Nested Hierarchy violations? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Bettawrekonize -> Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/27/2007 10:01:35 PM)

Aside from the fact that a nested hierarchy is just some arbitrary method of categorizing organisms and even if it wasn't arbitrary there is no reason to believe that universal evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in the first place, lets assume that it's not arbitrary and I'm going to link to some possible violations of this hierarchy.

Here we have a platypus with characteristics of a duck.

http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/


Here we have a bird with characteristics of a bat, dolphin, deep sea fish, and kingfisher. This bird even has a sense of smell.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4720/

More evidence that universal evolution is unfalsifiable and that this nested hierarchy is arbitrary.

"one wonders whether God had evolutionists in mind when He fashioned these curious and enigmatic birds"

It appears so. Why do you suppose the evidence strongly resists naturalistic explanations?



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/27/2007 11:39:32 PM)

Nope. Platypuses have many shared characteristics with reptiles (limb girdles, reptillian eggs, long mouth, composed of bone and skin, rather than beak, etc) but no apomorphies with birds at all.

The oilbird, like some other birds, can use sound to locate in the dark (owls can do this passively, and swifts use active sonar). There are insects that can use sonar, including at least one moth that can "jam" sonar signals from bats. Many unrelated organisms can use sound, just as many can use light.

But no apomorphies with bats, dolphins, or fish. They lied to you about that.

You've also been badly misled about the nature of a nested hierarchy. You might as well say that a cardinal has the characteristics of a tomato, because they are both red.

Have I suggested that if you learn more about science, you might be more effective fighting it?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 12:18:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yehren
They lied to you about that.


No they didn't. It's the secular community that lies to us.

quote:


Have I suggested that if you learn more about science, you might be more effective fighting it?


The problem is that some naturalists aren't interested in science. They are committed to naturalism at the expense of science. Unfortunately these are the ones that pressure government and the secular community to fund their naturalistic presuppositions at taxpayer expense while censoring all opposing views. Universal evolution isn't science, it's speculation.



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 12:52:40 AM)

Yehren observes:
The oilbird, like some other birds, can use sound to locate in the dark (owls can do this passively, and swifts use active sonar). There are insects that can use sonar, including at least one moth that can "jam" sonar signals from bats. Many unrelated organisms can use sound, just as many can use light.

But no apomorphies with bats, dolphins, or fish. They lied to you about that.

quote:

No they didn't.


Yep. The echolocation of these birds is entirely different than dolphins, for example. They correctly guessed you had no idea how it worked in these different animals, and so they lied to you, knowing you'd not realize it.

Yehren asks:
Have I suggested that if you learn more about science, you might be more effective fighting it?

quote:

The problem is that some naturalists aren't interested in science.


You do a lot better if you were more interested in it. If you were, you'd probably be less easy for them to fool.

quote:

They are committed to naturalism at the expense of science.


No, they're commited to their rather odd religion, at the expense of science. But as you see, they don't do so well, when their claims are examined.

quote:

Universal evolution isn't science, it's speculation.


"Universal evolution" is your invention. You can make it whatever you like.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 1:19:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Aside from the fact that a nested hierarchy is just some arbitrary method of categorizing organisms and even if it wasn't arbitrary there is no reason to believe that universal evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in the first place, lets assume that it's not arbitrary and I'm going to link to some possible violations of this hierarchy.



It is not arbitrary. There is only one way to build a nested hierarchy correctly. If it was arbitrary, like you claim, it would be possible to fit ANYTHING into the tree. It is NOT possible to fit anything into the tree, hence, it is not arbitrary.

For instance, try fitting a bat with feathers into the nested hierarchy, and you will see what I mean.

quote:


Here we have a platypus with characteristics of a duck.

http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/


I assume you are talking about the fact that the platypus lays eggs. It would be more accurate to say that it is the characteristic of a reptile, that both the platypus and the duck inherited.

It is interesting that the egg laying trait fits into the nested hierarchy. In order for the OP to live up to its title, you have to show us something that DOESN'T fit into the hierarchy.

Another possibility is that you are a bit confused, and you think that the platypus has a bill, like a duck. (They don't so this is not an issue.)

quote:


Here we have a bird with characteristics of a bat, dolphin, deep sea fish, and kingfisher. This bird even has a sense of smell.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4720/


Could you show us the characteristic that does not fit into the nested hierarchy? Because I am unable to find on in the article.

quote:


More evidence that universal evolution is unfalsifiable and that this nested hierarchy is arbitrary.


