Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:26 AM
29 online now:
Pressie, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,110 Year: 9,146/19,786 Month: 1,568/2,119 Week: 328/576 Day: 3/128 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Twin-Nested Heirarchy
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 49 (430394)
10-25-2007 12:03 AM


Goddy (my creationist alter-ego) is back!

One of the key evidences presented for common descent is the twin-nested heirarchy. That is, the hierarchies created from both the morphological evidence and the genetic evidence are correlated far more than would be expected by chance.

But what they (the evilutionists) don't tell you is that similarities are not evidence of common descent. They can also be indicators of common design.

Seeing as the DNA provides the instructions for building the organism, one should not be surprised that the two trees match up fairly well. Just as one would not be surprised that smaller cars would have smaller engines, we should not be surprised that organisms that look like people have genes similar to those of people.

Because these criteria used to create the two trees are not independent of one another, a correlation between the two offers no evidence for evolution or common descent.

In addition, if common design of phenotypes between kinds is valid, then so is common design between genotypes. While it is true that the genetic code is redundant and there is a lot of plasticity available in the amino acid sequence of proteins (e.g. conservative mutations), it doesn't follow that the genotype should vary more than it does. The designer clearly would have known about mutations, and so if one genome is good (i.e. sequence is arranged in such a way that it minimises information loss via evolution) for the dog kind, a very similar genome would be good for the cat kind too.

So, the twin-nested hierarchy doesn't disprove special creation at all, does it?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 10-25-2007 3:30 AM Doddy has responded
 Message 4 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 8:18 AM Doddy has responded
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 3:36 PM Doddy has responded
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 10-25-2007 5:21 PM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2007 10:08 PM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 10-29-2007 3:16 AM Doddy has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 49 (430396)
10-25-2007 12:21 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3360 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 49 (430405)
10-25-2007 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
10-25-2007 12:03 AM


Goddy,

Seeing as the DNA provides the instructions for building the organism

So why do metabolic molecules, such as cytochrome c, trees match as well?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 12:03 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 7:09 PM mark24 has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 4 of 49 (430416)
10-25-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
10-25-2007 12:03 AM


Doddy writes:

One of the key evidences presented for common descent is the twin-nested heirarchy.

Is it? Hierarchy from either point of view is strong evidence as evolution would require it, but there's absolutely no reason why the designers* should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility. They don't need to tweak things slowly over very long periods of time. The best additional evidence from genetics comes from the odd inclusion of similar damage (ERVs) in the genomes of similar creatures, and perhaps from the amount of apparently neutral change in the non-coding area if Goddy is pushing a young earth view.

Is Goddy's word "heir-archy" a creationist standard, perhaps indicating that some animals are designed to appear as the heirs to others? Evolutionists seem to prefer "hierarchy".

*(The plural "designers" should always be used, as the probability of there being only one being or entity involved are statistically remote, so use of the singular is just a highly subjective mistake perpetrated by people who happen to be from monotheistic cultures).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 12:03 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 7:12 PM bluegenes has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 49 (430464)
10-25-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
10-25-2007 12:03 AM


The correlation in phylogeny between simultaneously-speciating organisms like pocket gophers and their pubic lice prove that molecular phylogeny accurately reconstructs real ancestral relationships regardless of morphological similarity.

You'll have to try harder, Goddy.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 12:03 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 7:30 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3198 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 49 (430474)
10-25-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
10-25-2007 12:03 AM


Croizat's method fused the two "trees"(hierarchies for me).

If this more than the fleeting attempt of a wannabe gone wild I doubut however that the reality will permit the smaller time scales of YEC. I could be wrong.

I think that

quote:
a correlation between the two
insofar as it is not dependent on an evolutonists bias is due to more recent thinking back to through the Pleistocene (wrongly) than up aginst the Permian (from either temporal directum) no matter what the rocks say"".

Other panbiogeographers DO tie the hierarchies more directly with geological horizons and thus might produce statements more like Crash's, the realtions however seem independent of Earth history to me (replication and reproduction are different).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 12:03 AM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 7 of 49 (430496)
10-25-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
10-25-2007 3:30 AM


mark24 writes:

So why do metabolic molecules, such as cytochrome c, trees match as well?


