Evolution For Whatever, etc...

Whatever,Given that the phylogenies (cladistic analyses) under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value. Cladistics & stratigraphyStratigraphic Consistency IndexThe SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."
Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, & that the null hypothesis is falsified, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example). Evolution can be reliably inferred.What are the chances of this occurring by chance? (Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help.)The average cladogram has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate for ease of calculation.C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n!n= total no. of nodes
K= correct nodes
r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodesC(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5!
10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120
10/120
1/12There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way.5.68*10^323:1568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 ....chance of 300 cladograms only enjoying a 60% (as opposed to a 75% corroboration with stratigraphy).What this means is once all else is accounted for, is that there is a stratigraphic signal supporting evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.The questions I would like answered, Whatever, is this; how does liquefaction/flooding produce an evolutionary pattern?Good luck.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-27-2004]

Mammuthus,Yes, I saw, only 24 hours, though.Mark

Whatever,A complete non-answer.Why do derived evolutionary trees match stratigraphy so well if a flood occurred & evolution didn't? It's not a fact, though, unless fish & tetrapods are the same kind, unless basal tertrapods & reptiles are the same kind, unless reptiles & mammals are the same kind? I think not, yet look at those odds again. Ugly, aren't they? And they are entirely in favour of evolution, & utterly, utterly against biblical creation & its flood.Also......."Both Quetzal & I have pointed out the error of using the Pleistocene extinctionS. It records different events at different times on different continents. And I think you'll find the Australian & South American extinctions weren't particularly bothered with glaciation. Moreover, what logic compels you to accept that there was a mass extinction event at all? This is what I mean by being consistent. If you accept a Pleistocene extinction, then by the same logic you must accept the same evidence for all of the other extinctions, which incidentally dwarf the Pleistocene events. But somehow I doubt you can demonstrate such a level of logic.Prove me wrong, tell me why you accept the Pleistocene mass extinctions & reject the others? Please respond on the thread I link to, above."Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2004]

Whatever, There are numerous examples of species/fertile hybrids with different chromosome numbers rendering your objection moot. Przewalski's horse & modern horses being an example. Chromosome fusions & splits have also been observed & seen to represent no reproductive barrier. So sorry, no, chromosome number differences are not a barrier to speciation. So what makes you think they occurred at the same time? What about the other extinctions?For the third time, why do derived evolutionary trees match stratigraphy so well if a flood occurred & evolution didn't?It doesn't matter what alleged barrier you purport to exist. Bentons study clearly show that no such barrier actually does exist, & that evolution occurred & the flood didn't (5.68*10^323:1, remember).Please, for once in your creationist life answer the question directly.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Whatever, Message 9, please.Mark