Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 616 of 871 (692250)
03-01-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 614 by Admin
03-01-2013 11:31 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Are you saying that this thread is for ONLY people who intend to agree with and support whatever the OP states, more or less an opportunity for propaganda from just one side to all talk together?
If that is the case, then I with draw from the one sided nonsense.
Please tell me when you deem this condition to be be in force elsewhere so I don't get suspended for joining in with these rule breakeres here.
Thank you in advance Mr Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Admin, posted 03-01-2013 11:31 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Admin, posted 03-02-2013 7:14 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 617 of 871 (692251)
03-01-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
03-01-2013 11:53 AM


Re: Evidence again
Mindspawn, you keep claiming that cars fall into a nested heirarchy, but this is definitely not the case. You speak of specific "types" of cars, such as the SUVs, the Trucks, the Sedans, the Off-road vehicles.
If those are our first tier of groupings then it is even easier to show how vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy.
For example, we can find trucks and sedans that have the same engine while different cars do not share this same engine. This is a violation of the nested hierarchy. We can find a truck and a car that share the same color of paint, but two cars from the same model that have different paint. This is another violation of the nested hierarchy. We can find a sedan and a truck that have the same radio, but two different sedans that have different radios. Another violation of the truck and sedan nestings. We can do the same with trucks, showing that an SUV and a truck share the same engine while two different trucks have two different engines.
There are clear violations of a nested hierarchy when comparing vehicles. Why? Because designers have no need nor any reason to follow a nested hierarchy. If an engine will work in both a truck and an SUV then they put it in both, not worrying about the need to keep adaptations in the two groups separate. We can find GPS systems that start in one make of car, and all of the sudden show up in a completely different make an style of vehicle as if it was stripped from one branch and just randomly showed up on another branch. Again, clear and obvious violations of a nested hierarchy.
Yes, there are similarities between vehicles. Yes, these design units are put together where they make sense as far as design. However, the PATTERN of similarity between vehicles does NOT fall into a nested hierarchy. No human designs do this. Even when humans design organisms they regularly violate the nested hierarchy.
Also, the reason that all of this is being stressed is that phylogenies (i.e. nested hierarchies) are used to determine when specific mutations arose, and this relates directly to the origin of novel features. Also, novel adaptations stay within evolutionary lineages unlike novel human designs that move into all sorts of different groups in human designs without any considerations of a design's history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 03-01-2013 11:53 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by JonF, posted 03-01-2013 3:10 PM Taq has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 618 of 871 (692260)
03-01-2013 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 2:54 AM


quote:
Conserved elements over millions of years favors the ID view.
For that to be true it must be the case that evolution is less likely to conserve them than the assumed Designer. If they are necessary, evolution would be guaranteed to preserve them.
So with that in mind, please provide the reasoning to support your claim.
quote:
Taq has been repetitive that an ID designer wouldn't design in groupings, Its obvious and observed that is what intelligent designers actually do. Others are saying there are exceptions like the penguin, bat, etc that do not conform to groupings and this somehow contradicts ID. Its obvious and observed that intelligent designers actually do make crossover products between their groupings as well as designing in groupings.
Wrong, there are two different arguments that are NOT contradictory. First is the argument that designers do not design the sort of "groups" we see in life. Second is the argument that your groups don't even make sense - an ostrich is not designed to fly, so any group of creatures designed to fly can't include an ostrich. Yet an ostrich is undoubtedly a bird.
quote:
Boring strawman argument.
Repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread. No clear example of any "nested tree" has been given which in any manner that contradicts the ID position. So your repetitive "nested tree" example is based on the louder more numerous kids shouting down the others in the nursery playground, unfortunately you have supplied no studies on intelligent designers that show that they do not design products in groupings. You have showed no examples of particular nested trees. (someone mentioned the reptilian mole - except the mole isn't even reptilian).
In other words, you aren't interested in the evidence, only in pretending that it supports you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 2:54 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


Message 619 of 871 (692273)
03-01-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Blue Jay
03-01-2013 11:16 AM


I have a question. Is your argument based on the premise that wings are only used for flight. They may help to run faster and other stuff. If it doesnt then feel free to correct me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Blue Jay, posted 03-01-2013 11:16 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 620 of 871 (692281)
03-01-2013 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by Taq
03-01-2013 12:11 PM


Re: Evidence again
it is even easier to show how vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy
I've not read all of this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out while vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy, there are many ways of arranging them in a nested hierarchy, with no objective reason to prefer one over another. OTOH, life falls into one nested hierarchy, as measured by at least two objective measures, and there is no other objectively equivalent nested hierarchy of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 12:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 4:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 621 of 871 (692283)
03-01-2013 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 3:17 AM


