RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (Full Version)

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



Message

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:19:38 PM)

quote:

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.

No gene does this. You are using single mutations as an analogy for the slow build-up which results in new features. A creature might grow less hair,(look at humans), but it will not go from hair to no hair in one jump, and it certainly will not go back to what it was like before it had hair... it will still have features that come with hair, like pored skin.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:22:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
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.


Can you show me an example where hundreds of traits were built to form a nested hierarchy in a Darwinian like fashion (by show, I don't mean speculate that this happened at one time, show me an example of this occurring where it has been observed to occur. Please don't fill in such gaps with unfalsifiable periods of time claiming that it takes too long for us to observe. While this maybe true, it's unfalsifiable). As Jhud pointed out, if you trace human ancestry, it leads to no such hierarchies where traits accumulate in the manner that you suggest (or even the lineages of any group of organisms where their lineages can be observed). There is no observable evidence to suggest that what you're saying is true and there is no reason to suggest that hundreds of traits will ever collect to form some sort of nested hierarchy.

Adding hundreds of genes to deal with is simply confusing the issue, unless you can actually show me examples of this occurring in nature, lets just deal with one trait at a time.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:25:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
No gene does this. You are using single mutations as an analogy for the slow build-up which results in new features. A creature might grow less hair,(look at humans), but it will not go from hair to no hair in one jump, and it certainly will not go back to what it was like before it had hair... it will still have features that come with hair, like pored skin.


I am not talking about mutations, I am talking about how genes are passed from one generation to another. According to universal evolution, hair at one time did not exist. Eventually, at some other point in time, it did exist. So at one time, some critical gene was supposedly formed that caused an organism to have hair. It's possible for one organism to have had this gene (hence have had hair), had a brother that didn't have this gene, yet have had a cousin that did have this gene. These organisms could have diverged into different classes and yet you would have one class that has hair that is more closely related to a class with no hair than it is to another class that does have hair.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/4/2007 10:35:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
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.


If anything, we never observe the cumulation of traits in the manner you just described and we certainly don't observe the cumulation (or "build up" as you put it) of these genes to form any sort of nested hierarchy. Take pure breed dogs, for instance, puddles represent a loss of genetic information from their ancestors (and pure breed dogs tend to have all sorts of health problems) and we certainly don't observe any cumulations of new traits that forms any sort of nested hierarchy within the sub - classes of pure breed dogs. What build up and where are these build ups ever observed in nature to form any sort of nested hierarchies (other than unfalsifiable speculation that this takes too long for us to observe).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/5/2007 1:16:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
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.


If the platypus bill was too similar to the duckbill, they might attribute it to common ancestry (that at some time they acquired this bill through some common ancestor). However, it is similar enough for us to notice the similarities in shape (ie: we even call it the duckbill platypus and I gave many examples where people noticed that it is shaped like a duckbill. "The British scientists were at first convinced that the odd collection of physical attributes must have been a hoax." "It was thought that somebody had sewn a duck's beak onto the body of a beaver-like animal." Obviously, for it to have caused this much confusion suggests that there is a degree of similarity) yet different enough so that we won't attribute its similarities to a common ancestor.

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



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/5/2007 11:12:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Not when the trait is a slow build up of hundreds of traits...


Another example is in the case of trilobites. As Jhud pointed out
here
here
trilobites are loosing genetic diversity.

quote:


"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."


Basically, what we observe is a loss in genetic diversity (a loss in genetic traits / information). There is no (observable, non speculative) evidence to suggest that "a slow build up of hundreds of traits" ever occurs to produce any form of nested hierarchy, instead, what we observe is just the opposite. We observe the break down of traits and the loss of genetic diversity and information.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/10/2007 9:17:39 AM)

Betta, before you don't understand what a nested hierarchy actually IS, you can't debate anything related to the topic.

Please demonstrate to me that you understand what a nested hierarchy IS, then we can continue.

You can start by giving me your definition of a nested hierarchy.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/10/2007 11:41:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

Betta, before you don't understand what a nested hierarchy actually IS, you can't debate anything related to the topic.

Please demonstrate to me that you understand what a nested hierarchy IS, then we can continue.

You can start by giving me your definition of a nested hierarchy.


