Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 12:43 PM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,177 Year: 5,214/19,786 Month: 1,336/873 Week: 232/460 Day: 48/29 Hour: 20/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Twin-Nested Heirarchy
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 46 of 49 (431242)
10-30-2007 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Doddy
10-29-2007 8:04 PM


Because I'm going to draw a completely arbitrary line in the sand where you implicate that evolution between kinds can occur, therefore showing a relationship between humans and chimps. Or, because I'll adhere to the bronze age belief that the world is only 6000 years old, and that no amount of evolution could do such things.

Oh, it was just a leg-pull.

I'd like to thank crashfrog, Mr A, bluegenes and mark24 for making some great posts in this thread. You've been very helpful for me in writing the EvoWiki page on Nested Hierarchy.

Dr A.

If you wanted help, you could just have asked for it, you know?

Molecular Phylogeny


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Doddy, posted 10-29-2007 8:04 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Doddy, posted 10-30-2007 5:32 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4019 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 47 of 49 (431247)
10-30-2007 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
10-30-2007 4:12 AM


Dr A writes:

Dr A.


Whoops. That's what I get for writing so early in the morning. I've confused your name with that of a moderator at the EvoWiki, who shortens his name (Apokryltaros) to Mr A.

I also forgot to thank Rrhain (although, Rrhain, I noticed you did give me the 'eye is designed backwards' line. If you're an expert on eyes now, perhaps you could respond to my other thread: Pigmentation of the Retinal Glial Cells :p)

Dr A writes:

If you wanted help, you could just have asked for it, you know?

Ok. I would like some help with this. There are two main points I want to address, and tried to do so here:

1. Firstly, creationists will always deny that junk DNA is in fact junk. They will say that just because we have no idea what it does, that doesn't mean it does nothing. I can't address this in the article, so is there another way that I can 'uncouple' biochemistry from anatomy, or otherwise validate this method?

2. The 'assumption' of common descent, rather than common design. Creationists seem to think that designed objects, like cars, can be categorised in a nesting manner too. So they don't see nesting as evidence of anything. I've currently got this:

quote:
Whether a car has air-conditioning is completely independent of whether it has power-steering, for example. Life, however, shows a clear nested hierarchy, at least with regards to multicellular organisms.

By the way, I do like that page. I especially like the cladograms contrasting cladogenesis and orthogenesis. Do you have the copyright info for those pictures? I'd like to see if I can use them too at the EvoWiki.

Do you think contributing to two wikis would be too much for you? EvoWiki could always do with more contributors. Otherwise, I'd just ask you to link to some of our pages in your external links sections. For example, we have a very (very!) comprehensive article on Archaeopteryx. In fact, it's bordering on unreadable, being authored by a paleornithology student. I'll certainly be linking to the SkepticWiki in future!

Edited by Doddy, : url

Edited by Doddy, : clarify


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2007 4:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2007 9:15 PM Doddy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 48 of 49 (431396)
10-30-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Doddy
10-30-2007 5:32 AM


1. Firstly, creationists will always deny that junk DNA is in fact junk. They will say that just because we have no idea what it does, that doesn't mean it does nothing. I can't address this in the article, so is there another way that I can 'uncouple' biochemistry from anatomy, or otherwise validate this method?

Well, in the first place most non-coding DNA is not conserved.

In the second place, I believe I'm right in saying that people have made experimental organisms where they've snipped out large chunks of nonconserved noncoding DNA, with the organisms being none the worse for it.

2. The 'assumption' of common descent, rather than common design. Creationists seem to think that designed objects, like cars, can be categorised in a nesting manner too. So they don't see nesting as evidence of anything. I've currently got this:

Well, your answer looks good to me. I don't think I can add much to that except the words: "Oh no they don't", or perhaps: "Bollocks".

By the way, I do like that page. I especially like the cladograms contrasting cladogenesis and orthogenesis. Do you have the copyright info for those pictures?

I believe that this exquisite example of the illustrator's craft was composed by one of the more talented of the new generation of artists, a young man who calls himself "Dr Adequate", using a highly sophisticated piece of software that those of us "in the know" refer to simply as "Microsoft Paint".

Do you think contributing to two wikis would be too much for you? EvoWiki could always do with more contributors. Otherwise, I'd just ask you to link to some of our pages in your external links sections. For example, we have a very (very!) comprehensive article on Archaeopteryx. In fact, it's bordering on unreadable, being authored by a paleornithology student. I'll certainly be linking to the SkepticWiki in future!

Well, the SkepticWiki, like other wikis, is non-profit, non-copyright, take anything you like from it. That way, if I write an article on evolution, I can contribute to two wikis for the effort of contributing to one.

However, I do think, strange that it may seem, that we ought to duplicate our efforts. When I'm writing an article like that, I look at talkorigins and the EvoWiki last, to see if there's anything I've missed. It's good that people come at it from different perspectives and different angles, using different examples and references.

I see what you mean about the Archaeopteryx article. Here's mine.

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

---

P.S: Not only is the phrase "twin-nested heirarchy" not an actual term in biology, but even if it was, it would be spelt "hierarchy".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Doddy, posted 10-30-2007 5:32 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Doddy, posted 10-31-2007 12:43 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4019 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 49 of 49 (431422)
10-31-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
10-30-2007 9:15 PM


Dr A writes:

I believe that this exquisite example of the illustrator's craft was composed by one of the more talented of the new generation of artists, a young man who calls himself "Dr Adequate", using a highly sophisticated piece of software that those of us "in the know" refer to simply as "Microsoft Paint".


So, you've released them into the public domain?

Dr A writes:

Well, the SkepticWiki, like other wikis, is non-profit, non-copyright, take anything you like from it. That way, if I write an article on evolution, I can contribute to two wikis for the effort of contributing to one.


Yes, but the problem at the moment is that EvoWiki is licensed under Creative Commons and most other wikis are licensed under GNU FDL. Both of those licenses require any content used to remain under that license (a 'share-alike' cause). However, what this does is prevent us at the EvoWiki from being able to use things from Wikipedia.

Do you perchance know what SkepticWiki is using for its license, if any?

Dr A writes:

When I'm writing an article like that, I look at talkorigins and the EvoWiki last, to see if there's anything I've missed. It's good that people come at it from different perspectives and different angles, using different examples and references.

This is true, but sometimes there is a limiting factor called time. I like to look at CreationWiki or AiG after writing my articles, to see if there is anything to add.

Dr A writes:

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.


I know. Where did you get those pictures? I might steal them, if I can.


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2007 9:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019