A New Book
by BradfordDisproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution is an Oxford University Press blog entry. The first paragraph:
Advocates of Intelligent Design contend that complex biological features cannot arise by chance, the implication being that chance equates to sentient forces. From a scientific vantage, however, the driving force of adaptive evolution–natural selection– is itself the antithesis of chance. Hereditary factors that promote organismal survival and reproduction in a particular environment tend to be precisely those that proliferate across the generations and thereby come to characterize natural populations. Whenever genetic variation and differential reproduction exist in nature (as they do in all known species), natural selection is inevitable, both logically and empirically. Biological traits that emerge from this inexorable operation may have the superficial aura of intelligent artistry, but that appearance is illusory (under a scientific interpretation). Natural selection can be a highly creative process (given a suitable supply of genetic variation to work from), but it is merely a mechanistic phenomenon– as inescapable and insentient as gravity.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
This last sentence
evidences a straw man. I do not know a single IDist who argues that perfect design should be expected. Nor do creationists argue it for that matter. Routine suboptimal design is still design.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 10:10 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 am
Yes I think we all understand the propaganda.
Selection tends to reduce variation.
Cooperation tends reduce selections place.
Organisms survive and reproduce for many reasons.
We are concerned with the origin- ie the arrival (not just survival)
Suboptimal design can be explained by random mutations getting into the original design and being propagated via heredity.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 10:51 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Can anyone give me solid evidence that natural selection actually IS a highly creative process? By solid evidence, I do not mean circumstantial evidence or leaps of logical inference, but step-by-step sequences. All the examples I can think of are really quite trivial.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 2, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Just because you think they are trivial, doesn't mean they are to the organisms involved.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
That's a nice evasion. Why not cite an example as he requested?
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
So science can determine whether something was intelligently designed after all. Good to know.
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Because it is not clear that the question can be answered without ambiguity. It depends on what is considered non-trivial. Even something as simple as antibiotic resistance is highly non-trivial to the organisms involved, including the humans infected by such pathogens.
Natural Selection is not a creative process, but evolution by Natural Selection can be. A well-established case is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
It is very trivial to what is being debated:
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
How are you defining "evolution" and "Natural Selection"?
How is it well established when it can't even be tested?
All you really have is "these look like they could've evolved from these" and that is based on the assumption that it did.
Abductive reasoning based on the assumption that we are trying to test in the first place.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Again, what *you* consider trivial are not trivial to the organisms involved.
Evolution is the change in the heritable composition of a population. Natural selection is differential reproductive potential of organisms in a population due to heritable variations in a given environment. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory comprised of a number of specific claims that explain these processes, including Common Descent.
That is incorrect. As always, you have to establish Common Descent before discussing specific transitions. If you were to claim, for instance, that reptiles and mammals do not share a common ancestor, then any discussion of the evolution of mammalian ossicles would be without foundation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
RE anti-biotic resistance:
Trivial to all involved in the proper environments.
That is what I said.
You seem to think that nested hierarchy is evidence for Common Descent.
That is a position held by crackpots.
Any further discussion has to first address your being a crackpot.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
"Natural Selection is not a creative process, but evolution by Natural Selection can be. A well-established case is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear."
I'm curious – why would you think that _natural selection_ was the key player in the middle ear's evolution? That is, what specific evidence would lead someone to think that, of all the possible mechanisms for evolutionary change, that natural selection was the one at work? How is this validated against experimental models of natural selection?
Comment by johnnyb — February 2, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Of course it is. There's the entire bioloigical field of Phylogenetics dedicated to the subject. You might look at the Tree of Life project, or at this universal cladogram.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Of course, to have that discussion requires an understanding of Common Descent, such that we can objectively place organisms in a line of descent based on phylogeny.
One key. Other mechanisms are in play, including developmental genes.
The evolution of the middle ear is considered a good example of Natural Selection because it can be shown to progressively improve hearing, an obvious benefit to both predator and prey. It's an irreducible structure, so if per Behe's argument, it had to all be in place before it would convey an advantage, then it would not indicate Natural Selection. Instead, we have gradual adaptation resulting in an irreducibly complex structure.
Good question, by the way.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Every living thing that exists does so because of its ability to survive.
Its ability to survive is determined by natural selection acting on random variation/mutation/drift.
Ergo, every living thing exists because of natural selection acting on random variation/mutation/drift.
And how do we know this?
Because the living thing exists.
How does it exist?
Because it survives.
How does it survive?
Because of natural selection acting on random variation/mutation/drift.
And how do we know this?
Because it exists.
How does it exist?
Repeat, ad infinitum.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 2, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Zachriel: The evolution of the middle ear is considered a good example of Natural Selection …
It's also cool because the prediction came from embryonic data decades before the discovery of supporting fossils. The structures that develop into reptilian jaw bones become mammalian ossicles. During mammalian development, the ossicles are attached to the mandible by Meckel's cartilage. Reabsorption of Meckel’s cartilage frees the ossicles from the mandible allowing them to migrate to the middle ear. Mutations in mice show that small genetic changes can affect the separation of the middle ear from the mandible by modifying the developmental timing of Meckel's cartilage, a process called paedomorphosis.
Qiang Ji et al., Evolutionary Development of the Middle Ear in Mesozoic Therian Mammals, Science 2009.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
A careful definition of Natural Selection avoids the circularity. We show a correlation between traits and differential reproductive advantage. We can also directly observe selection in vitro and in vivo.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Zachriel wrote:
How is it selected?
It survives.
How does it survive?
It is selected.
How is it selected?
It survives.
GOTO 10.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 2, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
angryoldfatman,
You're way behind the times. Even young-earth creationists have figured out that the tautology argument is silly. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Are you actually claiming that we can't demonstrate a correlation between a heritable trait, such as an alteration of a metabolic pathway in bacteria associated with antibiotic resistance, and differential reproduction in a particular environment?
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:20 pm
You seem to think that nested hierarchy is evidence for Common Descent.
Only a crackpot would say such a thing.
As I have already pointed out nested hierarchy requires a direction of immutable and additive defining characteristics and Common Descent is not beholden to such a thing.
IOW Zachriel isn't in any position to discuss the evidence.
As for natural selection we already know that organisms survive and reproduce for reasons other than inherited variation.
IOW NS is a minor player- and a player that reduces variation.
As for the alleged evoplution of the mammalian middle ear it is all conjecture based on the assumption of Common Descent.
Just as I said it requires the very assumption that requires testing in the first place.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
angryoldfatman,
Methinks you are confusing the fact that natural selection is a minor player with the fact that organisms survive "just because"- meaning there isn't any correlation between their survival and fercundity and heritable traits.
And it appears that the "just because" organisms outnumber the NS correleated organisms.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
The nested hierarchy allows us to make empirical predictions.
If you have an organism with mammary glands, we can predict it will have a complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles, ingest other organisms for nourishment, have bilateral symmetry, integument, alimentary canal, a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, jaws, ribs, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands, most will have heterodont dentition, etc.
All that from teats. It's not a trivial correlation, but one of the most important patterns in biology.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Yes, but there is no proof it is the majority mechanism in evolution.
NAS member Masotoshi Nei argues the case against natural selection being the majority mechanism of evolution. It may even be a small minority mechanism, say, less than 5% of the genome for humans.
Also, there is no logical or empirical evidence that when selection acts, it acts in general to increase integrated complexity and functionality. Actually something of the opposite. Finally:
It may, but that's not been proven. Most known obvious cases of natural selection observed in the field or lab are cases of functional breakdown. For example antibiotic resistance is often the result of faulty pumps or some other functional breakdown in bacteria. Pestiside resistance the result of faulty cytoskelotons. Resistance to malaria the result of sickle cell anemia.
Proof of the exitence of differential reproductive success is not the same as proof differential reproductive success in nature creates integrated systems.
Granted we might not be able to assmeble a formal proof in favor of Darwinism leading to complexity, but even the circumstantial case is weak. One does not need ID to argue this. Nei, Kimura, many other esteemed scientists have argue the case against natural selection quite well.
It is no wonder, Shapiro of University of Chicago, said Dawkins live in fantasy land.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
This is nothing but question begging circular reasoning. When was common descent proven? Who proved it? If you give me any premise I want I can prove just about anything too. For example let's assume that what you see as common descent is really common design. That changes the argument completely.
I asked for something very simple, a step-by-step sequence demonstrating the creative power of natural selection. You are doing exactly what I asked you not to do. Your arguments rely completely on circumstantial evidence and logical leaps of inference. You have referenced no books, no studies, no fossils only your “expert(?)” opinion. You haven’t even established your credentials to make the arguments you are making. I’m sure that this is something that olegt will back me up on, since he so highly values expert opinion. (Yeah right!)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 2, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
The nested hierarchy has nothing to do with Common Descent.
And yes if we define a set by characteristics then we can predict that everything in that set should consist of and contain (have) those defined characteristics.
And how is the unexpected nested hierarchy "one of the most important patterns in biology"?
I understand that it would be in an ID scenario but only a crackpot would think a nested hierarchy correlates to blind, non-goal oriented processes.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:45 pm
What does common descent inform us about the step by step evolution of warm-bloodedness?
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Saying we have to establish A because B depends on A isn't circular reasoning. It's a standard form of argument. If you are unsure of A, then we need to start there.
Darwin proposed Common Descent. Every newly discovered species, extinct or extant, is a potential falsification. Every embryo. Every genome. Common Descent has been tested repeatedly and verified for most taxa for 150 years.
Do you understand what the word "establish" means? There's little point discussing the minutiae of ossicle evolution if you reject that reptiles and mammals share a common ancestor.
The evolution of the mammalian middle ear is such an example.
Indeed, we did.
Qiang Ji et al., Evolutionary Development of the Middle Ear in Mesozoic Therian Mammals, Science 2009.
But this story is far more than this single recent discovery. There's embryonic, fossil and genetic data. There is no reason we can't discuss this in detail, but it won't make much sense if you reject Common Descent. If you are uncertain about Common Descent, then we should start there.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Leaving your misunderstanding of terminology aside, you were provided an example of how disparate traits can be strongly correlated. It's easy to show that uncrossed descent leads to this pattern.
There is a single, objective taxonomy.
It's easy to show that uncrossed lines of descent lead to the correlated pattern—even if the changes are completely random.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:29 pm
That's right! The relative importance of selection, drift and contingency to historical transitions are still under investigation.
Most observable changes, being incremental, are not going to be novel "integrated systems." So? Broader changes are only apparent over much longer periods of time.
Nei and Kimura both strongly support the Theory of Evolution, and both recognize the importance of Natural Selection to adaptation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 2, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
You're not going to get what you requested. The reason is simple. Historic pathways to complex multi-step functions cannot be identified even in principle. The best that can be done is surmising a number of possible general routes to an outcome.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:05 am
Nada. JAD was asking for specific non-trivial examples of natural selection. I predict he will not get it.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2010 @ 12:05 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:06 am
What I believe about common descent is irrelevant. I am asking for evidence that natural selection is the primary creative force in evolution. Michael Behe who accepts common descent understood this very well. He writes:
But surely you agree that there are at least trivial examples of natural selection. If natural selection can do more complicated things why can’t we find any examples of that?
So do you agree or disagree with Behe?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 3, 2010 @ 12:06 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:11 am
JAD, quoting Behe:
Bradford: You're not going to get what you requested. The reason is simple. Historic pathways to complex multi-step functions cannot be identified even in principle. The best that can be done is surmising a number of possible general routes to an outcome.
I agree with Behe.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2010 @ 12:11 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 am
Kimura, in the section entitled "Some Misunderstandings":
Kimura M (1986). DNA and the neutral theory. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Series B 312: 343-354
Comment by KC — February 3, 2010 @ 12:49 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:10 am
Darwin wrote in Origin of Species:
It sounds like to me here that Darwin is arguing that his theory is falsifiable. Is it? Or, is it something we need to accept on faith?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 3, 2010 @ 1:10 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 am
"The evolution of the middle ear is considered a good example of Natural Selection because it can be shown to progressively improve hearing, an obvious benefit to both predator and prey."
So what? The same thing goes for the immune system (progressive improvement of binding), but somatic hypermutation is an informationally-driven process, with selection (and, in the case of SMH, it is an artificial selection) accounting for only a small part of the innovation. So where I'm having the difficulty is seeing why it would be natural selection, and not information, which led to the development.
"It's an irreducible structure, so if per Behe's argument, it had to all be in place before it would convey an advantage, then it would not indicate Natural Selection. Instead, we have gradual adaptation resulting in an irreducibly complex structure."
So, it seems that the full account of evidence favors an informationally-directed system, rather than natural selection.
