Evolution For Whatever, etc...

Whatever,Given that the phylogenies (cladistic analyses) under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value. Cladistics & stratigraphyStratigraphic Consistency IndexThe SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."
Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, & that the null hypothesis is falsified, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example). Evolution can be reliably inferred.What are the chances of this occurring by chance? (Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help.)The average cladogram has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate for ease of calculation.C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n!n= total no. of nodes
K= correct nodes
r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodesC(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5!
10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120
10/120
1/12There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way.5.68*10^323:1568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 ....chance of 300 cladograms only enjoying a 60% (as opposed to a 75% corroboration with stratigraphy).What this means is once all else is accounted for, is that there is a stratigraphic signal supporting evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.The questions I would like answered, Whatever, is this; how does liquefaction/flooding produce an evolutionary pattern?Good luck.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-27-2004]

Great post mark...but whatever has been suspended. If I understood moose correctly, he has been given a cooling off period.

Mammuthus,Yes, I saw, only 24 hours, though.Mark

mark24, Cladistic evolution, does not have merit, because creatures with different chromosome numbers, have problems reproducing, etc...P.S. The reason different creatures have similar characteristics is a common designer, the very fact creatures only produce new species within kind (microevolution), and no new kinds of creatures (macroevolution), is evidence supporting Intelligent Design, if creatures are not macro-evolving in the natural then Cladistic evolution never happened, I don't know what fossils are in what layers, so going to pass on getting into liquefication, but if species are not evolving through cladistic means, then it all infers design, and all life not coming from a common ancestor![This message has been edited by whatever, 01-30-2004]

For this to be a fact, you would first have to know for certain what a "kind" is. Please define "kind" for us in such a way that if we were to take a hypothetical organism X we could determine it's "kind" by observing the differentiating charcteristics described in that definition.Without that, I submit that your "fact" is mere fantasy.

Whatever,A complete non-answer.Why do derived evolutionary trees match stratigraphy so well if a flood occurred & evolution didn't? It's not a fact, though, unless fish & tetrapods are the same kind, unless basal tertrapods & reptiles are the same kind, unless reptiles & mammals are the same kind? I think not, yet look at those odds again. Ugly, aren't they? And they are entirely in favour of evolution, & utterly, utterly against biblical creation & its flood.Also......."Both Quetzal & I have pointed out the error of using the Pleistocene extinctionS. It records different events at different times on different continents. And I think you'll find the Australian & South American extinctions weren't particularly bothered with glaciation. Moreover, what logic compels you to accept that there was a mass extinction event at all? This is what I mean by being consistent. If you accept a Pleistocene extinction, then by the same logic you must accept the same evidence for all of the other extinctions, which incidentally dwarf the Pleistocene events. But somehow I doubt you can demonstrate such a level of logic.Prove me wrong, tell me why you accept the Pleistocene mass extinctions & reject the others? Please respond on the thread I link to, above."Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2004]

quote:

---

but if species are not evolving through cladistic means, then it all infers design, and all life not coming from a common ancestor!

---

This is exactly what mark has shown, organisms DO evolve along cladistic lines. Not only this, but the genetic makeup follows the same lines as morphologic (shape) cladistics. The two lines of evidence match up. This points to a common ancestor.Added in edit: hehehe, three replies in 2 minutes. Sorry about that Whatever. You could probably reply to all three of us in one reply.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-30-2004]

mark24, I accept all the pleistocene extinctions, but don't agree on the dates ascribed to when these events occured, likely the ocean ridges were erupting continually circling the southern hemisphere buffered the glaciation in the southern hemisphere, supporting the excess glaciation in the northern hemisphere, etc...http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/baseball.htmlIt is interesting that the southern hemisphere the ocean ridges go primarily latitudinally and two londitude ridges and the northern hemisphere primarily only one main ocean ridge erupting sediments and water (hydroplate theory) londitudinally, possibly explaining why more glaciation happened in the northern hemisphere, if what you say is true, less glaciation in the southern hemisphere then this supports the glaciers were not formed by the earth going through a cooling phase, it might actually be supporting evidence supporting the biblical deluge, etc...P.S. Its time for me to take a break, already explained that the chromosome numbers are not supporting creatures came from common ancestors, to make kind a bit clearer, flies chromosome don't breed with birds chromosomes, its because they have different chromosome numbers, not that they don't have a common designer, expressed in some similar (characteristics) genetic information, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-30-2004]

