Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 199 of 385 (563869)
06-07-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by BobTHJ
06-07-2010 3:26 AM


Hi Bob,
Order - order is an attribute of the Creator.
What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved.
A desire for order alone is not enough to explain the pattern of nested hierarchy. After all, any kind of order could have been imposed. Organisms could show similarity based only on size, habitat or location. In actual fact, whatever level you examine life at, it looks as though it evolved. A simple desire for order is not enough to explain things like ERVs in our genome, shared genes between humans and chimps, biogeography, fossil stratigraphy, etc. because all of these things, had they been designed, were clearly designed to look as evolved as possible.
The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists - see this article from June 2009 - and here's Dr. Wile's commentary on the article, which I believe I linked before.
Yes, you have indeed linked to Dr Wile many times before. Despite the fact that he is an ignoramus. Wile's claim that there are "NO FEATHER IMPRESSIONS preserved" is flat wrong for example. He is either unfamiliar with the relevant evidence or he has chosen to ignore it.
It also seems odd that you should use the opinions of evolutionist researchers to bolster your claims. Feduccia and Ruben are not creationists. They believe that dinosaurs evolved, albeit from different reptile ancestors to those favoured by most researchers. Do you believe that birds evolved from reptiles? If not, why cite Feduccia or Ruben? If your only intent was to show that there are minority opinions in biology, you are making a non-point; there are always minority opinions in science, that's how science works.
The fact remains that a dinosaur origin for birds is by far the most widespread theory for bird origin amongst biologists. Those suggesting other reptile origins have had their work heavily criticised and rightly so; there are major problems with their ideas.
YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem?
It's a problem because one could use that argument to justify anything. Feathered mammals? That's because God wanted it that way. No feathered mammals? That's because God didn't want them. Literally anything could be justified using this kind of post hoc excuse. An answer that can be equally applied to everything is no kind of answer at all.
Yes, darwin's model of common ancestry could (theoretically) work in any situation where life exists. No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course. Therefore the origin of life must be assumed.
As has been pointed out many times already, the Theory of Evolution isn't supposed to tell us how life arose. It would be equally true whatever the actual origins of life. Further, I see no problem with assuming that life began somehow. We know this. Life exists after all, it must have begun somehow, at some point. All that remains to be seen is how life arose, a question that would be better settled by sober analysis of the evidence, not by asserting supernatural causes.
No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation - one that will never be found by "conventional" naturalistic science, because the supernatural is ruled out as a possible conclusion. Examples:
1. Creation of life
2. "Noah's" Global flood
3. scattering of the races (tower of babel)
But even if these events had a supernatural cause, they would still have left detectable evidence for their occurrence. Just because the cause is supernatural, doesn't mean that it would not leave evidence of the actual event itself. The flood for instance would have left vast swathes of evidence of its passing. The Babel event would be detectable in the archaeological record. Neither can be found.
If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.
I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry.
You have already been shown such evidence and you have hand-waved it away. The problem here is that with most animal species, the definition of baramin is loose enough to allow a little wiggle room. Bird/dinosaur fossils can be explained away by simply decreeing one to be a bird, one a dinosaur. Fish/amphibian fossils can be hand-waved away with "That's just a fish" or, if preferred, "That's just an amphibian". The only reason creationists can't play this game with humans and chimps is because you are unable to accept this particular example of common ancestry no matter what.
Of course, if all baramins were as tightly defined as the human one, we would have no trouble falsifying them. Their vagueness is the only thing that allows the idea to persist; what is never defined can never be falsified. Convenient eh?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 3:26 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 4:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 254 of 385 (564318)
06-09-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 4:48 PM


Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
HI Bob. I an see that you're snowed under, so please feel free to take as long as you like replying.
Granny writes:
What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved.
BobTHJ writes:
Of course not...many young-earth creationists consider this a broad falsification test for the YEC model.
Consider YEC falsified then.
Evolution is the central principle behind almost all modern biology. Do you really think that biologists are so stupid and incompetent that they have based an entire century of work around something that doesn't even look true?