I already explained this in post #64. Please stop accusing me of not knowing what a nested hierarchy is just because you can't refute my claims.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/11/2007 1:34:08 AM)

Ok. Here is post #64:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
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).


No they don't. You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

quote:


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.


Here are the people:

B1 (Brother 1) : Has hair, but not backbone.
B2 (Brother 2) : Has a backbone, but no hair.
C1 (Cousin 1) : Has both a backbone, and hair.

Any one of the following must be true before the nested hierarchy is violated:

* No ancestor of B1 has hair.
* No ancestor of B2 has a backbone.
* No ancestor of C1 has hair.
* No ancestor of C1 has a backbone.

The fact that B1 and B2 are more closely related, yet C1 shares traits they don't share with each other DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHY.

If you knew what a nested hierarchy WAS, you would know this. You don't.

THUS: You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

quote:


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.


Evolution predicts that all creatures will fall into a nested hierarchy. But since you don't even know what a nested hierarchy IS, I am not really sure why or how you have an opinion of the matter.

So, again: Before you don't show me what a nested hierarchy IS, I don't see why we should take anything you say seriously.

Give me your definition of a NH (nested hierarchy), and a short description, then we can continue.



Jhud -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/11/2007 10:30:11 AM)

quote:

Here are the people:

B1 (Brother 1) : Has hair, but not backbone.
B2 (Brother 2) : Has a backbone, but no hair.
C1 (Cousin 1) : Has both a backbone, and hair.

Any one of the following must be true before the nested hierarchy is violated:

* No ancestor of B1 has hair.
* No ancestor of B2 has a backbone.
* No ancestor of C1 has hair.
* No ancestor of C1 has a backbone.

The fact that B1 and B2 are more closely related, yet C1 shares traits they don't share with each other DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHY.

If you knew what a nested hierarchy WAS, you would know this. You don't.


Sorry to interject here, but doesn't evolution assume that at some point that our ancestors at didn't have either backbones or hair?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/11/2007 6:18:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Sorry to interject here, but doesn't evolution assume that at some point that our ancestors at didn't have either backbones or hair?


Yes, I explained this in an earlier post (post 78). Thanks.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/11/2007 6:59:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:


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).

No they don't. You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.


Again, from reading post 64 and 31, you can tell this is exactly how they classify these organisms.

quote:


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.


http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

What are they trying to say? They are basically saying that organisms with a more distant relationship should not have features in common that organisms with a closer relationship don't share. So they claim the Pegasus is a violation because it would either be a bird (or more closely related to birds) with features of a mammal that other birds don't share or it would be a mammal (or more closely related to mammals) with features of a bird that other mammals don't share. Of course how we define a "class" is arbitrary and if the Pegasus did exist, they can either re - define the features required to be in this "class" (or whatever they want to call it: order, phylum, etc...), they can re - define the tree altogether (to make things fit into some other conceivable, arbitrary nested hierarchy), or they can claim that these organisms diverged earlier in the tree (which is kinda like re - defining the tree altogether. In the case of the platypus, I'm not exactly sure how they arbitrarily try to resolve that one).

quote:


Here are the people:

B1 (Brother 1) : Has hair, but not backbone.
B2 (Brother 2) : Has a backbone, but no hair.
C1 (Cousin 1) : Has both a backbone, and hair.

Any one of the following must be true before the nested hierarchy is violated:

* No ancestor of B1 has hair.
* No ancestor of B2 has a backbone.
* No ancestor of C1 has hair.
* No ancestor of C1 has a backbone.


I understand what you're trying to say, but modern taxonomy does not work this way. The reason being, we don't know what characteristic each and every ancestor had (or even their relationships) in the (distant) past. We can't know which ancestors in the (distant) past were cousins and which ones were brothers and which parents had what features and who got which features from what parents.

The way taxonomy works is they take a group of organisms and they try to place them into arbitrary nested hierarchies based on what characteristics they have. So if they notice that all mammals are vertebrates, they will arbitrarily say that all mammals are more closely related to one another than non - mammals and they will arbitrarily say that mammals are more closely related vertebrates than invertebrates.

