RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 1:57:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
For something to violate a nested hierarchy, it has to actually violate the nested hierarchy first.


What kind of circular reasoning is this?

quote:


I have already explained why your eye color example does not violate any nested hierarchy. You must have missed it, so I'll explain it again.

I will quote myself:

quote:

BVZ:
You sketch the following scenario: B1 and B2 are brothers. C1 is a cousin of both. B1 has gene G1. B2 does not. C1 has gene G1.

You think that this is a violation of the nested hierarchy while it is not. This would be a violation ONLY if neither of the parents of B1 and B2 have the gene G1.


It is very important that you understand what a nested hierarchy IS before we go in with this discussion.


Yeah, and I already refuted that point (namely by pointing out that we can't trace the genetics all the way up to the speculative common ancestor and that's not how they classify these organisms, instead, they classify them by characteristics). Go back and see.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 2:00:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

That's just one possibility. Another possibility is this

abc
--|---\
aby-----azc
--|-----/|---\
aby---bzc--azv
--|-\-----\----\
aby-cmy-bzh-azv

More violations


Quick question:

In this tree you made, look at b in the first generation, and b in the third generation (the middle one).

b is not present in the one to the right on the second generation.

In this example, did b disappear from the line in the 2nd generation, and then reappear in the third generation?

If so it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy. Can you give us an example of this happening in nature?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 2:02:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
What!? how could 'b' evolve identically on two different species? That just can't happen. Same goes for 'c'. Remember, we're dealing with species and features here, not individuals and single genetic mutations.

I'm leaving now, got to work on Uni stuff. Cheers.

Qu out.


I was referring to common decent and how genetics get passed down from generation to generation. I have already pointed out that it's entirely possible for two organisms with a further relationship to share a feature in common that two organisms with a closer relationship do not share. Those organisms can further branch into nested hierarchy violations. Evolution predicts nothing.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 2:06:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
For something to violate a nested hierarchy, it has to actually violate the nested hierarchy first.


What kind of circular reasoning is this?


It is not reasoning. It is a simple truth that you don't seem to think is true.

quote:


quote:


I have already explained why your eye color example does not violate any nested hierarchy. You must have missed it, so I'll explain it again.

I will quote myself:

quote:

BVZ:
You sketch the following scenario: B1 and B2 are brothers. C1 is a cousin of both. B1 has gene G1. B2 does not. C1 has gene G1.

You think that this is a violation of the nested hierarchy while it is not. This would be a violation ONLY if neither of the parents of B1 and B2 have the gene G1.


It is very important that you understand what a nested hierarchy IS before we go in with this discussion.


Yeah, and I already refuted that point (namely by pointing out that we can't trace the genetics all the way up to the speculative common ancestor and that's not how they classify these organisms, instead, they classify them by characteristics). Go back and see.


We are not discussing fossils, or any other source of genetic material. We are discussing eye color in humans EXISTING TODAY. We can extract genetic material form living humans pretty easily. So your point does not address the specific point I made. Which means you have NOT addressed the point yet. Please do so.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 2:10:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
Quick question:

In this tree you made, look at b in the first generation, and b in the third generation (the middle one).

b is not present in the one to the right on the second generation.

In this example, did b disappear from the line in the 2nd generation, and then reappear in the third generation?

If so it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy. Can you give us an example of this happening in nature?



b was just meant to be any placeholder for any gene. I was trying to point that there is a violation in a

abc
--|---\
aby-----azc
--|-----/|---\
aby---xzc--azv
--|-\-----\----\
aby-cmy-bzh-azv

Again, the reason is because azv has a further relationship to aby than cmy yet azv has a feature in common with aby that cmy does not have (a).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 2:14:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
We are not discussing fossils, or any other source of genetic material. We are discussing eye color in humans EXISTING TODAY. We can extract genetic material form living humans pretty easily. So your point does not address the specific point I made. Which means you have NOT addressed the point yet. Please do so.