Whatever, There are numerous examples of species/fertile hybrids with different chromosome numbers rendering your objection moot. Przewalski's horse & modern horses being an example. Chromosome fusions & splits have also been observed & seen to represent no reproductive barrier. So sorry, no, chromosome number differences are not a barrier to speciation. So what makes you think they occurred at the same time? What about the other extinctions?For the third time, why do derived evolutionary trees match stratigraphy so well if a flood occurred & evolution didn't?It doesn't matter what alleged barrier you purport to exist. Bentons study clearly show that no such barrier actually does exist, & that evolution occurred & the flood didn't (5.68*10^323:1, remember).Please, for once in your creationist life answer the question directly.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

But what does? Corresponding locations of (random!) mutations?

It does seem that your mongolian horse can breed with the common horse, but when the donkey and the horse breed it produces a sterile offspring, yet the mule can at time breed with the donkey, supporting all these are simply different species within the expressed biblical kind, etc..."I don't know" about your tree fossils, heard though that some of the tree fossils are represented in the massive coal deposits, one example being the Massive Rocky Mountain coal deposits, believed to of floated in mass, being buried by mud flow sediments, as the waters rushed by the mountains, kjv psalm 104, etc...How do you explain these massive coal fields, how is not these massive coal fields not supporting evidence of the biblical flood, etc...http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ines/docs/v22n3_liger.aspP.S. Do you have examples where different kinds of creatures are interbreeding, like a fish breeding with a bat, or a whale breeding with a fish, etc...It would appear cladistic evolution has to explain these problems, not to simply agree with the bible, the bible even talks about the mule, what you have to show is where different kinds of creatures are reproducing, it appears mutations don't answer the problems why unlike creatures are not reproducing, but simply answering how creatures drifted genetically, explaining how the mule can breed at times with the donkey, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-31-2004]

Which disproves your claims about number of chromosomes. Massive coal fields are easily explained by conventional theories, but the eplanations of YECs are laughably simplistic and wrong. Massive coal fields cannot be explained by a flood. There is no way that enough vegetation to produce those massive coal fields existed on Earth at one time. The "floating mat" theory of coal formation requires mats thousands of feet thick covering the entire Earth. Therefore, these massive coal fields are evidence for an old Earth and not evidence for a world-wide flood. See VeggieMat Young-earth TheoriesIf such things happened that would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution, which predicts that such things will not happen. Since such things don't happen, there are no problems to explain.However, I've never seen a creationist explanation for ring species, where subspecies A can breed with subspecies B which can breed with subspecies C which can breed with subspecies D ... but supspecies D cannot breed with subspecies A! The evolutionary explanation is, of course, that the subspecies are on the way to becoming separate species which cannot interbreed. For example, the Herring Gull and the California Salamander. See Evolution: Library: Ring Species: Salamanders and http://eclass.mtsac.edu/29297/anth_1/primates/gulls.htm.

Wouldn't we have to know what a "kind" is, first? Can you tell us how we'd know if two animals are from the same kind, or different kinds?

I would think a lion and a tiger are the same kind, but a snake and a tiger are two different kinds of creatures, a zebra and a donkey are the same kind, but a donkey and salamander are two different kinds of creatures, the whale and the fish are two different kinds of creatures, the fish and birds are two different kinds of creatures, etc...P.S. Not sure this helps, but no new kinds of creatures are being formed, and different kinds are not reproducing offspring, seagulls are not different kinds even if they lose the ability to have offspring from A to D species, but a bird doesn't become a fish, they don't breed, they are a different kind, etc...

JonF, I knew some creatures could reproduce with different chromosome numbers(like the mule), however, after reading answers in genesis article, I no longer feel different chromosome numbers within kind, are not reproducing as its seen in the natural, however, even if creatures like the seagull, or salamanders can't reproduce, this doesn't make them a new kind of creature, only a new species within kind.P.S. The flood waters could of piled up the trees, like snow drifts as the waters washed over the Rocky Mountains.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-31-2004]