A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Did Linnaeus arrange his system as nested hierarchy?

Yes, he did. The Taxonomy of Linnaeus divided three “Kingdoms” (animals, plants and minerals) into orders, orders into genera and genera into species.The classification of animals is still recognisable, although there have been many changes over the years.

I.e. you have no clue about what Linnaeus did.His top classification was plant or animal or mineral. Here's animal, direct from his book. You'll have to click on the image to get a version large enough to read. Across the top are the secondary classifications (quadrupeds, birds, amphibians, fish, insects, worms). The left part of each column under those top items is the tertiary classification. In the middle part of those columns is the quaternary classification, and the right part is examples (I think).I've added a red arrow to Man in the upper left corner. Linnaeus classified Man under Anthropomorphia (man-shaped). He classified Anthropomorphia under Quadrupedia (four limbs), and Quadrupedia under Animalia.Or, in the same manner as the image I posted previously: Damned if I know what Bradypus means.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Bradypus appears to refer to the sloths.

and there I thought it was the quarterback for the NE Patriots ...

I've seen that chart many times and it is vey hard to read even zoomed to the max but I don't see how it shows a nested hierarchy?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've seen that chart many times and it is vey hard to read even zoomed to the max but I don't see how it shows a nested hierarchy?

---

You’d probably find it easier if you paid attention to the explanations that Jon and I have already given.Nevertheless here is how it works.The whole two-page spread covers the Animal kingdom.The six major columns are the classes. The first is “QUADRUPEDIA”. Defining traits are listed below (so we can see that the “QUADRUPEDIA” are mammals - I can grasp Latin enough to see that they are hairy, have four “feet”, females give live birth and lactate)The subdivisions of those columns are the more detailed parts of the hierarchy.Thus on the left we have the order “ANTHROPOMORPHA” which is subdivided into the genera “Homo”, “Simia” and “Bradypus”. Traits are again listed.The next sub-column to the right is the defining traits of the genera.The next sub-column divides the entries into species, and includes division into subspecies. (Homo has the entry “H” and the sub-divisions are bracketed together - humans subdivided into Europeans, Americans, Asians and Africans). The entries for “Simia” are not bracketed together, nor are the entries for “Bradypus” - they are full species. Traits are not listed.So there you have the nested hierarchy, kingdom, order, genera, species, subspecies.Each subspecies is fully contained - nested - within a species.Each species is fully contained within a genus.Each genus is fully contained within an order.Each order is fully contained within a kingdom.

But you do say that God did it, many times in just this thread alone, for example: Your further claim that God's involvement ended at creation misrepresents creationist thinking. In the creationist view God reduced every "kind" (which remains undefined) to just a maximum of four alleles per gene during the flood (more for clean species). If the creationist view is correct then somehow between the flood and today a number of genes have come to possess a large number of alleles across a population, far beyond four, which would require numerous non-deleterious mutations, no matter how "kind" is defined. The ABO gene has more than 200 different alleles.--Percy

This is a formula guaranteed to maintain ignorance. All participants should read and understand the posts they respond to.--Percy

I explained why it's a nested hierarchy. Read what I wrote and try to understand why the second image agrees with the first image.

Faith, if this is too big I can break it down into smaller chunks. Indeed, microevolution is one part of macroevolution, and the other part is time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.Let's take anagenesis -- lineal evolution -- for example:If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.This doesn't result in nested hierarchies, because there is no branching. However all breeding populations go through this process, and you can draw a lineage chart of populations one generation at a time. The oldest in the lineage would be the parent population, and each following generation would be their descendants.The first generation of descendants would have ancestral (P1) traits plus some derived (P2) traits due to mutations.The second generation of descendants would have fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, and some new derived (P3) traits due to mutations.The third generation of descendants would have even fewer ancestral (P1) traits, some of the first descendant derived (P2) traits, some second descendant derived (P3) traits due to mutations and some third descendant derived (P4) traits due to mutations.etc.Thus we can look at the traits, either morphologically or genetically, and see this pattern.The parent population would have P1 traits, but no P2, P3 or P4 traitsThe second generation of descendants would have some P1 traits and some P2 traits but no P3 or P4 traitsThe third generation of descendants would have fewer P1 traits, some P2 traits and some P3 traits but no P4 traits.This is the evidence that demonstrates lineal descent from a parent population, and this necessarily holds for all evolved species. Thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution.This can be tracked for every species back in time to the first ancestor of that lineage ... if evolution is true ...But there is another mechanism to macroevolution that causes the nested hierarchies and that is cladogenesis, or divergent speciation: The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species. The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.Note that because each lineage going backwards in time has the same evolutionary constraints on the inheritance of traits parent populations that are seen in anagensis:Population D will have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits.Population E will also have some traits from A, B and C plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D.Population F will also have some traits from A and B plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from population D and E and they will not have any traits from C or its descendants.Population H will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E and F and they will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.Population I will also have some traits from A and G plus some new derived traits, but the derived traits will be different from populations D, E, F and H and they too will not have any traits from B or C or their descendants.This is the basics of a nested hierarchy:

• C and its descendants D and E form a clade that is nested under B.
• B and its descendants C (with its descendants D and E) and F form a clade that is nested under A.
• G and its descendants H and I form a clade that is nested under A.
• Finally A, B and G (with their descendants) form a clade that includes all the descendant populations in the pattern shown.

Again, this is the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution, and thus, when we see this pattern in the fossil record or in the DNA/genome record, we say this shows objective empirical evidence congruent with the theory of evolution. This pattern should also hold for kinds, each reproducing according to their kind, however they should terminate in the past with original created kinds rather than continue to fit into nested hierarchies until all life is related on one original populations (LUCA) as a prediction of the Theory of Evolution.This creates a distinguishing test between the theory of evolution and the theory of descent from kinds. The only mechanisms of macroevolution are microevolution and time -- specifically time for multiple generations of microevolution.It is not assumption to see the evidence of nested hierarchies in the objective empirical evidence from the fossil record and the DNA/genetic record. It is not assumption to see that these records match in their formation of nested hierarchies, and it is not assumption to see that no stopping at created kinds is observed.

• The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is congruent with the theory of evolution.
• The observed pattern shows objective empirical evidence that is NOT congruent with the theory of descent from kinds, because no multiple created kinds have singular starting points (creation) with no older ancestors that have common ancestors with other lineages.

Hardly trivial, IMHO.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added first line

Prophesy: she won't read that.

Everything in the quote box refers to the Creation.And my argument is that there were TWO alleles per gene on the ark, and no more were ever needed nor are they needed now, to vary each Kind into all the different varieties..

So every species that has more than two alleles per gene NOW has them because they are beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations. That's a lot of beneficial, or at least non-deleterious, mutations.Thanks,Enjoy

Whether any allele is needed is not something you yourself could possibly know, but we'll leave that aside since it misses the point.If there were four unique alleles per gene on the ark (two alleles per individual for a total of four, all different), and if there are more than four alleles today for some genes, then the new alleles could only have arisen through mutation.That some genes have more than 200 alleles means there have not been enough generations since the flood for them to arise.--Percy