The overwhelming majority of biologists agree that life looks evolved. The overwhelming majority of geologists agree that the Earth looks old. I think it is reasonable to conclude from this that life does indeed look evolved and that the Earth looks old.
A God of truth would not create a young-world that was deliberately deceptive to look like an old-world. Either the data matches a young-earth, or the YEC model is wrong. I don't think you'll get much argument from creationists on this point.
I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken here. There are some YECs who do engage in this kind of argument; it's called Omphalism. Ever heard the argument that God created starlight "in transit", with the appearance of having travelled for millions of years? That's a form of omphalism. I agree with you that suggesting a deceitful God is not desirable, but I really don't see what other option you have.
Disagree - based upon the evidence I have reviewed.
Do feel free to share.
If you'd like to prove Dr. Wile wrong feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly more than willing to examine it.
A number of dinosaur species have been identified as feathered. One example is Sinornithosaurus.
Now those certainly look like feathers. Here is a link to the same image in a higher magnification.
Wikimedia Error
An interesting feature of these feathers is that they share a characteristic with bird feathers; they have been shown to contain the remains of melanosomes - colour-producing organelles. Here is an extract from a very readable article on the subject.
quote:
Under the extreme magnification of an electron microscope, Zhang looked at the filaments of the dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus, as well as the true feathers of the early bird Confuciusornis. The microscopes revealed a number of small structures all less than a micrometre long. In shape and size, they are identical to the melanosomes of modern birds. There include two broad categories. The phaemelanosomes are almost spherical in shape and produce phaeomelanin, a reddish-brown or yellow pigment, while the eumelanosomes are more rod-like and produce black-grey eumelanin.
Note that these melanosomes were found both in the sophisticated feathers of Confuciusornis and in the downy feathers of Sinornithosaurus, providing strong evidence that these "dino-fuzz" structures really are true feathers. Here is a link to the original abstract;
Fossilized melanosomes and the colour of Cretaceous dinosaurs and birds | Nature
Please bear in mind that this is just a small sample of the evidence for non-avian dinosaur feathers.
My point was to demonstrate that like many factors of darwinian evolution there not only are minority opinions, but the majority opinion frequently shifts in an effort to force the theory to fit new data. To some extent, this isn't a problem (and is indeed good science), but at a certain point the theory is stretched to fit so many failed predictions that its validity as a whole comes into question. Here's a great paper on Darwin's failed predictions that helps demonstrate this point.
I'm not going to read your link. I'm not going to argue bare links. Please make your arguments in your own words, or how am I to know that you truly understand what you are linking to?
Suffice to say that your claim about the ToE being "stretched" is a fantasy. Every single time a new species is found, it fits into the nested hierarchy of evolution. Every single new fossil fits into that pattern. Every new genome described provides an opportunity to falsify evolution; it never happens. Instead, the ToE has seen its most important predictions verified. Darwin predicted a hereditary mechanism that allowed for descent with modification. If evolution were not true, there would be no reason for such a mechanism to exist. The discovery of genetics was an enormous vindication of Darwin's theory.
It's also worth mentioning that Darwin lived an awfully long time ago. Modern biology has come a long way since then. For all that Darwin may have got some things wrong, he got much more absolutely right.
Since the YEC model is based upon the Bible, and the Bible reveals to us the character and attributes of God, we know that God would not design that which does not within His character. The Bible also provides other constraints which can be formed into tests - such as the size of Noah's Ark, descriptions of animals, etc.
So you get your evidence from the Bible? Very scientific.
Still, let's try to apply this to our example. You were asked why God didn't create feathered mammals. What Biblical evidence can you cite to explain God's reasons? What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?
And as I pointed out many times darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life.
And no matter how many times you say it, it will remain nonsense.
Evolution is not wedded to naturalistic abiogenesis. Any number of modes of origin could be compatible with evolution.
God could have created life... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
Aliens could have seeded life upon the ancient Earth... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
Life could have arisen through unguided naturalistic chemical processes... which subsequently evolved and diversified.