Comment by johnnyb — February 3, 2010 @ 1:42 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:36 am
JAD,
Speaking as an evolution- and common descent-accepting person, I'd have to ask for more context.
Darwin again:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
What does Darwin mean here by "could not possibly"? If it's mere logical possibility, the question is a joke. It's logically possible to form the Empire State Building from numerous, successive, slight modifications. So he couldn't be talking about logical possibility here, at least not while making a serious attempt at offering up a falsification possibility.
The problem here is, he couldn't mean a mere state of ignorance about what the actual path of these "numerous, successive, slight modifications" were either. That would be tantamount to Darwin saying "If I can't explain in stepwise detail how a given organ came to be, my theory is sunk." He'd be killing his theory out of the gates.
Maybe he meant "If I can't think of a possible, vague, hypothetical way it could be true, my theory would break down." But just as with the logical possibility, that's child's play. And even if he didn't even have some vague hypothetical on hand, he could always dig in and insist that maybe someday he would.
Now, it could be Darwin had something more specific in mind here that's being left out of context. But on the surface, that's a pretty evasive way to offer up a way to falsify his theory (and this being just the part of the theory he speaks of here – a given organ forming by numerous, successive, slight modifications.)
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 3:36 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:01 am
The nested hierarchy has nothing to do with Common Descent.
Any misunderstanding is all yours. And uncrossed descent would only leqad to that pattern given immutable and additive characteristics.
Yet uncrossed descent is not like that and descent with modification does not predict an uncrossed descent.
I understand that it would be in an ID scenario but only a crackpot would think a nested hierarchy correlates to blind, non-goal oriented processes.
Except you have failed to show such a thing.
OTOH I have provided solid reasoning why you are a crackpot.
Nested hierarchies require the defining characteristics be immutable and additive yet there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states that is what evolution provides.
And as a matter of fact there is plenty of evidence that evolution doesn't have any direction at all.
Whatever survives and reproduces survives and reproduces.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 8:01 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:06 am
If all you have is an appeal to vast amounts of time then you have left science behind.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 8:06 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:15 am
And how is the unexpected nested hierarchy "one of the most important patterns in biology"?
Which we wouldn't have if all the alleged transitional forms were still around to be classified.
Darwin did not use the observed nested hierarchy as evidence for Common Descent.
He was smart enough to realize that if those transitionals were included we would not see a nested hierarchy.
Here it is over 150 years after he published his book and you want to twist what he said into something that cannot be.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 8:15 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:17 am
It is an untestable example.
IOW it is an example based on the assumption of Common Descent and it is that assumption is what needs to tested.
Yet as Zachriel has told us he cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on blind, non-goal oriented processes.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 8:17 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:46 am
You asked a question. The answer provided is that we establish Common Descent so as to be able to identify the transitions of interest, then we examine those transitions to determine the mechanisms involved.
You didn't have to ask, but once you asked, you might want to look.
We can, but you keep your eyes closed so you can't see. That's completely up to you, but don't then claim no one answered your question.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 8:46 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:52 am
It is, but the test provided is a weak 'negative' falsification. There are a number of more properly constructed hypotheses throughout Origin, including direct observations of Natural Selection.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 8:52 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
Then establish Common Descent.
That is establish it and exclude other plausible explanations for the same data.
BTW what are those examples of natural selection doing more than slight alterations?
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 9:29 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:32 am
Because that is the predicted pattern. With human design, we might see non-functioning components that are waiting for final assembly. But with biology, each step a *complete* structure and a *selectable* improvement in function.
Of course "information" is involved. We can show how small changes to developmental genes, such as those associated with Merkel's Cartilage are involved. That means each step is within normal and natural variation and that the rates of evolution involved are within observed ranges.
It also shows that Behe's argument about Irreducible Complexity is fallacious as we can see how irreducibly complex structures can evolve through incremental improvement in function.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 9:32 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:33 am
The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild
It is very weak. So weak it prompted Will Provine to say:
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 9:33 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:35 am
Behe argues against blind, non-goal oriented processes.
You have yet to address that part.
You have also failed to show that the mammalian innner ear evolved from reptilian jaw bones.
All you have is conjectuure based on the assumption.
IOW you cannot show that the steps required actually transpired.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 9:35 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 am
He means we would have to empirically demonstrate a barrier. It's a weak negative comment, but is presented rhetorically for a discussion of cases with plausible transitions.
It's a wonderment there's no way to determine context.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 9:36 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:45 am
Descent with modification can be along crossed or uncrossed lines.
It's very easy to show that a nested hierarchy occurs when we have uncrossed lines of descent. This was generated using random variation.
R . . . E .V . . . E .
S H C A . .
S H C A K .
. H X . . .
. H X M . .
. K X . . .
T K X . . .
. M X V . .
. H X V . .
It's quite easy to see that they form into natural groupings. Of course, these short sequences quickly near saturation (where new variations overwhelm history).
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 9:45 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Yes, I know- that is what I have been telling you for some time.
That isn't a nested hierarchy.
Lower levels must consist of and contain the upper levels.
Your example does not show that.
IOW once again you show that you are a crackpot.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 9:50 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Of course he did (though he didn't use that term). It's the only drawing in Origin.
That's not correct. Only rigid Linnaean taxonomy would not work. And Darwin was quite aware of this, as he discusses in On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 10:05 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:15 am
Of course it is. Look at just these six.
1) R . . . E .2) V . . . E .
3) S H C A . .
4) S H C A K .
5) . H X . . .
6) . H X M . .
1,2 group (
E).3,4,5,6 group (
H).Within 3,4,5,6:
3,4 group (
S H C A)5,6 group (
H X)Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 10:15 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:15 am
Zach,
It's a weak comment, alright.
Yes, Zach. Read the relevant portion carefully, then marvel at my ability to highlight the problems with the weak comment.
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 10:15 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 am
Your comments shed no light whatsoever as they relied upon a quote mine of Darwin's rhetorical comment.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 10:19 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
Zach,
No, Zach, it relied on a quote. Not a quote mine. I explained the problems there would be with what Darwin suggested – and if you go read further, you'll find Darwin himself making the moves I said would inevitably be made. Complete with the promissory notes, vague speculative ideas, the appeal to pure possibility, etc. Abundant light. You're welcome!
If you want to say Darwin meant the whole "My theory would absolutely break down" bit rhetorically, you do that. In the meantime, relax. So the guy made a weak comment. Big deal.
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 10:39 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
Zach:
What is the distinguishing feature of a rhetorical comment? How does it contrast with a non-rhetorical comment?
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2010 @ 11:04 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
Let's look.
Nope. He is referring to biological cases.
Nope. He talking about biological cases that can be shown to be unevolvable, à la Behe's fallacious Irreducible Complexity Argument.
Nope. He's talking about biological cases.
Oh yes. The context you never seem to notice. We call it data.
It was a negative claim in order to introduce possible objections to his theory and a discussion of the data. As mentioned above, Darwin provides many falsiable hypotheses elsewhere in Origin. Taking a comment out of context and calling it "evasive" is quote-mining.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 11:04 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 am
In this case, Darwin proposes a negative argument, a reasonable enough objection at the time, then proceeds to examine the volume of the evidence, which is the proper response to a negative argument. It's rhetorical because he poses an objection, then provides a detailed answer. It becomes a quote-mine when it is implied that he didn't answer the objection, for instance, that he was being "evasive."
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 11:10 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:20 am
olegt-bot output
*ZWAMP WAKKA whizzUMP* CREATIONIST PATTERN DETECTED… EXECUTE SUBROUTINE "RANDOM CREATIONIST WEBPAGE RETRIEVAL"… OPERATION COMPLETE. FULL STOP. *WHIIIiiirrrr*
Zachriel wrote:
How do we know a trait evolved?
Because more organisms with the trait survive.
And why do those organisms survive?
Because they evolved a trait.
And how do we know a trait evolved?
Because more organisms with the trait survive.
And why do those organisms survive?
DO UNTIL END
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 3, 2010 @ 11:20 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
In the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria, we can start with a single bacterium, then trace individual mutations and their phenotypic effect. Through repeated experimentation, we can demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between the variation and differential reproductive success.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 11:36 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 am
Zach,
Behe doesn't argue an IC structure can't evolve – he argues that the process it would evolve by would not be what he calls Darwinian in nature. And even that is a statement of what he thinks the best explanation would be, rather than a declaration that it's impossible.
As for your other hilarious nope-antics – gee, I said it would be silly if he was basing this on logical possibility, so that can't be it. Sure enough, he was not. I said it couldn't be that if he didn't have a rigid explanation for the evolution of some given organ, as there's no way he'd have that. Sure enough, that wasn't it either.
Now, I did say he could mean "If I can't think of a possible, vague, hypothetical way it could be true, my theory would break down." And I pointed out that grants him an absurd amount of wiggle room. I notice in your quote (or is it a quote mine? I forget), you left out this telling bit.
But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, around which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
So, Darwin immediately says he can find no such case. But luckily he can think of a vague, hypothetical way his theory can be true, so it's all good.
You have a precious definition of the word "detailed".
But who here was saying Darwin didn't answer the objection? Or that he was being evasive? What was being suggested was that Darwin's standard for what would break down his theory was, in that particular quote, pretty airy. "Show me an organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Great – show me a building that could not be formed the same way. Hey, I can't find any either with the net cast that broad.
Fantastic. A shame we're not talking about them, and I could care less about them. In this context.
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 11:41 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 am
But shouldn’t we use the same caution is assuming it was “formed by transitional gradations of some kind?”
That’s interesting but it proves nothing.
In such cases natural selection might specialise. So Darwin is being tentative here. Right? If he was certain here would use the word does rather than might. Wouldn’t he?
Does Darwin document those insensible steps anywhere? Some of us with engineering backgrounds are curious to know exactly how evolution works.
Once again, his argument is a very tentative. To his credit he does not assume to have dogmatic certainty about any aspect of his theory.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 3, 2010 @ 11:43 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 am
Not only have plausible evolutionary pathways been proposed, specific biological cases exist, such as mammalian auditory ossicles. But it does represent an attempt to find a barrier.
That is not Darwin's argument. Negative arguments tend to be weak because they require a search of the entire domain at issue. He is saying that a broad survey of what is known finds no contradictary cases, and that claiming such a case should be done cautiously in light of the entirety of the evidence.
You said, "Now, it could be Darwin had something more specific in mind here that's being left out of context. But on the surface, that's a pretty evasive way to offer up a way to falsify his theory …" You didn't bother to read the context when you posted your comment, and you seemly have already forgotten that you made it.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 11:54 am
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Darwin was a very careful and thorough scientist (and prolific), as anyone who reads Origin would discover.
It's not meant to "prove" anything. It's a response to a reasonable objection to the theory.
Responding to the negative argument requires surveying the entire body of evidence and determining if there are any apparent barriers. It is not the positive argument given elsewhere in Origin, but appropriate for the topic.
Actually, you've indicated you are not curious when you flatly refused to consider Common Descent. Humans have auditory ossicles because they inherited them from their mammalian ancestors.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Zachriel,
Wonderful. As I said, Behe does not argue that IC structures cannot evolve. He makes an argument about what we should infer about how they evolved, if they did so.
Actually, he's saying If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.. I'm pointing out how little that commits him to. For whatever reason, you seem to agree that it's weak, and yet you're upset that I'm the one pointing it out. Go figure.
Splendid, Zach. My comments were spot on given the actual context of Darwin's quote, and I said that the stated way he gave to falsify his theory was evasive. I criticized his example, not his intentions. Well, I "seemly" did anyway.
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Behe said, "An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." As we are discussing Darwin's Theory, Behe's Irreducible Complexity can be seen as a response to Darwin's negative claim. We can also note that Behe is contradicted by specific instances, including the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles.
A negative argument requires an exhaustive search of the entire domain at issue, something that is not always practical. Darwin attempts to survey a broad range of cases, and scientists have extended the search over the intervening generations.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
As I pointed out to you earlier Behe accepts common descent but shares my skepticism about the sufficiency of natural selection acting on random genetic variation to account for biological change and diversity. Presupposing CD does not answer the question.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 3, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Perhaps, but we can't have that conversation until we establish Common Descent.
Establish, not presuppose.
You are welcome to keep your eyes closed, but please do not suppose that no one has attempted to show you the answer to your question. Don't ask if you don't want to know.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
There are even a few non-IDists out there who are willing to publicly admit that natural selection acting on random variation is insufficient to explain all evolutionary change.
For example, Stuart Newman (an avowed materialist) in his article, “Evolution: The Public’s Problem, and the Scientists” argues:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 3, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Zachriel, what does common descent inform us about the step by step evolution of warm-bloodedness?
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
There are a variety of mechanisms involved.
What does it matter if he is an avowed materialist? Anyway,
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Warm-bloodedness is polyphyletic and is found in two broad classes, mammals (modified in bats) and aves. It is also found in limited form in other organisms, such as fish and sharks. Many dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded. Mechanisms for regulating heat vary, e.g. digestion, muscle contractions, gigantothermy, metabolic.
The benefit of warm-bloodedness is increased activity at the expense of greater calorie requirements. A complete theory of the evolution of warm-bloodedness is not available. However, most warm-blooded organisms are highly derived land vertebrates with advanced cardiopulmonary systems.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Zach, what does Common Descent inform us about the step by step evolution of warm-bloodedness?
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:36 pm
That isn't a nested hierarchy.
Based on what? Please be specific.
Except that isn't the only criteria required by a nested hierarchy- that groups can be placed within groups.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Darwin did not use the observed nested hierarchy as evidence for Common Descent.
The drawing is not of a nested hierarchy and Darwin said that if the transitionals were still around we wouldn't have this nice neat classification system.
That is beacuse by their very nature transitional forms would violate the distinct groupings required by NH.
We have been over this many times and you always ignore it.
He was smart enough to realize that if those transitionals were included we would not see a nested hierarchy.
It is quite correct:
Nested hierarchies require distinct categories- transitional forms and the very nature of speciation, would blur the lines of distinction.
Also a loss of defining traits- allowed under the theory- would cause the containment requirement to be violated.
Again we have been over that also.
However you, being a crackpot, just don't seem to be able to learn from your mistakes.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
DARWINIAN EVOLUTION- ie blind, undirected processes.
And evidence for Common Descent is NOT evidence for those processes.
Wrong- evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for a mechanism.
And the same evidence can be explained by something other than Common Descent.
And no one can test the claim that the mammalian middle ear "evolved" from bones in a reptilian jaw.
Until someone goes into a lab, messes with reptilian embryos and gets them to develop a mammalian middle ear all you have is speculation based of the presupposition.
And it that presupposition that needs to be tested.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
What do you call that type of pattern, where sets are nested within other sets?
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
If so, the role of random chance has not been disproven as the author asserts.
Further, even if Natural Selection is the majority mechanims, it does not prove that random chance has been disproven since what natural selection chooses is supposedly dependent on chance as well.
I could have a deterministic mechanism being triggered by a random chance quantum event. Is the sum total of the system random or not? Better yet, is it proper to argue such a system disproves randomness or as Dawkins would say, "the exact opposite of random"? I'd argue such questions and characterization only serve to confuse the issues, not clarify them.
The real question at hand is whether Natural Selection created deeply integrated biological systems. If the question of NS's role is open, then it stands to reason, the author's claim is premature at best, and wrong at worst.
One does not have to accept ID in order to assert Natural Selection has little to do with the emergence of large scale integrated complexity.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 3, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
(I numbered the entities for ease of reference.)
A nested hierarchy:
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10},
{{1,2},{3,4,5,6},{7,8,9,10}},
{{{1},{2}},{{3,4},{5,6}},{{7,8},{9,10}}},
{{{1},{2}},{{{3},{4},{{5},{6}}},{{{7},{8}},{{9},{10}}}}
Note summativity, or containment, at all levels — the requirement that makes a hierarchy "nested". Other nested hierarchies are possible, so clearly more data are needed to determine unambiguously the exact sequence of speciation.
Comment by Tom MH — February 3, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
The author claims that random chance has *no* role? The reviewer writes
The point is that evolution isn't random, even if mutations are.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
You do realize that I was asking about what Common Descent has to say about it, not what the National Geographic episode said. Right?
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Quite so!
It's a bit ambiguous due to convergence (the H in the second letter position). Short sequences tend to saturation. Here's another example, with longer sequences at the 8th generation.
, X , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1
, I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2
, , , W , , , , , , , , , A , , 3
, , , W , , E , B , , , , , , , 4
, , , , M , , , , , , , , , , , 5
, , I , M , , , , , , , , , , , 6
, , , , M , , , , , , , , Z , , 7
, , , , M , , , , , , , , Z , W 8
, , , G , , , , , , , , , , , , 9
N , , G , , , , , , , , , , , , 10
, , , G , , , , , , , , , K , , 11
V , , G , , , , , , , F , , , , 12
V , , G , , , , , , , F , B , , 13
, , , G , V , K , , , , , Y , , 14
, F , G , , , K , , , L , , , , 15
, , , G , , , , , , M J , , , , 16
, , , G , , , , T , M J , , , , 17
, , , G , , K , , , H J , , G , 18
, , , R , V , , , , X J , , , , 19
, , , R , , , X , , X O , , , , 20
, U , R , , , , , , , J A , , , 21
, U , R , , A , , , , J A , , , 22
The M in the fifth letter position in 5-8, G in the fourth in 9-18, the R in the fourth in 19-22, seem to provide a strong signal. The J implies that R is a variant of G and that G is the primitive (and a look at the actual ancestry confirms the case). In any case, even though the mutations are random, it is easy to see that the resulting populations are anything but, and we have significant clues as to their ancestry. This is the 4th generation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , A 2
, , , , M , , , , , , , , , , , 3
, , , O M , , , , , , , , , , , 4
, , , G , , , , , , , , , , , , 5
, , , G , , , K , , , , , , , , 6
, , , G , , , , , , , J , , , , 7
, , , R , , , , , , , J , , , , 8
Nest of Letters
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
[...] fittest theory: Darwinism's limits. The article touches on some points raised in the thread A New Book. From the piece: Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The [...]
Pingback by About 'What Darwin Got Wrong' - Telic Thoughts — February 3, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
That is not a nested hierarchy.
But I do thank you for proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
From the Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory
I keep pointing these out yet you crackpots keep ignoring it as if your ignorance has some power.
Ignorance is cureable via education.
But education cannot cure willfull ignorance.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:01 pm
It all depends on the reasons why they are nested.
As I have been telling you there is more than one criterion that has to be met for it to be a nested hierarchy.
However your willfull ignorance prevents you from learning.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
What is the name of the pattern where sets are nested within other sets? If there is more than one type, then please define the different types.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Could be a containment set, which is not the same as a nested hierarchy.
As I said there are rules that must be followed in order for a nested hierarchy to be constructed.
The rules you keep ignoring as if your ignorance is some sort of valid argument.
Comment by ID guy — February 3, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Zoologist Stanley N. Salthe’s opinion is similar to Behe’s and Newman’s.
"Oh sure” he writes, “natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."
Is that really the case?
Zachriel’s example conveniently (for him) is about something that happened millions of years ago, which makes it, as ID guy observes, untestable. But maybe that is true of any example of natural selection. Is that what we are stuck with, historical examples? It appears that Dr. Salthe would agree with that. In the conclusion following paper he writes:
Earlier in his paper he brings up a sociological reason that suggests why so many neo-Darwinians are so belligerent (think of “steel-toed boots and brass knuckles” Myers, as well as Dawkins, Coyne etc.) in defending their theory. Belligerent competition (nature, red in tooth and claw) is the driving force in their theory.
They are only putting into practice what they believe.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 3, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:50 pm
I began by grouping the species with their closest relatives, based on an assumed sequence of speciation, and proceded outwards until all species were contained in the final superset. That formed a nested hierarchy, since summativity was satisfied. (Do you know what summativity is, ID guy?)
Each level contained, and consisted of, lower levels, thus satisfying the criteria for a nested hierarchy that you extracted from Professor Allen's website.
(Professor Allen doesn't mention "summativity" on his website. ID guy, what do you think he would say about it?)
Comment by Tom MH — February 3, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Not at all. Natural Selection can be directly observed. You can do it yourself with bacteria in a few days. Or if you are patient, and have a couple of decades, you can observe it in nature. But you'll say that's not the complex new structures you're asking for.
The Theory of Evolution predicts that complex structures evolve over long periods of time. We can't directly observe these transitions, but we can reconstruct historical events. For instance, at one point in time there were only single-cell organisms. Then there were simple chordates. Then fish. Then amphibians. Then reptiles. Then mammals. New traits emerging; vertebrae, jaws, limbs.
With regards to the mammalian middle ear, each step is a selectable improvement, within normal natural variation. A century ago it was discovered that embryonic structures that became jaw bones in reptiles became middle ear bones in mammals. Indeed, if you watch a mammal develop, you can see the ossicles separate from the jaw then migrate to the middle ear. At that time, no one could quite imagine what the intermediates would look like, but fossils were eventually discovered. The jaw bones in extant reptiles can transmit sound to the inner ear. A long series of therasid species improved on this, but each organism still had a complete ear and a complete jaw with a working joint. With mammals, the lower jaw is a single bone, and the ossicles have migrated substantially. More recently, experiments have shown that small mutations to developmental genes can profoundly affect the process by which the ossicles separate from the jaw.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 12:11 am
You are very confused.
That is only one criteria, there are more. I also doubt your depiction.
I listed others. Did you read what I posted?
BTW you should try reading the entire website.
Or perhaps send an email to professor Allen and tell him your idea of a nested hierarchy.
I am sure he could use a good laugh.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 12:11 am
February 4th, 2010 at 12:17 am
It requires it. There is a difference between predicting and requiring.
Nothing but hearsay.
You have no idea is the transition can be made never mind knowing that each step would be selectable.
Not quite.
They arise from the same part of the embryo- even Shubin talks about this in "Your Inner Fish".
So what evolutionists need to do is go into the lab, take reptilian embryos and see if they can get one to develop a mammalian inner ear by altering its DNA.
Other than that all you have is a speculation based on the assumption of Common Descent.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 12:17 am
February 4th, 2010 at 8:21 am
"Normal natural variation" to what, exactly?
If you are going to say "normal natural variation" then you should have some details so we can test your assertion.
Otherwise you are just a crackpot who sez things just to say them.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 8:21 am
February 4th, 2010 at 8:47 am
It entails it. Complex structures evolving over long periods of time has been part of the Theory of Evolution since Darwin.
The fossil and embyronic data provide a slow motion view of the evolutionary process. This is supported by genetic data.
The same part or "structure."
This can be defined morphologically, but mutant mice studies show that small genetic changes can affect the timing of resorption and ossification of the bones involved.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 8:47 am
February 4th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Only because it requires such a thing.
Yet to date no one has been able to show such a thing.
You have no idea is the transition can be made never mind knowing that each step would be selectable.
Ummm there isn't any genetic data that supports the transition.
Doesn't mean "evolution".
Normal natural variation" to what, exactly?
Spoken like a crackpot.
So you don't know what gets altered in order to effect the changes required.
All you have to do is say so and move on.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 9:32 am
February 4th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Nope. Here is the sum total of the criteria Professor Allen gives on that website for nested hierarchies:
My set was a hierarchy. It meets this nested criterion. It is therefore a nested hierarchy.
You didn't address my questions about summativity. Do you know what summativity is? Professor Allen doesn't mention "summativity" on his website. What do you think he would say about it?
I can put the above in boldface if you need me to.
Comment by Tom MH — February 4, 2010 @ 10:08 am
February 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am
That is only one criteria, there are more.
So now you are admitting tat you don't know how to read.
Well that explains a lot.
Tom that part just defines the difference between a nested and non-nested hierarchy.
All the other rules apply- they apply to both.
If you send the professor an email he may explain it for you.
Summativity- the state of a system that is the sum of its parts
Anything else I can help you with?
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 11:22 am
February 4th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Sure. And a hierarchy is defined here:
My set is partially ordered. For example:
{3,4} ≤ {3,4,5,6} ≤ {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}.
That is to say, the set of species {3,4} has a more recent common ancestor than the set {3,4,5,6}, which in turn has a more recent common ancestor than the set {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}.
Anything else I can help you with?
Oh, and this is okay:
But I think this would be better for systematics:
Comment by Tom MH — February 4, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set.
A hierarchy, not a nested hierarchy. According to Zachriel a nested hierarchy is an ordered set.
But you are still ignoring all the other rules.
Do you think that your ignorance is a reasonable argument?
BTW I know what I said about summativity is OK.
Your approval is meaningless.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
And a nested hierarchy displays the property of summativity. Which my hierarchy does. Ergo it is a nested hierarchy.
I am talking with you, not Zachriel.
Feel free to point out the ones I've missed.
Comment by Tom MH — February 4, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I think evolutionary biologists, committed to Darwinism, should consider borrowing some thinking from forensic science. A few years ago I was watching a PBS documentary on investigating air crashes. In particular I remember one comment made by one of the investigators. Since I don’t have the exact quote I’ll paraphrase what he said as closely as possible. Essentially he warned that crash investigators have to be very cautious that they are not led in the wrong direction by their theories. The purpose of a crash investigation, after all, is to discover what really happened, so hopefully we can prevent the same kind of thing from happening in the future. It is not to prove some ones pet theory.
A couple of examples should serve as cautionary tales. The first example, is that of American Airlines flight 191 which crashed in 1979 after an engine fell off the DC-10 during take-off, killing all 271 of the people on board. Early on in the investigation investigators publicly announced that the cause of the crash was a faulty bolt. This later turned out to be false. Metallurgist later determined that the fractured bolt was caused by the crash; it was not the cause of the crash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KANZu-rAIiI
The second example is that of Flight 19, a flight of 5 five TBM Avenger Torpedo Bombers, which disappeared off the Florida coast in 1945. In 1991 5 Avenger TB’s were discovered off Ft. Lauderdale, which in 1945 was the home of the Naval base where Flight 19 had originated. The private salvors who discovered the planes thought they had the scoop of the century. The 5 planes were located in deep water within a mile and a half of each other. This had to be flight 19. A coincidence would be just too improbable.
Now, if this was all the information that we had, we could recreate a very believable and plausible narrative of what happened. We could speculate, for example, that after losing their way the crew finally got their bearings and were on their way back to their base. However, they were also running low on fuel. They decided then that if one of them had to ditch they would all ditch to increase their chances of being found. A theory for sure, but very compelling if all the facts we know are only the facts I have given you. However, that is not the whole story.
It turns out that, as improbable as it may appear, it was a coincidence. After serial numbers were recovered from the wreckage of the planes it was determined that none of the 5 planes were from flight 19, but were planes from separate flights that crashed on separate dates, coincidently no more than a mile and half apart.
Basically that is what Zachriel has done. He has taken one example, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear and create tried to create a plausible sounding narrative to illustrate to us that this is something natural selection can do. However, this is begging the question because he is assuming what he needs to prove. He assuming that natural selection was the cause of the evolution of the middle ear without proving, first that natural selection has that kind of power. Furthermore, there is no way to independently verify anything he is asserting because none of the transitional forms from that era presently exist.
I wasn’t asking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, I was asking about the creative power of natural selection. I could accept, for sake of argument, that the mammalian inner ear somehow evolved from a reptile common ancestor. However, I am not convinced that natural selection alone acting on random variations has that kind of creative power. That is the question here. Burying the problem in deep time, so you can spin any kind of just-so story that you want, is not an answer to the question.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 4, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
This from someone who demands evidence, then refuses to consider one of the most important patterns in biology.
In fact, natural selection can be directly observed with rates in the thousands of darwins, much more than necessary to account for any known historical transition.
Here's another claim: Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. How could we possibly know? All we have are some old bones. Fossils exist, and they provide what amounts to a slow motion movie of the transition in question.
It would be best if you examined the evidence for Common Descent so you don't have to make concessions for the sake of argument. You had said Common Descent was irrelevant, but it turns out that if mammals evolved from reptiles—by whatever mechanism, and if the mammalian auditory ossicles evolved from jaw bones—by whatever mechanism, then it is highly relevant.
What would we expect if they evolved by natural selection? We would expect that each intermediate ear and jaw are complete structures. That each ear provides an improvement in function. A stochastic search means that each lineage branched into a variety of forms, with most going extinct. That the rates of change are no faster than observed rates of evolution. Also, we know that small changes to developmental genes control the resorption and ossification of the bones involved. If they weren't selectable improvements in function, or if there were steps required that were not viable or plausible (à la Behe's fallacious Irreducible Complexity Argument), then that would argue against Natural Selection.
But again, we start with the Theory of Common Descent. It encompasses most taxa and provides exactly the sort of evidence you keep insisting upon, but refuse to consider. It allows us to then place structures in temporal order, examine individual transitions and make relevant predictions. There are certainly other mechanisms besides natural selection, but natural selection is essential to the evolution of complex adaptations.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
It isn't the only requirement Tom.
Just because NH displays summativity does not mean everything that displays summativity is a nested hierarchy.
But you are still ignoring all the other rules.
I already have.
You basically missed all of them between the ghierachy definition and the explanation of the differences between a nested and non-nested hierarchy.
Again feel free to actually check with the expert.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
The pattern is based on the assumption and it is that assumption we are trying to test.
Now you are just lying.
Only if you already assume the transition occurred.
The main problems with Common Descent is that the evidence it "explains" has alternative explanations which are just as plausible and that evidence does not point to a mechanism.
Comment by ID guy — February 4, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Try not to be deliberately obtuse. We were discussing hierarchies.
What, "Hierarchical levels", "Levles of organization" and all that? Pffftt. You are placing way too much importance on what is a discussion and have tried to turn it into a hard and fast definition. Hierarchies are useful for explicit purposes and are not really anything in themselves one way or another. Hierarchies are what you make of them once you have asked a question. In this case the question was "what is the order of descent of a population of mutated text strings?" End of story.
You need to stop reading that ISSS page over and over and over again like it's the Bible. Haven't you read anything else? There's an entire field called systematics devoted to biological classification, cladistics, and so forth. The Linnean Society even publishes a journal. I'm no expert, but I can read.
Sheesh!
Comment by Tom MH — February 4, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
February 4th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The pattern exists regardless of any theory of explanation.
Maybe we misremembered. Hmm.
Gingerich, Rates of evolution: Effects of time and temporal scaling, Science 1983.
Reznick, Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia ieticulata), Science 1997.
Gingerich found the fastest rate in the fossil record was 32 darwins. Colonization events can have rates in the hundreds or thousands of darwins. For a specific instance, Reznick measured rates of 4000+ in guppies.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:57 am
We who?
I am discussing nested hierarchies.
Also that ISSS page is the bible when it comes to nested hierarchies.
IOW Tom you have proven that once again you don't know what you are talking about.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:57 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Except that for one explanation it is a pattern of Common Design.
In another it is a pattern of convergence.
Any examples?
Guppies evolving into guppies?
Is that the best you have?
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 8:05 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Patterns of design do not form a distinctive nested hierarchy. Human design consistently borrows across lineages so that there is no single, objective nested hierarchy.
The paper is cited above. There are many others.
You had indicated someone was lying when they said natural selection can be directly observed with rates in the thousands of darwins, much more than necessary to account for any known historical transition. In response, you've been provided cites to estimates of historical rates and direct measurements of extant rates. We can compare rates of evolution over many time scales, and those rates are within ranges predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
(Please note that while Zachriel is thread-banned for persistently, but politely asking for support, ID guy casts aspersions in nearly every comment.)
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 8:37 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Yes they can.
And as a matter of fact designers can design via a nested hierarchy- that is they have all the design points laid out in such a structure.
Also only via design would we expect a nested hierarchy.
The paper cited does not support yopur claim with real examples.
You know testable scientific stuff.
And you have helped to support my claim.
So you say however I have noticed the lack of examples- guppies evolving into guppies supports baraminology.
If you would stop talking out of your butt and actuall post something of substance I wouldn't be doing that.
However you being Zachriel all you have is to talk that way.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 8:47 am
February 5th, 2010 at 8:58 am
It's just a summary by Tim Allen, a Professor of Botany at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Let's check it's influence. (Link counts aren't definitive by any means, but it can give us some idea of influence.)
A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory.
Four links to A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory.
Twelve scholarly cites to A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory.
Millions of links to the "Holy Bible."
A million links to the "Origin of Species".
Though we can be quite sure Professor Allen understands hierarchies, his explanation is not complete or particularly concise. The Summary is probably meant as a supplement to classroom instruction where the details are taught.
In any case, your misunderstanding is evident. It's not what we call the pattern, but the pattern itself that matters in biology. And we know the pattern has empirical merit because we can make predictions based on these correlations.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 8:58 am
February 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
That doesn't mean you can ignore it.
All misunderstandings belong to you and Tom MH- and others.
Except that biological evolution via blind, non-goal oriented processes does not expect such a pattern.
IOW the pattern doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.
Perhaps but the argument is about whether or not descent with modification/ Common Descent expects such a pattern- it does not for the many reasons provided.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 9:16 am
February 5th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Here it is again-
I will debate Zachriel and/ or Tom MH about nested hierarchies in a public forum.
Each will bring $20,000 USD to the debate- winner take all and loser also pay all expenses.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 9:18 am
February 5th, 2010 at 9:47 am
"The International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) is among the first and oldest organizations devoted to interdisciplinary inquiry into the nature of complex systems, and remains perhaps the most broadly inclusive."
Now if either of you has a better reference it would behoove you to post it.
And by the same token if either of you can find a valid reference that refutes the ISSS position on nested hierarchies it would behoove you to post that also.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 9:47 am
February 5th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
It's very easy to show that uncrossed descent with variation leads to a nested hierarchy of characteristics, even if the variations are random.
Nest of Letters
As long as we don't agree on an exact delineation of the pattern, then we won't be able to resolve that issue. A useable definition would be an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. That would mean that the twigs on a tree grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy.
It's a summary article by Prof. Allen. In any case, here's a typical example of how the term is used in evolutionary biology.
Most of the time, the terms phylogenetic tree or cladogram are used in biology instead of nested hierarchy, because they are specific to the discipline.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
And yet Darwin didn't say that.
Darwin said if the transitionals thaty must have existed were still around we wouldn't have the nested hierarchy we now observe.
He used extinctions to explain the pattern.
And again with nested hierarchies the characteristics must be immutable and additive.
That is because without added characteristics you are stuck on one level and if defining characteristics can be lost then you lose the required containment.
And evolution does not have either of those- it does not say that characteristics will be immutable and additive.
And by the same token if either of you can find a valid reference that refutes the ISSS position on nested hierarchies it would behoove you to post that also.
I know what it is Zach. I have also noticed that you cannot provide any reference to support your claims.
That is only useable to people interested in deception.
That is a crackpot's position.
Professor Allen told me that twigs on a tree grouped by branch and stem do not form a nested hierarchy.
He explained why.
I have provided those reasons to you.
Typically you ignored them.
As for clades, we have been over that also.
Clades ASSUME common ancestry via the number of shared CHARACTERISTICS.
Trees also assume ancestry.
However we know that convergence and common design can explain those same patterns.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
As for uncrossed descent leading to a phylogenetic tree, of course he did. As for random variations, he knew that vestigial structures, which exhibit relaxed selection, were of high classificatory value. Natural selection can lead to convergence, which can make phylogenetic reconstruction more difficult.
Darwin: We see why certain characters are far more serviceable than others for classification; why adaptive characters, though of paramount importance to the beings, are of hardly any importance in classification; why characters derived from rudimentary parts, though of no service to the beings, are often of high classificatory value; and why embryological characters are often the most valuable of all.
You're still confusing the rigid hierarchies of Linnaean taxonomy with the more general nested hierarchy of cladistics. And Darwin said quite the opposite.
Darwin: Extinction … has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class… Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.
Extinction widens the intervals, but does not make them. The natural pattern is still there.
The clear statement above from the University of California Museum of Paleontology contradicts your position, though not Allen's published position.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Nested hierarch Zach- I was responding to your nonsense pertaining to nested hierarchies.
Darwin didn't say that.
Darwin said if the transitionals thaty must have existed were still around we wouldn't have the nested hierarchy we now observe.
The confusion is all yours.
I am talking about nested hierarchy and only nested hierarchy.
And descent with modification doesn't expect such a pattern for the many reasons provided.
It does not for the reasoins provided.
Do you really think that your continued subterfuge helps your case?
BTW the natural pattern Darwin was referring to is groups UNDER groups.
Nested hierarchies are groups WITHIN groups.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
A challenge to olegt:
$20,000 USD- I will go to your university.
We will debate the topic of nested hierarchies. Winner takes all and loser pays all expenses.
My position is that descent with modification/ Common Descent does not expect a nested hierarchy.
Your position will be the affirmative- that is does expect such a pattern.
What say you?
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Joe, you crack me up.
Are you going to give a talk at the biology seminar? Can't find you on the list of invited speakers.
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
The "natural arrangement" would still be there.
Do you agree or disagree with these three statements:
1) A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendents (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
2) Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade.
3) Clades are nested within one another — they form a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Cite, please! (Neither "additive" nor "immutable" appear in your ISSS Bible.)
Cite, please! Are his revealed explanations written down somewhere? On golden tablets perhaps? Remarkable that this critical insight did not make it into the Bible — that would classify them as apochrypha at best. Why do soldiers in an army form an NH but twigs on a branch do not?
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
(my bolding.)
Oops.
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
BTW the natural pattern Darwin was referring to is groups UNDER groups.
Nested hierarchies are groups WITHIN groups
Two different things Tom.
Even your summativity agrees with what I said.
Ooops indeed…
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
And again with nested hierarchies the characteristics must be immutable and additive.
BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA
That is what "consist of and contain" mean Tom.
As I said if you don't have added characteristics you are stuck one one level and if defining characteristics can be lost then you lose containment.
IOW Tom you don't appear capable of understanding anything.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
A natural arrangement can be any number of things.
Clades ASSUME a common ancestor existed.
Not really.
Because we use CHARACTERISTICS not descent.
Descent is ASSUMED not demonstrated.
But all this is just subterfuge…
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
trollegt,
You crackpot.
I knew you were too chicken-sh!+ to ante up…
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Why are you too chicken to write to Professor Allen?
Why don't any one of you dare put your money where your mouth is?
Groups within groups- just like Linnean classification.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Actually, the ISSS (the International Society for the Systems Sciences) appears to be a ragtag team of cranks. Have a look at its official publication, the yearly General Systems Bulletin.
Each volume begins with an editorial from the chairman in which he laments the lack of acceptance of his "discipline" in the mainstream. Here is the 2008 Bulletin in PDF.
He surveys the state of the "systems science:"
In other words, these guys have no idea what they are doing and why. This doesn't inspire confidence, does it?
And here is a sample of what passes for scientific concepts in "systems science:"
I can draw boundaries all day long! Where do I sign up?
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Typical trollegt, when in trouble just start attacking the people who made it that way.
The challenge stands chicken-sh!+…
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Actually evolutionists appear to be a rag-tag mob of cranks.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Joe, when are you coming down? I'll advertise your visit to our students. They'll pay good money to hear your curse.
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
These Bulletins are collections of genuine pearls!
Here is a great piece of wisdom from the 2007 General Systems Bulletin:
Bwahahaha!
Or how about this?
Joe, stay away from these guys! They're totally out there!
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Out-of-context quote-mining from a crank.
Do your parents know that you use the internet?
BTW, trollegt, I will come down wafter you agree to the debate I laid out above and the money is deposited into an agreed account.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Joe,
If you'd like to defend any of these quotes by providing context, bring it on! These bulletins contain complete rubbish, interspersed with mutual ego stroking and more laments about the lack of understanding in the mainstream:
Thus begins the editorial in the 2009 Bulletin written by none other than Prof. Timothy Allen himself.
There is a teachable moment in this sad story, Joe. Don't accept everything you see on the interwebz, even if it agrees with your preconceptions. People at the ISSS are not authorities on anything meaningful, they're Ludwig von Bertalanffy wannabes who have never managed to revive the dead "systems science."
And if you want a challenge, pick on someone your own size. Go debate a junior high team.
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
BUT But but that excerpt is from the part of the ISSS Bible that you claimed I was ignoring in determining what is and is not a nested hierarchy:
So apparently YOU are ignoring it as well. Why are you ignoring it, ID guy? Why? Why?
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I note that you didn't answer the question. Why is that? Can't find your answer in the ISSS Bible?
By way of responding to yours: I have written to Professor Allen, quite some time ago, and got a very informative response.
Why do soldiers in an army form an NH but twigs on a branch do not?
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Per my nested hierarchy using Zachriel's strings (posted way upthread, but improved for sciencability):
The entities of the set {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} are all 6-character strings on the alphabet (UPPER CASE) and ".".
The entites in the lower whoops INNER level {3,4,5,6,10} ADD the characteristic of having the specific letter H in the second position.
The entities in the EVEN MORE INNERLY level {3,4} ADD the characteristic of having the letters S, C, and A in the first, third, and fourth positions, respectively.
The entity in the MOSTEST INNERNESS level {4} ADDS the characteristic of having the letter K in the fifth position.
MOSTEST INNERNESS = species
EVEN MORE INNERLY = genus
INNER = family
BTW I've looked upthread several times and noted that the strings have not altered their letters or shuffled them around in any way since they were originally posted by Zachriel. The string in {4} is still
S H C A K .for example. Thus the characteristics I used are IMMUTABLE.I'm off to watch the blizzard.
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
So what?
It still refers to groups within groups.
What am I ignoring Tom?
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
That would be more of a challenge than debating a chicken-sh!+ like you.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Except it isn't a nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Sounds like you are talking about evolutionists and their peer-review process.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Soldiers only form a nested hierarchy if one was created before-hand to structure the Army.
As I said before the nested hierarchy is Army- Corps- Division- brigade- and so on.
Each group is a part of the group above it.
Each group is well defined.
Not of that is so with a tree.
With a soldier we can tell what he does by his/ her insignias.
We can take a soldier and put him/ her back exactly where he/ she belongs.
We cannot do that with leaves nor branches.
They are not defined with the specificity required by nested hierarchies.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
To recap-
1- Nested Hierarchies require that the defining characteristics be both immutable and additive.
2- Immutable otherwise you lose the containment requirement
3- Additive otherwise you only have one level/ group
4- Descent with modification/ Common Descent is not like that. Characteristics can be lost and/ or never be added- there isn't any direction beyond "survival" with descent with modification.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Good example to support Fodor's thesis.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Tom,
I don't think Joe makes any distinction between added and additive. He seems to use these terms interchangeably.
Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Darwin was referring to how organisms naturally group. Do we have to read the entire book to you.
No doubt organic beings, like all other objects, can be classed in many ways, either artificially by single characters, or more naturally by a number of characters… But with organic beings the case is different, and the view above given accords with their natural arrangement in group under group; and no other explanation has ever been attempted.
A clade is defined as an organism and all its descendents.
A clade is based on descent. A clade is a nested hierarchy. This is a cite to an authoritative source that contradicts your usage.
It's the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Not an immutable characteristic.
The basic unit of the US Army is the combat infantryman. MOS 11B. What pray tell, is the addtive and immutable characteristic that puts that infantryman in his assigned rifle platoon? Orders? Does he wear insignia for his rifle platoon?
Orders are not immutable. Army must not be a nested hierarchy, then.
Have you informed Professor Allen how wrong he is?
Also, if you are going to say "chickenshit", man up and spell it out.
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
No, it refers to groups ABOVE groups. Try reading for comprehension:
See the bold stuff? You ignored this, ID guy. Why?
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I identified the immutable and additive characteristics at each and every level when I described my nested hierarchy. So you don't even agree with yourself.
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
There is the direction of time, ID guy. The direction is time and the characteristic (for cladistics) is reproductive isolation (speciation). If Common Descent is true and you group present life by successive degrees of recency of speciation, you get a nested hierarchy. If you group present life by inheritable morphological characteristics, you should get another nested hierarchy that is isomorphic to the NH of descent/speciation/reproductive isolation because, ha ha, inheritable morphological characteristics are INHERITED. If you repeat that process with other inheritable characteristics — embryonic development, say, or the genome — you should get the same isomorphism. IT IS REQUIRED if Common Descent is true. It is OPTIONAL if Common Design is true.
This is so patently obvious an ENGINEER CAN GET IT. (I do LOTS of design, ID guy, and I review LOTS more. Trust me, it would be a lot of work for us to impose a Common Design nested hierarchy on our products. More effort than it's worth, so we don't do it.)
So they only way to fight this is to build a barrier of obfuscation aroung the term "nested hierarchy" and fight to the death. Your defense even sacrifices FLE, which must follow the same dynamic. I notice that nobody on this list is coming to your defense, ID guy. (At least, not overtly.)
Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Well we wouldn't expect them to group into nested hierarchies given the proposed mechanisms.
ASSUMED descendents.
It is based on shared characteristics. Descent is assumed.
Based on charcteristics and descent is not a charcteristic.
It supports my useage- I said that nested hierarchies are built by characteristics not descent.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Tom,
Linnean Classification is a nested hierarchy and is groups within groups.
Now when you put that into levels then it is level above other levels.
Are you really that stupid that you cannot even understand that?
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Additive vs added- well additive means adding something
and added means adding something.
Perhaps trollegt can tell us what the difference is.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
With a soldier we can tell what he does by his/ her insignias.
So you are also ignorant of the military.
Additive- you start with the Army which has its basic characteristics. Then you ADD the Corps, which includes the characteristics of the Army plus the characteristics of each Corps. Then you add the division, which includes the Army and Corps it is in plus the characteristics which define that division.
And so on down the line.
As for manning up you wouldn't know anything about that.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
there isn't any direction beyond "survival" with descent with modification.
Does MH stand for MeatHead?
Is "time" a defining charactertistic?
Nope you would get a lineage/ sequence.
Transitional forms by their very definition would violate the required distinct boudaries of a nested hierarchy.
You are so patently ignoranty it is amazing that you can use a computer.
You think your ignorance refutes facts.
Truly amazing.
The challenge offer stands peckerwood.
Man up and accept it or admit that you are a chickenshit.
Comment by ID guy — February 5, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
February 5th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Darwin, generations of biologist, and modern bioinformaticians think otherwise.
A clade is *defined* as an organism and all its descendents. Which organisms, if any, form monophyletic groupings is an empirical question.
We might use phylogeny to support a proposed cladistic classification, but a clade is *defined* as an organism and all its descendents.
Clades form a nested hierarchy.
Let's review our reference material:
So, clades are based on the pattern of descent, and form a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Well we wouldn't expect them to group into nested hierarchies given the proposed mechanisms.
Darwin did not.
Darwin said groups UNDER groups which is not a nested hierarchy.
Also whoever thinks that descent with modification expects a nested hierarchy is a crackpot.
So that may be why not one biologist can substantiate the claims of the theory.
And that is ASSUMED not demonstrated.
Clades ASSUME descent via shared CHARACTERISTICS.
Because that is how we construct them and the NHJ formed is based on CHARACTERISTICS- as I have been saying- and nopt descent as you have been saying.
Decent is ASSUMED. And the pattern is based on CHARACTERISTICS. Descent is not a characteristic.
That you are too stupid to understand that just further exposes your ignorance driven agenda.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 9:40 am
February 6th, 2010 at 9:55 am
A group is a set. Saying a group is under a group means it is contained in the group above it, that is, it is a subset of its superset. Darwin refers to classifying organisms under orders and classes, that is, Linnaean taxonomy. There's no other reasonable reading of Darwin's text.
It is defined. We might propose a particular grouping as a clade. It may or may not exist in nature—that's an empirical question. But a clade is defined in terms of ancestry.
Again, that is incorrect. We may support a proposed clade by referring to characteristics, but the clade is defined in terms of ancestry.
You asked for a cite, and it was provided. It clearly states a clade is defined by ancestry and forms a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 9:55 am
February 6th, 2010 at 10:09 am
That is incorrect. How is it contained Zach? How is it a subset Zach?
What criteria?
I know how a clade is defined.
And as I said clades ASSUME the populations in the clade or related by descent.
Not one biologist who has constructed a cladogram has shown that the populations are related by descent with modification.
Also all that are on the cladograms are the tips of the branches- the tips and the starting point.
If we included all transitional forms that must have existed the nested hierarchy would be lost in a sea of confusion.
Also clades are built by shared CHARACTERISTICS and it is the number of shared CHARACTERISTICS that lkeads biologists to ASSUME a relationship via descent.
However we already know that convergence can explain the same data- as can Common Design.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 10:09 am
February 6th, 2010 at 10:56 am
It's not so much that you don't know, it's that you don't even try to learn. Try reading what has already been posted.
Then you should simply say "a clade is defined by descent." And while you're at it, admit that clades form a nested hierarchy. It is so simple to make these concessions and move the conversation forward. Otherwise, we'll be forever arguing whether the contents of Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket can be treated as a set, even if his pocket is empty (as it often is).
A clade is defined by descent. We may assume a particular cladistic classification for the purposes of testing the entailed implications. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. Especially as you asked for and received an authoritative cite that says that posited ancestry can form a nested hierarchy.
A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendents (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
Clades are nested within one another — they form a nested hierarchy.
Whether they do in fact represent an objective classification of organisms is an empirical question, but you can't begin to have that discussion as long as you continue to mangle the terminology.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 10:56 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:05 am
No criteria in that. Not for detern=ming sets and subsets anyway.
Descent is ASSUMED and the nested hierarchy is based on CHARACTERISTICS just as I have been telling you.
The alleged descent is assumed.
IOW Zachriel once again you are providing an assumption as if it were actual data.
Also as I said clades just have the points represented. If all alleged transitionals were still around the nested hierarchy would be lost.
BTW there is a nested hierarchy because that is how clades are constructed. They are constructed via shared characteristics and descent is ASSUMED from that.
That you are too stupid to understand that tells me you are a waste of bandwidth.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 11:05 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am
As for your projection:
BBWAAAAAHAAAAHAAA
you couldn't learn if your life depended on it.
Also I only know of ONE biologist who sez that descent with modification leads to a nested hierarchy. Doug Theobald. And he has been soundly refuted.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 11:07 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Why biologists should not expect a nested hierarchy with descent with modification:
1- Nested Hierarchies are based on (shared) characteristics
2- The characteristics must be immutable to avoid violating the NH criteria of nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels
3- The characteristics must be additive otherwise you are stuck on one level- no subsets.
4- Descent with modification/ Common Descent does not follow those rules: “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
IOW depending upon the selection pressure and/ or luck of the draw characteristics can be lost and/ or remain stable.
Show me a biologist who sez that descent with modification/ Common Descent fulfills the criteria of immutable and additive characteristics and I will show you a crackpot.
Comment by ID guy — February 6, 2010 @ 11:51 am
February 6th, 2010 at 11:59 am
It must take some doing to think that "characters" and "classification" has nothing to do with determining sets.
Here's another: Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.
Here's a whole gaggle of 'em: The Hennig Society was founded in 1980 with the expressed purpose of promoting the field of Phylogenetic Systematics. Hennig's idea that groups of organisms, or taxa, should be recognized and formally named only in cases where they are evolutionarily real entities, that is "monophyletic", at first was controversial. It is now the prevailing approach to modern systematics.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 11:59 am
February 6th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
A nested hierarchy is a mathematical structure, an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. A taxonomy is a nested hierarchy based on shared characterists. A clade, as we have seen, is a nested hierarchy based on posited evolutionary relationships.
An organism's traits used for classification don't change. It may have descendents with different traits.
In a taxonomy, each child set inherits the distinctive traits of the parent set.
Nevertheless, we can objectively determine a nested hierarchy based on character traits. For instance, even though dolphins and fish both swim, we can easily determine that dolphins are closer to mice than fish.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Here's four more:
Goldstein PZ, R DeSalle, G Amato, AP Vogler (2000). Conservation genetics at the species boundary. Conservation Biology 14(1): 120-131
Comment by KC — February 6, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
ID guy wrote:
Joe, you have an awfully short memory. A short while ago you read Berkeley's Evolution site. Here's an excerpt:
That site was created by biologists from Berkeley, including David R. Lindberg (professor and chair of the Department of Integrative Biology) and Roy Caldwell (professor in the Dept. of Integrative Biology).
Comment by olegt — February 6, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
February 6th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Let’s try a more scholarly approach, ID guy. Here (PDF) is a paper by Eric Knox, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematic, which he wrote as part of his doctoral thesis for the University of Michigan (doctorate subsequently granted), and which was published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, and which (most importantly) was forwarded to me by Professor Allen as his way of helping me understand the subject matter. So it should be reasonably well-vetted, wouldn’t you agree, ID guy?
There is a lot here to read here (I suppose doctoral theses are like that; or perhaps practitioners of systematics are unusually verbose) so let me direct you attention to a few samples cogent to our discussion. For example, take this item from page 8:
(emphasis mine in bold)
Wow, he seems to be playing pretty fast and loose with the nested hierarchy concept, don't you think? Repeatedly subdividing squares? Where are the additive and immutable characteristics?!
But this is just a side-show; let’s move on to the main event. I direct your attention to Figures 4-6 (page 12) where he tries to clear up some conceptual issues with Hennig’s set-theoretical approach to using hierarchies in systematics:
(my emphasis in bold again)
(again, my emphasis in bold)
Knox's approach to hierarchy is entirely in agreement with what I and Zachriel and olegt have been trying to get across to you, ID guy, and demonstrably at odds with your position. You are rebutted.
And we didn't get to figure 6 yet. It may or may not have a lot to say about clades as nested hierarchies, but I recommend you do a little reading here first, and see what you think. Tear yourself away from the ISSS BIBLE for a while.
Comment by Tom MH — February 6, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Nice of t6he willfully ignorant to continue ignoring the following:
1- Nested Hierarchies are based on (shared) characteristics
2- The characteristics must be immutable to avoid violating the NH criteria of nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels
3- The characteristics must be additive otherwise you are stuck on one level- no subsets.
4- Descent with modification/ Common Descent does not follow those rules: “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:44 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:46 am
trollegt-
Cladograms ASSUME a common ancestor and descent.
They do not confirm nor verify it.
As your site points out they are constructed via CHARACTERISTICS and descent is not a characteristic.
Just because you arte too stupid to understand that don't blame me.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:46 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:48 am
KC quotes:
Based on what exactly?
And if they are essentially clonal then they are essentially the same.
So by what criteria do mitop genomes make a nested hierarchy?
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:48 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Zachriel,
Cladograms are based on shared characteristics and the relationship is ASSUMED.
That you cannot understand that proves you are a waste of bandwidth and a waste of skin.
2- The characteristics must be immutable to avoid violating the NH criteria of nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels
True- the definitions don't change.
And if those descendants do not have all of the defining characteristics of the ancestor then containment is lost.
And with evolution traits can be lost.
That is what I have been telling you.
Descent is not a charcter trait.
And it needs to be if your position is to have any merit- it needs to be the ONLT defining trait.
IOW Zachriel you lose.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:52 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Tom MH,
Until you address the following we don't have anything to discuss:
1- Nested Hierarchies are based on (shared) characteristics
2- The characteristics must be immutable to avoid violating the NH criteria of nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels
3- The characteristics must be additive otherwise you are stuck on one level- no subsets.
4- Descent with modification/ Common Descent does not follow those rules: “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:53 am
February 7th, 2010 at 10:58 am
UC Berkley:
That doesn't make sense for all the reasons already provided.
Also transitional forms by their very nature would ruin the distinct categories required by NH.
That you moroons can't understand that says quite a bit about all of you.
That is EXACTLY what I have been saying!
It is built on shared traits and the rerlationship is assumed based on that.
However convergence can explain shared characteristics.
Common Design can explain shared characteristics.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 10:58 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:01 am
What is the difference between a taxonomy, cladistic analysis, and a nested hierarchy?
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 11:01 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:06 am
ID guy wrote:
Joe, when you're done with your incoherent rants, ponder this: any scientific theory starts with a set of assumptions. Newton's theory of gravity assumes that two point objects attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Einstein's special relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. There are plenty more examples if you want them. None of that makes these theories somehow less valuable. If a theory's predictions are confirmed experimentally, it gets accepted. Newton's theory of gravity accurately predicts the motion of planets, so the theory is accepted even though it is based on certain assumptions.
Same with cladistics: it assumes that organisms form hierarchical monophyletic groups. One can then genetic distances between various species to see whether the cladistic classification makes sense.
Bradford, be kind and put Joe out of his misery. His convulsions are painful to watch.
Comment by olegt — February 7, 2010 @ 11:06 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:09 am
First of all, you had said you only know of ONE biologist who sez that descent with modification leads to a nested hierarchy. Instead, it's nearly all biologists, and you need to correct your misunderstanding.
And second, it certainly does make sense. If we start with a single species, and it divides into two reproductively isolated populations, each branch will inherit characteristics from the ancestor. With time, the populations will diverge, so while they will differ, we will nonetheless be able to determine they are closely related due to the inherited characteristics. And those populations may also branch, inheriting from their parent species. Even after many branchings, most characteristics will be traceable to the original species, but each branch will have its own unique characteristics. When looking that the end branches, they will form what Darwin called a "natural arrangement," but what we call a nested hierarchy of character traits.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 11:09 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Better. A cladogram often represents posited evolutionary relationships.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 11:13 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
See also 1981 “Cladistics and Evolution on Display” Nature 292:395-6
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:15 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:18 am
trollegt,
When you pull your head oput perhaps you can respond to the refutations I have presented.
As for cladistics- it ASSUMES descent with modification- the very thing we are trying to test!
IOW trollegt you are a mental midget way out of your area of expertise.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:18 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:21 am
The misunderstanding is all theirs for the many reasons already provided.
Also with evolution it is not a guarantee that all of the traits will get passed on.
We know this.
Humans no longer have gills and we are not cold-blooded.
We don't have scales.
We don't have fins.
IOW Zachriel it appears that humans have lost many defining characteristic traits of our alleged ancestors.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:21 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:23 am
The challenge stands-
$20,000 USD- both debaters ante up and the winner takes all and the loser also pays all expenses.
My position is that descent with modification/ Common Descent does not/ should not lead to a nested hierarchy.
Your position is the opposite- that it does.
And if you are unwilling to put up then it is obvious that you don't have anything.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:23 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am
It assumes the relationship.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:24 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Can you explain what "transformed cladistics" means, and why some cladists want to separate cladistic analysis from theoretical considerations?
A cladistic analysis may be assumed for the purpose of testing. It's called a hypothesis.
That's what posit means.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 11:30 am
February 7th, 2010 at 11:39 am
No, but they do have vertebrae, a cranium with an array of sense organs, and jaws. Humans, butterflies, fish. My guess is that objective classification would place humans and fish as the ingroup, and butterflies as the outgroup. What do you think?
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 11:39 am
February 7th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Clearing away the tard:
My position- MY POSITION- is and has always been that nested hierarchies are constructed – based on- shared characteristics.
So what do the tards do to refute my claim?
They provide examples of nested hierarchies based on shared characterics.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Humans no longer have gills and we are not cold-blooded.
We don't have scales.
We don't have fins.
Then you admit that descent does not produce a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristics.
And that a claogram assumes the relationship means it is not based on that relationship.
A cladogram based on shared characteristics is not a cladogram based on descent.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
1- Nested Hierarchies are based on (shared) characteristics
What does that have to do with what I said?
Do you disagree with what I said?
Is decent a characteristic?
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I know that.
My point is you cannot use that assumption to "prove"/ test that assumption.
You tards want to use the assumption of Common Descent as evidence for the assumption of Common Descent.
Shared characteristics- both morphological and genetic can be explained by convergence.
They can also be explained by Common Design.
So what happens to cladograms if we assume convergence?
What happens if we assume Common Design?
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
You never answered this question: What is the difference between a taxonomy, cladistic analysis, and a nested hierarchy?
A nested hierarchy is a mathematical pattern. We can construct nested hierarchies out of any number objects any number of ways. But when we arrange most organisms by traits, we find that they naturally form a nested heirarchy. So, taking your example,
Based on traits, which two group best; humans, fish or butterflies. Humans and butterflies have legs, but fish don't. Well, let us know what you think.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
What does that have to do with what I said?
Do you disagree with what I said?
Is decent a characteristic?
That is my postion tardo.
And if nested hierarchies were based on descent then we should have all four beacsue fish do and fish are our anscestors- according to your position.
So this means descent with modification does not produce a nested hierarchy.
Finally…
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
You test the empirical implications of the assumption.
Because you are apparently confusing the terms, and by refusing to discuss the differences, you confirm it.
It's called descent with modification for a reason. And some traits will be lost or modified beyond recognition, but it turns out we can still recover the nested hierarchy. For instance, which groups best, humans, fish or butterflies?
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
My point is you cannot use that assumption to "prove"/ test that assumption.
You are using the assumption to test the assumption.
That is incorrect. I am not confusing anything.
Any confision is all yours.
1- Nested Hierarchies are based on (shared) characteristics
What part of that is confusing? Be specific.
And if nested hierarchies were based on descent then we should have all four beacsue fish do and fish are our anscestors- according to your position.
And that is the reason we wouldn't expect it to produce a nested hierarchy.
You cannot have a nested hierarchy if traits can be lost.
Once traits are lost so is the containment.
Once containment is lost so is the nested hierarchy.
It is that simple.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Why are YOU basing anything on traits?
That is MY position.
Are you that tarded that you think you can use examples supporting my position to refute my position?
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
ID guy posts a challenge:
Asked and answered. I would think that a scholarly paper that was written as part of a (successful) doctoral dissertation, accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the relevant field of study, and forwarded as a valid reference by the very Professor Allen that wrote the web page that you place so much stock in would outweigh the content of that web page and, more importantly, your confused mis-interpretations of it.
Why did you ask for references if you weren't going to look at them, ID guy?
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Intersting list. Um, did you obtain this from peer-reviewed and published sources? Personal correspondence from Professor Allen, perhaps? Did you make this list up yourself?! Well, let's take (yet another) look-see.
1 – Not a nested hierarchy requirement stated anywhere in the literature. (See the Knox paper.) Still, we can choose to follow it when exploring Common Descent. Siblings share their biological parents. Descendant species share their common ancestor species.
2 – The only "immutability" requirement is that the sets are defined for the purposes and scope of the observation. A soldier can change MOS, and/or be re-assigned, but when considering the structure of the Army at a single point in time, we can choose not to worry about that.
Interestingly, the relationship between a child and its biological parent is far more immutable than the relationship between a combat infantryman and his rifle platoon (brotherhood in arms notwithstanding).
3 – Not a nested hierarchy requirement stated anywhere in the literature. (See the Knox paper.) Still, we can choose to follow it when exploring Common Descent. Cousins share their parents with their siblings, and share their grandparents with their cousins. (The kids are forming a nested hierarchy! Make em STOP!!)
4 – Descent with modification most certainly follows these rules. Traits may be gained, lost, or modified, but the parent-child relationship is immutable and (going back successive generations of speciation) addititve.
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Tom MH,
How does that paper refute my position that nested hierarchies are built/ based on characteristics?
How does it refute my claim that those characteristics must be immutable and additive?
And why do you refuse to address the points I have made?
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
LoL!!! What do you think they are based on Tom?
It isn't a requirement- it is just the way it is.
Can you produce a nested hierarchy not based on characteristics?
Umm it has NOTHING to do with the soldier Tom.
I have explained it for you.
Again as I said if they are not additive you are stuck with one set.
And you cannot build a nested hierarchy with one set and no subsets.
If traits can be lost then containment can be lost.
And that means the nested hierarchy is lost.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Transitional forms- by their very narure and definition, would ruin the ordered nested hierarchy.
That is because they contain a MIX of characteristics- not quite mammal and not quite reptile- stuck in no-set land.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
At the risk of repeating myself:
My emphasis in bold.
More directly: if you look at Figure 5g, you will see a Venn diagram that groups organisms by relative recency of ancestry. According to Knox:
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Sure. I can repeatedly subdivide squares.
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Can you produce a nested hierarchy not based on characteristics?
A square is so-called becuase of its characteristics. Duh.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
How does that paper refute my position that nested hierarchies are built/ based on characteristics?
Except what you cut-n-pasted supports my claim.
A square is a square based on its characteristics.
The zygote is also based on characteristics.
From page 10 of the article you linked to:
Just as I have been saying.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
And the clincher- also on page 10:
Sorry Tom, you lose.
And thanks for the new reference…
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
If you look at Figure 5g, you will see a Venn diagram that groups organisms by relative recency of ancestry. According to Knox:
It refutes your position that ancestry is not a characteristic.
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Yes, Figure 3b is not a nested hierarchy. But Figure 3a is. Figure 3a is repeated as figure 5g.
A nested hierarchy based on recency of ancestry.
Try reading the rest of the pape, ID guy.
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Except that it doesn't say that the NH is based on descent.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Tom,
You miss the point.
non-nested hierarchy with ancestor-descendant relationship as the organizational criterion.
That is what is being argued.
If we use only ancestor-descendant relationship then we do not have a nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Good lord, can't you read?! FURTHER DOWN ON THE SAME PAGE:
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
AGREED. That's Figure 3b (Figure 4). But if we build a hierarchy on the basis of relative recency of ancestry (Figure 3a, and Figure 5g) we do get a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Tom MH — February 7, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Nested Hierarchy and Common Descent-
Yet that is exactly what we would observe if all the alleged transitional forms were still alive- combined characteristics of different nested groups.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
It's called evidence. Organisms can be distinguished by traits.
Of course you can. And we find a nested hierarchy when we parsimoniously classify organisms by traits. Which two group best; humans, dolphins or fish?
Even closely related species can be distinguished—otherwise they wouldn't be different species. Sometimes even within species we can observe a nested hierarchy, such as the human y-chromosome, often used in genealogy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 7, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Starting at the bottom of page 11
This is important because this is what I have been saying.
Page 13:
“Terminal species” means no transitional forms- the tips of the branches- again this is what I have been saying.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
February 7th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Why are YOU basing anything on traits?
It is my claim that nested hierarchies are based on traits. Not yours.
You are supposed to be supporting your position. But thanks for supporting mine.
You cannot have a nested hierarchy if traits can be lost.
Lose a trait and lose containment. Lose containment lose the nested hierarchy.
It is that simple.
Yet that is exactly what we would observe if all the alleged transitional forms were still alive- combined characteristics of different nested groups.
That doesn't address what I said.
You seem to have mental issues in that you keep responding with irrelevant nonsense.
Non-nested hierarchy maybe, but not nested. Genealogy leads to a non-nested hierarchy.
We have been over this before.
Comment by ID guy — February 7, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 8:46 am
All extant twigs on a tree are terminal branches. But some of those can grow their own stems and twigs.
A nested hierachy is a pattern. Biological traits fall naturally into such a pattern.
{{{},{},{}},{{{},{}},{}}}Of course you can. How would you group humans, dolphins and toads? When we actually sit down and group organisms, it turns out that we would clearly group humans with dolphins even though dolphins don't have legs, but toads do. When we consider the panoply of traits, organisms group only one way. And it turns out that this grouping is exactly what is expected if they diverged from common ancestors.
Humans and toads have legs, but dolphins don't. But we can still objectively classify humans and dolphins with toads in the outgroup based on the overall pattern of traits (mammary glands, aortic arch, hair follicles during some stage of development, a single lower jaw bone, auditory ossicles, diaphragm).
The y-chromosome doesn't recombine (most of it anyway), and forms a nested hierarchy of descent. That allows one to unambiguously trace their male ancestry.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 8:46 am
February 8th, 2010 at 9:12 am
We wouldn't expect them to given the processes.
Also given the existence of transitionals we wouldn't observe a nested hierarchy.
: You cannot have a nested hierarchy if traits can be lost.
Lose a trait and you lose containment. Lose containment you lose the nested hierarchy.
BTW dolphins did not "evolve" from humans.
And if they are gouped witn tetrapods then there is a problem.
No it does not. Again:
IOW Zach you appear to be too stupid to learn.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 9:12 am
February 8th, 2010 at 9:36 am
You just keep repeating yourself, but never address the issue. If humans and dolphins share a closer common ancestor than they do with toads, then according to you the loss of legs in dolphins means we can't objectively group humans and dolphins with toads in the outgroup. But we all know this is not true, and there are many characteristics that allows this objective classification.
Previously you said that organisms form a nested hierearchy when organized by traits. You also know that dolphins are mammals. That means they are nested within tetrapods.
Can you identify these three vertebrate species?
http://www.zachriel.com/images/embryo1.jpg
http://www.zachriel.com/images/embryo2.jpg
http://www.zachriel.com/images/embryo3.jpg
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 9:36 am
February 8th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Lose a trait and you lose containment. Lose containment you lose the nested hierarchy.
The evidence says that it is you who doesn't address the issue.
Nested hierarchies require containment.
That is not what I said.
I said nested hierarchies are built/ based on characteristics.
Yes.
No it means they are grouped with mammals.
Mammalia is a Class. The phylum is Chordata not tertapod.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 9:45 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Yet cetaceans are mammals without four limbs (at least in the adult form). They are missing a trait common to the class.
If we posit that cetaceans and other mammals share a common ancestor, then cetaceans have lost a trait found in the ancestral form. And yet we can still easily classify them with other mammals, something you say can't be done.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 11:03 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Note that you didn't respond about vertebrate embryos. Don't worry: Even most biologists would have difficulty distinguishing embryos at that stage of development. Clue: one of the embryos is of an aquatic organism.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 11:04 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Is it a trait that DEFINES the Class?
If not then your point is moot.
You are misrepresenting what I said.
Is that all you can do?
I never said we couldn't clasify cetaceans with other mammals.
I said the nested hierarchy would be lost if defining traits are also lost.
That is simply taken from what I and Tom MH have presented.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:33 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:34 am
I don't do science via pictures.
And I don't play games with tards.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:34 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Perhaps you can tell us how you are using the term. Are you referring to Linnaean Taxonomy? What are the defining traits of reptiles?
They are observations. Note that you seem curiously incurious about the details of biological organisms.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 11:51 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Is it a trait that DEFINES the Class?
What term?
Each level in the classification has a set of definitions. Each set on that level also has a set of definitions.
Look it up.
I don't do science via pictures.
You offered pictures.
I don't do science via pictures.
That is incorrect.
Just because I won't play your tard games doesn't mean anything about biology nor my curiosity.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:56 am
February 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Noted again: you show no interest in actual biology. Anyone truly interested in the classification of organisms would be happy to explain what they know and learn what they don't. That's as true of herpetologists as it is of lepidopterologists or philatelists.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Spoken like an asshole.
I don't have any interest in discussing anything with you.
You are willfully ignorant and proud of it.
Bald assertion.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.interested, having the attention engaged.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
You can form nested hierarchies on the basis of the traits you can observe — taxonomics. Common Descent predicts that the observable nested hierarchies should be homologous.
If traits are lost, or if there is convergence, then the observability of the nested hierarchy of descent can be lost. In Zachriel's Nest of Letters example, three individuals are unresolvable due to apparent convergence:
6] .HXM..9] .MXV..
10] .HXV..
Oh well. With more data, we might be able to break the ambiguities. The nested hierarchy based on relative recency of ancestry cannot be lost, so we continue to search for more data to limn that ultimate One True nested hierarchy ofdescent. NONETHELESS the hierarchy I formed (so many posts ago) is still fully nested.
{{{1},{2}},{{{3},{4},{{5},{6}}},{{{7},{8}},{{9},{10}}}}You can even turn it into a Venn diagram by connecting the tops and bottoms of the pairs of curly braces with non-crossing lines. It would then look like Figure 3a (Figure 5g) in Knox's paper.
Of course, if those examples were just banged out by Zachriel one by one on his computer, and there was no Common Descent, then my attempts to form the nested hierarchy 0f descent is a fools errand. Could be he deliberately made 6, 9, and 10 to be mimic convergence, or perhaps he just didn't care enough to render unambiguous evidence of Common Descent. One thing, though: if this was indeed what Zachriel did, then there should be no evidence of transitional forms anywhere in the memory of his computer. (Checking my spyware bots there…)
Comment by Tom MH — February 8, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
February 10th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Tom MH,
The following is from the paper you linked to:
Starting at the bottom of page 11
This is important because this is what I have been saying.
Page 13:
“Terminal species” means no transitional forms- the tips of the branches- again this is what I have been saying.
Page 27
My point about traits being lost is that the nested hierarchy based on descent would be lost.
Thank you for finally admitting what I have been telling you all along.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 8:37 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:17 am
That's right. Traits can be lost. Or traits can converge. Whether or not we can determine a nested hierarchy depends on the actual facts. It turns out that we can classify nearly all organisms by traits into a clearly defined nested hierarchy. Even if dolphins resemble fish to some degree, we can still place them objectively within mammals.
The other factor is that *if* life diverged from common ancestors, then they would form this type of nested pattern. That's quite obvious because they inherit their traits with relatively small modifications. Nest of Letters illustrates the nested pattern and the occasional convergence.
Finally, if natural selection is a historical mechanism, then we expect some convergence, but perhaps not so much that we can't discern the nested hierarchy. And again, that is exactly what we see. According to the hypothesis, dolphins evolved from land mammals, they converged in some degree to the forms of fishes, but we can still determine that they should be nested with mammals. From that, we can predict the existence of cetaceans with hind limbs and even what geological strata to look for them in.
And the vast majority of organisms fit this exact pattern.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 10:17 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:22 am
We wouldn't be able to if all the alleged transitionals were still alive.
That is because by their very definition they are a mix of characteristics. And that mix would violate the distinct boundaries required by nested hierarchy.
Zachriel appears to be too stupid to understand that basic and simple fact.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 10:22 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Here is the paper Zachriel is ignoring:
The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics
Yet that is exactly what we would observe if all the alleged transitional forms were still alive- combined characteristics of different nested groups.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 10:26 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Of course we can. And do.
You simply wave your hands, epeat yourself and hurl insults. Be specific. Reptiles and mammals fit within Amniota. New fossils are found all the time and they all seem to fit the nested hierarchy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 10:29 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:38 am
We wouldn't be able to if all the alleged transitionals were still alive.
The experts agree with me:
and
Amniota is Cladistics. And cladograms do not form nested hierarchies all the way through.
Also cladograms just portray the tips and the vertecies.
Add the transitionals and the order becomes chaos.
Also I repeat myself because you are incapable of learning.
I have nothing else to say so I repeat.
You have nothing to say so you deceive.
IOW you are once again being a deceptive butthead.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 10:38 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Yes, we would. And every time a new fossil is discovered we have the opportunity to test that idea.
They're not just a mixture of traits. They are inherited traits with modification. For example,
ancestral fish --- >> modern fishancestral fish --- >> fishopods --- >> land vertebrates
The containing group is
ancestral fish, containingmodern fish,fishpodsandland vertebrates. In retropect,fishopodsappear to have characteristics ofmodern fishandland vertebrates, but what they really have are the characteristics of theancestral fishwhich are very similar tomodern fish, and the derived characteristics leading toland vertebrates. They do not have the derived characteristics ofmodern fish. This is consistent with taxonomy and with phylogeny.Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 10:54 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Are you saying we can't group organisms with an amnion? (This is reminiscent of the discussion of the contents of Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff.)
Cladogram.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 10:57 am
February 10th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Fair enough. However, if someone says "Common Descent predicts a nested hierarchy" and you think of Figure 3b and they think of Figure 3a, there will be obvious disagreement.
Also note that since Figure 3a is a nested hierarchy based on descent (relative recency of ancestry) and since you claim descent is not a characteristic (and I agree) then Knox has formed a nested hierarchy without using any characterisitics. This is the set-theoretical argument that I (and others) have been claiming. The set merely needs a hierarchical structure and possess summativity (containment).
I admit that I have not followed, nor understand, the argument you have been making about "transitionals". I'll take a look upthread.
You're welcome. Do you agree to the converse: that if traits have not been lost, or there has not been convergence, then the observability of the nested hierarchy of descent can be preserved?
Comment by Tom MH — February 10, 2010 @ 11:54 am
February 10th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Look at figure 3a, specificially at the oval labeled 4. If we treat node 4 as part of the set represented by the oval, then the transitional is nested with the rest. This is true of all nodes. We call this a clade, the ancestor and all its descendents. The monophyletic relationships are represented in figure 6.
Good question that should help elucidate ID guy's position.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
February 10th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Also note that figure 3b is a rooted tree structure, and if we group the twigs (tips) by branch and limb, they form figure 3a, a nested hierarchy.
In cladograms, by the way, extinct organisms are usually represented as twigs and not as direct transitionals.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
February 11th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Amniota is Cladistics.
You can but I am talking about Linnean classification which is a nested hierarchy through-n-through and you have switched to cladistics.
Only assholes do shit like that.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 8:03 am
February 11th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Except that 3b is the only one based on descent.
That is incorrect. Know was just showing form with both 3a and b.
Where do you put the transitionals which must have had a mix of characteristics?
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 8:09 am
February 11th, 2010 at 8:14 am
We wouldn't be able to if all the alleged transitionals were still alive.
Mammals and reptiles have there own distinct definitions as to what classifies them as reptiles and mammals.
A reptile-like mammal and a mammal-like reptile would not fit into either category.
THey would be outside of the nest. Especially if there are trait reversals- which we observe in the fossil record.
That is because by their very definition they are a mix of characteristics.
A reptile-like mammal and a mammal-like reprtile have a mix of characteristics between a reptile and a mammal.
That is why Darwin said we wouldn't expect such a pattern if all the transitionals were alive.
BTW a nested hierarchy is not a natural arrangement- it is an artificial construct.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 8:14 am
February 11th, 2010 at 8:16 am
And cladograms do not form nested hierarchies all the way through.
Was that supposed to refute what everyione except Zachriel already knows?
Your ignorance is not helping you Zach.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 8:16 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Mammals, reptiles and their common ancestors are sets nested within the superset amniotes.
Ancestral Amniote ---> Modern ReptilesAncestral Amniote ---> Modern Mammals
Modern Reptilesare derived from theAncestral Amniotes, just as areModern Mammals. They share many characteristic of theAncestral Amniotes, but do not (generally) share the derived characteristics.Darwin said quite the opposite. He said rigid Linnaean classification would fail, but that the natural arrangement would remain.
That's exactly what we mean by cladistics with nodes at each branching.
Cladograms are nested hierarchies when grouped by branch. Here's another.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2010 @ 10:20 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:32 am
A nested hierarchy is not a natural arrangement.
It is an artificial construct.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:32 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Mammals and reptiles have there own distinct definitions as to what classifies them as reptiles and mammals.
A reptile-like mammal and a mammal-like reptile would not fit into either category.
THey would be outside of the nest. Especially if there are trait reversals- which we observe in the fossil record.
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 10:33 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Mammals and reptiles are both amniotes, that is, they both have amnions. Hence, they are nested within amniota.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2010 @ 10:46 am
February 11th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Ellipses are artificial constructs. Planets naturally follow elliptical orbits (absent perturbations).
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2010 @ 10:48 am
February 11th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
That is incorrect. Both 3a and 3b are based on descent.
Knox explicity states that descent (well, ancestry) is the basis of Figure 3a (and it's equivalent, Figure 5g):
Clear enough?
Was that a yes or a no? Forget transitionals and just focus on present life. If traits have not been lost, or there has not been convergence, can the observability of the nested hierarchy of descent be preserved?
Comment by Tom MH — February 11, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
February 11th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
[...] [...]
Pingback by Science vs Religion - Some Random Thoughts on Intelligent Design — February 11, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
February 12th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Tom MH,
Neither 3a nor 3b are based on descent.
Both are just diagrams showing form.
If you think I am wrong then by all means present the evidence.
The nested hierarchy is based on characteristics Tom.
A species is so called due to characteristics Tom.
How else do we know if speciatrion has occurred?
Also I am not going to forget the transitionals.
They are very important.
Darwin knew that and that is why he said we wouldn't expect to see what we do if all transitionals were still alive.
If traits could not be lost then we would be stuck on one level- one set- unless traits can also be gained.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:20 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:22 am
A reptile-like mammal and a mammal-like reptile would not fit into either category.
I didn't say anything about mammals and reptiles.
I am concerned with reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles.
Also amniotes are so called based on CHARACTERISTICS.
IOW Zachriel you keep posting stuff that supports my claim.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:22 am
February 12th, 2010 at 8:26 am
I will go over this again.
If Zachriel were correct then the following scenario should be a nested hierarchy:
We start with population A.
Population A gives rise to two popuklations- A1 and A2.
Does population A consist of and contain A1 and A2?
It has to in order for there to be a nested hierarchy based on descent.
So if the answer is no population A does not consist of nor contain A1 and A2 then Zachriel's claim is refuted.
Prediction- Zachriel will change my scenario such that characteristics are used to create the nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 8:26 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:00 am
ID guy wrote:
I was right. You still don't understand that it's clades that form a nested hierarchies. Or you don't understand what a clade is.
Population A is not a clade. By definition, a clade is a group composed of a single ancestor and all its descendants. So {A,A1,A2} is a clade, A1 is a clade, and A2 is a clade. The three clades form a nested hierarchy.
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 9:00 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Well, that clears it up for me.
I see. You are incapable of thinking symbolically, then?
Tom MH: y = mx + b.
ID guy: No, y is just a letter in the alphabet.
And here's the best part:
Why should I present the evidence when you have just presented the evidence (bolded, here) in your very own post?
Comment by Tom MH — February 12, 2010 @ 9:11 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:12 am
olegt wrote
So to prove common descent, we presume common descent.
No wonder I aced biology in school. This stuff is magnificently easy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 12, 2010 @ 9:12 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Yes, imagine that, angryoldfatman!
And did you hear that Einstein's special relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames? What a crock!
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 9:16 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:20 am
We start with population A.
Does population A consist of and contain A1 and A2?
It has to in order for there to be a nested hierarchy based on descent.
So if the answer is no population A does not consist of nor contain A1 and A2 then Zachriel's claim is refuted.
Except what I posted has NOTHING to do with clades.
What I posted is what Zachriel said should be a nested hierarchy.
IOW you have no idea what is being debated and you think you can join in anyway.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:20 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:20 am
I was going to direct ID guy's attention to Figure 8 in Knox's paper, that shows how clades can be nested by forming increasingly inclusive monophyletic groups. But that will depend on his ability or willingness to read Knox's words and understand his diagrams. (This may explain his difficulty with Darwin as well.)
Comment by Tom MH — February 12, 2010 @ 9:20 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Tom all you are doing is out-of-context quote-mining.
Knox already said that ancestral-descendent reltiponships are not nested hierarchies.
Do you see the contradiction?
He even has diagrams showing exactly that.
The population at the starting point does not consist of nor contain its descendents.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:22 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Joe, stop trying to poke holes in the foundations of cladistics. They are unassailable and logic isn't your strongest suit anyway. You'll just hurt yourself and we're already in danger of cracking our ribs from laughter.
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 9:23 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:24 am
trollegt,
Clades are based on shared characteristics and as such support my position.
That you are too stupid to understand that says more about you than me.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:24 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Except a monophyletic groups is so called based on shared characteristics.
Clades are based on shared characteristics.
IOW all you are doing is supporting my position.
So why do you think that supporting my position somehow refutes it?
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:26 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:27 am
AGREED. That is demonstrated in diagram 3b. But the hierarchy in diagram 3a is nested. And it is based on relative recency of ancestry, as his quote indicates. THEREFORE IT IS BASED ON DESCENT.
Are you even bothering to read the paper??
Comment by Tom MH — February 12, 2010 @ 9:27 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:32 am
ID guy wrote:
No, your position is that traits must shared by all species in a clade. Cladistics does not require that, it relies on common traits to establish that species are closely related. Distant relatives may not share some traits but still be in the same clade. Like birds and reptiles.
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 9:32 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Clades are based on shared characteristics and as such support my position.
Nope. But thank you for proving that you are a crackpot- as if I needed more evidence.
The "species" at the tip- the vertex- is the defining species for the clade. All members of the clade must have those defining characteristics.
They do plus they have their own defining characteristics- that is what separates them from the vertex species.
Anything else I can help you with?
THAT is what makes it a nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:39 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Tom,
I read the paper.
Knox agrees with me.
He even has diagrams showing just that.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:40 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Got that Tom? When the org criteria is just ancestor-descendant relationship you get a non-nested hierarchy.
It couldn't be any clearer.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:43 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Clue: Mammal-like reptiles are also amniotes.
That's correct. That's called a scientific hypothesis. You make a tentataive assumption, determine its entailed empirical implications, then test those implications. So if whales descended from land mammals, then there should be intermediate organisms (about 40 million years ago based on the overall pattern of descent). Then you walk out into the desert to look for evidence of whales with hind limbs.
In the case of fish and fishermen, they are both jawed vertebrates.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 9:49 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Except figure 8 isn't based on descent.
It has "all organisms" at the vertex- starting point:
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:51 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Yes and amniotes are so called based on their CHARACTERISTICS.
But that misses the point.
What branch are mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals placed on?
Do you understand that every point on every line in a cladogram is a separate species that also has/ had the potential of branching?
What do you think a cladogram would look like if we included every transitional that ever existed?
It would be a mess.
BTW not all fish have jaws…
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:55 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Here's a very basic cladogram. This is a bit more detailed cladogram that you can click through.
Cladograms include extinct organisms.
That's right. The containing group of jawed vertebrates and jawless fishes is vertebrata.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 10:11 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:19 am
What branch are mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals placed on?
Answer the question Zach.
What do you think a cladogram would look like if we included every transitional that ever existed?
Answer the question Zach.
Cladograms do not include all extinct organisms.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 10:19 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Incorrect- not all fish have jaws.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 10:19 am
February 12th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
You were even provided a basic cladogram. Synapsids (mammal-like reptiles) are the branch of amniotes leading to mammals. The other branch Sauropsids leads to modern reptiles, among other taxa.
By definition, it would have the topology of a tree. If we group by branch and stem, it forms a nested hierarchy, or what Darwin called a "natural arrangement."
The containing group of jawed vertebrates and jawless fishes is vertebrata. So with that clarification, we'll return to your original comment.
Fish and fishermen are contained in vertebrata, while jawed fish and fishermen are contained in gnathostomata.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
February 12th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Zach, perhaps you missed my prior comment but be advised that nested hierarchy exchanges are off-limits in my threads (off-topic) unless they are specifed as the topic of a blog entry which does not look likely any time soon.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
February 12th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Sorry. Read the threads in the 'wrong' order.
Keep in mind that phylogeny, Common Descent, Darwin's Theory, systematics, taxonomy, all depend upon an understanding of the nested hierarchy. Basically that means no more discussion of the Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
February 12th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
That is totally incorrect.
You can search biology textbooks and not find any mention of nested hierarchies.
Also there isn't having any discussion with you- you have lied and you have been caught lying.
Now I have found you have lied about me too:
Zachriel spreading lies about me:
That is not what I said.
You are a lying little punk.
Comment by ID guy — February 12, 2010 @ 9:45 pm