Because the metabolism is needed to fuel the organism.

If the creature is a small, active one (e.g. finch) it will have a metabolism designed for that sort of action. On the other hand, a large, slow creature (e.g. a tortoise) will have different metabolism again, and so will have different metabolic enzymes.

Morphology does match with metabolism too.


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 3 by mark24, posted 10-25-2007 3:30 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 10-25-2007 8:18 PM Doddy has responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 8 of 49 (430498)
10-25-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by bluegenes
10-25-2007 8:18 AM


Hierarchy from either point of view is strong evidence as evolution would require it, but there's absolutely no reason why the designers* should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility.

Life is not finely tuned to appear like it evolved. Rather, evolution was adapted to the conditions of life. Its evidences, assumptions and techniques all have been DESIGNED to make life appear like it was designed.

It wouldn't matter how life was designed. As long as it was a good design, the evilutionists would still find a way to get the designer out of it.


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 4 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 8:18 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 9:36 PM Doddy has responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 9 of 49 (430501)
10-25-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
10-25-2007 3:36 PM


crashfrog writes:

The correlation in phylogeny between simultaneously-speciating organisms like pocket gophers and their pubic lice prove that molecular phylogeny accurately reconstructs real ancestral relationships regardless of morphological similarity.


Sigh...can you guess what I'm going to say?

BUT THEY'RE STILL GOPHERS AND STILL LICE!

Of course one could work out a phylogeny using either morphology or molecular data. It might even closely match how the species actually diverged. But, one first has to assume common ancestry before either of the two methods can be used. In that thread you linked me, you say:

quote:
It's a basic principle of reason that when two independent groups, using independent methods, measure and get the same results, we strongly conclude that they're actually measuring something that's really there (like an evolutionary history) and not simply making it up. The odds of two parties working independently developing the same falsehood are very, very low.

But, they are not independant. The two parties are measuring the same thing, but it's not phylogeny. Rather, it's just plain similarity. One has to infer from that similarity, what the phylogeny is.

To do this, both groups have to assume the falsehood that similarities indicate common descent rather than common design. Fortunately, most creationists will accept that gophers have a common ancestor, and probably also that lice have a common ancestor.

I don't think that the phylogenetic trees are seeing patterns in noise. Rather, I think they are seeing real patterns that do exist, and intepreting them according to their assumptions, therefore coming up the conclusion (which they assumed anyway) that all life is related.


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 5 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 3:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 9:16 PM Doddy has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3360 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 49 (430513)
10-25-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Doddy
10-25-2007 7:09 PM


Doddy,

If the creature is a small, active one (e.g. finch) it will have a metabolism designed for that sort of action. On the other hand, a large, slow creature (e.g. a tortoise) will have different metabolism again

And yet a tortoise has more similar sequences to a bird than a small mammal with a high metabolism. Exactly what you wouldn't expect, but I would.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 7:09 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Doddy, posted 10-26-2007 12:58 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 49 (430523)
10-25-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Doddy
10-25-2007 7:30 PM


But, one first has to assume common ancestry before either of the two methods can be used.

You don't have to assume anything to use the methods; neither the DNAEasy kit, nor the PCR, nor the electrophoretic gel, nor the computational analysis methods require that you, personally, hold the assumptions that validate those tools.

I wonder if you read the thread. If you had you would have seen that, indisputably, the convergence in phylogenetic topology can only be explained if the assumption of common ancestry is true.

Otherwise there's no other explanation. If the "phylogenies" were just badly interpreted genetic noise - like seeing Abraham Lincoln's head in a cloud - then there's absolutely no reason for a convergence in their topology. The likelihood is the same as two frames of television static being exactly the same.

And it can't be morphological similarity, right? I mean, there's nothing the same about a pocket gopher and a louse, right?

Rather, it's just plain similarity.

Between gophers and lice? What could possibly be similar about those organisms, Goddy?