I have addressed it. It's possible for two cousins to have a feature in common that two brothers don't share. Those individuals can keep branching and form organisms that (according to universal evolution) eventually lead to more static features where two organisms with a further relationship will have features in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 7:43:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
We are not discussing fossils, or any other source of genetic material. We are discussing eye color in humans EXISTING TODAY. We can extract genetic material form living humans pretty easily. So your point does not address the specific point I made. Which means you have NOT addressed the point yet. Please do so.


I have addressed it. It's possible for two cousins to have a feature in common that two brothers don't share. Those individuals can keep branching and form organisms that (according to universal evolution) eventually lead to more static features where two organisms with a further relationship will have features in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share.


Sure. But this does not violate a nested hierarchy.

Why?

Because wherever the gene is present in your example, it was also present in the ancestors of that individual.

The hierarchy will only be violated when you find something that is present in an individual, but NOT in ANY of its ancestors.

Feathers on a bat is an example of this.

No ancestor of a bat ever had feathers. Hence, feathers on a bat will violate the nested hierarchy. Not only that, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a new hierarchy to accommodate a bat with bird feathers. The reason for this is no hierarchy can be constructed that is nested.

Try creating such a tree, and you will see that it cannot be done.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 8:44:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

Sure. But this does not violate a nested hierarchy.

Why?

Because wherever the gene is present in your example, it was also present in the ancestors of that individual.


You're still missing the point. We can't trace back the genes to this speculative common ancestor so according to the unified nested hierarchy that is used, they classify these organisms based on their characteristics. It is claimed that organisms with a further relationship should share no features in common that organisms with a closer relationship don't share.

quote:


No ancestor of a bat ever had feathers.


This is speculation.

quote:


Hence, feathers on a bat will violate the nested hierarchy.


No, it will not violate the nested hierarchy. If bats had feathers they can claim that they received these feathers higher up in the tree (along with birds). Again, you are making my point here. You are claiming that it's impossible for organisms with a further relationship to share features that organisms with a closer relationship don't share. I am pointing out that, based on what we know about genetics, this is false. It's entirely possible for organisms with a further relationship to share features that organisms with a closer relationship don't share leading to all kinds of violations in how we classify organisms (despite the fact that these classification systems are arbitrary).

quote:



Try creating such a tree, and you will see that it cannot be done.


I already demonstrated how the tree could be modified to accommodate a bat with feathers.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 8:55:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
No, once again, it is based on the fact that: Less selection pressure = more mutations survive = faster evolution, END. This is called logic (common sense was a bad word to use, swap it for logic). It speculates that Less selection pressure = more mutations survive = faster evolution, END. Stop calling logic speculation!


No, as I have quoted from the wikipedia article, it speculates that organisms will stay the same for a while and suddenly change all at once while leaving little to no evidence. It has never been observed and is pure speculation.

quote:


No, two organisms with a far relationship should have no traits in common that the common ancestor of both creatures did not share.


We don't have the genome of every organism up to the speculated common ancestor. These organisms are classified by their characteristics, not by the characteristics and genes of their ancestors. The phenotypes of their ancestors are speculated based on their phenotypes. My point is that these classification systems are flawed because it's possible for two organisms with a further relationship to share features that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share. As already pointed out, the fossil record doesn't support common ancestry (hence they came up with the speculative, unfalsifiable notion of punctuated equilibrium, which has never been observed).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 9:46:52 AM)

quote:


It has webbed feet and a large, rubbery snout; these are features that appear closer to those of a duck than to those of any known mammal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckbill_platypus

quote:


It has a bill shaped like a duck's bill.


http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/duckbill_platypus.htm

quote:


http://www.lakesidenaturecenter.org/images/AC_Mallard_Duck%20bill.jpg
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci338m/Lectures/platybill.jpg

I like this image better


Lets compare them using my pictures instead.

While the platypus bill is wider and the duckbill is longer, the general shape is the same.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:11:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

Sure. But this does not violate a nested hierarchy.

Why?

Because wherever the gene is present in your example, it was also present in the ancestors of that individual.