Can you prove the nested groupings reflect evolution rather than ID?
Well, they look like they do. These nested groupings are what we would expect to see if common descent had occurred.
Are they what we would expect from an intelligent designer? No.
Consider, for example, the grouping known as birds. Consider the kiwi, the hummingbird, the ostrich, the owl, the penguin. They have widely different lifestyles, as I'm sure you know. Now, if we are to entertain the ID hypothesis, we have to believe either that the designer was jerking us around by making it look as though common descent occurred; or we have to believe that for reasons totally unknown to us, every time it was a good design decision to give an organism feathers rather than, for example, fur, it was also a good design decision to give it an edentate beak, a synsacrum, a pygostyle, etc, and make it oviparous.
Meanwhile, when it was a good idea to make another creature which does the same job as a hummingbird, it was the best decision not to give it any avian anatomical features, but instead to give it all the distinctive anatomical features of a moth, producing the hummingbird moth.
Now under these circumstances the scientific method compels us to prefer the evolutionary explanation, because it is an explanation. Meanwhile I don't believe that a creationist can honestly say that it's what he'd have expected; all he can do is imagine that there is a reason, although he can't imagine what the reason is.
Imagine a parallel case --- imagine someone saying the theory of gravity is correct because the planets etc move exactly as we'd expect them to if it was. "No, no," replies another guy, "my religion tells me that they are being pushed round by invisible angels at God's command." Then we would want to ask him, would we not, why God ordered them to push the planets round in such a way that they should always move in ellipses with one focus at the sun? Is God deliberately trying to fool us into believing in the theory of gravity ... or ...? And if all the chap can say is that God must have a good reason but he doesn't know what it is, God's ways are not our ways, etc, then we would prefer the explanation involving gravity. He might not, but that's religion for you.
This argument is based on evolutionary circular reasoning.
You seem to be suffering from a common creationist confusion between how evolution is proved and the interpretations we can make of nature once we know that it has been.
ID is not considered.
Well no. Invisible angels aren't considered in their page on gravity, either. It's supposed that the reader has got beyond that point.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 3:17 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by mindspawn, posted 03-06-2013 5:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 622 of 871 (692285)
03-01-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by JonF
03-01-2013 3:10 PM


Re: Evidence again
I've not read all of this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out while vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy, there are many ways of arranging them in a nested hierarchy, with no objective reason to prefer one over another. OTOH, life falls into one nested hierarchy, as measured by at least two objective measures, and there is no other objectively equivalent nested hierarchy of life.
That is a very, very good point. This is also stressed in the very well written talkorigins page on nested hierarchy. I apologize for the large chunk of copy pasta, but I think it is very important for others to read this:
quote:
Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchicallyperhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese.
The difference between classifying cars and classifying languages lies in the fact that, with cars, certain characters (for example, color or manufacturer) must be considered more important than other characters in order for the classification to work. Which types of car characters are more important depends upon the personal preference of the individual who is performing the classification. In other words, certain types of characters must be weighted subjectively in order to classify cars in nested hierarchies; cars do not fall into natural, unique, objective nested hierarchies.
Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.
Interestingly, Linnaeus, who originally discovered the objective hierarchical classification of living organisms, also tried to classify rocks and minerals hierarchically. However, his classification for non-living objects eventually failed, as it was found to be very subjective. Hierarchical classifications for inanimate objects don't work for the very reason that unlike organisms, rocks and minerals do not evolve by descent with modification from common ancestors.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by JonF, posted 03-01-2013 3:10 PM JonF has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 623 of 871 (692368)
03-02-2013 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 7:21 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
mindspawn writes:
The very place they chose to artificially amplify genes, is the very place that nature already has multiple gene copies in most organisms (areas of disease resistance/antibodies/toxin resistance). So it was no arbitrary position that they chose to amplify, they were copying nature's ability to amplify disease/toxin resistance through multiple copies.
Now that I look at the study, it could merely be a reflection on nature's preference for multiple copies when under selective pressure. Just because nature SELECTS multiple gene copies for amplification under pressure, does not mean that nature PRODUCES multiple gene copies under pressure.
I'm not sure if you've quite understood the paper, but that last sentence of yours is correct. It produces them randomly all the time.
It's producing useful duplications that we were discussing.
Just a moment...
I like this study, probably the first to support your position, providing the original population was devoid of duplications, which appears to be the case. I am cautious and will reserve my judgment as I look into this more, but thanks for the study. As you say neofunctionalization or changed genes is a possibility ( I hope you know how extremely rare this is, I have only ever heard of two cases, both being doubtful) and so even if not observed, it is theoretically possible that a duplicate coding gene can then gain a new function.
You're welcome, and you're getting there! I don't know what you mean by "rare". Duplication + neofunctionalization wouldn't have to be an every day, every year, or every generation happening in order to account for the increase in number of protein coding genes in a population group from 1,000 to 20,000 (the scenario you were discussing in your debate with RAZD). The completion of such an event in one individual organism in the group every 10,000 years on average would get you there in 200 million years, and things have been evolving for far longer than that.
mindspawn (on copy number variation of AMY1 in humans) writes:
Ok so you have thought about the possibility that the high copy numbers could have already been in nature. Have you got any evidence that they were not there already?
Already when? In our hypothetical ancestral genome of 1000 protein coding genes? We wouldn't have been a starch digesting animal at that point, so I expect our AMY would have had a distant ancestor doing something else, and that this would be a distant ancestor of other genes we have now. Shall we look for relatives to test the hypothesis that genes, like organisms, come in families with nested heirarchies?
Or do you mean high copy numbers in a created population 6,500 years ago? I'd expect there to be considerable variation 6,500 years ago in an evolutionary scenario, and before. 300 generations is not a long time to create much variation. A clue to another of the problems for your model is in the word "copy". In that paper about adaption to heat that you enjoyed, there were duplication events in 3 of the cultures that all included the same key genes. But the duplications were all different. When genes are duplicated, it's in this messy kind of way. If the AMY1 duplications look as though they are on messy randomly inserted stretches of DNA, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to ask yourself if your creator wasn't trying to make things look as though they were products of mutation? You won't find lots of neat little AMYs sitting in a row, looking pretty.
mindspawn writes:
No , those with a higher number delete down. Those with ten, delete down to 7 if there is no positive selection. Those with 5 , delete down to 3. My model does not have duplications, it has deletions, and not too many either. the same logic applies to humans.
Deletions and duplications don't look the same. And there are far too many human CNVs to have occurred in the last 300 generations of evolution. I think you need all the deletions and duplications that you can get! You also need a very high mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for a 6,500 year old Eve. Which brings me on to the next subject.
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
And have you found out in which region of the world humans have the greatest diversity yet, as I suggested you should? It isn't the Middle-East.
Yes, I did find out. Its the Middle East. I have yet to see your arguments against haplotypes reflecting diversity, and against the Middle East having the greatest diversity. My evidence is that through mitochrondial haplotype studies, the Middle East has the greatest diversity.
Its only under evolutionary assumptions that the number of mutations in a population relates to how old that population is. Haplogroup diversity makes more sense.
High-throughput sequencing of complete human mtDNA genomes from the Philippines - PMC
The points made in that paper are absolutely fine, but they are not saying what you think they are, and their analysis and dating blows out your model, so I laughed when I read it.
You're making a mistake about the haplogroup maps which are used to illustrate human population groups around the world.
Ones like this:
It shows the subgroups of L3 outside Africa, because the interest is in human population spread, but it doesn't show the equivalent subgroups of L3 plus other haplogroups within Africa.
Here's L3
And:
L0
L1
L2
L4
L5
L6
If you look at the true haplogroups, rather than just at those used to illustrate population spread outside Africa, you can see that the true ones are an indicator of diversity, although they can be misleading. As the paper you linked to mentioned, older haplogroups can have arrived in an area relatively recently.
So, once again, which area of the world has the greatest diversity?
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 7:21 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 646 by mindspawn, posted 03-06-2013 8:27 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 624 of 871 (692416)
03-02-2013 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 12:07 PM


Re: Topic Reminder
kofh2u writes:
Are you saying that this thread is for ONLY people who intend to agree with and support whatever the OP states, more or less an opportunity for propaganda from just one side to all talk together?
Any perspective, especially including creationist perspectives, are welcome, as long as they're about the topic. The topic is about how novelty could possibly originate in an evolutionary context. The OP takes a very skeptical stance on the possibility.
I was only noting that how novelty might originate in a creationist or ID context is not the topic of this thread, but I have no problem with the digression as long as it doesn't persist for more than a couple or so more pages. If it needs to go on longer than that then someone might want to propose a new thread for it over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 12:07 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 625 of 871 (692493)
03-04-2013 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Bolder-dash
02-22-2013 9:43 AM


Just saw this thanks to Dr. A
Actually Oni is the pussy, he is afraid to look at things sober.
Hey man, there's 24 hours in a day and many realities you can choose to be in during that time. I choose to experience reality in a few different ways; you limit yourself to just one.
Who's the real pussy here, Bolder-gash?
- Oni
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: 2 day suspension for this message - Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-22-2013 9:43 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by CoolBeans, posted 03-04-2013 11:08 AM onifre has not replied

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


Message 626 of 871 (692510)
03-04-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by onifre
03-04-2013 12:43 AM


Re: Just saw this thanks to Dr. A
Why did he called you a pussy for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by onifre, posted 03-04-2013 12:43 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2013 12:13 PM CoolBeans has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 627 of 871 (692518)
03-04-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 626 by CoolBeans
03-04-2013 11:08 AM


Re: Just saw this thanks to Dr. A
The entire thread leading up to Bolder-dash's post is available for your review.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by CoolBeans, posted 03-04-2013 11:08 AM CoolBeans has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 628 of 871 (692567)
03-05-2013 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 9:51 AM


Re: ...off by 10, but very important point...
1) From Science and the Bible, both, we have evidence of three Racial Stocks emerging from Africa at exactly the same time that all other humanoids were becoming extinct. This is an important set of correspondences, that both religion and science agree on the basics:
A All other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years ago
B Modern Homo sapiens appeared 40,000 years ago in three flavors some call Hamites, Japhethians, and Shemians, while science referred to them as Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongolians.
C Modern studies of race by geneticists support that these early initial three racial stocks differentiated into seven genetically identifiable groups living today.
D Genetic evidence indicates that the original three racial stocks that lead to the seven kinds of people alive today are all related to just on man, presumably a Noah, who lived 40,000 years ago.
This is a lot of evidence in support of ancient reports that tell the same story.
Thanks for this, yes what you say is true. Except for the dates, I'm still going back to the dating thread in order to dispute dates commonly accepted by science.
2) Yes, Paleontology refers to the 22 humanoid creatures that they list as the 22 now extinct humans in our ascent to modern man as humans.
They were.
They were just not as evolved as we are today, but they walked upright, had their thumbs like our own, and every cell in their body had 23 Chromosomes, including one pair that was actually two sets fused together.
The ancient writings that report the "flood" out-of-Africa, occurring 40 thousand years ago, itemized and enumerated descriptions of the 22 humans which went extinct. In that listing many points are in line with our own discoveries and knowledge about those previous 22 links in our ascent.
Very interesting kofh2u. You seem very committed to biblical truth, the bible is so accurate on so many scientific issues, and as you point out was way ahead on science regarding migration patterns and human genetic origins. Is there any reason for you to doubt that the bible will turn out to be more accurate on the time scale too?
Your argument is an excellent example of how ID and YECs ought better align their arguments for Scripture with the Scientific Facts rather than fudge by 10 the time lines as you attempt to so do here.
I've made no attempt to "fudge" the time lines, I will make an attempt in the Dates thread to give alternatives to current dating methods. I'm certainly am not going to re-align the bible with science, so many times science has to re-align with the bible when the true scientific facts are revealed. Recognising this pattern that archaeology, human history, DNA analysis, all confirm the bible and yet have been incredibly slow to do so, it makes more statistical sense that in other fields science will continue to confirm the bible. ie we are ahead of science by taking the bible seriously and literally, because the bible is continuously borne out to be accurate than scientists original perceptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 9:51 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 629 of 871 (692568)
03-05-2013 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 10:08 AM


Re: ...right about the wrong things...
Your are right, that Science has no concrete evidence to support Abiogenesis,...
... but you are wrong not to agree with them on this Spontaneous Generation which was that Act-of-God where he said, "Let the earth bring forth (bacteria, i.e.; NOTE: the Hebrew word is not grass but means "first sprouts of life on Earth"), "grass," (from which condition shall evolve) the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, (all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
If God can make one amazing organism, fully fit for life, He is able to make many at the same time too. The difficulty for some is to believe in a God, once you believe in an all-powerful being, the creation of a single prokaryote or a multiple complex life-forms like humans is just as easy.
Knowing that, on what empirical basis would you prefer the theory of one created common ancestor, compared to multiple baramins? Have you got anything for me, because the evidence for these extra novel features that a human has compared to a prokaryote being EVOLVED is lacking in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 10:08 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 630 of 871 (692569)
03-05-2013 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 609 by Taq
03-01-2013 11:12 AM


Re: Evidence again
We observe that intelligent designs do NOT fall into nested hierarchies. Cars do not fall into nested hierarchies. Computers do not fall into nested hierarchies. Airplanes do not fall into nested hierarchies.
Intelligent designers do design according to groupings (cars). Cars do fall into nested groupings. In biology genetic evidence confirms the groupings, genetic evidence also confirms the exceptions to the groupings as well. Genetic evidence does not confirm evolution's claim of long-term hierarchies, these are just imaginary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 11:12 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 634 by Taq, posted 03-05-2013 10:44 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024