Again, the problem with this is that just because we can arbitrarily place organisms into nested hierarchies does not tell us the relationships among them and it doesn't even tell us that they are related to begin with. For instance, in the case of bats (as already demonstrated) they placed them into some arbitrary nested hierarchy (because they can) and after looking at the genomes they found a violation of the previous arbitrary hierarchy (that is, they found they were more genetically similar to horses than cows). This demonstrates that the arbitrary nested hierarchies that we can place these organisms into does not tell us their relationships (it doesn't even tell us that they're related). So (to fix the problem) they simply re - place them into some other arbitrary nested hierarchy (based on the similarities and differences among different genomes. Of course, the fact that two genomes maybe more similar to one another than a third does not tell us that the two corresponding organisms are related. Among any ten random, different files (or genomes), if you picked one it may be more similar to one of the other nine than it is to any of the other eight. This doesn't mean that these two files bear any relationships. Similarities and differences are just a matter of degree). The point here is that just because we can place organisms into some arbitrary nested hierarchy doesn't mean that the arbitrary features that we use to place them bear any significance to their relationships (or even tell us that they're related).

Bats and horses get strangely chummy



Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 12:26:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Here are the people:

B1 (Brother 1) : Has hair, but not backbone.
B2 (Brother 2) : Has a backbone, but no hair.
C1 (Cousin 1) : Has both a backbone, and hair.

Any one of the following must be true before the nested hierarchy is violated:

* No ancestor of B1 has hair.
* No ancestor of B2 has a backbone.
* No ancestor of C1 has hair.
* No ancestor of C1 has a backbone.

The fact that B1 and B2 are more closely related, yet C1 shares traits they don't share with each other DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHY.

If you knew what a nested hierarchy WAS, you would know this. You don't.


Sorry to interject here, but doesn't evolution assume that at some point that our ancestors at didn't have either backbones or hair?

Out of curiousity, what does this have to BVZ's point? He said that a violation would require "No ancestor of [creature] to have [feature]". I feel you must have misread his post.

quote:

If the platypus bill was too similar to the duckbill, they might attribute it to common ancestry (that at some time they acquired this bill through some common ancestor).However, it is similar enough for us to notice the similarities in shape (ie: we even call it the duckbill platypus and I gave many examples where people noticed that it is shaped like a duckbill. "The British scientists were at first convinced that the odd collection of physical attributes must have been a hoax." "It was thought that somebody had sewn a duck's beak onto the body of a beaver-like animal." Obviously, for it to have caused this much confusion suggests that there is a degree of similarity) yet different enough so that we won't attribute its similarities to a common ancestor.

Ah, I see where we are getting confused. You think that the platypus bill can't be attributed to common ancestory because it's not similar enough. Wrong!

The reason it can't be attributed to common ancestory because the platypus isn't decended from the dinosaurs, like birds are. If it was, it wouldn't have mammal features. Since it has mammal features we know it diverged after the point those features were evolved. But we also know it diverged before its reptilian features (egg laying, for one) were replaced. Its bill is a unique organ, which happens to vaguely resemble a birds bill.

It can't be attributed to common ancestory because birds and platypus do not have a common ancestor with a bill.

quote:

[the whole 'cousin brother thing']

Your examples, quite apart from being way too small scale to apply, and not dealing with the actual nested heirachy but instead dealing only with currently existing organisms, has one other major flaw. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.

The B1, B2 C1 example, for instance: To get it, you would have to do this:

G1: GrandParent 1, with both genes Y and Z
P1, P2: Parents 1 and 2, P1 must have both Y and Z, and P2 must have gene Y.
B1,B2,C1: B1 has Y, B2 has Z, C1 has Y.

Hence, you have B1 sharing a trait with C1 that B2 doesn't have. Now we'll apply that to populations:

G1: GrandPopulation 1, with trait Y...

Err... in humans you can have recessive genes which means that gene Z can be stored along with gene Y. Not possible in entire populations... and even if it was, how would B2 get trait Z back when its parent population had trait Y?

Your analogies are useless. Sorry.

