common descent. But if you had information about time (e.g. old inscriptions), you could do it. This wouldn't be at all subjective.

    In the biological case, we have lots of information about time. Most importantly, extant species are the newest. Second, we have information about mutation rates. Third, we have reference fossils and their contexts.

    So I don't see why any of your comments count against common descent in the biological case.

     
  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You mean you/ we don't know of any restrictions/ constraints but you/ we are totally ignorant when it comes to designing self-sustained reproducing living organisms. We have no idea what makes an organism what it is which means we have no idea if differing mutational accumulation is a mechanism capable of producing the diversity observed.

    To us it seems like a very complex task and one made easier by the pre-organization of a nested hierarchy flow of common design features.

    And languages are an example of artificial selection and the origin is still sketchy.

    And finally there aren't any know microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macroevolution. The genetics haven't supported the premise.

     
  • At 11:12 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So your answer to "Why should we expect a nested hierarchy from a designer?" seems to be that maybe there are some unknown constraints that forced the designer to produce that pattern. That's pretty weak.

    The inference from a nested hierarchy to common descent has nothing to do with making the design process easier. A nested hierarchy (of similarities and differences) is, everywhere else, an unfailing sign of common descent (e.g. languages). Can you give one uncontroversial example where it isn't?

    As for your comment about languages, common descent is common descent, however selection occurs (or even without selection, only drift - which may be closer to how it works with languages.)

    Otherwise you're just changing the subject to the question of whether standard genetic mechanisms can accommodate actual diversity. That's probably a pointless discussion without agreement first on whether there's common descent or not.

     
  • At 4:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So your answer to "Why should we expect a nested hierarchy from a designer?" seems to be that maybe there are some unknown constraints that forced the designer to produce that pattern

    Nope. Do you have reading issues?

    The inference from a nested hierarchy to common descent

    There isn't any such inference.

    A nested hierarchy (of similarities and differences) is, everywhere else, an unfailing sign of common descent (e.g.

    No, it isn't and languages do not fit into a nested hierarchy.

    It's obvious that you have no idea what a nested hierarchy entails. So perhaps you should educate yourself before using them in an argument.

    AGAIN- Linnean Taxonomy is the observed nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with common descent. How do you explain that?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home