evidence?

The reason that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well is circular, IMO, with multiple false premises interwoven. Unfortunately, cladistics is based on man-made taxonomical classifications, which are basically worthless epistemologically, such as the phyla, classes, orders, and families. Consequently, species and sub-species are, ultimately, the only useful categorical labels of taxonomy, once all of the fluff and hand-waving has been removed. Stratigraphy is a somewhat more reliable discipline, however, uniformitarianism has all but extinguished any remaining validity from that method. Therefore, the whole cycle is reduced into an attempt to prove an assumption, in a circular manner, once again, IMO.

Since when are fossils evidence of evolution?------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Just a point of (parlimentary) procedure here.Phylogenies (in a full scholarly context) may NOT be "independent" of stratigraphy. Cladograms in the same sense however are.The reason I am sensitive to this is that when I was trying to figure out if Creationism (aka, what Numbers presendted in THE CREATIONISTS) is really worth reading more about and looking into when not also doing it) from Price had any truth to it I found that his leaving Canada and struggling in New York City just to get printed some thoughts on geology TO HAVE MERIT. In my Grandfather's attic I found a reprint of a 1930s article which used the phrase "genes for horns" in linking by Calculus stratigraphy and fossil horns on heads of dinos. I have seen reference to these kinds of fossils mentioned in passing in various evolutionary texts. It does not seem out of context that Lewontin pictured Triceretops (not these fossils) in his TRIPLE HELIX. There is not a consensus on how paleontology should view DATA from fossils as is witnessed by the non-creationist statements of SJ GOULD in his 2nd to last book Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I do not dispute the fact. It is not clearly taught what Sewall Wright mennt by correlation and causation even though Will Provine the leading biographer of this biologist knows the difference. There are alternatives to a calculus of lumping in morphospace. Gould found such in snails. Wolfram thinks a node can replace this. The equipollence of any lineage has not been calculated. Cladistics is not suseptible to this criticizm. Panbioegeography IS an alternative. Time divides the categories at issue in correlating stratigraphy and monophyly. Working with polyphyletic classes is not an option post Hennig.Therefore Phylogeny IS NOT independent of stratigraphy unless in the cladistic sense. Baraminology will work if one does not want to do this much research. So the comparison OF "TWO" may not match well. (this is indeed what we find with the field of molecular biology of fungi). It is not even clear what ONE lichen IS let alone what how to account for the genes involved IN ANY DIVISION OF THE DATA.

Well, they're evidence that new species have arisen over time. I'd call that evolution, wouldn't you?

sorry, at least here I can get rid of these duplicates.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-15-2003]

No,
read Louis Agassiz (but be prepared that you will have to ARGUE with SJ GOULD) American Journal of Science and Arts, Second Series 30(1860), pp.142-54 which opens near the beginning with "...Darwin's fundamental idea, on the contrary, is that species, genera, familiers, orders, classes, and any other kind of more or less comprehensive divisions among animals do not exist at all,and are altogether artificial, differing from one another only in degree, all having originated from a successive differentiation of a promordial organic form undergoing sucssessively such changes as would at first produce a variety of species; then genera, as the difference became more extensive and deeper; then families, as the gap widened still farther between groups, until in the end all that diversity was produced which has existed or exists now. Far from agreeing with these views, I have, on the contrary, taken the ground that all the natural divisions in the animal kingdom are primarily distinct, founded upon different categories of charcters, and all that exist in the same way, that is, as categories of thought, embodied in individual living forms..."------
First one back to earth first wins the toys.

Well that's a lot of hand waving. So basically you reject the evidence for evolution out of hand because it contradicts your beliefs.Just to correct the major error in your post cladistics is not based on taxonomy - it is a reformulation of taxonomy.And by the way can you demonstrate a REAL circularity ? You haven't given any reason to think there is one ? Or are you just claimign that there is a circular argument without caring about whether it is the case or not ?

lawdog, First, the circularity, how? For an argument to be circular you have to accept the conclusion in order to accept the premise. Clearly this isn't the case with cladograms matching stratigraphy, they are utterly independent of each other.Secondly, what false premises did you have in mind?It is interesting that you make, yet fail to substantiate these claims in the same post.For the record:Premise: If there's anything to this evolution business, then phylogenies should show a good match with stratigraphy.Premise: Phylogenies/cladograms by definition show common descent.Premise: Using the SCI (& GER) metric, cladograms match stratigraphy extremely well.Conclusion: The fossil record, namely character traits found on fossils strongly support common descent & evolution. No, they are not, in fact, the cladistic classification system does away with all the shoehorning & artificial taxon creation that went on under the Linnean system, making the rest of your post irrelevant. Under the cladistic classification system there is no such thing as "phyla, classes, orders, and families". Clades are named monophyletically at the nodes. What are you talking about? What is the stratigraphic method? Why does uniformitarianism "extinguish it's validity"?I'm sorry, lawdog, but I beg an explanation from you. The FACT is that the null hypothesis has been falsified, there is a signal that begs an explanation, why do cladograms match stratigraphy so well?Am I to endure another creationist attempt at obfuscation?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-16-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-16-2003]

prophecyexclaimed, Since phylogenies based on fossils match stratigraphy.Mark

Brad, But it is. Fossils are collected, ther characters are measured, & a cladogram is derived, this has no bearing on stratigraphy at all. It matches stratigraphy, or it doesn't.There is, to be fair, a method whereby stratigraphy is considered informational, & is used in the construction of the cladogram, but that method isn't used here.Mark

The very definition of cladistics begs the question:a system of biological taxonomy that defines taxa uniquely by shared characteristics not found in ancestral groups and uses inferred evolutionary relationships to arrange taxa in a branching hierarchy such that all members of a given taxon have the same ancestors.Regarding stratigraphy, uniformitarian assumptions are entwined with evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions to reveal one, big, messy assumption. Any contradictory evidence that opposes these assumptions (i.e. fully-formed crustaceans in the Pre-Cambrian, etc.) are either summarily dismissed or force-fitted into those preconceived assumptions. Fancy words may intimidate some, but once the fluff and bluff is removed, the evidence points to design.Lets try to remain on the original topic.

No the deifniton of cladistics does not beg the question. After all it is in principle possible that the evidnece was incompatible with cladistics. And you are still handwaving - and I might add that it is rather foolish of you to accuse others of bluuffing while you are trying to run a bluff yourself.As for your reference to Precambrian Crustaceans - are you complaining that I simply did not roll over and assume that your opinions must be correct ? You did not bother to argue your case. So there was nothing unreasonable in my response - it is your expectation that your unsupported opinion should be unquestioningly accepted that is unreasonable.

lawdog, That's a question?It's also wrong, cladistics is used to infer the evolutionary relationships & branching order at the same time, the evolutionary relationships are not assumed before analysis. Taxa are also not units that are arranged, the clades/taxa themselves are inferred by the analyses.You'll have to educate me as to your point, lawdog, as far as I can see there is no refutation of cladistics here. Words almost fail me! Crustaceans are EXPECTED in the Precambrian, finding them there would be an evolutionary prediction borne out, not a falsification, but out of interest, so as I can slam creationists elsewhere by producing Precambrian arthropoda, please provide a cite showing these Precambrian metazoa. Do you understand what you write? Firstly, I seriously doubt you can support your claim from a primary source that crustacean fossils existed in the Precambrian, & secondly It is utterly amazing that you attempt to turn what would be a palaeontological coup into being evidence against evolution.The design hypothesis is an untestable fantasy. Phylogeny & stratigraphy show a meaningful correlation, how is this evidence of design?The usual dismissive obfuscation, you wonder why creationism never get's taken seriously by science? It requires the critical examination of evidence, not summary dismissals of it. To critically examine evidence, you have to actually understand the theory you're trying to throw out. Hand waving nonsense, uniformatarianism is independent of evolution. Were there no fossils at all in the geological column, uniformatarianism could still be inferred, evolutionary theory is not a premise. If you have direct evidence that better explains the geologic column, then let's have it. It will have to explain paleosols, fossil lakes, fossil forests, burrows, tracks, the pattern of fossil appearances, multiple marine transgressions that are local, not global, fossil coral reefs etc. that are found all the way through the column.Thus far all you have done is made claims of circularity, of false premises, & made not one single demonstration of those claims. More importantly, you have refused twice to explain the clear signal that phylogeny & stratigraphy closely match.Let me put it another way, cladistics & uniformatarian stratigraphy are based upon completely different assumptions, why do they match so closely if evolution is false? I suppose the flood jumbled the fossils up in such a way as to make it look like evolution occurred? There's been 700 studies added to the original 300+ that were subjected to testing, the finger points more strongly than ever to evolution.As PaulK rightly points out. There is no reason that cladistics would actually support evolution, if evolution weren't indicative of reality. This would have been an excellent falsification, or at least would have thrown a major spanner in the works, yet over a thousand cladograms & molecular phylogenies have been tested against stratigraphy, the null hypothesis remains falsified, the evolutionary signal is still there.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-16-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-16-2003]

That's fine for "playing the devil's advoacate" BUTi!COULDNT EVEN PAY TO COLLECT SUCH DATA to see. Can you then tell me what Simpson meant by "kinetic phylogeny" and how this relates to the rise of cladistics AT THE SAME TIME that use of Croizat was boosted and then booed?I gave numerous simple sentences that need documenation one way or the other BEFORE I , Bsm, can say at the present time if even if there was a correlation if it was causal. Information can be transfered by coreelation even if it has not causality either upward or downward. That does not depend on the state parematers being retained in the device that transmitts. we DO NOT know but in the informational sense as you noted if this applies to more than analogy IN BIOLOGY. I do not see the requiste scholarship in you response that I need either to lessen the number of statments I would use or indicate that my understanding is in error. I was not trying to divert the flow in this post only to bring up a clearly missed difference of "phylogeny" and "cladistics" which the post before my first in this series and the subsequent ones AFTer did indicate. Best. Brad.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2003]

Brad,Hypothetical example. You dig fossils up you give those fossils to someone to perform a cladistic analyses without telling them the geological context of those fossils.Can they still perform the analyses without such context, yes or no?I put it to you that the answer is YES, & that therefore cladistic analyses are independent of stratigraphy.If your answer is no, then it is incumbent on you to explain why.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."