You are still trying to say according to the theory evolution can 'undo' a trait (to take an example, a backbone) and go back to being invertebrate as easily as a human can go to an eye colour that its parents had. This is what we call a strawman.

quote:

[the bats and horses issue]

If horses shared features with cows that they didn't share with bats, and then the study found that bats are more closely related (PS: closely related refers to time-since-divergence) than cows, this would constitue a violation. However, what the study found was that a single branch of the tree, put there simply because there were no major features to go on at the time it was classified, was incorrectly placed. It wasn't a violation, merely a mistake. This needs a diagram, I can tell:

OLD------NEW
--|--------|
-/|--------|\
/-|\-------|-\
|-|-\------|--|\
|-|--|-----|--|--\
|-|--|-----|--|--|
B-H-C----C-H--B

See? Nothing significant evolved between the bat divergence and the 'horse cow' divergence (on the old diagram), so there was no way to tell where to put the bats. The heirachy was updated when genetic information came to light. A Pegusus, or a bird mammal, on the other hand... they would very much violate the nested heirachy.

One last thing: You seem to think that if one of these were found, scientists would still try to find a way to write it into evolutionary theory. I don't think that scientists are that idiotic. If one was found, they'd still try to find a natural explanation (because that's what science does... it takes the inexplicable, the supernatural, and explains it) but they wouldn't try to fit it into evolution.



Jhud -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 12:37:11 AM)

quote:

Out of curiousity, what does this have to BVZ's point? He said that a violation would require "No ancestor of [creature] to have [feature]". I feel you must have misread his post.


Well, no, I understood the point. If evolution is to occur, that is a species is to develop structures and systems that didn't previously exist, it would seem that at some point a species would have something it's ancestors didn't. That would be the point of evolution, wouldn't it?



Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 1:00:33 AM)

quote:

Well, no, I understood the point. If evolution is to occur, that is a species is to develop structures and systems that didn't previously exist, it would seem that at some point a species would have something it's ancestors didn't. That would be the point of evolution, wouldn't it?

Yes. Err...

... I'm confused. BVZ's point was that two related creatures can't have a trait that their common ancestor didn't share. Were you reading it in context, taking into account the B1, B2, C1 issue?

I'm very confused now...



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 1:08:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, no, I understood the point. If evolution is to occur, that is a species is to develop structures and systems that didn't previously exist, it would seem that at some point a species would have something it's ancestors didn't. That would be the point of evolution, wouldn't it?


Exactly, and my point is that there is no reason that organism with a more distant relationship won't share features in common that organisms with a closer relationship don't share (ie: vertebra, mammalian traits, etc..). Evolution doesn't predict a hierarchy, it predicts nothing.



Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 1:20:20 AM)

quote:

Evolution doesn't predict a hierarchy, it predicts nothing.

Keep saying it. Maybe it'll come true.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 1:22:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Ah, I see where we are getting confused.


I am not getting confused.

quote:


You think that the platypus bill can't be attributed to common ancestory because it's not similar enough.


That's one reason, yes.

quote:


Wrong!


How so?

quote:


The reason it can't be attributed to common ancestory because the platypus isn't decended from the dinosaurs


Again, they speculated this based on it's morphology. If it's morphology were different they could speculate that it received it as a result of common ancestry (ie: higher up in the hierarchy).

quote:


like birds are


Again, that is speculated based on their morphology.

quote:


Since it has mammal features we know it diverged after the point those features were evolved.


It is speculated that it diverged after the point those features evolved.

quote:


But we also know it diverged before its reptilian features (egg laying, for one) were replaced.


No, this is speculated as well. If it didn't have these features, they will claim it diverged after. See, they arbitrarily decide when it diverged based on its features and if the features were any different, they will claim it diverged at a different time. So if it did have a ducks bill, they will simply re - place when it diverged.

quote:


It can't be attributed to common ancestory because birds and platypus do not have a common ancestor with a bill.


Again, this is speculative. If the bill were exactly the same, they can claim that birds and platypuses did have a common ancestor with a bill and re - place where it diverged.

quote:


You are still trying to say according to the theory evolution can 'undo' a trait (to take an example, a backbone) and go back to being invertebrate as easily as a human can go to an eye colour that its parents had. This is what we call a strawman.


