|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: Nested hierarchies are common in set theory. Nested set - Wikipedia It is applied to many things, including things that are designed. But it doesn't have to be applied to designed things. A designer can just as easily choose not to force designs into a nested hierarchy. There is no necessity for a nested hierarchy in the design of life as shown by how organisms designed by humans easily violate a nested hierarchy.
Your argument that nested hierarchy cannot apply to design, is just anothere extremely poor evolutionist argument. I am saying that a nested hierarchy is just one of billions of possible patterns that a designer can use. There is only one pattern that common ancestry and evolution can produce, and that is a nested hierarchy.
Again, not surprising as common ancestry lacks good arguments and logical reasoning. Apparently, you didn't read my previous posts. Nowhere did I say that a designer could not use a nested hierarchy. What I have been saying from the start is that there is no reason a designer would choose a nested hierarchy out of the billions of possible patterns. Perhaps you should actually learn what arguments and logic I am using before criticizing them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Here is George Romanes laying out the same logic and argument I am using, and doing so in a book published in 1882.
quote: To use another example, we could say that God could decide to create swirly oil patterns on surfaces at a crime scene that just happen to look like fingerprints. Does this mean we have to throw out all fingerprint evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: So your argument relies on your personal assumptions of what a designer would or would not do. No, what a designer could or could not do.
That may work for you, but don't call that nonsense of yours, objective science. Because it's not. It is objective science.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: Fingerprints are a lot more accurate and predictable, verified and factual than your assumptions on all what designer could do and what not. According to your logic, fingerprints are not accurate nor predictable because God could have created the fingerprint at the crime scene separate from any human finger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: I showed how the nested hierarchy argument is poor. No, you didn't. You are trying to claim that we should throw out natural explanations because a deity could produce the same observations through magic. That's the bad logic and poor reasoning. When the evidence is consistent with a natural process, like the nested hierarchy, we don't throw out that explanation because someone claims a supernatural deity could have produced the same pattern for no apparent reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: Taq has a warped idea how natural processes work. He embraces this idea of nested hierarchies base on this warped idea. What warped idea? Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: You have so many of them. Where to start? Start with the nested hierarchy. You are not going to drag this thread off topic. Here it is again . . . Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: Would you quit trying to deflect and explain how humans and chimpanzees are related to one another. I'm not the one deflecting. Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: The reason you can't explain how humans and chimpanzees are related is that you don't understand how biological evolution works. We are related to chimps in the same way you are related to your cousins. It's not that hard to figure out.
You are claiming nested hierarchy just because you see some similarity. That's false. If there was a species that had similarities both with birds and mammals this would violate a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy isn't just similarities. A nested hierarchy is a PATTERN of similarities.
But you refuse to see the differences and account for them. All of the differences are accounted for in a nested hierarchy. If you understood what a nested hierarchy is you would already know this.
You are wrong Taq and you don't know how biological evolution works. Your claims of nested hierarchies do not correctly explain biological evolution. You don't construct phylogenetic trees properly. Then please tell us what pattern of similarities and differences common ancestry and vertical inheritance would produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy. If you think I am wrong then please show us what pattern it would produce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: That's not a reasoned and logically based argument. That's something that ringo would say. You can't explain how humans and chimps are related other than saying you see some similarities. Then you are saying that it is not reasoned nor logical that my cousins and I are related through common descent. You also failed to read this part: "That's false. If there was a species that had similarities both with birds and mammals this would violate a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy isn't just similarities. A nested hierarchy is a PATTERN of similarities."
How could humans accumulate adaptive mutations to have a reproductive advantage over chimpanzees? Mutation and natural selection, both of which we see operating in living populations.
Your nested hierarchies do not explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. You have it backwards. The nested hierarchy is the observation, not the explanation. The explanation for the observation of a nested hierarchy is a combination of common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. You get shared features from common ancestry, and you get lineage specific adaptations from mutations that stay within a lineage due to the lack of horizontal genetic transfer (i.e. vertical inheritance).
Your nested hierarchies are fabricated drawings that don't explain how biological evolution works. Nested hierarchies are objective measurements.
quote: If you think they do, explain the reproductive fitness advantage that humans have over chimps. The increased reproductive advantage is due to the mutations that humans have which chimps do not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: But you still can't explain how humans have a reproductive fitness advantage over chimpanzees using your nested hierarchies. Natural selection of lineage specific mutations.
You know you are related to your cousin because your parents told you. If that is how you think common descent works in biology then you have a lot to learn.
You are seeing patterns but that does not necessarily mean relatedness. Then please tell me what patterns common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection would produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy.
How did the human lineage get these mutations which the chimpanzee lineage did not? The same way we they do now. We can observe mutations happening in both lineages right now.
What are these mutations, and how many of them are there? They are the mutations that differ between the two species.
Do your nested hierarchies explain this? The nested hierarchy is the observation, not the explanation. Please learn the difference between an observation and an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
AZPaul3 writes: This is the knowledge base you are trying to deal with. This guy needs years of re-education. A cephalanalectomy wouldn't hurt, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Taq, you aren't telling us how nested hierarchies explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. Nope. "You have it backwards. The nested hierarchy is the observation, not the explanation. The explanation for the observation of a nested hierarchy is a combination of common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. You get shared features from common ancestry, and you get lineage specific adaptations from mutations that stay within a lineage due to the lack of horizontal genetic transfer (i.e. vertical inheritance)."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: You have observed some similarities between life forms and jumped to the conclusion they are related. False.
quote: We conclude that species are related by common ancestry and subsequent evolution because those processes will produce a nested hierarchy, and the observation of a nested hierarchy is evidence for those processes.
Since you can't explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations using nested hierarchies,
False. They accumulate through mutation, natural selection, and vertical inheritance.
explain to us how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations using "common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection" if you can. Are you telling me that after all this time you don't know what mutations, natural selection, and vertical inheritance are? Seriously? You don't understand how your cousins and you have shared DNA?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: Why don't you explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations? Let's start with your great-grandfather. When your grandfather was born he would have had 50 to 100 new mutations. When your father was born, he would have had 50 to 100 mutations plus half (on average) of the mutations that your grandfather had. Those add up together. When you were born, you had 50 to 100 new mutations. You would have also inherited half of your father's mutations plus a quarter of your grandfather's mutations. Repeat with grandmother's on your father's side. Repeat with both grandfather and grandmother on your mother's side. Do you not see how this will accumulate mutations?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024