Nested Biological Hierarchies

I thought it was actually based on "kinds" originally ...
Palaeos: Page not found The irony is delicious.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray The difference is that the taxonomical structure is predicted by the concept of common descent which is predicted by the theory of change in species over time (evolution).ID on the other hand would predict that good design would be used again - where needed, regardless of what the pregression of the individual designs involved. Good design combines useful elements no matter where they come from.Thus for a really good eye design you would take the retina from an octopus (right side out instead of backwards like humans have) and combine it with both the lens from mammal eyes and the adjustable eye\retina distance mechanism that octopuses use for focus (they have a fixed lens) and end up with an eye with telescopic\microscopic ability: better than either design on their own.This is what ID predicts for the development of features, and not the evolution of features constrained to a taxonomic tree, where features can only come from the branches below the organism as they evolve, or 'bud-off' from the tree into a new branch.According to evolution, humans can never get a retina turned right-side-out without first entirely losing the current vision system, but according to ID (or to god-did-it) there is no such restraint on updating the design.So ID does not predict taxonomy and in fact predicts a criss-crossing of taxonometric structures instead of taxonomy. You are either talking about intelligent design OR creationism: these concepts are not compatable.The fact that you can conceive of a way for ID to explain taxonomy and be consistent with creationism means that you are taking ID and changing it to suit preconceptions, rather than exploring where the concepts take you -- that is not science.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : corrected sentence

We can keep it on topic by talking about the nested hierarchies of the different eye mechanisms, and how they match the common descent pattern of the taxonomies derived from other characteristics. In no cases does a retina flip from one side to the other along a branch of evolution.We can also keep it on topic by noting that there is no reason for a design process to show a nested hierarchy (unless it is derivative "bad" design -- good design doesn't), because good design takes features that work and combines them to make better designs.According to good design procedures the taxonomic tree should be inverted as designs are refined and selected to end up at a final "good" design. There are several examples of this in objects that we know are designed (because they were designed by humans). This works no matter which way the retina faces, so it is not an argument that backwards is better, or even that it is "good" - just that it works (wow). One would expect any evolved eye to work or it would not be selected for, thus how the eye works is not an argument that the design of the eye is as functional as it could be if it were designed.Notice that in evolution there is no "good" or "bad" there is only {more\less\dis} "functional" features, but once we introduce the concept of design - an intentional arrangement of the features - now we do have a basis to evaluate whether the design is "good" or "bad" by how well it fills the design requirements: either the eye is well designed or it isn't. Which is completely and utterly negated as a concept by the fact that there are retinas facing outwards that don't need to have transparent linkages or any other adjustments to make the eye work. As there are retinas facing different ways in different organisms, and one way causes less interference with vision you can make the design argument that it is bad design.You must like playing catch by standing with your back to the other person and then grabbing at the balls that just miss your head. Wear a padded helmet eh?It doesn't matter that the system works -- that is not surprising given evolution's ability to refine features through mutation and selection, and the eye design we have has been around for a long time -- what matters is how well the system is designed.As it sits right now there are better designs readily available -- if there is a designer then they have the patents and can apply them at will eh? Especially for people with only one eye, or for those "survival moments" where some object is only seen in one eye. When you only look with one eye the mind "invents" what the blind spot covers.This "argument" of yours is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, basically arguing that it is a "good" design because it is what it is, and that it isn't a total failure as a design because it gets by. Not much to go on.Conversely I can look at the design and see several ways to improve it using "current technology" employed in other organisms. I don't need to justify a blind spot -- it just isn't necessary, and if it isn't necessary then there is no good design reason for it being there.If you want to discuss it further you can try {Silly Design Institute}{Investigator: Eye's Silly Design}
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... -->EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... ROFLOL. Don't trip over your apologizing for bad design there. Yep, better to not update that design or they'll know the designer was incompetent. Thank you for absolutely making my point -- if it were a good design you wouldn't NEED to justify it like that. It is never too soon to stop going down the wrong road, and it is never to soon to stop using a bad design. Any design that needs "after market" fixes IS A BAD DESIGN.Creationism gets a "bye" on bad design because they can claim all has been "corrupted" since the "fall" as an explanation. ID does NOT get a "bye" because it claims that design can be determined from the evidence we see.Evolution -- the eye is what was available, evolved and adapted as necessary, it has a lineage that matches the nested hierarchy of other features and elements of the organisms.Design -- the eye is slap-dash, assembled in haste, with corrective measures taken to "fix" errors that then cause other problems that need more fixes, and the designer is ignorant of other systems that handle the same process more efficiently AND that there are systems that could be combined to make an even better eye than any existing in any organism today.If the eye were a good design it would NOT show the nested hierarchy of other features. LOL. It amuses me whenever creationists try to show that it is compatible by claiming that what it really is amounts to creationism in disguise. ID is either {religion} or it is {philosophy devoid of religion}. The whole political argument is that it is the latter, every person who professes it confirms that it is the former.Once again you are mistaking SOME places where creationism and "intelligent" design don't actively cross swords as being evidence that it is compatible.This is the logical fallacy of "some {A} is {C} and some {B} is {C} therefore {A} = {B}"This is contradicted by "some {A} is {D} and no {B} is {D}" -- and vice versa.The question is not whether ID concepts can "allow" creationism, but whether it allows anything that is NOT creationism: it does. ID concepts allow anything from evolved aliens to a Deist unconcerned god to a Hindu pantheon, and none of these are creationism, and none of these are even remotely (to say nothing of) "entirely compatible" with creationism.The question is not whether creationism can "allow" ID concepts, but whether it allows things that are NOT compatible with ID concepts: it does. Creationism explains bad design by corruption, sin, fall, etcetera, and in creationism humans need to be the highest creation. There is no room in looking for evidence of design for finding elements of bad design. You ran into this very problem when you needed to make excuses for how bad the design of the human eye was, especially when (according to creationism) humans are the pinnacle of creation and should have the best of everything. Explain the bad design of the eye to me again?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is the crux of the matter, for otherwise anyone could make their own nested pattern and call it valid.The issue is not just patterns of inclusion -- all organisms in {Group A} have {Set A} characteristics, and all organisms in {Group B} have {Group B} characteristics -- but one of exclusion as well, there are characteristics that are unique to certain groups.As an example, take a box of 2^{^10} index cards, and 67 different color markers. This is generation 0 (generation 0 has one group -- all the cards). Take one color marker and make a spot on each card.Divide the cards in half (2^{^9} in each group), and using a different color marker for each group make a spot on each card in the group. This is generation 1 (generation 1 has 2 groups, each card has 2 colors marked on it and there are a total of 3 colors used so far).Take one group from generation 1 and divide it in half (2^{^8} in each group), and using different color markers for each subgroup make a spot on each card in the group. This is half of generation 2 ...Take the other group from generaton 1 and divide it in half (2^{^8} in each group), and using two more different color markers for each subgroup make a spot on each card in the group. This is the other half of generation 2 (generation 2 has 2^{^2}=4 groups of 2^{^8}=256 cards in each group, each card has 3 colors marked on it and there are a total of 7 colors used so far)Keep dividing and marking in a similar pattern - each group from one generation gets its own distinctive color spot:Generation 3 has 2^{^3}=8 groups of 2^{^7}=128 cards in each group, each card has 4 colors marked on it and there are a total of 11 colors used so farGeneration 4 has 2^{^4}=16 groups of 2^{^6}=64 cards in each group, each card has 5 colors marked on it and there are a total of 16 colors used so farGeneration 5 has 2^{^5}=32 groups of 2^{^5}=32 cards in each group, each card has 6 colors marked on it and there are a total of 22 colors used so farGeneration 6 has 2^{^6}=64 groups of 2^{^4}=16 cards in each group, each card has 7 colors marked on it and there are a total of 29 colors used so farGeneration 7 has 2^{^7}=128 groups of 2^{^3}=8 cards in each group, each card has 8 colors marked on it and there are a total of 37 colors used so farGeneration 8 has 2^{^8}=256 groups of 2^{^2}=4 cards in each group, each card has 9 colors marked on it and there are a total of 46 colors used so farGeneration 9 has 2^{^9}=512 groups of 2^{^1}=2 cards in each group, each card has 10 colors marked on it and there are a total of 56 colors used so farGeneration 10 has 2^{^10}=1024 groups of 2^{^0}=1 card in each group, each card has 11 colors marked on it and there are a total of 67 colors used.No matter HOW you sort the cards by color of the spots you will eventually sort them into the nested hierarchy that created them -- there are no matches of colors specific to one subgeneration with those of another different subgeneration, the only matches across subgroups are with their parent generation marks.This may seem fairly tame, but now add another wrinkle -- each time you mark a spot in a subgroup you always mark it in the same spot on each card.Now you can also sort the cards by where the spots are located. Result -- the same nested hierarchy.Then you add yet another wrinkle -- each 'spot' you make is unique to the supgroup you are marking (say a unique number or a letter is used for each subgroup).Now you can also sort the cards by the kind of spot on the card. Result -- the same nested hierarchy.color
location
kindALL give the same nested hierarchy, there are no false matches between them.You could have successive sorting done by different people without instructing what to use for sorting and eventually they would end up with the generating nested hierarchy.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks, but it's more logic than math (that's just those funny number^s).The next question (posed by ned thanks) is whether it represents actual biological patterns and processes.In basic biological genetics at it's simplest level, we know that we inherit features from our parents. I can look at a portrait of one of my great-great grandfathers -- and he has the same hair patterns, nose, chin, eye color, etc that I do.But that's only on the surface. The deeper level is at the molecular DNA level - the preservation of mutations in each family lineage ... replace that card with a 6 foot long string (about as long as your DNA strand is when stretched out btw), where you put the spot of the same color at the same location along the lengths of the string. We've all seen the pictures of DNA evidence that show dark bars on strips -- these are the locations of spots along the string for each individual, and they show different degrees of similarity depending on the relationships between the individuals. It can be used for paternity determination as well as criminal evidence because of the patterns of spots on the string being unique to the generation of the spots.Nested Hierarchy patterns should be expected at even this fundamental level, because you inherit the basic package from parents who inherit their basic package from parents, etc.... But there is a problem here -- mixing of genetic material from two sources, essentially cross-branching two lines together. Individuals within a species population are always mixing it back up to some extent: I am also related to the same individual on the Mayflower from both my mothers and my fathers side of the family -- those branches have come back together.This is the major difference between individuals within a species and the cards -- that genes are mixed between parents in the offspring generations. There is "cross-branching within every species by this mechanism, and this tends to average the diversity of the populations even with high levels of mutations introducing new patterns. Breeding within population groups blends the mutations across the population.Where the card patterns come into play in biological evolution is when speciation separation occurs -- two species (populations with diverse mutations common to many but not all members) diverge from a common ancestor. Once this separation occurs there is no mechanism for the cross-branching blending to occur, no way to bring new mutations in population {A}{1} across the breeding barrier to population {A}{2} -- the cards have been separated into two groups and each group gets its own special marks.Many of these special marks will be inconsequential (neutral mutations) to the species as it continues to change over time (evolve) but they will only be within that population at those places specific to each population.There is no selection on neutral mutations (by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be neutral eh?), but they are still carried, and the markers they leave are in the same location, they have the same "color" and they have a unique form of mutation, inherited from the ancestor that first had it. So in addition to specific mutations that occur as a species adapts to its environment through mutation and selection of beneficial vs deleterious mutations, there will also be many mutations with no selection but which become part of the species mutations pattern, their genome.The strings of colored letters that each species carries as their basic genome (that collection of DNA that represents the species) - taking into account the bath of variations (alleles) around the common theme - is how the nested hierarchies are determined from the genetics.The expression of those colored letter strings into recognizable features within and between species - things as small as the number and kinds of teeth, or ribs, or vertebrae or the numbers of toes on a foot (even or odd), the way the bones articulate, etc. - is how those nested hierarchies are determined from 'traditional' biology taxonomy.You could say one system is sorted by location on the string, the other by the 'color' of the expression of certain genes.Evolution, or rather the theory of common ancestry part of evolution, predicts that both systems will result in the same nested hierarcy.For ID though, there is no barrier to they type of cross-branching of mutations between individuals that you see within a species -- occurring between species, because the agent of change is not the mutation, or the organisms reproduction, or the species survival, but an intelligent interloper that either (a) interferes with the evolution pattern or (b) does no useful work worthy of scientific study in this field (so we may as well study evolution anyway).So, each species division is a cut of the cards, the children inherit the colored spots of their ancestors, but each child species gets new spots of their own colors -- and not just one but hundreds. A child of {A}{1}{a} cannot have the same spots of {A}{1}{b} that are not shared by all {A}{1} children and vice versa.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.