Even at the scale of the population, at one time the vertebrate did exist and at another it did not. Therefore, it's entirely possible for one organism to have been a vertebrate that had a brother that wasn't yet a cousin that was. Then it's possible for these organism to have diverged separately. There is nothing stopping this from occurring.

quote:


However, what the study found was that a single branch of the tree, put there simply because there were no major features to go on at the time it was classified, was incorrectly placed.


So you're basically saying that it was originally put there for no reason. So then you admit that the hierarchy was originally arbitrary. Hence, there is no reason for me to conclude that it's still not arbitrary. They found a conflict in their original arbitrary hierarchy so they adjusted it to form some other arbitrary hierarchy.

So basically, you admit that these people like to place branches in trees simply because there are no major features to go on so they must arbitrarily decide some place to put it. When they find a violation, they simply arbitrarily put them someplace else. Thanks for admitting that these trees are arbitrary.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 1:24:52 AM)

quote:


If horses shared features with cows that they didn't share with bats, and then the study found that bats are more closely related (PS: closely related refers to time-since-divergence) than cows, this would constitue a violation.


If this happened, they can simply re - define when these organisms diverged. I already showed you a violation but you deny it and simply say that something else will be a violation instead, but even if your scenario did occur, they can still find some way to place it in some conceivable hierarchy and re - arrange where these organisms diverged.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 1:48:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
If one was found, they'd still try to find a natural explanation (because that's what science does... it takes the inexplicable, the supernatural, and explains it) but they wouldn't try to fit it into evolution.


No, that's not what science does, that's what naturalism does. To be scientific, something must be falsifiable. ID is falsifiable, universal evolution (and naturalism) is not.



Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 2:44:07 AM)

quote:

No, that's not what science does, that's what naturalism does. To be scientific, something must be falsifiable. ID is falsifiable, universal evolution (and naturalism) is not.

Again, keep saying it. Maybe it'll come true.

BTW, how would you falsify ID?

quote:

Again, they speculated this based on it's morphology... Again, that is speculated based on their morphology... It is speculated that ... No, this is speculated as well... Again, this is speculative...

I'm convinced. Definately a catch word that allows you to ignore stuff we say that you don't like.

quote:

Even at the scale of the population, at one time the vertebrate did exist and at another it did not. Therefore, it's entirely possible for one organism to have been a vertebrate that had a brother that wasn't yet a cousin that was. Then it's possible for these organism to have diverged separately. There is nothing stopping this from occurring.

Oh really? Demonstrate it then. Show how one population could evolve a trait that another population of the same species doesn't have, While at the same time a more distantly related population could have the same trait which is only now evolving in the first population.

You can't. All you can do is show pathetically simplified analogies using individuals.

quote:

So you're basically saying that it was originally put there for no reason. So then you admit that the hierarchy was originally arbitrary. Hence, there is no reason for me to conclude that it's still not arbitrary. They found a conflict in their original arbitrary hierarchy so they adjusted it to form some other arbitrary hierarchy.

Hmm, thats funny... there seem to be words in my mouth that I didn't put there. I wonder where they came from?

I'm getting more sarcastic the longer I spend on these forums.

The one of the end branches of the heirachy was adjusted slightly because of new information (discovery of 'new features' that the creatures shared: genetics).

The heirachy itself, the whole mammal-reptile-bird-fish part, down to quite a high level of detail, remained perfectly intact, and has done since its conception. You are suggesting this is because it can't be falsified, I'm suggesting this is because it's accurate. However, your argument for a situation I think would falsify it is that it would have to be reworked. It hasn't been reworked since its conception. This supports my opinion, that it is accurate.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 3:14:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Oh really? Demonstrate it then. Show how one population could evolve a trait that another population of the same species doesn't have, While at the same time a more distantly related population could have the same trait which is only now evolving in the first population.


You are still not understanding my argument. Populations come from individuals. So one person can have a trait, have a brother that doesn't have that trait, yet a cousin that does have that trait. According to GTE, those three could diverge separately into different species and two more distant species could share a common feature that two more closely related species won't share.

Of course we never actually observe the development of such traits through evolutionary methods (they are only speculated to develop) so it would be difficult for me to show that traits can accumulate in such a manner.

quote:


You can't. All you can do is show pathetically simplified analogies using individuals.


