nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

something like this: Choanoflagellate - Wikipediaearly sponges are somewhat like colonies of these things. in other words, the common ancestor of all animals is a single-celled organism. animals came about based on ways of grouping and specializing those cells. no offense, but that's just kinda silly if you understand what common descent is. you're getting confused by the fancy names for various levels of clades. but one split is the same the next. you might as well be asking why you have no new grandfathers. similarly, two generations ago, your two grandfathers existed. but the "grandfather" energy must have run out, because that stage did not repeat. it's just that silly. "phylum" is an arbitrary stage in the hereditary grouping of the tree of life. just like "grandfather." why, if you have kids, your father is a "grandfather" and those kids have kids, you're a "grandfather." it's all arbitrary what we're calling what stage. ok, look. once again, we're talking about basically 30 some odd kinds of worms, some colonial corals and sponges, and whatever the hell you wanna call bryozoa.you're honestly calling the different between flatworms and roundworms more significant than the difference between mice and men? or for that matter, men and roundworms? i guess that's a judgement call there, but it's a strange one. i would easily say that life is far more diverse today than it was the cambrian. it's a snowball process -- change compounds. more speciation and more genetic divergence means more variety. period. i don't know why creationists have such problems with these relatively basic ideas of common sense. when you've shown a reasonable grasp of what the "darwinian evo model" is, please feel free to come back and make comments on it. but when you keep making comments about how evolution has run out of steam because common descent states that we will see nested heirarchies as opposed to continually occurring random offshoots and a cladographic mess, well.

---

randman, For the FIFTH time:An organism belonging to a phylum exists within a monophyletic clade. All of it's descendents must therefore belong to that phylum & that phylum alone. It is an artifact of the classification system not the mode & tempo of evolution that limits new clades of high taxonomic rank.The other four times are referenced here.In your own language: Did you get that?
Got that?
You think you have that point clear now?
So you think you got it this time?
Please acknowledge that you understand the above, or not. Having mutiple direct answers to your original point ignored is tedious & rude. What is the point of being here if you are just going to ignore answers to your questions.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Right. History doesn't repeat itself. You cannot get the Roman Empire twice round, but you can get something a bit similar, like the British Empire. The circumstances have changed.In biology, you can have a Cambrian explosion, and at a later date, for example, an explosion of mammals after the K-T extinction event. They are very different events because they involve different creatures in different epochs in different environments. The circumstances have changed.We don't describe new life forms as new phyla because the word "phyla" is reserved for ancient identifiable groups from which all modern animals descend. So even though there can be more variable body plans within one phylum than there was between the 33 original species that branched out into these phyla, they are not called "new phyla" because of the nature of our classification system.So, if you want to see new phyla, you need to build a time machine and go back about 500 million years and do some genetic modification, by definition.The title you gave to this thread was "nested hierarchies as evidence against Darwinian evolution". Considering that Darwin predicted nested hierarchies, which you probably know, and that he also predicted that evolution would happen by long periods of relative stasis and shorter periods of relatively fast change, which you may not have known, you haven't presented any evidence for a claim that would probably make most biologists laugh.Oh,and: Is it a "big IF" because you've identified organisms that do not have the DNA/RNA base, which would indicate more than one genesis of life on earth?As you seem to be some kind of I.D. advocate, I hope you realise that there's absolutely no reason for intelligent designers to restrict themselves to using that base for all life.

I think we might be breaking an EvC record for the most people giving the same effective answer in the most different ways. I'm beginning to see it as an artistic exercise.

It's an article at the Discovery Institute website. It is not a published technical paper in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. It's merely a very detailed rhetorical argument constructed around existing data and represents no research whatsoever. At best it might be considered an unreviewed survey paper.The only way for ID to become an accepted scientific theory is by the same route that all other accepted scientific theories became accepted. Scientific theories become accepted through an intense process of experiment, observation, analysis, publication, replication and validation of predictions that eventually results in a consensus among the relevant subcommunity of scientists.Merely posting articles at websites does almost nothing to achieve this goal. Creating ID journals and conferences also does nothing to achieve this goal. Isolating themselves from the larger scientific community makes it impossible to convince this community of their views. Since the only science that will be taught in science classrooms is that around which a consensus has formed in the scientific community, this isolation makes it impossible for ID to achieve its goals.--Percy

To be accurate, your misrepresentation of the facts should now read:"Why have no new animal phyla emerged in over 300 million years." Nope. Sorry. If a period of 400 million years passed between the appearance of the first 6 phyla and the appearance of the next 8 phyla, and we are only 300 million years out from the appearance of the last phyla, then we could very well be 100 million years away from the appearance of the next set of phyla.

Ah. You were wrong. So now you change the subject. Plus a change, plus c’est la mme chose. Unlike everyone else who has responded to this post, I am going to stop you right here.Please provide EVIDENCE of evo-energy.Not some "professor" scribbling incoherent missives on an ID site.
Not an argument from incredulity.
Not what YOU "think".Evidence. From a reputable website or from the scientific literature.

Thanks for referencing this paper. You asked me earlier for a paper that references the hypotheses regarding no new phyla appearing. This paper does that very thing.You can convert your links into a readable using standard html or dBCodes (the url code). See here for details.

Huh.While it is entertaining to watch an argument be picked apart mercilessly by people who know what they are talking about, I am disappointed.I was really hoping for a "Whatever." of my own when Rand finally understood that phyla emerged right up until the Carboniferous.

Hey Mod.Books.google has several books available re: "Why no new phyla?"I used the search terms:Phyla
Body plan
OriginAnd I found:On the Origin of Phyla
The Origin of Animal Body Plans
Origin and Early Evolution of the MetazoaJust to name a few.They're chock full of cites.

I think if they really made an effort in this direction it might achieve something. A proper peer reviewed journal of ID would at least give people a clear idea of what constitutes the scientific research relating to ID. I think that the problem is that there just isn't enough ID research to support a journal.ISCID's half hearted attempt Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) didn't last more than three years and is overwhelmingly full of review articles and opinion pieces with only a handful that might be considered novel research. This still held even after they relaxed their peer review process.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Changed title for relevancy

I think it would be a good idea if someone in favor of evolution can post or give a link to some material that summarizes in about a page or few pages the basic groupings that have evolved from the beginning to the present.
So we start with a one celled organism -- at some time this diverged to something etc.
I am specially interested in the Cambrian era during which all phyla appeared (is this true or not?) .

and we're still really only talking about animals. when did the plant and fungi phyla emerge? not to mention protista and monera (eubacteria and archaebacteria)?

---

Ok, didn't pay that close attention and thought it was published.

No, I haven't been wrong. You have showed us absolutelu nothing to back up your contentions except a vague quote with no specifics that apear to be some sort of reordering the concept of phyla. You and Lith made false factual claims about phyla, which I showed were present in the Cambria, suppossedly not appearing to much later.You are just factually wrong and refuse to retract that.Moreover, you and Lith have ignored the fact that evos, based on molecular analysis, have placed nearly all (but one) phyla, even those that have never fossilized, back to the Cambria or prior. You erroneously and steadfastly misrepresent my claims arguing that if something appears pre-Cambria, which not a lot does by the way, that somehow this negates my argument when it does not.Both you and Lith owe me and the Board an apology.Please admit you were wrong. If you insist otherwise, please cite the phyla you claim appeared later (minus the one exception I mentioned that is at least as old as 470 million years and so my argument still hold).Be specific please. Note: I already shredded Lith's claims.