You're still missing the point. We can't trace back the genes to this speculative common ancestor so according to the unified nested hierarchy that is used, they classify these organisms based on their characteristics. It is claimed that organisms with a further relationship should share no features in common that organisms with a closer relationship don't share.


I am addressing an argument you made. Your argument uses HUMANS. Humans are alive TODAY. Genes can be examined form these humans TODAY. Which means that genetic material can be extracted from them RIGHT NOW.

When you do so, you will find a nested hierarchy. You are dodging very well, but not good enough.

quote:


quote:


No ancestor of a bat ever had feathers.


This is speculation.


I am telling what what the ToE predicts. Are you saying that the ToE does not predict this?

quote:


quote:


Hence, feathers on a bat will violate the nested hierarchy.


No, it will not violate the nested hierarchy. If bats had feathers they can claim that they received these feathers higher up in the tree (along with birds).


It is impossible to receive a trait from your ancestors if your ancestors DID NOT HAVE THAT TRAIT. Try to keep up please.

quote:


Again, you are making my point here. You are claiming that it's impossible for organisms with a further relationship to share features that organisms with a closer relationship don't share.
I am pointing out that, based on what we know about genetics, this is false. It's entirely possible for organisms with a further relationship to share features that organisms with a closer relationship don't share leading to all kinds of violations in how we classify organisms (despite the fact that these classification systems are arbitrary).


I never said the part I have bolded. Show me where I made that claim.

quote:


quote:


Try creating such a tree, and you will see that it cannot be done.


I already demonstrated how the tree could be modified to accommodate a bat with feathers.


Where? In this thread? Post number please? In another thread? Link please?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:23:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
I am addressing an argument you made. Your argument uses HUMANS. Humans are alive TODAY. Genes can be examined form these humans TODAY. Which means that genetic material can be extracted from them RIGHT NOW.

When you do so, you will find a nested hierarchy. You are dodging very well, but not good enough.


Yes, but our speculated ancestors are not alive today. We can't trace back the pattern all the way to the speculated ancestors. Again, when it comes to universal evolution, they classify the nested hierarchy based on their characteristics. I pointed out that it's entirely possible to have two organisms with a more distant relationship share a feature in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share and the, according to universal evolution, branch off into different species. You will then have a specie with a further relationship share a feature in common with a particular specie that a specie with a closer relationship does not sure.

quote:


I am telling what what the ToE predicts. Are you saying that the ToE does not predict this?

It is impossible to receive a trait from your ancestors if your ancestors DID NOT HAVE THAT TRAIT. Try to keep up please.


What you are telling me is what genetics predicts. This isn't something that universal evolution necessarily predicts, after all, according to universal evolution those new genes had to have gotten there somehow. You're still missing the point. It's possible for two organisms with a more distant relationship to share a feature (or gene) in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share. Those organisms can all diverge and form new species where you will end up with a specie of a more distant relationship sharing features with a specie that species of a closer relationship don't share.



Jhud -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:38:38 AM)

I saw a couple of interesting articles on LiveScience recently discussing various difficulties in dealing with supposed human lineages. The first was Human Family Tree Now a Tangled, Messy Bush which basically discusses how the presumed human family tree is actually less clear today than it was presumed to be in the past.

The other interesting bit was about the latest genetic sequencing of humans. Called Human DNA More Variable Than Thought, it discusses how the latest sequencing samples of human DNA indicate that individual humans are less alike genetically than previously thought - in many cases we are only thought to be about 99% alike.

This is significant because that is the same degree of similarity we are thought to share with chimpanzees. If within our own species we can differ as much as 1% genetically, then we either have to conclude that chimps are basically human, or that their genetic similarity tells us little about their relationship to us.