All you can do is show nothing. You speculate these nested hierarchies but when asked to show me examples of nested hierarchies forming in nature, you are unable to. Take the human population, they in no way form a nested hierarchy. Take pure breed dogs, they in no way accumulate features that form a nested hierarchy. Can you demonstrate to me examples of the accumulation of features in any way forming a nested hierarchy (instead of just speculating this is how it happens)? I already showed you, common ancestry does not predict a nested hierarchy. If you trace human ancestry back, it does not show a nested hierarchy. Instead, it just shows a tangled mess. So instead of actually showing me the formation of nested hierarchies (ie: among populations that we can observe right now) you simply complicate things and speculate that these complicated restraints will form some nested hierarchy. Show me.

quote:


The one of the end branches of the heirachy was adjusted slightly because of new information (discovery of 'new features' that the creatures shared: genetics).


They placed the bat in some arbitrary nested hierarchy and this nested hierarchy did not show the relationship among the different organisms. They determined this based on the DNA. So to resolve it, they simply re - place the bat in some other conceivable hierarchy. This goes to show you that there is no reason to suppose that these nested hierarchies are in any way significant to the relationships of these organisms and the fact that we can arbitrarily place organisms in some arbitrarily conceivable nested hierarchy does not tell us they're related.

quote:



The heirachy itself, the whole mammal-reptile-bird-fish part, down to quite a high level of detail, remained perfectly intact, and has done since its conception. You are suggesting this is because it can't be falsified, I'm suggesting this is because it's accurate. However, your argument for a situation I think would falsify it is that it would have to be reworked. It hasn't been reworked since its conception. This supports my opinion, that it is accurate.


If it were accurate, they wouldn't have to have moved the bat around. They moved the bat around because the nested hierarchy wasn't accurate. There is no reason for me to believe that the current arbitrary nested hierarchy is accurate yet alone that this arbitrary hierarchy somehow supports common ancestry.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/12/2007 11:36:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
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.


I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate to me (with observed examples) the accumulation (build up) of traits creating any form of nested hierarchy. We never observe the accumulation of traits forming any sort of nested hierarchy, we observe the accumulated loss of traits over time (as already demonstrated in previous posts) but we never observe the accumulation of traits forming any sort of nested hierarchy. Filling in these gaps with time is speculative and not scientific.



BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (9/13/2007 1:59:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


If horses shared features with cows that they didn't share with bats, and then the study found that bats are more closely related (PS: closely related refers to time-since-divergence) than cows, this would constitue a violation.


If this happened, they can simply re - define when these organisms diverged. I already showed you a violation but you deny it and simply say that something else will be a violation instead, but even if your scenario did occur, they can still find some way to place it in some conceivable hierarchy and re - arrange where these organisms diverged.


Show me how they would do this. You keep saying that they can re-define it, but SHOW ME.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (4/20/2008 12:43:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Since the birds features and the platypus features evolve seperately, and 'B' didn't have either bird or platypus features, a platypus cannot have a bird beak and a bird cannot have a platypus bill. In the same way, dinosaurs cannot share features with mammals that didn't exist in creature B.


I found this interesting

quote:


Meanwhile, the absence of the SRY gene and the presence of a gene similar to DMRT1 on the platypus' X5 suggests a link to the birds.


http://www.tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4430

quote:


An animal said to be the "world's weirdest" — the platypus — has just become a bit more unusual with a report that claims the mammal retains a distinctly birdlike sex chromosome.

The finding, published in the current journal Nature, not only helps to explain why the platypus retains characteristics common to both mammals and birds, but it also suggests that the sex chromosomes for these two diverse groups might have an evolutionary link.
....
Previously it was believed that sex systems for mammals and birds evolved completely independently from each other. If the current research holds true, all mammals, including humans, may hold a bit of unexpected bird history from the distant past.


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/platypus.html

Further demonstrating that they can simply manipulate the trees at will which further demonstrates the arbitrary nature of these alleged nested hierarchies. If there is a violation in one tree, they arbitrarily manipulate it to form some other arbitrary tree.

Notice how their attempted solution is to push divergent point(s) back, which is exactly what I said they would do and evolutionists on this thread have denied that they would/could do this.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI