Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 2:19 PM
294 online now:
Dr Adequate, halibut, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 288 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,619 Year: 27,225/21,208 Month: 1,138/1,714 Week: 346/525 Day: 21/67 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 46 of 103 (822265)
10-21-2017 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dredge
10-21-2017 8:42 PM


I see they are as knowledgeable as you about evolution. All those examples are issues only if you ignore real evolution theory.

Pick one and defend it.

You won't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:42 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29604
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 47 of 103 (822266)
10-21-2017 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dredge
10-21-2017 9:30 PM


basic. learn the basics.
Dredge writes:

"Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve.

No, only the truly ignorant or dishonest might "know that" but the rest of us understand that has not been true for millions, maybe billions of years and all the evidence shows that things do not always get better. In fact, almost all life forms have failed and no longer even exist instead of continuing to get better.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 9:30 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 48 of 103 (822267)
10-21-2017 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dredge
10-21-2017 8:51 PM


Yes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:51 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:43 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 49 of 103 (822268)
10-21-2017 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dredge
10-21-2017 9:30 PM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
Yeah, if you define "everyone" as "the abysmally ignorant". Anyone with a clue doesn't "know" that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 9:30 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2017 3:43 AM JonF has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 103 (822278)
10-22-2017 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by JonF
10-21-2017 9:57 PM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
Here's the article.

Onward and Upward?

It's actually quite sensible and the only thing it disagrees with is the old naive assumption that evolution automatically leads to increased complexity at every step. It does not, however, give any reason to think that evolution cannot produce increased complexity - quite the opposite. The discussion of ammonites is a case in point.

Of course Dredge has probably never read it.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 10-21-2017 9:57 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by JonF, posted 10-22-2017 9:28 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 51 of 103 (822290)
10-22-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
10-22-2017 3:43 AM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
Yeah, but Discover is a pretty good magazine written for those who are ignorant of the subject.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2017 3:43 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 10-23-2017 3:13 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 632
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 52 of 103 (822316)
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.

And as Gould said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Notice how Gould says "however reasonable" - how quaint. Beware of what a Darwinist considers to be "reasonable"! The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - "reasonable" junk science, in other words.

The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. Darwinists justify this farce by adopting the a priori position that all life is related, therefore every creature must somehow fit into the "bush of life".

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Pressie, posted 10-23-2017 12:30 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 55 by JonF, posted 10-23-2017 6:49 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2017 8:30 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 11:51 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-23-2017 12:24 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1824
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 103 (822320)
10-23-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


Someone mentioned Gould
I love it when creationists quote-mine Gould. My bold in the next Gould quote-mine.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Hey, Dredge, have you discovered those organisms not falling into a nested hierachy you were telling us about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by JonF, posted 10-23-2017 6:56 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 54 of 103 (822321)
10-23-2017 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by JonF
10-22-2017 9:28 AM


Re: Dredge: yes? Nested Hierarchies = kinds = clades
This gets us into the whole issue of science popularization, especially since creationists love to quote-mine out of that genre.

The text below is from Wikipedia's article, Popular science:

quote:
Popular science (also pop-science or popsci) is interpretation of science intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalists or by scientists themselves. It is presented in many forms, including books, film and television documentaries, magazine articles, and web pages.

Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse. The goal of the genre is often to capture the methods and accuracy of science, while making the language more accessible. ...

The purpose of scientific literature is to inform and persuade peers as to the validity of observations and conclusions and the forensic efficacy of methods. Popular science attempts to inform and convince scientific outsiders (sometimes along with scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results. Statements in scientific literature are often qualified and tentative, emphasizing that new observations and results are consistent with and similar to established knowledge wherein qualified scientists are assumed to recognize the relevance. By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports, derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveal at least some level of distortion and oversimplification which can often be quite dramatic, even with politically neutral scientific topics.

Popular science literature can be written by non-scientists who may have a limited understanding of the subject they are interpreting and it can be difficult for non-experts to identify misleading popular science, which may also blur the boundaries between formal science and pseudoscience. However, sometimes non-scientists with a fair scientific background make better popular science writers because of their ability to put themselves in the layperson's place more easily.

Some usual features of popular science productions include:


  • Entertainment value or personal relevance to the audience
  • Emphasis on uniqueness and radicalness
  • Exploring ideas overlooked by specialists or falling outside of established disciplines
  • Generalized, simplified science concepts
  • Presented for an audience with little or no science background, hence explaining general concepts more thoroughly
  • Synthesis of new ideas that cross multiple fields and offer new applications in other academic specialties
  • Use of metaphors and analogies to explain difficult or abstract scientific concepts



o the forms of popular science, I would like to add museums and, unfortunately, primary- and secondary-grade textbooks. The reconstruction that Porky was denouncing in Message 1 was undoubtedly intended for a museum display (or perhaps for a TV production), as several participants pointed out to him and which he doesn't seem to have ever acknowledged.

So while the tone of the scientific literature is appropriately tentative, both explicitly and implicitly, the tone of a science popularization can appear more certain and more final. In a presentation he gave in 1983, Fred Edwords cited that as one of the problems with science education, that it tends to present the material as "here are the conclusions of science, take them or leave them" when instead it should present the reasons for those conclusions and demonstrate why they are valid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by JonF, posted 10-22-2017 9:28 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 55 of 103 (822324)
10-23-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.

Sorry,no. A nested hierarchy is a specific type of arrangement of elements of sets and is a concept invented by mathematicians. Very few sets can be arranged in a nested hierarchy. As evinced by the many failed attempts by creationists to arrange vehicles and whatnot into a nested hierarchy.

The fact that life can be arranged in a nested hierarchy is an observation. It's data. It's so unusual in the universe of all sets that it demands explanation.

We have one.

You don't (other than magic).

And as Gould said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

A quote-mine from a non-technical essay aimed at people unfamiliar with the subject. The Quote Mine Project, item 3.2.

If you want to discuss the inferences and demonstrate they are not valid, go ahead. But you'll have to do a lot of studying first.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:38 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 56 of 103 (822325)
10-23-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Pressie
10-23-2017 12:30 AM


Re: Someone mentioned Gould
He tried, and failed.

quote:
"Do all life forms fall into a nested hierarchy?" at evolutionnews.org

By Casey Luskin, a lawyer famed for his ignorance of biology. For example:

quote:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is widely touted as a human ancestor that lived about 6-7 million years ago, sometime very soon after the supposed split between the human line and the chimp line. But it’s rarely mentioned that this specimen doesn’t fit into the standard hominin tree at all. Why? Because it has a flat face, a humanlike quality, which shouldn’t exist that far back:

quote:
If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans.”

(Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, 418 (July 11, 2002):133-35.)


Because of this, some are skeptical that S. tchadensis belongs on the human line. If that’s the case then its flat face represents convergent evolution. And if it is on the human line, then you are forced to propose that later species on the human line lost this trait. Either way, S. tchadensis creates major problems for a nice, neat, nested hierarchy of hominins that is consistent with the chronology of the fossil record.


Of course there's no reason to believe that a flat face couldn't have evolved independently in a species that later died out. No problem at all.

ABE: Of course no biologist or knowledgeable person calims that any hominid fossil is a direct ancestor of us.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Pressie, posted 10-23-2017 12:30 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 57 of 103 (822328)
10-23-2017 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


recanting?
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.

So now you are recanting on your claim that "Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies" ... interesting. In Message 1 you said:

Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds". Creationist Literalists are often critiqued for not being able to define what "kinds" are. I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies".

If "kinds" don't fall into nested hierarchies, then that would be evidence to me that they never existed ... because life does fall into nested hierarchies. It is one of the pieces of evidence we have for macroevolution.

In Message 3 you asked: "God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy?" ... presumably you agreed with the simplified nested hierarchy of primates I listed in Message 7 (with over 300 species of primates included), seeing as you haven't replied.

Then you attempted to clarify your position in Message 31 by saying:

I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. That is not the point of the Scripture, which is this: If God initially created simple life forms that later evolved into all the life we see on earth today, there would be no point in him saying creatures were created "according to their kinds", because the original "kinds" were destined to evolve into oblivion.

That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds.

To which I replied in Message 32 with an example of smooth transition in the fossil record and asked "Does that not look like a species reproducing "according to their kinds" from generation to generation?" ... and you haven't answered that, yet, but now appear to give up your argument, saying

On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.

Interesting ... basically an admission of failure for your original thesis

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 58 of 103 (822343)
10-23-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


Dredge writes:

On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.

The nested hierarchies were first described by Linnaeus, hundreds of years before Darwin.

Also, phylogenies are objective observations of nature:

quote:
The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
http://www.talkorigins.org/...section1.html#nested_hierarchy

The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - "reasonable" junk science, in other words.

As shown above, phylogenies are rigorously tested and objective. They aren't baseless assumptions or speculation.

The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus.

How does a platypus not fit into a nested hierarchy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 11-15-2017 9:01 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 59 of 103 (822347)
10-23-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dredge
10-22-2017 7:32 PM


The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. Darwinists justify this farce by adopting the a priori position that all life is related, therefore every creature must somehow fit into the "bush of life".

Um, you do know how babies are made, right?

Life comes from life. It has to be related.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 7:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 60 of 103 (822379)
10-23-2017 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
09-28-2017 5:17 AM


Genesis
Hi Dredge,

You sure dredged one up here. pun intended.

Dredge writes:

Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds".

Lets get the facts straight.
In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth.
In Genesis 1:21 God created the sea monster. (Prepared for Jonah).
In Genesis 1:27 God created mankind, male and female.

There are no other creation events in Genesis.

The creatures you are referring too was called forth after their kind. Which had already existed, as they were formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis chapter 2 and had perished prior to Genesis 1:2.

I could be wrong but I don't think anyone will claim that a new kind has began to exist in the last 6,000 years that was not engineered by humans.

To not derail this topic if you wish to discuss what Genesis states about creation I would be glad to oblige you and participate in such a thread. All you would have to do is start one and notify me of its existence.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 09-28-2017 5:17 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017