The fact that many Christian theistic evolutionists believe that God used supernatural means to create the very first life - which subsequently evolved and diversified - supports this.
I think that what you're getting at is more that evolutionists tend to be "wedded" to the idea that all life shares a common origin. This is pretty much true, but then, the genetic evidence for this is overwhelming.
The geological record supports the concept of a global flood rather well (sediment layers laid down rapidly during a catastrophic event instead of over long periods of time) - I have seen considerable research from creationists on this issue. If you disagree perhaps you'd like to show me evidence to the contrary?
Can you think of a physical mechanism which would sort ammonites into discrete strata based on species? It would have to be a process that would also sort them into a nested hierarchy that exactly resembled evolution. Also, it would need to ensure that rocks of the exact same age, but on the other side of the world, contained the same species in the same environment. Then it would have to do the same with every other creature in the same stratum. It would need to exclude any species that would appear anachronistic (Precambrian rabbits) and any sediment that would lead to an anachronistic radiocarbon date.
Can you think of a mechanism that could do that? In a flood?
I can think of a mechanism, but it doesn't involve a flood. It involves evolution and hundreds of millions of years.
Granny writes:
If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.
BobTHJ writes:
Your first sentence here summarizes rather well the point I've been trying to make regarding the inherent flaw in naturalistic science.
Well if you want to consider it this a flaw, I suppose I agree insofar as it goes. However, given that the track record of scientific achievement since methodological naturalism became the norm, it is a flaw I am willing to suffer quite gladly. It seems a small price to pay for things like vaccines, sanitation, antibiotics...
I'm not hand-waving anything away - I base my conclusions upon the evidence I have reviewed (and I hope by now I have demonstrated a willingness to review any data - within the limits of my time). As I stated before, a detailed analysis of the supposed common ancestry between chimps and humans seems beyond the scope of this topic - but if you wish to start another topic for it I'd happily participate as my time allows.
I'm not sure it is off-topic. If baramins are truly useful measures, you should be able to give us some indication of exactly how the "human baramin" and the "chimp baramin" differ, a measure that we can then apply to other ape species (including human ancestors).
Common descent applies within baramins - so DNA evidence should aid in placing a creature within a baramin as all creatures within the same baramin would share a common ancestor.
I agree, but unfortunately for you, the human and chimp genomes are extremely similar. Our DNA is far more similar to a bonobo than any other animal, so why isn't it in the same baramin? Your only answer is to defer to the alleged authority of the Bible, which rather marks this as an exercise in religious apologetics rather than open scientific enquiry.
It's nowhere near as arbitrary and vague as you make it out to be.
No? Then why does this baramin enthusiast group moles together with (of all things!) marsupial moles, but still insist that dormice are different enough to mice that they deserve a baramin of their own? If moles and marsupial moles are of the same kind, why not humans and apes?
Unless you can show me some objective means of identifying the limits of a baramin, I am forced to conclude that the term is worthless.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Forgot link.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 4:48 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 2:57 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 307 of 385 (565194)
06-15-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
Hi Bob,
There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority.
No, that isn't a scientific argument, nor is it the argument I was making. You have the wrong end of the stick.
I am not arguing that evolution is true by making an argument from popularity. What I am saying is that the vast majority of professional biologists and palaeontologists, those best qualified to understand the data, think that life looks evolved. I'm only talking about appearance here.
Now I understand that you do not think that evolution/universal common ancestry is real. So effectively, what you are suggesting is that an entire body of scientists has got it wrong. Not only that, your ideas demand that these scientists are so stupid, so breathtakingly incompetent, that they believe in evolution even though it doesn't even look true.
Is that really what you think? Isn't it more likely that evolution - even if false - does look rather convincing? Even you have admitted that "Darwinism" as you call it, looks good from a distance; all I am saying is that the view from close-up is pretty convincing too. Whether it is true or not, evolution holds out as a hypothesis beyond a mere superficial examination. In fact, it is convincing enough to have fooled almost every biologist on Earth.
One of the tasks a new scientific hypothesis must perform is to explain why any previous (mistaken) hypothesis looked so convincing. YEC fails this test. The failure is especially glaring given that you refuse to accept an omphalist god.
I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true.
With all due respect, that is because you are deeply ignorant of the (amongst other things) the evidence of the fossil record. Your comments make this obvious.
I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past.
There is no such thing as "mainstream creationism". There is no consensus within creationism that can compare to the consensus that exists within the sciences regarding the reality of evolution and an old Earth.
YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.
You are wrong about this. The arguments that people like AiG put forward on the starlight issue are just as omphalist as ever, they just lie about it, to hide the unfortunate ramifications. The idea that the speed of starlight has speeded up for instance, is just as much an omphalist argument as the "created in transit" one. It means that God must have set up the universe in such a way that it should look older than it really is - omphalism.
Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:
* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either)
Right, You are not an expert on identifying fossils. Your opinion is not worth much here. Also, you chided me for making what you thought was an argument from popularity a moment ago; now you are content to make an argument from incredulity? Come now. That is not a scientific argument either.
The fact of the matter is that dinosaur feathers have the same structure as modern bird down. They have two lines of filaments extending from a central rachis, just like bird feathers. They closely resemble the feathers of some modern birds, such as the kiwi. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation? There is no assumption here. There is only a hypothesis which provides a reasonable explanation for the facts.
* The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes
This is not assumed, it is the hypothesis of the paper in question. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation for the presence of these structures? And if your god is so unfailingly honest, why would he create a structure that so closely resembles evidence for bird/dinosaur transition?
* the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes).
This is not assumed. The presence of melanosomes is strong evidence that the structures are feathers. It is also incompatible with the idea that the structures are non-feather filaments. If you want to make this sort of accusation, then I suggest that you go back to the original paper and point out the "assumptions". Your examples are all false.
And yes, other organisms contain melanosomes. But the melanosomes in Sinosauropterix and Sinornithosaurus were identical to modern bird melanosomes, not any other kind.
So, to recap, you believe that God put structures identical to bird melanosomes into a dinosaur, in fact, into the same type of dinosaur that is suspected to be an evolutionary link between avians and non-avian dinosaurs. But this does not in any way resemble the appearance of evolution. Hmm...
As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement.
I have told you, I am not going to address bare links. Please stop it. Doing it at all is bad enough; doing it when you have been asked dozens of times to stop is simply childish. It makes you look dishonest and thus tarnishes your argument.
Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.
Of course it doesn't. As I have said, the idea of the baramin is infinitely flexible. It makes no predictions and is thus unfalsifiable. You can just use post hoc reasoning to place the baramin's limits wherever you like. Unfortunately, that makes it completely useless as a scientific tool. It even makes it pretty poor as an apologetic.
The link was not bare
Trust me, by the standards of this board, that was an example of a violation of forum rules. Please stop it.
Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features.
Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.
What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?
There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.
So when you say that the Bible can help us with defining our baramins, you were only talking about a tiny handful of examples. There are millions of species out there; the Bible mentions... what? A score? Maybe two score? I think you are going to need some other objective way of identifying a baramin, because the Bible sounds useless in over 99% of cases.
No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology.
Fair enough. Although I must admit, if you are willing to acknowledge Biblical errors, I am at a loss as to why you would cling so stubbornly to something as false as creationism. The universe wasn't made in six days. that is an error. Admitting this would save you a lot of time and mental effort.
I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?
No. But then, I don't hold Darwin up as an infallible authority whose holy writ cannot be questioned. Indeed, in my experience, evolutionists are very comfortable criticising Darwin. It's only creationists who seem to think that criticising Darwin is relevant to modern biology.
Please don''t pretend that it is not normal practise for creationists to hold up the Bible as an infallible authority. You may not believe it, but for many YECs the mantra "God said it, I believe it, That settles it." is their bottom line. It is used by AiG and they are the largest creationist presence online. You are by no means a typical YEC (if there can be such a thing) if you reject biblical infallibility.
I've answered this multiple times.
No you haven't. You say that you've answered it, but you carry on making glaringly false statements, like "darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life". This is total bullshit. I just separated them, right in front of your eyes. The ToE is compatible with pretty much any origin story you like. Pretending otherwise just makes you look as though you are sticking your head in the sand - something that you intimated you would not do.
If you want to stop answering these points, stop saying untrue things about them.
The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.
Ooh, please treat me to the long answer some time. I would love to hear it. I am yet to see a creationist interpretation of the fossil record that wasn't hilariously wrong.
Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.
So it's just a co-incidence that supernatural explanations have a millennia-long history of failure, whereas naturalistic ones have a much more successful history? In fact, naturalistic explanations for things like disease, weather, cosmology etc, have a history of over-throwing supernatural explanations. But that is just a co-incidence. Along with the fact that the advent of modern evidence-based medicine ushered in a new era of cures and treatments at about the same time that methodological naturalism took hold. That's co-incidence too is it?
Supernaturalism had millennia to make progress and it failed dismally. Bringing it back is going to get us nowhere.
Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.
Don't let me stop you. I would love to see you explain the mechanics of the human and ape baramins.
I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.
I'm just making a point. If there is no objective means of identifying a baramin, how are we to know whether your version is correct, or someone else's - like the one I linked to - is correct? Without such objective measures, how can we even say that the baramin exists? I say it does not exist. Prove me wrong.
Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously.
Yes, you have said that. What I think you fail to realise is just how strongly this removes baraminology from the realm of science. Supernatural ideas are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are not science. In suggesting that we use baramins, you are essentially suggesting that we throw out the entire science of biology and replace it with vague, half-formed superstition.
For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace.
The term baramin gained its modern sense in the 1940s. Since then, there has been no serious advancement. We are no closer to seeing an objective method for identifying baramins. I would say that marks baraminology out as being a damn great waste of time.
In the meanwhile, real biologists have discovered genetics, millions of new fossils, tens of thousands of new living species, and generally refined and diversified their craft. There is no contest here. Evolutionary biology is the norm and it is thriving. Baraminology meanwhile his yet to offer us any new knowledge whatsoever.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 2:57 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 355 of 385 (565494)
06-17-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
Hi Bob,
Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God.
I cannot look at it from that perspective, because it makes no sense. That just does not follow.
If evolution were wrong and divine creation the answer to our origins, there is no reason why God's handiwork should resemble evolution. It might resemble some other system or no system at all. It might, just might, show some evidence of having been created. But no. All we see is evidence of evolution and an old Earth. I can think of no good reason why this should be true in a recently created world.
It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving.
There is no reason to claim this. No matter how biased one might be, the actual evidence remains unbiased. Starlight does not give the appearance of great age because of my biases. ERVs do not distribute themselves according to the evolutionary relatedness of their hosts because Taq wants them to. Fossils do not care what we think about them, yet they are arranged in just such a way that they always support an evolutionary explanation and they never, ever, falsify evolution.
It would take only one Precambrian rabbit to bring down our understanding of common ancestry, just one. It would be impossible to explain away or sweep under the carpet. It would revolutionise biology. It has never happened. In fact, it never will.
My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.
Are you saying that the fossils were put there by Satan? Is that what you're telling me Bob? Is this an example of the sort of supernatural explanation that you feel should replace methodological naturalism?
Can you think of an experiment or observation where we could apply this kind of rationalisation?
You haven't shown that there is any 'fact' to the matter {of feathered dinosaurs -GM}. But even if there is I'm not sure how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.
It is relevant because according to most creationist lists of "kinds" birds and dinosaurs are of different kinds. These fossils - transitional fossils - show that in reality, there are intermediate forms between the two kinds, that they are related. This destroys the idea of kinds, or at the very least, forces the kinds to be so flexible that they are meaningless and so accommodating that it is ever harder to see how humans and chimps can occupy separate kinds.
To recap - I demonstrated that assumptions were made.
No you didn't. You took the evidence-based conclusions of the paper and called them assumptions in an effort to throw mud at them. Fortunately, you dismissive attitude toward science doesn't affect actual biologists.
If the statements in your rebuttal are correct then it's possible they were reasonable assumptions.
