Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 5 of 218 (821085)
10-02-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dredge
10-02-2017 3:25 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dredge, posted 10-02-2017 3:25 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 12 of 218 (821166)
10-03-2017 12:04 PM


Why Nested Hierarchies?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:17 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(5)
Message 18 of 218 (821275)
10-04-2017 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Pressie
10-04-2017 5:36 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Pressie, posted 10-04-2017 5:36 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 9:51 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 21 of 218 (821367)
10-06-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Pressie
10-06-2017 5:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Pressie, posted 10-06-2017 5:23 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 58 of 218 (822343)
10-23-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


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 degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 11-15-2017 9:01 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(4)
Message 75 of 218 (822552)
10-27-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:43 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 10-27-2017 11:55 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 84 by Dredge, posted 11-06-2017 1:18 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 76 of 218 (822553)
10-27-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:38 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:38 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 88 of 218 (823150)
11-06-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dredge
11-06-2017 1:15 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dredge, posted 11-06-2017 1:15 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 11-15-2017 2:39 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 89 of 218 (823152)
11-06-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dredge
11-06-2017 1:18 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dredge, posted 11-06-2017 1:18 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 99 of 218 (823709)
11-15-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dredge
11-15-2017 2:39 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 11-15-2017 2:39 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:40 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 100 of 218 (823710)
11-15-2017 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dredge
11-15-2017 2:44 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dredge, posted 11-15-2017 2:44 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:44 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 139 of 218 (824555)
11-30-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dredge
11-26-2017 6:49 AM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:49 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2017 6:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 152 of 218 (824877)
12-04-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dredge
12-03-2017 6:47 PM


Re: platypus nested hierarchy
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2017 6:47 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 12-04-2017 4:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 160 of 218 (824938)
12-05-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dredge
12-04-2017 7:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dredge, posted 12-04-2017 7:27 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 173 of 218 (825296)
12-11-2017 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Granny Magda
12-11-2017 2:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Granny Magda, posted 12-11-2017 2:47 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by caffeine, posted 12-12-2017 4:39 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024