If you had shown us actual examples of traits that do NOT fit into the nested hierarchy, this claim would be true. Since you have shown none, it is not.

quote:


"one wonders whether God had evolutionists in mind when He fashioned these curious and enigmatic birds"


Are you saying that God created the platypus as a tool creationists can use to disprove evolution? He did not. Why? Because the platypus does not disprove evolution. I am pretty sure if God wanted to create something with the purpose of disproving evolution, it would actually do so.

quote:


It appears so. Why do you suppose the evidence strongly resists naturalistic explanations?


You have not shown anything that 'resists naturalistic explanations'.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding prevents you from being effective in your goals.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 1:26:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
I assume you are talking about the fact that the platypus lays eggs.


No. Look at the picture and it becomes obvious what I'm referring to.

quote:


Another possibility is that you are a bit confused, and you think that the platypus has a bill, like a duck. (They don't so this is not an issue.)


Whether or not you choose to label it a bill (like a duck) or not is irrelevant. It is a characteristic very similar to that of a duck in an organism that is very different from a duck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
Are you saying that God created the platypus as a tool creationists can use to disprove evolution? He did not. Why? Because the platypus does not disprove evolution. I am pretty sure if God wanted to create something with the purpose of disproving evolution, it would actually do so.


The problem is that nothing can possibly disprove universal evolution (or some sort of naturalistic explanation). Universal evolution is unfalsifiable.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 1:51:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
No. Look at the picture and it becomes obvious what I'm referring to.


Since the version of evolution YOU understand is not based on reality, I cannot use logic to figure out what you are talking about.

Hence, it is NOT obvious what you are talking about. In the future, please be more specific.

quote:


Whether or not you choose to label it a bill (like a duck) or not is irrelevant. It is a characteristic very similar to that of a duck in an organism that is very different from a duck.


Okay, I see where your misunderstanding lies. You seem to think that the bill of a duck, is somehow the same as the bill of a platypus. They are not.

Look at the wing of a bat. It is not the same as the wing of a duck. We humans created the word 'wing' to describe, more or less, 'arms used for flight.' In the same way, we created the word 'bill' to describe something with a certain shape, that is found on the face (the mouth) of an animal.

The bill of a platypus sits on its face at its mouth, and it does have the right shape to fit into the category 'bill shaped'. However, just because something is called something by humans when they speak, does not make it that thing.

Many things in the word look the same without being the same. The only similarity between the bill of a duck, and that of a platypus, is its shape. Are you seriously saying that two things are the same thing, because they have the same shape?

Submarines and cigars have the same shape. Maybe they are the same thing too? Ridiculous? Of course, which is the point.

quote:


The problem is that nothing can possibly disprove universal evolution (or some sort of naturalistic explanation). Universal evolution is unfalsifiable.


A bat with feathers will not fit into the nested hierarchy, and evolution as we know it, will end. In fact, there is not way evolution could recover from the finding of a bat with feathers.

(By the way, what is 'universal evolution', as opposed to 'biological evolution'?)



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 2:09:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

A bat with feathers will not fit into the nested hierarchy, and evolution as we know it, will end. In fact, there is not way evolution could recover from the finding of a bat with feathers.


They can find a way to make it fit the nested hierarchy or claim that the feathers are due to a common ancestor. They can find some naturalistic explanation. Heck, if bats did have feathers it would probably be easy to claim that these feathers are due to a common ancestor.

quote:


(By the way, what is 'universal evolution', as opposed to 'biological evolution'?)


The notion that all living organisms share a common ancestor is universal evolution.

quote:


Okay, I see where your misunderstanding lies.


So basically anything that disagrees with you is a lie. That's such a scientific way of looking at things. Sounds like typical naturalist logic to me. I guess naturalism requires poor logic so naturalists don't have much of a choice on that part. Now if only the secular community can stop funding atheistic lies with our tax dollars while censoring all opposing arguments, opinions, research, and evidence.

quote:


It is not the same as the wing of a duck.


They're not the same but they do have similarities. For instance, they both allow the organism to fly.

quote:


The bill of a platypus sits on its face at its mouth, and it does have the right shape to fit into the category 'bill shaped'.


That's the point. It's a characteristic of a duck that's on an organism that's very different from a duck.

quote:


However, just because something is called something by humans when they speak, does not make it that thing.


That's the point I'm making. You still seem to be missing the argument.

quote:


Many things in the word look the same without being the same.


All ducks are different. Two different ducks have two different bills. So claiming that the bill of a platypus must be the same as the bill of a duck is not practical. What we're dealing with is similarities. The bill of a platypus is very similar to that of a duck and hence should violate such a speculative hierarchy (of course assuming that this hierarchy is not arbitrary aside from the fact that there is no reason to believe universal evolution predicts such a hierarchy).

quote:


Are you seriously saying that two things are the same thing, because they have the same shape?


They're similar. No two bills are identical, even among ducks

quote:


Submarines and cigars have the same shape. Maybe they are the same thing too? Ridiculous? Of course, which is the point.


Oh, so is this evidence that submarines and cigars share a common ancestor?



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 3:41:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
They can find a way to make it fit the nested hierarchy or claim that the feathers are due to a common ancestor. They can find some naturalistic explanation. Heck, if bats did have feathers it would probably be easy to claim that these feathers are due to a common ancestor.


No. They cant. There is no way to fit a bat with feathers into the nested hierarchy. You claim there is a way to do this. Since you are making the claim, please demonstrate such a way. You will find it is impossible. Which is why finding a bat with feathers will disprove evolution.

quote:


quote:


Are you seriously saying that two things are the same thing, because they have the same shape?


They're similar. No two bills are identical, even among ducks


You are not answering the question. I will repeat it. Are you seriously saying that two things are the same thing, because they have the same shape? (And since this seems to be causing confusion, I will clarify, by 'the same thing' I mean the same type of thing, not the same instance of a thing.)

quote:


quote:


Submarines and cigars have the same shape. Maybe they are the same thing too? Ridiculous? Of course, which is the point.


Oh, so is this evidence that submarines and cigars share a common ancestor?


No.

If you understood common ancestry and the nested hierarchy, you would know this.

Cigars and submarines do not even reproduce, so from that we already know they cannot share a common ancestor.

Besides, you are not refuting the point I made, which makes the question 'Oh, so is this evidence that submarines and cigars share a common ancestor?' a red herring.

The cigar and the submarine only shows us that two things can have the same shape, without actually being the same type of thing. In the same way, duck-bills and platypus-bills have the same shape, without actually being the same thing. Get it? That is the only point the cigar and submarine example makes, nothing more, nothing less.

Duck-bills and platypus-bills have one thing in common, their shape. They have the same shape. Since shape alone does not make them the same type of thing, and since nothing else are the same between them, it should be pretty safe to conclude that they are not the same thing.

Do you understand now?



iluvatar -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 9:04:07 AM)

Instead of just bickering back and forth about who's right and who's not, howsabout somebody explain the details of a duck bill and a platypus bill and show us how they're similar and how they're different.

Actually, Plebe's already done it: http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_1850150/mpage_4/key_platypus/tm.htm#

-Dan.



Plebe -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 11:38:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Aside from the fact that a nested hierarchy is just some arbitrary method of categorizing organisms and even if it wasn't arbitrary there is no reason to believe that universal evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in the first place, lets assume that it's not arbitrary and I'm going to link to some possible violations of this hierarchy.

Here we have a platypus with characteristics of a duck.

http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/


And here we go again. This is an almost a complete repeat of the squid/human eye comparison. Do you really want to go down this road again?

To be fair, I will assume that you are not up on the defining characteristics of bird and mammal anatomy. I will give you some time to review, and will even give you some hints on what to focus on.

1. Lower jaw anatomy and middle ear anatomy, and how the two are evolutionarily linked in mammals (hint: read up on reptile-mammal intermediates).
2. What group do we find the common ancestor of mammals and birds? Did this common ancestor lay eggs?
3. What covers the platypus and bird "beak"?
4. Where are the nostrils placed on each "beak"?

That should give us a good start.

Once we get past the platypus/duck comparison we can move on to your other example.



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 11:39:32 AM)

Aside from the fact that a nested hierarchy is just some arbitrary method of categorizing organisms and even if it wasn't arbitrary there is no reason to believe that universal evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in the first place, lets assume that it's not arbitrary and I'm going to link to some possible violations of this hierarchy.

First off, I think it's important to note that their are a number of unresolved, and indeed, unexpected issues within atttempts to create clearly delinated heirarchies.

For example in their paper Bushes in the Tree of Life (2006) Rokas & Carroll detail four unresolved phylogenies in the TOL:

(A) The human/chimpanzee/gorilla tree (5–8 million years ago).

(B) The elephant/sirenian/hyrax bush (57–65 million years ago).

(C) The tetrapod/coelacanth/lungfish bush (370–390 million years ago).

(D) The metazoan superbush (>550 million years ago).

The bat of course is another organism that shows unexpected genetic relationships (Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions, 2006) showing that genetically bats are related closely to horses, cats, and dogs.

In their paper Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time (2005) Rokas, Krueger and Carrol observe that:

The phylogenetic relationships among most metazoan phyla remain uncertain. We obtained large numbers of gene sequences from metazoans, including key understudied taxa. Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.

This is thought to be due to radiation "events compressed in time"; i.e. the rapid radiation of organisms within the branch.

And the platypus is difficult to place phylogenetically not just because of it's morphology, but also because of it's unique genetic characteristics. In their proposal to sequence the platypus genome Frank Grützner and Jenny Graves at the Australian National University in Canberra (2004), note that:

The form of the monotreme karyotype is unusual for mammals, and forms a link between mammals and reptiles/birds in its distribution of very large and very small chromosomes. The small chromosomes bear interesting similarities to the gene rich microchromosomes of birds, occupying the central domain in cells where active chromatin is expected to lie.

Indeed, platypi share certain sex genes that are characteristic of humans and birds, as reported in Australian Biotechnology News, 2007:

Genetic amalgam

Warren says the unique biology of the platypus promises to yield numerous interesting genetics tales - for example, about the multiple, daisy-chained sex chromosomes, which give the platypus a very different mode of sex determination to the standard X-Y chromosome system in eutherians and placentals - and different again from the W-Z system in birds, where males are the heterogametic sex.

As in birds, most of the platypus' 52 chromosomes are acrocentric - the centromere is located near one end of the chromosome, instead of centrally. It combines very large chromosomes with microchromosomes - again, a bird-like characteristic.

The platypus karyotype is an amalgam of macro- and micro-chromosomes. Warren says it may provide insights into why huge chromosomes evolve: the same little-and-large pattern is a consistent feature in all the world's 9600-odd bird species. One hypothesis suggests it is an evolutionary adaptation for flight, that keeps the genome compact.

There is also great interest in the genes that endow the platypus with its unique ability to sense the faint electrical pulses generated by muscle activity in its prey, via electroreceptors in its bill - a system shared with the echidna, he says.

But the large amounts of repetitive DNA scattered throughout the platypus genome are distinctively mammalian, not avian.

So at best, such things indicate unresolved question about phylogenies. Indeed, there is some question as to whether tree like descriptions of animal development are useful at all as detailed in Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis (2007, Doolittle and Bapteste )

While none of these things is an evidence of ID per se, they all indicate the overall failure of the attempts to detail the phylogentic realtionship through expected evolutionary relationships.



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 11:56:06 AM)

The key to the beak issue is the fact that the platypus "beak" (elongnated facial bones, covered with skin and sensory tissue) is found in some ancient reptiles, but never in birds.

Likewise, the monotremes, being transitional between eutherian mammals and reptiles, have genetic characteristics more like reptiles. This means that they are closer to reptiles and birds than eutherian mammals, which have evolved away from the reptillian form.

It's not surprising that the monotremes are more like reptiles. It would be amazing if they had any characteristics more like birds than reptiles. But I can't think of one.



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 12:03:09 PM)

quote:

The key to the beak issue is the fact that the platypus "beak" (elongnated facial bones, covered with skin and sensory tissue) is found in some ancient reptiles, but never in birds.

Likewise, the monotremes, being transitional between eutherian mammals and reptiles, have genetic characteristics more like reptiles. This means that they are closer to reptiles and birds than eutherian mammals, which have evolved away from the reptillian form.

It's not surprising that the monotremes are more like reptiles. It would be amazing if they had any characteristics more like birds than reptiles. But I can't think of one.


Their genes:

"As in birds, most of the platypus' 52 chromosomes are acrocentric - the centromere is located near one end of the chromosome, instead of centrally. It combines very large chromosomes with microchromosomes - again, a bird-like characteristic."



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 12:24:44 PM)

Chromosomes, by breakage, crossovers, fusions, duplications, etc. are highly variable, unlike the genes themselves. It's one of the more common sorts of speciation.

There is little phylogenetic information in the number and organization of chromosomes.



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 12:43:59 PM)

quote:

Chromosomes, by breakage, crossovers, fusions, duplications, etc. are highly variable, unlike the genes themselves. It's one of the more common sorts of speciation.

There is little phylogenetic information in the number and organization of chromosomes.


The claim of Grützner and Graves, who have studied this more than anyone, is that the genetics are birdlike; you are free to spin however you will.



Plebe -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 4:13:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
For example in their paper Bushes in the Tree of Life (2006) Rokas & Carroll detail four unresolved phylogenies in the TOL:

(A) The human/chimpanzee/gorilla tree (5–8 million years ago).


All three nest within the ape clade, not outside of it. An unexpected outcome would be humans grouping closer to reptiles for 30% of their genes instead of other apes. In a design paradigm, there is nothing stopping the horizontal transfer of any number of genes between humans and other reptiles.

quote:

(B) The elephant/sirenian/hyrax bush (57–65 million years ago).


All three nest quite nicely in the mammal clade. Again, none of them nest closer to reptiles than other mammals.

quote:

(C) The tetrapod/coelacanth/lungfish bush (370–390 million years ago).


Do any of these nest closer to cniderians than other jawed vertebrates? (there is a Godfather joke in there somewhere)

quote:

(D) The metazoan superbush (>550 million years ago).


Do any of them nest with sponges?

quote:

The bat of course is another organism that shows unexpected genetic relationships (Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions, 2006) showing that genetically bats are related closely to horses, cats, and dogs.


Bats were only weakly nested with primates on a few and hotly contested synapomorphies, so it is not too unexpected. However, bats nest perfectly within the mammal clade. The almost non-existent fossil record for bat evolution continues to cloud the specific relationships between bats and other mammal clades.

quote:

And the platypus is difficult to place phylogenetically not just because of it's morphology, but also because of it's unique genetic characteristics.


What would you predict? That platypus gene sequences would be closer to that of other mammals or closer to bird sequences?



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 4:33:35 PM)

quote:

All three nest within the ape clade, not outside of it. An unexpected outcome would be humans grouping closer to reptiles for 30% of their genes instead of other apes. In a design paradigm, there is nothing stopping the horizontal transfer of any number of genes between humans and other reptiles.


I am not sure why we would expect humans, who are mammals, to be closer to reptiles. Within a design paradigm would we expect a computer to share more features with a calculator or toaster? Does this mean the computer evolved from a calculator through incidental forces?

quote:

All three nest quite nicely in the mammal clade. Again, none of them nest closer to reptiles than other mammals.


I appreciate your ad hoc resolution of the problems with these heiarchies, but you must report these to the authors of the paper, not myself; they are the ones making the claim, I am simply citing them.

quote:

Do any of these nest closer to cniderians than other jawed vertebrates? (there is a Godfather joke in there somewhere)


You must be thinking of the Lucabrasians, not the cniderians.

quote:

Do any of them nest with sponges?


Again, this doesn't resolve the problems highlighted by the authors; there is dissembling here.

quote:

Bats were only weakly nested with primates on a few and hotly contested synapomorphies, so it is not too unexpected. However, bats nest perfectly within the mammal clade. The almost non-existent fossil record for bat evolution continues to cloud the specific relationships between bats and other mammal clades.


The existence of mammals, and the fact that bats happens to be them, does nothing to resolve their odd phylogeny.

I mean the simple and straightforward point here isn't that this 'proves ID' but the evolution isn't completely capable of explaning the development of organisms. I am not sure why even strict evolutionists would have a problem with this. One can't be so fearful of one theory (ID) that one overlooks these rather obvious shortcomings.

quote:

What would you predict? That platypus gene sequences would be closer to that of other mammals or closer to bird sequences?


Well, from an evolutionary perspective, as these bird sequences were not thought to develop until after mammals diverged from reptiles, I would predict that they wouldn't exist in platypi at all.



Plebe -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 4:50:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I am not sure why we would expect humans, who are mammals, to be closer to reptiles.


Without the theory of evolution, why wouldn't we?

quote:

Within a design paradigm would we expect a computer to share more features with a calculator or toaster? Does this mean the computer evolved from a calculator through incidental forces?


Within a design paradigm we would expect genes to be swapped irrespective of hierarchies. Why do I say that? Because that is exactly how humans design organisms. I do it all of the time. Just recently I inserted a human gene into E. coli. There are systems where you can make insects express mammal genes, mammal cells express insect genes, and a long list of other combinations. Why don't we see this in nature if it too is designed? A nested hierarchy is the last thing you expect from a designed system.

quote:

I appreciate your ad hoc resolution of the problems with these heiarchies, but you must report these to the authors of the paper, not myself; they are the ones making the claim, I am simply citing them.


They report a higher than expected rate of homoplasy. This does have to be resolved. Nowhere do I see them claim that a bat more closely nests with a bird than any other mammal.

quote:

quote:

Do any of these nest closer to cniderians than other jawed vertebrates? (there is a Godfather joke in there somewhere)


You must be thinking of the Lucabrasians, not the cniderians.


Hehe, I'm glad someone else can laugh at my pitiful jokes. [;)]

quote:

The existence of mammals, and the fact that bats happens to be them, does nothing to resolve their odd phylogeny.


Why call a bat a mammal? Why not call it a bird? Why does it consistently nest within the mammal clade instead of the bird clade?

quote:

I mean the simple and straightforward point here isn't that this 'proves ID' but the evolution isn't completely capable of explaning the development of organisms. I am not sure why even strict evolutionists would have a problem with this. One can't be so fearful of one theory (ID) that one overlooks these rather obvious shortcomings.


The shortcoming is the higher than expected rate of homoplasy, which is what the authors are pointing out. They offer explanations (eg phenomena in population genetics) as to why this is, but admit that it needs to be resolved. However, we do not see the gross violations of the nested hierarchies that a design paradigm would allow.

quote:

quote:

What would you predict? That platypus gene sequences would be closer to that of other mammals or closer to bird sequences?


Well, from an evolutionary perspective, as these bird sequences were not thought to develop until after mammals diverged from reptiles, I would predict that they wouldn't exist in platypi at all.


Which sequences are these? Are these sequences also found in reptiles and other mammals?



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/28/2007 8:52:07 PM)

quote:

The claim of Grützner and Graves, who have studied this more than anyone, is that the genetics are birdlike;


Nope. They claim that some of the chromosomes are like those of birds. However:

The Platypus Is in Its Place: Nuclear Genes and Indels Confirm the Sister Group Relation of Monotremes and Therians
Teun van Rheede*,1, Trijntje Bastiaans*, David N. Boone, S. Blair Hedges, Wilfried W. de Jong*, and Ole Madsen*
* Department of Biochemistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University; and Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Morphological data supports monotremes as the sister group of Theria (extant marsupials + eutherians), but phylogenetic analyses of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes have strongly supported the grouping of monotremes with marsupials: the Marsupionta hypothesis.

The genes are most like those of marsupials.

quote:

you are free to spin however you will.


Turns out the data support what I told you earlier; the form and number of chromosomes aren't very good ways to set up phylogenies.

Imagine that.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/1/2007 1:23:11 AM)

I see you have abandoned the bat with feathers.

Do you concede that a bat with feathers will not fit into the nested hierarchy?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/1/2007 1:27:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plebe
However, we do not see the gross violations of the nested hierarchies that a design paradigm would allow.


How gross of a violation must it be in order for it to falsify universal evolution? Of course, chances are they will just re - categorize the hierarchy, as usual, to make everything fit, further demonstrating that such a hierarchy is arbitrary.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/1/2007 1:28:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

I see you have abandoned the bat with feathers.

Do you concede that a bat with feathers will not fit into the nested hierarchy?


They can make it fit some sort of nested hierarchy. It could be attributed to a common ancestor or parallel or convergent evolution as well. They'll have teams of proponents of universal evolution working on it, they can find some way to classify it. The only reason why it is claimed that bats with feathers would violate such a hierarchy is because bats are not found with feathers (ie: it was claimed after it was known that bats don't have feathers), if bats were found with feathers they can claim those feathers are due to a common ancestor or convergent or parallel evolution. With teams of proponents of universal evolution working on it they can find some way to make it fit some sort of nested hierarchy. If bats were found with feathers they may no longer claim that bats with feathers violates such a speculative hierarchy and then they may claim that chimps with feathers violates such a hierarchy. If chimps are found with feathers they may then claim that this doesn't violate the hierarchy but fish with feathers do. etc... We have platypuses with bills, if this doesn't violate the hierarchy I see no reason why bats with feathers should.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/1/2007 1:41:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plebe
Within a design paradigm we would expect genes to be swapped irrespective of hierarchies. Why do I say that? Because that is exactly how humans design organisms. I do it all of the time. Just recently I inserted a human gene into E. coli. There are systems where you can make insects express mammal genes, mammal cells express insect genes, and a long list of other combinations. Why don't we see this in nature if it too is designed? A nested hierarchy is the last thing you expect from a designed system.


Humans can design organisms however they please. This is just one way that humans can design organisms, there are several others.

Here is a good quote.

quote:


Convergences are strikingly similar, but not identical. If they were identical, the observer could conclude that transposition occurred (that is, the traits were transferred between basically different kinds of organisms — for example, by viral action). However, they are sufficiently similar to demand incredible rationalisations from the evolutionist. Convergences unify diverse organisms in a way which cannot be explained by common descent or by transposition. Again we see the unifying pattern with a non-naturalistic message.


quote:


...evolutionists would embrace transposition, if they could, because it would help explain the lack of phylogeny and the large morphological gaps in the record of life.


Not to mention, universal evolution doesn't predict a nested hierarchy in the first place.

quote:


Nor does the theory predict the nested pattern evident in classification. If evolved traits were lost and replaced at a high rate, then a nested pattern would not result. Descendants could bear little resemblance to their ancestors with no pattern of nested similarities linking them.


http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2265/#nested



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/1/2007 4:22:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

I see you have abandoned the bat with feathers.

Do you concede that a bat with feathers will not fit into the nested hierarchy?


They can make it fit some sort of nested hierarchy.



There is only one nested hierarchy. If an organism is found that does not fit into it, evolution is disproved. I repeat, there is only one nested hierarchy.

quote:


It could be attributed to a common ancestor or parallel or convergent evolution as well.


No ancestor of bats have feathers, so it cannot be a common ancestor.

Convergent evolution cannot result in a bat with bird feathers.

If a certain trais is very advantageous, different lineages might evolve that trait. The trait will not be identical. For instance, both bats and birds have evolved wings, since flight is advantageous. However, bats don't have bird wings, and birds don't have bat wings. (They both have structures called 'wings' in English, because of convergent evolution.)

Bats with bird wings will not fit the nested hierarchy, resulting in the death of evolution.
Birds with bat wings will not fit the nested hierarchy, resulting in the death of evolution.

quote:


They'll have teams of proponents of universal evolution working on it, they can find some way to classify it.


There might very well be teams of scientists working on this problem, if it did arise. In fact, I can guarantee you that there will be. However, since a bat with feathers is impossible to fit into the nested hierarchy, they will fail.

quote:


The only reason why it is claimed that bats with feathers would violate such a hierarchy is because bats are not found with feathers (ie: it was claimed after it was known that bats don't have feathers), if bats were found with feathers they can claim those feathers are due to a common ancestor or convergent or parallel evolution.


Actually, the reason it is claimed that a bat with feathers will not fit the nested hierarchy, is because a bat with feathers will not fit the nested hierarchy.

quote:


With teams of proponents of universal evolution working on it they can find some way to make it fit some sort of nested hierarchy. If bats were found with feathers they may no longer claim that bats with feathers violates such a speculative hierarchy and then they may claim that chimps with feathers violates such a hierarchy.


Chimps with feathers ALREADY violate a nested hierarchy. Weather something violates the nested hierarchy is not up for interpretation. It is an objective thing. Either it fits, or it doesn't. Much like the number 4 can never be less than 3, a bat with feathers can never fit into the nested hierarchy.

quote:


If chimps are found with feathers they may then claim that this doesn't violate the hierarchy but fish with feathers do. etc... We have platypuses with bills, if this doesn't violate the hierarchy I see no reason why bats with feathers should.


Fish with feathers ALREADY violate the nested hierarchy.

A platypus with a duck bill will violate the nested hierarchy, in EXACTLY the same way a bat with feathers will. The moment a platypus with a duck bill is found, evolution will be destroyed. Since no such thing has ever been found, evolution lives on.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI