|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: My understanding of what a nested hierarchy is is probably lacking. I like to think of the world's languages as nested hierarchies. God created different languages during the "Tower of Bable" incident (as you know) and they are distinct from each other. For example, German is distinct from Mandarin. Languages fall into nested hierarchies because they share common ancestry and evolve independently, much like life does. German and English sound more similar than German and Mandarin because they share a more recent common ancestor. We can trace the shared ancestry between English and German through documents, so it isn't a case of the languages being created de novo more than 4,000 years ago.
God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy? So you are saying that humans share a common ancestor with all other primates? Are you saying that God created a single primate species, and all modern primates, including humans, descend from that initial primate species? Primates are also branches within the mammal nested hierarchy along with other branches such as rodents, ungulates, bats, cetaceans, marsupials, and monotremes. Are mammals a created kind? Mammals are but one branch in the tetrapod nested hierarchy which includes amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Tetrapods are but one branch in the vertebrate nested hierarchy which includes bony fish, sharks, agnathans, and urochordates. Vertebrates are but one branch in the animal nested hierarchy that includes cniderians, sponges, molluscs, worms, and arthropods. Animals are but one major branch of the eukaryote tree which also includes plants and protists. So where is this created kind on this tree, and are you just going to pick some arbitrary point on the tree to place your created kinds? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
The whole concept begs the question of why God would create separate kinds that fit into a nested hierarchy.
The argument often used by ID/creationists is that mammal-like reptiles are best explained by a common creator combining features from both mammals and reptiles into a new kind. So why wouldn't that same process also combine features from mammals and birds, or fish and cephalopods? Why can't we find a created kind with mammary glands and feathers, or a shark with a forward facing retina and tentacles? I see no reason why we would ever expect separately created kinds to fit into a nested hierarchy. There are literally trillions of other possible combinations of features other than a nested hierarchy, so why this pattern when there are so many other patterns of shared features to pick from? Until creationists can explain this, they really don't have an argument. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Pressie writes: Really? Name one. I don't think you were telling the truth with that comment. To be fair, I know of at least two species that don't fit into the nested hierarchy:
Both of these species carry an exact copy of a jellyfish GFP gene that clearly violates the nested hierarchy. The irony, of course, is that these species were intelligently designed by humans. Yet more evidence that we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy if species were intelligently designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Pressie writes: Now I understand the word Clade a lot better than before (I have virtually no training in Biology, except for the short course I took in Genetics). Once you go cladistics, there is no turning back. After learning cladistics the first thing you will start noticing is how many paraphyletic groups are still used by the lay public and biologists.
For example, "apes" is a paraphyletic group unless you include humans in the group. A cladist will describe them as hominids which includes the great apes and humans. You will stop using terms like "fish" and start using terms like jawed vertebrate. Monophyly or no phyly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists. The nested hierarchies were first described by Linnaeus, hundreds of years before Darwin. Also, phylogenies are objective observations of nature:
quote: The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - "reasonable" junk science, in other words. As shown above, phylogenies are rigorously tested and objective. They aren't baseless assumptions or speculation.
The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. How does a platypus not fit into a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: How does a playpus fit into a nested hierarchy? They have a mixture of features shared by placental mammals and reptiles which is what we would expect if mammals evolved from earlier reptiles. That puts their branch right at the base of the mammal tree. They have a cloaca, lay leathery eggs, and have legs that splay out from their torso like reptiles. They have three middle ear bones, fur, and mammary glands like more derived mammals. They fit perfectly in the expected nested hierarchy. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: Don't be silly. It's not an "observation". It's an atheist fable which got its inspiration from a science-fiction novel written by Charles Darwin. Darwin, in turn, got the inspiration for his novel while under the influence of a large dose of the hallucinogen, mescaline, when he was in South America. Unless Darwin dreamt up over 100 years of Linnaean taxonomy that preceded him, you are simply wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: Well of course Mr. Linnaeus didn't call it a "nested hierarchy" - because that's not what he observed. What Linnaeus described was a nested hierarchy, groups within groups. Same thing.
Nested hierarchies are a figtree of Darwinist imagination - you know, like Charlie's mythical "Tree of Life". How is the observed phylogeny a myth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: In others words, any creature can be fitted into a nested hierarchy - all you need is a vivid imagination and an appetite for fake science. A species with mammary glands, flow through lungs, feathers, and three middle ear bones could not be fit into the nested hierarchy. I can give you millions of examples of species that would not fit the observed nested hierarchy. Until you explain why you think the platypus should not fit into the existing nested hierarchy then I really can't help you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: Not all ancestors are observed: The fossils that are observed do fit into a nested hierarchy. It isn't a myth. Every single fossil is evidence for evolution because they fit into a nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: A million wrongs don't make a right. You have yet to say a right thing about phylogenetics, so what does that tell you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: The rationale for arranging them in that order is to make it look like the general theory of evolution is true - as is the wont of atheist "scientists".
So you admit that fossils look transitional?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: A cat fossil and a dog fossil could be imagined as transitional. Nothing to do with reality, however. Here is what you said: "The rationale for arranging them in that order is to make it look like the general theory of evolution is true" That seems like a tacit admission that those fossils look transitional. Is that not the case? If they don't look transitional, then what are you complaining about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: If a flying mammal (a bat) can be fitted into a nested hierarchy, then another flying mammal - a pig - surely can. All you need to do is invent another branch on the tree - as you could do for any "new" creature (whether living or fossilized). The feathers would be a clear violation of the nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Granny Magda writes: I have to sound a note of scepticism here; I don't think that stories of dragons and griffins are based upon fossils. I tend to think the same thing. Large animals in distant countries seems like a much better source for these legends. For example, here is an early depiction of St. George slaying a dragon:
It isn't much of a stretch to conclude that dragons could have been influenced by 5th hand stories about large snakes or crocodiles.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024