Saying that our findings vis a vis human fossils and genetics fit evolutionary expectations ignores the fact that our findings are actually quite complex and still largely not understood.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:48:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
Hence, feathers on a bat will violate the nested hierarchy.


quote:


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.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy (see post 31)

Again, the main point that they're trying to get across is that organisms with a more distant relationship should have no feature in common that organisms with a closer relationship don't share (aside from the fact that how we "define" these orders is arbitrary). So they are trying to say that an organism with the features of a mammal should also be a vertebrate (that is, if an animal with mammalian features that's not a vertebrate existed the above quote would imply that mammals would share a feature in common with a more distant organism that a more closely related organism doesn't share, namely a vertebrate that's not a mammal). So lets take one feature of a mammal, say hair (h) and the feature(s) of vertebrates (or at least one important gene required by our speculative common ancestors to be a vertebrate) (v). Assuming universal evolution, earlier in the history it would have been possible for there to have been a vertebrate organism with hair that had a brother that didn't have a vertebrate but did have hair (he didn't inherit a critical gene v) yet he has a cousin who does have hair and is a vertebrate. These organisms can diverge into completely separate classes, representing a violation in this nested hierarchy (in which case, the hierarchy would have to be arbitrarily re - classified). Again, evolution predicts nothing.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 11:06:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I saw a couple of interesting articles on LiveScience recently discussing various difficulties in dealing with supposed human lineages. The first was Human Family Tree Now a Tangled, Messy Bush which basically discusses how the presumed human family tree is actually less clear today than it was presumed to be in the past.


Based on what we know about genetics (and what I have already been pointing out), this makes perfect sense. Universal evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy, it predicts nothing. If anything, what you have posted (a bunch of bushes everywhere and no clear pattern) is exactly what evolution predicts for reasons I have already stated above.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 11:57:14 AM)

Lets take a group of six tall people. They all share one feature in common, they are all tall.

Three of them have brown hair, out of those three two of them have green eyes and one has brown eyes.

Three of them have white hair, out of those three one of them has blue eyes and one has black eyes.

So now we have a nested hierarchy (all people with green eyes have brown hair and are tall). Yet, it could be that someone with Green eyes is brothers with someone with blue eyes and yet cousins with the other person with green eyes. Again, the fact that we can form a nested hierarchy out of these traits does not tell us their relationships. These people can independently diverge in different locations and, assuming universal evolution, these traits can become more static leading to violations of the nested hierarchy where all people with green eyes also have brown hair yet there are people with green eyes and brown hair that have a more distant relationship than people with white hair and blue eyes.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 12:33:45 PM)

(B = blue eyes)

----------Brothers------------Cousins
Blue eyes--------Green eyes----------Blue eyes
| +++++++++++ --|----------------------|
|---------------------|---------------------|
|---------------------|---------------------|
Class one--------Class two------------Class three


In this example, the organism with blue eyes is brothers with the organism with green eyes and cousins with the other organism with blue eyes. Natural selection favors these colors so eventually (assuming universal evolution), organism one may diverge into class one, all of which have blue eyes (so every organism in class one has blue eyes). Organism two may eventually diverge into class two, all of which have green eyes. Organism three may diverge into class three, all of which have blue eyes. Note that classes one and three share a common feature that class two does not share yet class two is more closely related to class one than class three. These features tell us nothing of their ancestry (yet these arbitrary nested hierarchies are categorized by their characteristics).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 9:24:21 PM)

Lets further clarify what punctuated equilibrium claims.

quote:


In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."

They believe that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

So basically, the problem here is that the fossil record does not support universal common ancestry. If it does, I would expect Darwin to be correct in that there should be a gradual transition among different organisms. Yet what we see are different organisms emerging (and often disappearing) spontaneously in the fossil record with no clear gradual transitions (as Darwin correctly predicted universal evolution would predict gradual transitions). Instead of a gradual change among organisms, we just see a constant stasis (things being the same) followed by huge sudden gaps among different organisms with no transitional fossils. So what do they speculate? Punctuated equilibrium, which basically speculates that all organisms will stay the same for a long period of time and then suddenly make huge changes all at once leaving little to no evidence behind. Of course this has never been observed and is unfalsifiable.

Also, as Jhud pointed out, if you trace back the lineage of humans (for instance) it does not form any sort of nested hierarchy (because common descent does not predict it will).



Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 9:27:32 PM)

JHud, can we please stay on topic?

Betta... you're trying to kill a strawman. It's a strawman for two reasons.

1) The nested heirachy includes the traits shown on creatures in the fossil record. Your strawman doesn't.
2) No-one is arguing with your 'species with a further relationship sharing a feature in common with a particular species that a species with a closer relationship does not share'. It has nothing to do with the nested heirachy, which leads me to conclude you don't quite understand what a nested heirachy is.

The heirachy is a simple result of the fact that decendants of a type of animal will still be in the same catagory as that animal. All decendants of the original mammal are mammals, all decendants of the original vertebrate are vertebrates. Mammals have certain features that distinguish them from, say, birds. Fur, for one. And even if a mammal were to lose their fur and develop feathers, they wouldn't be bird feathers, because the chances of revisiting the same mutationary path in a completely different environment on a completely different creature with genetics already existing for fur... is impossible.

So, there are two ways for a creature to develop a trait: inherit it from its ancestors, or 'evolve' it uniquely from scratch. It cannot share a feature with another creature that its common ancestor didn't have. Since we know that feathers developed towards the end of the dinosaurs reign, and that they aren't related to fur in any way, a creature with feathers and fur would violate the nested heirachy. The common ancestor didn't have those features, neither mammals nor birds have anything in their history to suggest that feathers or fur existed back then, they developed seperately. One cannot have the other in an evolutionary world, and you cannot pretend otherwise.

Oh, and you still have yet to address the platypus points:

Here are your images:
http://www.lakesidenaturecenter.org/images/AC_Mallard_Duck%20bill.jpg
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci338m/Lectures/platybill.jpg
And here are my two images as well:
A platypus bill
A duck bill
[/quote] (I include these because you can see the platypus bill from the side a little better, highlighting one of my points)

Put either pair side by side, and look at the images while you read my critique:

General Shape: The platypus has a wide, bulky bill, which is quite thin when seen edgeways. The duck has a thin, streamlined bill, which is quite tall.
Nostrils: The platypus has two close-set nostrils right up the front of the bill. These nostrils are on the top of the bill, turned inwards at about a 45 degree angle, and slightly raised from the rest of the structure. In comparison, the duck has two nostrils on the sides of the bill, and up close to the head. These nostrils are also aligned parallel to each other.
Front end of bill: The platypus has a very wide 'scoop' at the front of its bill. The duck has a narrow point, with a small tip downwards (You'll have to see the picture to understand what I'm getting at) Note: Not all ducks have a different coloured tip on their bill.
Connection to head: The platypus has a large amount of material to 'brace' the bill on their head. The fur seems to start underneath this bracing. In comparison, the duck's feathers shrink gradually to join the point where the bill fits onto the face. The ducks bill has no bracing material.
Appearance: The platypus bill appears quite lumpy, and is significantly softer than the comparison. This is because the platypus bill has hundreds of nerve endings in the bill... it is a 'touch organ', much like human fingertips. The duck bill, however, is very hard and smooth, and has no nerve endings at all..
Size: In relation to each other, the platypus is of a similar size to the duck... but the platypus bill is much larger than the ducks bill both relative to body mass and in real world size.
Skull: The platypus 'bill' is composed of soft tissues stretched over a framework - the duck bill is a solid entity.

AND THAT IS ONLY THE SHAPE! The internal structure, the materials used, the use it is put to... are all different! It is not a duck bill.

Please don't make sone vague copout "the general shape is the same" comment: please address my points this time.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 9:44:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6

JHud, can we please stay on topic?

Betta... you're trying to kill a strawman. It's a strawman for two reasons.


It is on topic, it involves mosaics and nested hierarchies.

quote:


The heirachy is a simple result of the fact that decendants of a type of animal will still be in the same catagory as that animal.