Rather, I think they are seeing real patterns that do exist

Obviously, because the chance of random convergence of phylogenetic topology is very low. It's the same odds that any two random persons have a family tree with precisely the same number of "leaves" on every branch.

The only pattern is one of inheritance. Morphology can't be the explanation because its hard to imagine two creatures more dissimilar than pocket gophers and their lice.

Perhaps maybe you don't understand what's being compared, here. I'm not saying that this is a family tree that includes gophers and lice, together. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that if you take the molecularly inferred phylogeny of the pocket gopher species complex, and the molecularly inferred phylogeny of the gopher pubic lice species complex, and printed them out on transparencies, you could overlay them and they would match. Not the names of the individuals, but the trees themselves.

It makes sense under evolution, because we know by observation that the pubic lice only mate when the pocket gophers do and therefore they speciate at the same time. But it can't be explained by any recursion to mere morphological similarity, because there is none, and that's not what we're comparing.

The odds that we'd see this kind of topological symmetry is the same as if we were to compare our family trees, and see that we both had two (and only two) sisters, one brother, three uncles on mom's side, two on dad's, and a grand-uncle who never married. That kind of convergence would have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we both had brown hair. It would have everything to do with the patterns of mating in our families. In our case it would be coincidence. In the case of the gophers, it's because their lice can only mate when they do, and therefore their populations wind up structured exactly the same way. And we see that similarity in their genetic code.

If we see their population structure in their genetic code, then it stands to reason that we're seeing it when we look in everybody's code; thus, the example of pocket gophers vs. their lice settles the issue. Phylogeny detects real ancestry, not just created morphological differences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 7:30 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Doddy, posted 10-26-2007 1:03 AM crashfrog has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 12 of 49 (430530)
10-25-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Doddy
10-25-2007 7:12 PM


goddy writes:

Life is not finely tuned to appear like it evolved. Rather, evolution was adapted to the conditions of life. Its evidences, assumptions and techniques all have been DESIGNED to make life appear like it was designed.

"Gene" is a twentieth century word. Darwin must've had a good crystal ball to know what the genomes would look like. He must have seen the ERVs coming, as well as all the transitional fossils.

Perhaps he was a real prophet of a real goddy, called nature.:)

(Aren't you confusing your two personas a bit in that extract above, Doddy? The first sentence is true. Shouldn't the last word of the last sentence be evolved?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Doddy, posted 10-25-2007 7:12 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 10-26-2007 1:00 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 13 of 49 (430565)
10-26-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mark24
10-25-2007 8:18 PM


mark24 writes:

And yet a tortoise has more similar sequences to a bird than a small mammal with a high metabolism.


Really? Prove it!


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 10 by mark24, posted 10-25-2007 8:18 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2007 10:53 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 14 of 49 (430567)
10-26-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by bluegenes
10-25-2007 9:36 PM


"Gene" is a twentieth century word. Darwin must've had a good crystal ball to know what the genomes would look like. He must have seen the ERVs coming, as well as all the transitional fossils.

Why do you say that? Darwin only came up with the theory...other people have tried to support it too. They are the ones who are finding the other 'evidence' for it.

(Aren't you confusing your two personas a bit in that extract above, Doddy? The first sentence is true. Shouldn't the last word of the last sentence be evolved?)

Whoops...wrote that in a hurry. Sorry.


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 12 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 9:36 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 15 of 49 (430568)
10-26-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
10-25-2007 9:16 PM


You don't have to assume anything to use the methods; neither the DNAEasy kit, nor the PCR, nor the electrophoretic gel, nor the computational analysis methods require that you, personally, hold the assumptions that validate those tools.

The analysis assumes that similarity is evidence of common descent.

I wonder if you read the thread. If you had you would have seen that, indisputably, the convergence in phylogenetic topology can only be explained if the assumption of common ancestry is true.

Yes, I agree. And I've already said that in that instance, I do think the common ancestry assumption is true. But is it always true?


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 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 9:16 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 10:54 AM Doddy has responded
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2007 10:22 PM Doddy has responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019