|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: So you want to repeat the crime or disregard eye witness accounts as data?
We should absolutely disregard eyewitness accounts as scientific data. Forensic evidence is scientific data, and it often shows eye witness accounts to be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: I meant to say that geocentric required less assumptions and less parameters than heliocentric, for the data available thousands of years ago. Well, you would be wrong. The most parsimonious explanation was heliocentrism because it didn't require crazy orbits for the other planets, like this one:
The Heliocentric model only required elliptical orbits. Once again, if you are going to claim there are assumptions you need to list them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: Now you add the requirement of data to have to be scientific, in this simple context of an example even. I thought you were doing real science. Is that not the case? Are you saying that your data is not scientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: And you think mankind have always been able to observe and measure movents of other planets? For the last thousand years, yes.
In early days, when we only had observations of Sun moving through sky during the day, geocentric was more parimonious. In what way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: If you insist on this game of yours of observing nested hierarchies, you should first define what you call a hierarchy and what not. Okay.
quote: In other words, it is a tree-like structure of shared derived features. There are synapomorphies which are the features found in the common ancestor. There are apomorphies which are the unique features that evolve on each branch and are not shared with other branches. You can learn about synapomorphies and apomorphies here: Apomorphy and synapomorphy - Wikipedia
How else are we going to determine whether or not some observation is to be considered as a hierarchy? That can be done quantiatively (i.e. scientific data).
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: I asked to define hierarchy. You are a hominid along with the rest of the great apes. You are a primate, along with the other apes, monkeys, and lemurs. You are a mammal. You are an amniote. You are a tetrapod. You are a vertebrate. You are a eukaryote. Each of those groups is higher in the hierarchy. Primates is above hominids. Mammals is above primates. On and on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Phat writes: Does all of that progression make me now a Greatest Ape? Cladistically, all apes are equal since all are at the end of their branch. There are still some Victorian hold over terms that are used in biology, such as "great" apes and eutherian (eu = true, therian = mammal).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: This is not a definition. I was hoping that if we showed you the hierarchy you could understand what they are. Apparently not. Is this just going to devolve into you asking for definitions for everything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: If some one claims that nested hierarchy is observed and insists that we discuss this further, then yes, hierarchy needs to be defined. It's been defined multiple times now. Are you going to address it or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: A rant and a few examples is not a definition. What is a hierarchy? The definition has already been given to you. A few examples: "When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc." "what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc." Also, don't you know how to use google? One of the more interesting things I have observed is that ID/creationists often don't know how to use google. Strange that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: I asked for a definition. Not an explanation. And you got one. What is even more worrisome is that you claim the theory of evolution is false even though you don't understand one of the most basic facts of biology, the nested hierarchy. It's like someone claiming the theory of relativity is false, and then that same person has to ask someone to explain what spacetime is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: Apparently, you don't even know what a definition is. "what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: You don't know what a definition is. I think we can all see what obstinance is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: I asked for a definition of hierarchy. You come up with something people refer to as nested hierarchy. Other people did give you a definition. You are demonstrating to us that you can't deal with evidence. Instead, you are trying to distract everyone with arguments about semantics. Are you going to deal with the observation of the nested hierarchy or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: Still insisting on your precious nested hierarchy, but too dumb to give a definition. Here ya go. "what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc." Will you address the evidence now?
One of you mentioned ranking. So you need to specify how you determine ranks. From what data, genetic sequences or fossils or both? When is one species ranked above another? No species are ranked above others. The groups are nested, so it is the nesting that is hierarchical. In classical Linnaean taxonomy the ranks look like this: Ranks are determined by the distribution of shared features. The more common the shared feature is the basal the rank.
If it is by descent, then no, we have not observed descent from a common ancestor between most pairs of two seperate species. We observe living populations producing nested hierarchies through evolutionary mechanisms. mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains - PMC You can also predict a nested hierarchy based on first principles which are the mechanisms of vertical inheritance, mutation, and isolation of subpopulations.
So the claim of observing nested hierarchy is doubtful at best. Your uninformed denials do not cast doubt on the science. You don't even understand what a nested hierarchy is, for crying out loud.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024