nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

Huh? Of course not. Why would anyone call an ear superficial? Once again, Bluegenes was saying that the resemblance between independently evolved structures for the same purpose is superficial. He was not saying that the mammalian ear itself is superficial, but that the resemblance to other independently evolved ears is superficial, i.e., that the similarities of structure produced by convergent evolution are superficial. The proper interpretation of "superficial" is a function of context, like almost all words.The superficial similarity of the octopus and human eye is that they both have an iris, a cornea, a lens, a retina. But this superficial resemblance dissolves when you examine them more closely. The blood supplies are on opposite sides of the retina, and the rods and cones point in opposite directions (the octopus eye is inside out, as Arachnophilia put it), and of course there are other significant differences.The cat eye, on the other hand, is the same as the human eye in these particular details.And that we've placed cats, humans and octopuses in the right places in a nested hierarchy of classification based upon morphology is confirmed by genetic analysis.--Percy

Just tryin to follow your suggestion, Percy.Specifically, Message 38. My reminder to Rand to rebut points that have already been made (repeatedly) was just an attempt to keep him on topic and moving forward.Sorry I stepped on mod toes.

How is that any different than saying the similarities of features inherited and evolved from common ancestry are superficial? What sort of metric are you using?The Mammalian ear evolved, according to evos, more than once independently. The similarities down to similar ear-bones are striking. Dismissing those similarities as superficial is a specific claim.I'd like for an evo back that up. Show how the differences between the Mammalian ear that arose independently are "superficial", please. I don't think you or anyone can. But it is different in other details. There are significant differences between a cat's eye and my eye. That's my point. How do you distinquish what details are superficial and not?When you look at Marsupial and Placental pairs, it seems a little looney to call the similarities superficial since arguably if you remove the reproductive aspect of the pairs, placental and marsupial mice for example, are more similar than mice are to human beings.So are we just by fiat going to say all the differences between human beings and placental mice are non-superficial because evos say they are in the same lineage, but the similarities between placental and marsupial mice are superficial.....seems a bit arbitrary to me.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

No, no, no, you did fine, mostly, right up until you said, "You are treading on thin ice here." How thin the ice is that he's wandered onto is for moderators to decide. He's only been back a day or so, so it would take quite a stunt to get him onto thin ice already.If those who haven't interacted with Randman before are detecting a certain amount of wariness on the part of this moderator, I won't try to hide the fact that he's been an enormous moderation problem in the past. But I'd like to give his return here the best chance for success, and I think that if other members would contribute their best efforts at keeping his threads productive and on-topic that it might prove very helpful.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Rather than me trying to continue to explain, I'll think I'll just return to my original intention of light participation in this thread. There are plenty of other participants who can address your questions.--Percy

The process did not end 500 million years ago. It has been mentioned, repeatedly, that only ~8 phyla were established in the Cambrian explosion. Please acknowledge that you understand this. It has also been mentioned, repeatedly, that your insistence on a new phyla "like vertebrates" show a remarkable ignorance of the definition of phyla. Message 75. Vertebrates are NOT a phylum. Please acknowledge that you understand this. This is your body plan question. AGAIN. This is your body plan question. AGAIN. This is your body plan question. AGAIN. Plus, as an extra added bonus, an argument from incredulity. It most certainly does not. Evolution is not directional. There is no preset code for body plans that evolution then just cranks out. You are not addressing specific points that have been made, repeatedly, in this thread. You are asking the same question (a mere 3 times in this particular post).As a gesture of good faith, why don't you do this:1. Type the following.All ~33 phyla were not established in the Cambrian explosion."Vertebrate" is not a phylum.2. Hit "Submit Reply".Then go back thru the thread and pick a very specific rebuttal to your "phyla argument" and offer EVIDENCE that refutes that point.Also, no more arguments from incredulity would be nice.

Really? So you are arguing that most animal phyla evolved after the Cambrian explosion? Can you take some time to substantiate that? Please provide a link or something.The truth is nearly all or all animal phyla were established prior to 500 million years ago (there is one possible exception and that was 470 million years ago). So no, I don't "acknowledge that" because it's not true.Will you acknowledge my point? Maybe a little humility on your part here would go over better. Of course, vertebrates are not phyla per se, though there are vertebrate phyla. My point is to discuss the process. What part of that did you not understand?I have addressed all of your points, but it is getting tiresome. Here is how Elmer put my same points, better than I. Perhaps you can take it up with him because I honestly cannot see anywhere that I have not fully answered you. As near as I can tell, you just don't like my answers. Look at the things I have written in response as answers to these issues. If you think my comments are insufficient, please quote the specific comments I have given as an answer and explain why they are insufficient.Elmer's comments below, which reiterate my same point. Maybe he is clearer in his expression and you can get the ideas being presented here from him. Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

randman, Maybe a huge dose of humility on your part would go over even better. There are no such things as vertebrate phyla at all The vertebrate clade is nested in phylum chordata.Really, what's the point in bring up a phylum level discussion & not have the ability to cite a phylum as an example?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

First issue: neither Dad nor his brothers are capable of evolving. His lineage might evolve across the generations. No, Dad died over 500 million years ago. Reproduction requires being alive. Some of his descendants survive to this day.Let me explain this.Dad has sons who have sons who have sons. These children of children of children form families of their own, some being more closely related to each other than they are other lineages. These family lineages begin to evolve apart from each other and exploit different niches and face different challenges that require different evolutionary solutions.These families become so big and different that we give them a special group name: the families are the phyla one of which is called 'chordata'. In turn these families have offshoots of their own, each evolving down different paths. These offshoot families are then given another name: Classes (for example: Mammalia). This sub family or Class known as Mammalia are a specific sub family of the phylum Chordata. Dad no longer has any children so there will never be a new Phylum groupings. No - the first batch was the only batch that existed, and a new batch cannot be created since the batch producer...Dad...is very much dead.

Populations cannot evolve...Ok, if you say so. Kind of destroys the evo argument though.Btw, dinosaurs largely died out, right? There was niche available. Why wouldn't new and improved dinosaurs evolve?Edit to add: I realize I am moving down the path of evo dating to a different era with dinosaurs, but just want to point out it's a pattern. Seems like, if evos are correct, that you have classes or groups of organisms that once their evo-energy is spent, that's it....it winds down.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Whatever....you get the point. There are vertebrate animals that are part of a phylum, right? Which is what I was saying.My point holds the same. Why don't we see new phyla appearing?Why don't we see, as another example albeit a different classification, new and improved dinosaurs evolving?It's time evos look past the magic, simplistic formula of Darwinism.

Do you mean the differences, or are you claiming that there are convergent similarities that have developed since common ancestry in different branches of mammals that are non-superficial?If so, name three mammals that have ears that evolved independently in a way that is convergent, could you? Which "evos" claim seperate evolution of mammal ears?Here's an article on early mammal ear evolution (about 125 million yrs. ago) with a nice transitional fossil in it. Early mammal ear evolution link

If you read my post, which talked about evolution of populations over the course of generations, you'd not have made such a statement. You stated that he was a common ancestor, not an ancestral population so I went with that. If you refer to an ancestral population then the argument still stands as in my corrected version of the analogy. If you want to say that the surviving members of 'Dad' are still 'Dad', then we can say that 'Dad' has significantly changed since 500mya - so we would not expect 'Dad's' offspring to be the same today as they were 500mya - nor would they face the same environmental problems/predators/parasites/prey etc etc. The ancestral population that produced the lineage that lead to us, for example, is long gone.The various lineages of Dad are very different from one another, but they are still 'Dad'; there will still be no new 'Dads' popping up (Dad will never have any new brothers). You propose that new Dads should pop up. (Where, for convenience, I have demoted 'Dad' to be the common ancestor of one of the phyla). That is clearly in line with some kind of special creation, not descent with modification style evolution.Moving back to Dad as the father of the phyla, his sons were called the phyla, their sons were called Classes, their sons were called Orders, their sons were called Families and so on and so forth. Since the ancestral population is no longer one population, and since it has evolved in many different directions - we would not expect it to start producing offspring like the first sons. Dad is in a sense is no longer reproducing. Once his sons came about, Dad stopped reproducing - his sons were doing all the reproductions.You cannot find reproducing Dad's son today, only Dad's sons of sons of sons of sons... If you can point me at a living reproducing population that does not belong to any of the existing phyla I will concede the point. The chances are - you will not be able to produce any living reproducing sons of Dad. You will have to go all the way down the species level to find living reproducing members - none of these are the son of Dad though - they are sons of sons of sons of sons of Dad. It would be clearly madness to expect a son of a son of son of a son of Dad to create a new uncle, which is what you propose we should see if evolution is accurate.What we see - a nested hierarchy is what we'd expect if life were related to one another. New phyla appearing is what we'd expect to see if life was periodically specially created. Like birds?But more pertinently, why should 'new and improved' dinosaurs evolve? The dinosaur's ancestor is long dead, so the 'proto'-dinosaur genome was no longer around. Relatives of the dinosaurs did evolve into 'new and improved' organisms. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Why is that? 500 million years is a very long time. Why wouldn't Dad or some of his close relatives still be evolving new phyla? That's the point. Comparing him to a long-lost human ancestor doesn't really cut it, except as an illustration, because Dad or other potential Dads would still be around.Let's be specific. Something evolved the theoritical metazoan ancestor, right? Why wouldn't that something or something similar not evolve more?Even in the development of the phyla, why wouldn't chordates evolve again, this time even better possibly? Keep in mind we are probably talking fairly small creatures to begin with. Seems like there is a lot of room in the ocean for that.I don't think you guys are really answering my questions here.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4680/At the time this came out, I recall it being mentioned in mainstream evo publications, but I like the way this guy expresses things...Edited by randman, : No reason given.