How we categorize these organisms is arbitrary. We categorize these organisms based on their characteristics.

quote:


Since we know that feathers developed towards the end of the dinosaurs reign, and that they aren't related to fur in any way, a creature with feathers and fur would violate the nested heirachy.


Again, it is speculated that they aren't related in any way, we don't "know" that. We speculate that based on their characteristics. However, if bats did have bird feathers, they can re - speculate that such characteristics developed together (at some other time).

quote:


The common ancestor didn't have those features, neither mammals nor birds have anything in their history to suggest that feathers or fur existed back then, they developed seperately.


Again, this speculation is based on the fact that bats don't have feathers. If bats did have bird feathers, they can speculate that they developed together.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 9:52:59 PM)

The duckbill and platypus bill are shaped similarly in that they both form a roundish U shape. While I do agree there are differences, your description seems to exaggerate the differences by using words like "very" "significantly", "much", "quite" etc... I am not denying the differences in their shapes and appearances, I am merely pointing out that there are similarities as well. In my pictures (with regard to the shape) the sides of both bills are relatively straight and then they curve into a U shape. Yes, the duckbill is slightly taller and the platypus bill is slightly wider, but the shape is similar in both.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 9:59:26 PM)

quote:


All decendants of the original mammal are mammals, all decendants of the original vertebrate are vertebrates.


No, it's possible for an organism (that is, the speculated original vertebrate) to be a vertebrate and yet have some offspring that are vertebrates and some offspring that aren't (say that there is a significant trait, it's possible for one offspring to inherit that trait and another not to). Same thing is true for mammals. It's possible that one mammal had an offspring with hair yet it had another offspring that didn't have hair.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:10:37 PM)

According to Darwinism, all mammals are more closely related to one another than they are to non - mammals. However, it's possible that earlier in the tree a mammal had a sister that wasn't a mammal (because his sister lacked some critical gene required to be a mammal, say some critical gene for hair) yet it had a cousin that was a mammal (because it had the gene for hair or something). Then these three organisms can branch off into separate classes where one class has fur in common with another class but is more closely related to the class that does not have fur. Again, these arbitrary nested hierarchies that we can form tell us nothing of their ancestry.



Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:16:08 PM)

quote:

The duckbill and platypus bill are shaped similarly in that they both form a roundish U shape. While I do agree there are differences, your description seems to exaggerate the differences by using words like "very" "significantly", "much", "quite" etc... I am not denying the differences in their shapes and appearances, I am merely pointing out that there are similarities as well. In my pictures (with regard to the shape) the sides of both bills are relatively straight and then they curve into a U shape. Yes, the duckbill is slightly taller and the platypus bill is slightly wider, but the shape is similar in both.

OK, so in a rediculously generalised way the shape is similar. In the same way, my canine teeth are similar to the fangs on a snake. So what?! Do you think that those who spend their lives catagorising traits are going to go "oh look, the platypus bill looks like a duck bill, therefore it fits in the bird catagory"? They're smarter than that, and so are you.

quote:

No, it's possible for an organism (that is, the speculated original vertebrate) to be a vertebrate and yet have some offspring that are vertebrates and some offspring that aren't (say that there is a significant trait, it's possible for one offspring to inherit that trait and another not to).

Not when the trait is a slow build up of hundreds of traits, which is what every major evolutionary change consists of under the evolutionary paradigm (last three words put in to ward of the inevitable cry of 'speculation'). Only 'single mutation' changes can go back like this... macroevolutionary changes cannot.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:17:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Since we know that feathers developed towards the end of the dinosaurs reign, and that they aren't related to fur in any way, a creature with feathers and fur would violate the nested heirachy.


It may violate the current arbitrary nested hierarchy, but it's possible to then form some other nested hierarchy. We don't "know" that feathers and fur aren't related in any way, they "speculate" that feathers and fur aren't related in any way based on the fact that no organisms with feathers also have fur. If an organism with bird feathers were to be found with mammal fur, they can then speculate that fur and feathers do have some sort of relationship and re - define the categories in the hierarchy to fit some other conceivable hierarchy.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI