Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Kinds beget kind and the nested heirarchy

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 8:33:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wanted to elaborate on something I said on another thread and make sure that everyone is clear exactly what Evolution says about kinds begetting kind.

Firstly, we have the evidence of the nested set, and how this is explained by Evolution. When you organise extant and extinct life objectively by properties you form what is called a nested heirarchy: Groups of species that have collectively similar properties.

It is difficult to truly put across what this means; which is part of the reason why Creationists reject it out of hand.

Lets take all life as we know it, and list the properties or "morphology" of those creatures. If you do this, find lots of similarities between those morphologies. The nested set comes when you try and categorise those creatures; place them in some sort of objective order.

When you do this, you find a pattern. You find that for a specific feature all species that have that feature also have a common set of other features. All creatures that have a placenta, have a tetropod skeleton with five digits, nipples, are warm blooded have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symetric, and have eukaryote cells. All animals with a bird structured beak have wings, feathers, two feet, cloaca, aparticular hip structure, have a tetropod skeleton, are warm blooded, have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symetric and have eukaryote cells.

Such patterns build up consistently, to provide a sets of features within sets of features. This pattern is not invalidated; you never have a bird with an anus that forms after the mouth, or do not have eukaryote cells. You do not find any species that have placentas but no nipples; or any other combination of animals that have properties that mix and match properties and features over multiple sets.

You find a species or set of speies with a set of features, which contains sub-sets of species with those features and specific additional features with those sub-sets including still more sub-sets that contain the features of the two higher groups plus a few more. This continues over a large number of examples. This nested heirarchy was created by a Creationist and before evolution was theorized.

For the Creationists, it is easy to invalid simply by ordering life objectively and forming a completely different tree. There is occasional ambiguity with particular joints of the tree when species are so close together that it is not easy to tell whether H->I + J or H->I-> J or variations thereof, but there is no ambiguity on the larger sets of clades E->F->G->(H,I,J)->K->L->M. In this respect, the tree isn't definitive, there are some changes that can occur when species are very close, but no wholesale changes (you cannot, for example, argue that fish are part of the mammal clade, but could theoretically argue that gorillas and orangutans are part of the same clade that is a subset of the clade that humans and chimps belong to. Although additional evidence helps refine this information.

Nothing that is intellegently designed has this sort of heirarchy. Cars, Bikes, planes, trains, ships, music, musical instruments, books, literature, furniture, architecture, tools, clothes, etc do NOT form a nested set when organised objectively: As if you try, you will always find examples that invalidate the tree; such as british cars with german engines: In fact you have to be subjective and arbitrary to make them fit in any tree at all (for example by saying that engine size is more important than number of seats).

There have been 250,000 fossiles that form part of that tree that do not invalidate the nested heirarchy. While working with extant fossile, we don't have common ancestors alive; by definition, so we look to the fossile record to see if there are forms that contains

Out of these there are hundreds if not thousands of example of transitional forms. Such as species that have some, but not all features of an extant species that fits very nicely into this nested set, by containing all the properties of a given set, but only some of the features of the sub-set; but NEVER having the features of a given set, some of the features of one sub-set, and some of the features of another. These many missing links provide examples of life at each stage of the nested heirarchy with no violations: exactly what one would expect if universal common descent were true. Not only that, this is not invalidated by either time, nor geography. We do not find marsupials fossiles in north america, or in the pre-cambrian. Ever. In fact, some discoveries have looked at the nested heirarchy, and predicted the existant of species with a given set of features, in a specific geographic location and time (based on parent and child clades): the Tiktilaak is a good example of such a prediction.

Because of ALL of this, no matter how many descendant forms there are, one "kind/species/form" of animal will NEVER be a different "kind/species/form" according to evolution. There are no changes that can occur to dogs over a significant time that will cause them to not be dogs. They will be dogs + feature A . In the same way that dogs are still Canus + dog features, are still Canidae + Canus features, are still Carnivora + Canidae features are still mammalia + Carnivora features are still chordata + mammalia features are still animalia + chordata features.

It becomes a nonsensical, illogical argument to request evolution to show one clade turning into another; for exactly the same reason as suggesting that you can prove you share a recent common ancestor with someone who lived hundreds of years ago by giving birth to your own second cousin. Features will change, but a change from one clade to an unrelated clade cannot happen because they are unrelated clades. For common descent, any species will only ever be able to give birth to their own clade which over time will form simply a sub-clade that will always and forever more still be a member of that parent clade. Forever.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 10:35:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
All creatures that have a placenta, have a tetropod skeleton with five digits, nipples, are warm blooded have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symetric, and have eukaryote cells. All animals with a bird structured beak have wings, feathers, two feet, cloaca, aparticular hip structure, have a tetropod skeleton, are warm blooded, have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symetric and have eukaryote cells.

Just so I'm not accused of ignoring things, there are a few specific examples of evolution loosing traits like human tails etc where this is not the case. However, it is almost true in its entirety for all traits, there are still no cross-clade violations and there are numerous examples of "almost but not entirely" lost traits and features.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 1:04:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 8:33:09 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

I wanted to elaborate on something I said on another thread and make sure that everyone is clear exactly what Evolution says about kinds begetting kind.

First off, evolution doesn't say anything about kinds begetting kinds, evolutionists do. Kinds begetting kinds is a biblical concept that tells us how God created life, and what we can expect to see in the world that God created for us. Furthermore, what evolution or evolutionists say about that concept is of no consequence. You can choose to believe it or disregard it, you have that God-given free will, but your choice is irrelevant to the fact that what we see in the real world is exactly what the bible tells us we should see, kinds bringing forth after their kind.

Firstly, we have the evidence of the nested set, and how this is explained by Evolution.

Ah, but we have the evidence of the nested set, too, along with how this is explained by God creating organisms with some similar features which is indicative of a common designer. So what's the difference between your theory and mine??

The difference lies in two key points. One is that I believe God created life, second is that life will reproduce after its kind. I fully admit that God created life is a faith-based statement, but the second part my theory, that life will reproduce after its kind, fits with real life, observational science. Observation of nature shows us that organisms only produce more organisms like themselves. Dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, people produce people, etc. No exception to that rule has ever been produced.

Conversely, you believe that life created itself, which is a faith-based statement because this has never been witnessed and there is no proof that it can even happen. You also believe that once life created itself, organisms increased in complexity and evolved from one form into another. This too, is a faith-based statement because again no one has ever witnessed this feat, and we don't see it happening in the natural world.

So that leaves us with Creation, which is a faith-based statement that God created life, followed by instructions from the same book that tells us that kinds reproduce after their kind, which is verified by observation of the natural world. In the other corner we have evolution, which is dependent on TWO faith-based statements, neither of which can be supported by real life, objective, empirical science.

Sorry but evolution is down for the count, since it is entirely faith-based, and can produce no real link to the real world.

When you organise extant and extinct life objectively by properties you form what is called a nested heirarchy: Groups of species that have collectively similar properties.

Ok yeah, they have some similar properties...So??

It is difficult to truly put across what this means; which is part of the reason why Creationists reject it out of hand.

No, we don't reject that a nested hierarchy OF TRAITS exists. What we reject is your ASSUMPTION that it is also a tree of life and that these similar features equal an ancestral relationship between groups.

Lets take all life as we know it, and list the properties or "morphology" of those creatures. If you do this, find lots of similarities between those morphologies. The nested set comes when you try and categorise those creatures; place them in some sort of objective order.

When you do this, you find a pattern. You find that for a specific feature all species that have that feature also have a common set of other features. All creatures that have a placenta, have a tetropod skeleton with five digits, nipples, are warm blooded have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symetric, and have eukaryote cells. All animals with a bird structured beak have wings, feathers, two feet, cloaca, aparticular hip structure, have a tetropod skeleton, are warm blooded, have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symetric and have eukaryote cells.

Such patterns build up consistently, to provide a sets of features within sets of features. This pattern is not invalidated; you never have a bird with an anus that forms after the mouth, or do not have eukaryote cells. You do not find any species that have placentas but no nipples; or any other combination of animals that have properties that mix and match properties and features over multiple sets.

Ok, where would I fit in?? I don't have a placenta, or a tetrapod body. I have two arms, two hands with opposable thumbs, and two legs, two feet with big toes rather than opposable thumbs or grasping toes.

You find a species or set of speies with a set of features, which contains sub-sets of species with those features and specific additional features with those sub-sets including still more sub-sets that contain the features of the two higher groups plus a few more. This continues over a large number of examples. This nested heirarchy was created by a Creationist and before evolution was theorized.

Ok, similar features, we get that but once again...So??

For the Creationists, it is easy to invalid simply by ordering life objectively and forming a completely different tree.

There is occasional ambiguity with particular joints of the tree when species are so close together that it is not easy to tell whether H->I + J or H->I-> J or variations thereof, but there is no ambiguity on the larger sets of clades E->F->G->(H,I,J)->K->L->M.

Woah...Back 'er down a notch there, Turbo.

I see what you did there, which is exactly what I have said several times. This is a glimpse inside the mind of a rabid evolutionist, and the thinking pattern that most evolutionists share.

See how freely and easily you equivocate between the nested hierarchy, which you were referring to just a minute ago, and the tree of life. Just a minute ago you were telling us how the NH was different than the ToL, and that the NH was created by a creationist, but now you're talking about them as though the two are one and the same.

Just a minute ago you were talking about nested sets of groups with some similar traits. Now you've taken it over and are calling it a tree of life, complete with "clades". The nested hierarchy isn't one of your imaginary evolution creatures that has morphability. You can't just morph it into a tree of life and claim it as evidence without showing why. I've brought this up numerous times and you have yet to show how it can be evidence for UCA, when you can't even show any ancestral linkage between those groups.

In this respect, the tree isn't definitive, there are some changes that can occur when species are very close, but no wholesale changes (you cannot, for example, argue that fish are part of the mammal clade, but could theoretically argue that gorillas and orangutans are part of the same clade that is a subset of the clade that humans and chimps belong to. Although additional evidence helps refine this information.

You're getting a little ahead of yourself. You need to back up and fill in the rest of the missing information, instead of trudging forward as if you've proven something.

BTW, why am I a mammal??
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As the title suggests, this thread was intended to do the following:

- highlight what the nested heirarchy actually is (not just common traits, but groups of groups). You agree with this.

- Explain why evolution, which uses this pattern as evidence, implies any new sub-clade will still be part of the parent clade given what we know about animals, fossils, transitional forms and others: colloquially expressed by yourself as "kind begets kind": You have not presented an argument against this (in fact you tacitly agree with this)

- Explain the reasons why things that have been designed do not form an unviolated nested heirarchy. You ignore this, and simply say that it supports creationism without addressing this key aspect. (But this is another conversation)

The reason for this is you repeatedly state that evolution requires one kind to produce a different kind.

As shown in this thread, this is not the case in fact evolution requires any type of animal to produce the same type of animal (which is consistent with the historical interpretation of the nested heirarchy, supported by transitional forms, fossil evidence and chronology.

Your arguments are contesting something unrelated to this, which will be addressed, but none of these fundamentally refute the above conclusion:

If evolution is true, it does not require one type of creature to produce a different kind.

You may either challenge this point, or concede this point.

What you are doing here, is making a different argument concerning the validity of the nested heirarchy and common descent which will be addressed after you have challenged with justification or conceded the above bolded statement.

This is important, because history has told me if I challenge what you are saying in this thread, you will restate this same statement as evident why you are correct.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 2:56:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:14:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Are you at least going to answer the questions that I asked??

When you have gone back and either challenged or conceded the fundamental aim of this thread. I am just keeping you on topic rather than letting you making a dfferent aegument on a different point and claiming the original is refuted.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:25:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 2:56:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:14:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Are you at least going to answer the questions that I asked??

When you have gone back and either challenged or conceded the fundamental aim of this thread. I am just keeping you on topic rather than letting you making a dfferent aegument on a different point and claiming the original is refuted.

The questions are very relevant and germane to the point.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:43:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 4:25:23 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/13/2014 2:56:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:14:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Are you at least going to answer the questions that I asked??

When you have gone back and either challenged or conceded the fundamental aim of this thread. I am just keeping you on topic rather than letting you making a dfferent aegument on a different point and claiming the original is refuted.

The questions are very relevant and germane to the point.

I dont see how, as contending the classification is not contending my bolded statement. but will humour you.

You are a mammal because the traits you have in common with a variety of other species (a set of traits consistent with the nested heirarchy) and the set of characteristics consistent with all defined parent clades and no traits in common with clades not present in the direct parental heirarchy (ie no traits from birds).
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 10:10:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:49:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
As the title suggests, this thread was intended to do the following:

- highlight what the nested heirarchy actually is (not just common traits, but groups of groups). You agree with this.

I agree that it is a nested set of groups, that are grouped according to traits that they have in common. I also say that the NH is not indicative, and does not imply or require that there is any ancestral relationship between those groups. IOW, it is not a tree of life.

- Explain why evolution, which uses this pattern as evidence, implies any new sub-clade will still be part of the parent clade given what we know about animals, fossils, transitional forms and others: colloquially expressed by yourself as "kind begets kind": You have not presented an argument against this (in fact you tacitly agree with this)

I think it's fairly obvious what my opinion on this is. What you're saying here is that if two birds were to breed and hatched a litter of Dalmatian puppies, those puppies would be classed as part of the bird's clade, I get that. The tree of life would show the dogs branching off from birds. That's a far cry from kind begats kind, so what does how your cladistics works have to do with me??

- Explain the reasons why things that have been designed do not form an unviolated nested heirarchy. You ignore this, and simply say that it supports creationism without addressing this key aspect. (But this is another conversation)

I've already shown you, using the clothing example, that designed things can form nested sets.

If there is one common designer, then you're much more likely to see patterns of similarity in the things that are designed by that designer. Even if there is a group of designers, that work together on similar projects, you'll be able to get nested sets if you use criteria that applies to their work. For instance, if you pick an era of automobiles from General Motors, you can build nested sets of similar traits in all GM products, produced in that era. But when you throw in examples from a different era, or try to add Ford or BMW parts and products, to the group, it upsets the groupings, because design elements change.

New ideas are implemented, new kinds of materials, new manufacturing methods, etc., are all part of human design, and human design changes and evolves. It's that reason, constant change in time through trends in research and development, that human design doesn't usually fit into nested sets when you look at large groups of things that have had many different designers.

Life however, doesn't change it's design, methods, materials. It isn't subject to the implementation of new ideas or new trends in design, as a result of research. It works the same way that it has for thousands of years. Life has always worked via reproduction, by the copying of the genetic code of the parent organism, which is why the common designer explanation is the best one. We don't see new imaginary body plans produced because life is forced to follow from it's parents. Life is limited in what it is able to produce, which is genetic copies and variations of the already existing organisms.

So when you use the same criteria, in a fair comparison, you do find that both life and human design can be arranged in similar pattern. However, when you introduce foreign elements into the design pattern of either, it upsets and changes the groupings, and that applies to human design as well as the nested hierarchy of traits.

If you use different traits, you're going to get some different groupings, and those sets may, or may not nest. I can, for instance, introduce traits that will isolate humans into their own group. Another thing that is present in the NH that you won't factor into human design, is that fact that traits are used somewhat generically, in the NH. An example of that is that you say that humans have tetrapod bodies, so all mammals fall into that group. However, if you make a more appropriate distinction with regard to extremities, you'll end up with different groups.

Rather than treating two arms and two legs the same as you do four legs, which is an evolutionary assumption, group those differently and see what you get. Group organisms by those having two hands, with four fingers and an opposable thumb, along with two feet with a big toe rather than opposable or grasping toes. I could throw in any number of things that would change the groupings so although the NH does exist, it is not something that is difficult to force a change to.

Beyond all this though, the question is...Why is the nested hierarchy of traits evidence for UCA?? What evidence do you have that proves that your evolutionary mechanism, random mutations, has produced a universally consistent, predictable pattern??

The reason for this is you repeatedly state that evolution requires one kind to produce a different kind.

As shown in this thread, this is not the case in fact evolution requires any type of animal to produce the same type of animal (which is consistent with the historical interpretation of the nested heirarchy, supported by transitional forms, fossil evidence and chronology.

No, UCA requires that of itself. You can hide behind terminology all you want, but for microbial life to produce anything other than microbial life, or branch off as you would put it, somewhere along the process it has to become something other than a microbe. You can throw as many millions of years as you want, into the equation, or as many transitional steps as you want, but it doesn't change what has to happen, logistically.

If only fish can produce fish, and UCA doesn't require anything else to turn into fish, then how did we get fish in the first place?? How did fish "evolve" from previous ancestors, who weren't fish, if no organism was required to drastically change in form and function from the original??

Your arguments are contesting something unrelated to this, which will be addressed, but none of these fundamentally refute the above conclusion:

If evolution is true, it does not require one type of creature to produce a different kind.

"Evolution" may not require it, as you could be using evolution in several different ways, but UCA absolutely does require it. Why else would your people be looking for transitional fossils if there weren't any transitions??

You're just playing word games here, trying to hide the absurdity of your claims using terminology, and I certainly am not going to help you with that.

You may either challenge this point, or concede this point.

lol...I'm certainly not going to concede it.

What you are doing here, is making a different argument concerning the validity of the nested heirarchy and common descent which will be addressed after you have challenged with justification or conceded the above bolded statement.

This is important, because history has told me if I challenge what you are saying in this thread, you will restate this same statement as evident why you are correct.

huh??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 10:19:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 6:43:16 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:25:23 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/13/2014 2:56:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:14:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Are you at least going to answer the questions that I asked??

When you have gone back and either challenged or conceded the fundamental aim of this thread. I am just keeping you on topic rather than letting you making a dfferent aegument on a different point and claiming the original is refuted.

The questions are very relevant and germane to the point.

I dont see how, as contending the classification is not contending my bolded statement. but will humour you.

You are a mammal because the traits you have in common with a variety of other species (a set of traits consistent with the nested heirarchy) and the set of characteristics consistent with all defined parent clades and no traits in common with clades not present in the direct parental heirarchy (ie no traits from birds).

But I don't have four legs, I only have two, which I regret to inform you is how many birds have.

How about the placenta?? I don't have one of those so why am I grouped with them??
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 10:10:38 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:49:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
As the title suggests, this thread was intended to do the following:

- highlight what the nested heirarchy actually is (not just common traits, but groups of groups). You agree with this.

I agree that it is a nested set of groups, that are grouped according to traits that they have in common. I also say that the NH is not indicative, and does not imply or require that there is any ancestral relationship between those groups. IOW, it is not a tree of life.

Irrelevant for now. As it doesn't refute the bolded statement,

- Explain why evolution, which uses this pattern as evidence, implies any new sub-clade will still be part of the parent clade given what we know about animals, fossils, transitional forms and others: colloquially expressed by yourself as "kind begets kind": You have not presented an argument against this (in fact you tacitly agree with this)

I think it's fairly obvious what my opinion on this is. What you're saying here is that if two birds were to breed and hatched a litter of Dalmatian puppies, those puppies would be classed as part of the bird's clade, I get that.

Come on now. I'm not entirely sure why you took the entire sum of my argument, which is solely attempting to show that what you state here IS NOT EVOLUTION and then argue that this is what I am saying.

This is a completely inapplicable analogy as such an example would refute evolution because of the nested heirarchy.

The tree of life would show the dogs branching off from birds. That's a far cry from kind begats kind, so what does how your cladistics works have to do with me??

You are using an inapplicable analogy that is NOT evolution. Implying my argument is invalid by claiming that I am making is the exact opposite of what I am showing and explaining why is a self refuting argument.

Remember, this stems from your definition of kind, traits, reproduction and ancestry. Using this definition, it is unreasonable to ask one kind to turn into another, because all life in this respect matches your own definition "if" evolution were true.

So please, can you stick to the argument I am actually making.

- Explain the reasons why things that have been designed do not form an unviolated nested heirarchy. You ignore this, and simply say that it supports creationism without addressing this key aspect. (But this is another conversation)

I've already shown you, using the clothing example, that designed things can form nested sets.

But as I stated, not an unviolated nested set. If you just pick parts of the body it's worn on, sure, but when you consider cut, fabric, fibre, buttons, etc it does not form a nested hierarchy. I made this clear in my argument above what is required to show this.

You also have true chimeras: snoods, onesies west it's and swimwear that invalidate the nested hierarchy.

So no, nothing intelligently designed show a nested hierarchy for this reason. Not being bound by descent with modification allows any feasible design to be possible.

The reason for this is you repeatedly state that evolution requires one kind to produce a different kind.

As shown in this thread, this is not the case in fact evolution requires any type of animal to produce the same type of animal (which is consistent with the historical interpretation of the nested heirarchy, supported by transitional forms, fossil evidence and chronology.

No, UCA requires that of itself. You can hide behind terminology all you want, but for microbial life to produce anything other than microbial life, or branch off as you would put it, somewhere along the process it has to become something other than a microbe. You can throw as many millions of years as you want, into the equation, or as many transitional steps as you want, but it doesn't change what has to happen, logistically.

You are missing the point, we are not something "other" than a microbe in the strictest sense. We are still cell based eukaryote life forms.

If only fish can produce fish, and UCA doesn't require anything else to turn into fish, then how did we get fish in the first place?? How did fish "evolve" from previous ancestors, who weren't fish, if no organism was required to drastically change in form and function from the original??

No organism was required to change drastically. This happens over time. But as pointed out, we are STILL exactly the same clade as the original fishlike ancestor. So in this respect we are still the same, with inherited and lost traits.

If you refer back to why

Your arguments are contesting something unrelated to this, which will be addressed, but none of these fundamentally refute the above conclusion:

If evolution is true, it does not require one type of creature to produce a different kind.

"Evolution" may not require it, as you could be using evolution in several different ways, but UCA absolutely does require it. Why else would your people be looking for transitional fossils if there weren't any transitions??

Transitional forms are not a "different kind" using your terminology. They are simply representative of intermediate clades. Not changing "kinds"

You're just playing word games here, trying to hide the absurdity of your claims using terminology, and I certainly am not going to help you with that.

I am using your terminology and showing how the very thing you demand to occur, can't.

You may either challenge this point, or concede this point.

lol...I'm certainly not going to concede it.

What you are doing here, is making a different argument concerning the validity of the nested heirarchy and common descent which will be addressed after you have challenged with justification or conceded the above bolded statement.

This is important, because history has told me if I challenge what you are saying in this thread, you will restate this same statement as evident why you are correct.

huh??

I am keeping you on topic so you can't refute a different topic and then come back and say you refuted the original.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:16:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 10:19:19 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/13/2014 6:43:16 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:25:23 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/13/2014 2:56:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:14:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Are you at least going to answer the questions that I asked??

When you have gone back and either challenged or conceded the fundamental aim of this thread. I am just keeping you on topic rather than letting you making a dfferent aegument on a different point and claiming the original is refuted.

The questions are very relevant and germane to the point.

I dont see how, as contending the classification is not contending my bolded statement. but will humour you.

You are a mammal because the traits you have in common with a variety of other species (a set of traits consistent with the nested heirarchy) and the set of characteristics consistent with all defined parent clades and no traits in common with clades not present in the direct parental heirarchy (ie no traits from birds).

But I don't have four legs, I only have two, which I regret to inform you is how many birds have.

You have four limbs, a backbone, a jaw, a skull and various other traits that place you as a terrestrial vertebrate. Birds have all that, two legs, two wings (which have the same characteristics as the four limbs with additional diagnostic traits, including feathers, fused digits in the arms and many others). In this respect birds ARE terrestrial vertebrate + other traits.

You have four limbs, a backbone, jaw, skull and various others that place you as a terrestrial vertebrate. As with other mammals, you have certain traits in all limbs (such as two bones in the lower extremity, sockets, and others), which are diagnostic, as do all mammals that use four legs and those that don't (such as kangaroos).

We don't assume arms are legs, but simply that they share a set of common traits with legs that among all the other traits show we are mammals. We have additional traits in our arms and legs in common with monkeys, and even more in common in our arms and legs with the great apes (which do indeed use arms in the same way and similar as we do).

This is the point, unlike your cited examples of intelligent design forming a nested heirarchy, every trait is important, your arms are not legs, they are arms; but they share the majority of traits with other terrestrial vertebrates and the innumerable number of clades in between, with the additional traits that become diagnostic of progressively higher clades until the only diffrences that remain are simply the handful of remaining traits that seperate humans from chimpanzees, then Neanderthals and the intermediate species between them all.

So rather than ignore these differences they all become diagnostically important for placing us within the hierarchy.

How about the placenta?? I don't have one of those so why am I grouped with them??

Females have the placenta (the sexual dimorphism of traits was implied as I figured that even you would not want to make such an argument that is so vacuous) .
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 7:38:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 4:04:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

As the title suggests, this thread was intended to do the following:

- highlight what the nested heirarchy actually is (not just common traits, but groups of groups). You agree with this.

I agree that it is a nested set of groups, that are grouped according to traits that they have in common. I also say that the NH is not indicative, and does not imply or require that there is any ancestral relationship between those groups. IOW, it is not a tree of life.

Irrelevant for now. As it doesn't refute the bolded statement,

Ok, I just wanted to clarify what it is that I agree to since you said that I agree.
-------------------------

I think it's fairly obvious what my opinion on this is. What you're saying here is that if two birds were to breed and hatched a litter of Dalmatian puppies, those puppies would be classed as part of the bird's clade, I get that.

Come on now. I'm not entirely sure why you took the entire sum of my argument, which is solely attempting to show that what you state here IS NOT EVOLUTION and then argue that this is what I am saying.

Hopeful monster or gradualism, same thing, one just has a few more transitional steps.

This is a completely inapplicable analogy as such an example would refute evolution because of the nested heirarchy.

Yeah right...lol...You expect me to believe that if birds hatched puppies you'd say, "Oh well, that's one kind of animal producing another kind of animal. I guess that means we were wrong all along."...Please.

You are using an inapplicable analogy that is NOT evolution. Implying my argument is invalid by claiming that I am making is the exact opposite of what I am showing and explaining why is a self refuting argument.

Remember, this stems from your definition of kind, traits, reproduction and ancestry. Using this definition, it is unreasonable to ask one kind to turn into another, because all life in this respect matches your own definition "if" evolution were true.

How many times do you need me to say this?? I agree that "IF" UCA were to be true, and organisms can indeed change into different organisms, then the concept of kinds would be falsified because all life would be one big kind. I agree with you on that, and said so several times in the other thread.

If UCA were shown to be true then the discontinuity, in ancestry and reproductive history, between the "kinds" would be falsified, thus the concept of biblical kinds would no longer be relevant. However, what you're not seeing is that the point you're trying to make about kinds only happens AFTER the discontinuity has been falsified.

If UCA is true and it is shown empirically and objectively, then that change that falsified the discontinuity had to happen anyway, regardless of what I say, or how I define a kind. Birds produce birds, dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, etc. If that principle is disproven empirically, I am not going to fall back on the argument that even though it's not a fish, since it came from fish ancestors, that still makes it a fish so the bible is still correct. So no, it is not unreasonable to ask an alleged scientific theory to support itself.
--------------------------------------------

No, UCA requires that of itself. You can hide behind terminology all you want, but for microbial life to produce anything other than microbial life, or branch off as you would put it, somewhere along the process it has to become something other than a microbe. You can throw as many millions of years as you want, into the equation, or as many transitional steps as you want, but it doesn't change what has to happen, logistically.

You are missing the point, we are not something "other" than a microbe in the strictest sense. We are still cell based eukaryote life forms.

That doesn't change the logistics of how we got from point A to where we are now.

If only fish can produce fish, and UCA doesn't require anything else to turn into fish, then how did we get fish in the first place?? How did fish "evolve" from previous ancestors, who weren't fish, if no organism was required to drastically change in form and function from the original??

No organism was required to change drastically. This happens over time. But as pointed out, we are STILL exactly the same clade as the original fishlike ancestor. So in this respect we are still the same, with inherited and lost traits.

This doesn't answer my question. If only fish can produce fish, and UCA doesn't require anything else to turn into fish, then how did we get fish in the first place??

Fishlike ancestor??...lol...I don't know about you but my mouth doesn't water when I see a worm crawling across the yard. Sorry. You can believe all that evo-speak if you want but until I see some valid evidence I ain't buying it.
-----------------------------------------

If evolution is true, it does not require one type of creature to produce a different kind.

"Evolution" may not require it, as you could be using evolution in several different ways, but UCA absolutely does require it. Why else would your people be looking for transitional fossils if there weren't any transitions??

Transitional forms are not a "different kind" using your terminology. They are simply representative of intermediate clades. Not changing "kinds"

What natural event does an intermediate clade represent??

You're just playing word games here, trying to hide the absurdity of your claims using terminology, and I certainly am not going to help you with that.

I am using your terminology and showing how the very thing you demand to occur, can't.

I totally agree, it can't happen, that's what I've been saying all along. So then we agree that UCA is false??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 7:33:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 4:16:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------

But I don't have four legs, I only have two, which I regret to inform you is how many birds have.

You have four limbs, a backbone, a jaw, a skull and various other traits that place you as a terrestrial vertebrate. Birds have all that, two legs, two wings (which have the same characteristics as the four limbs with additional diagnostic traits, including feathers, fused digits in the arms and many others). In this respect birds ARE terrestrial vertebrate + other traits.

You have four limbs, a backbone, jaw, skull and various others that place you as a terrestrial vertebrate. As with other mammals, you have certain traits in all limbs (such as two bones in the lower extremity, sockets, and others), which are diagnostic, as do all mammals that use four legs and those that don't (such as kangaroos).

We don't assume arms are legs, but simply that they share a set of common traits with legs that among all the other traits show we are mammals.

The evolutionary assumption is that arms evolved from legs but that is a minor point that may come up later, but is not something we need to focus on right now. Regardless of whether you assume it, they are treated and classed the same as legs, when they clearly shouldn't be. They are not the least bit useful as legs, and when we try to use them as such, we are clearly at a disadvantage in most ways. Our skeleton does not even fit the definition of a tetrapod.

Tetra, when used as a compound word, as in tetrapod, means four. Pod means foot. As we're discussing limbs, humans do not have four of any limb, and we certainly don't have four feet, as a tetrapod does. We have two legs and two arms, which serve different purposes. That puts us in an upright posture, which isn't shared by true four-footed animals. That would put us in a group with birds, since we both have two legs and upper extremities that are used for a different purpose. It is not at all accurate to say that humans have a tetrapod skeleton. It is simply a way to make humans seem more animal-like, so that we can be classified somewhere in the ranks, but has no significance outside of classification.

Likewise, the class Mammalia is just a generic, catch-all classification term that also has no real meaning or significance outside of classification. It focuses on just a few similarities that the organisms have in common, while ignoring the thousands of differences that exist between the members of the class.

My point here is three-fold.

1. First, and most relevant to our discussion of the nested hierarchy, is that you seemingly violate the clothing example I gave by introducing new elements into the mix. You say that doing so shows that ID cannot produce a nested hierarchy. I disagree for two reasons.

a) If the example that I gave you represents the entirety of that designer's work, then it is indeed an unviolated nested set, produced by intelligent design. That you can introduce designs by other designers to seemingly disrupt it, is irrelevant because I can do the same thing with the nested hierarchy of traits. Since the claim involves life being created by one common designer, then to make a fair comparison and make the situations truly analogous, you have to contain your groupings to those produced by one single designer. Otherwise, you're implementing rules that are not applied equally to both sides, which invalidates the comparison.

b) If the clothing example was allowed to play by the same rules as the NHoT, then it can indeed be expanded and incorporate the things that you threw in, in spite of them possibly being a product of a different designer. For instance, just as our arms are treated as legs for classification, we could simply incorporate romper suits into one of the already existing divisions. Or, since the example is using just dress clothing, we could simply start a new branch of all-purpose or multi-purpose clothing, and group everything in nested sets according to the similarities that we choose. We could call that branch the Mammalia line. Or, just as the many differences between members of the mammal class are ignored, I could simply say that the things that you brought up are irrelevant, as they are not part of the group, which consists solely of dress clothes, suits, dresses, skirts and blouses. That still leaves the ID set unviolated.

So overall, when everything is applied fairly and evenly, ID can also produce the unviolated nesting pattern. Conversely, when no double standards are allowed, situations can be brought up that will violate the nesting pattern of both the ID example and the NHoT.

2. I still have not seen any justification for turning the NHoT into a tree of life, as the assumption of homology is just that, an assumption.

3. This is just an observation, not really relevant to an argument. Dealing with taxonomy, phylogenies, cladistics, etc., gives a false and misleading impression of the importance of similarity. This isn't a knock on anyone, but it's easy to get a false impression when you're constantly dealing with nature in the form of cladograms, trees, etc., in an office, classroom, or lab setting. In order to truly appreciate the diversity in nature, one needs to get out and spend some time IN nature.

It can be easy to forget how different an insect is from another creature when you normally don't deal with the actual specimen. Get out and get some bugs splattered on your windshield, then run into a big buck deer at 50 mph. When the deer has busted through your windshield and is laying on your lap, you'll quickly realize that the line that you're use to seeing in the office, connecting the insect and deer to their alleged common ancestor, doesn't quite tell you much of the story. Maybe then you could have an appreciation for the vast amount of difference, that makes each organism unique.
---------------------------------
We have additional traits in our arms and legs in common with monkeys, and even more in common in our arms and legs with the great apes (which do indeed use arms in the same way and similar as we do).

We also have differences that set us apart. For instance, the cross-section of a chimp's finger bones show them to be more square shaped, while ours are rounded. Also, the palmar side of the primates, alleged to be most closely related to us, have a good deal of curving, while ours have very little. They use theirs for grasping branches and knuckle walking while we use ours for building things, surgery, playing musical instruments, etc.

This is the point, unlike your cited examples of intelligent design forming a nested heirarchy, every trait is important, your arms are not legs, they are arms; but they share the majority of traits with other terrestrial vertebrates and the innumerable number of clades in between, with the additional traits that become diagnostic of progressively higher clades until the only diffrences that remain are simply the handful of remaining traits that seperate humans from chimpanzees, then Neanderthals and the intermediate species between them all.

Again, you're just asserting UCA here because of similarities.
--------------------------------------
How about the placenta?? I don't have one of those so why am I grouped with them??

Females have the placenta (the sexual dimorphism of traits was implied as I figured that even you would not want to make such an argument that is so vacuous) .

Ah, so they come in sets of male and female. Score another one for the bible.