They are not assumptions at all, reasonable or otherwise. An assumption would be something taken as a founding axiom, in the absence of evidence. These findings are based upon careful scrutiny of the evidence; remember, evidence is not biased! There would be no compelling reason to allow dinosaurs to possess bird-like features in a created world. Evolution explains this, along with a host of other dino/bird similarities.
To get back where this started, if the assumptions are reasonable then Dr. Wile should have mentioned so in his post (even if he didn't believe the fossils to show feathered dinosaurs).
Yes, he should have. And, please believe me, I have only just scratched the surface of what is known about transitional dinosaur/bird fossils. There are now dozens of feathered dinosaur fossils, mostly with "fuzz", but also with well developed feathers.
Dr Wile is hand-waving away a large body of evidence as though it didn't exist, seemingly because it does not meet his biases. Meanwhile, he finds time to detail the views of fringe figures like Feduccia. This is why I would not trust Dr Wile as a source of information.
Granny writes:
Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.
BobTHJ writes:
I'm guessing you typed that without thinking. How exactly did evolutionists determine two organisms were closely related when constructing the phylogenetic tree? Oh yeah, morphological similarity. Yes, the convergence thread did show me that some cases of convergence (organisms in different parts of the tree that share a similar feature) don't have genetic similarity - but of course organisms that are close on the tree and share many features and genes - or are you disagreeing with the sacred scientific consensus?
Eh? I am slightly perplexed as to where the contradiction is supposed to be. I don't want to drift off-topic here, since we already have a thread to discuss convergence, but...
Convergence is only ever centred around a small number of traits, usually one trait. This may involve a superficial morphological similarity, but when we look closer, and look beyond superficial appearances, we see that the apparent similarities between, say, a marsupial wolf and a placental wolf, just fall away. A detailed examination of both shows more dissimilarities than similarities. Their physiology does fit the nested hierarchy, as do their genes.
By the way, as Percy has pointed out above, it doesn't matter how we construct our tree of life - genetic, morphological, whatever - we end up with pretty much the same nested hierarchy that Linnaeus observed centuries ago.
This agreement between genetic and morphological systems need not exist in a non-evolutionary world, but it does exist. It is a powerful vindication of Darwin.
Dr. Borger's indicator gene method seems promising.
Given that Borger appears to be wedded to a set of bizarre delusions about retroviruses, I would not hold my breath if I were you. By the way, I notice that you keep saying that the current position of baraminology is a hypothesis. Really? Is that it? In seventy years? A hypothesis, that's all? Frankly, that's really poor.
You misread me. I believe the Bible to be inerrant. But I'm not here to argue the inerracy of the Bible.
Understood. I misread your previous comments. You might want to rethink that one though...
Ultimately, it's down to what the evidence is telling us. Evidence is not biased. Follow the evidence and you will always be headed in the right direction. After all if you are right and the world is God's creation, then you will only be revealing the truth of his handiwork. If I am right, the evidence will show this too. I trust that you will be honest and forthright enough to do this.
BobTHJ writes:
Objective measures must be found if baraminology is to advance as a science.
BobTHJ writes:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis
Can't you see how those two comments contradict each other? The baramin must be objective. We agree on that. But if the baramin cannot be falsified, how can it be objective? An unfalsifiable idea can never be objective; it could be true or untrue, we would have no way of knowing. What point is there in having a classification so lax that it could be changed according to whim? What purpose would it serve? Any system of taxonomy must be objective. falsifiability is a big part of that.
- the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory.
It's not. Falsifiability is a methodological principle. It need not be falsifiable in itself because it is not an attempt to describe reality; it is an attempt to refine our means of seeking knowledge. It is an axiom of our method, not a theory in itself. Falsifiability is a central plank of modern scientific method. Without it, we would have no way of testing our theories.
I would also note that you, like all creationists, seem keen to apply falsification to the ToE. What other purpose could you have in bringing up issues that you consider problematic for the ToE? I suspect that if that pesky Precambrian rabbit was found, you would be very happy indeed with the principle of falsification.
To recap, when I say that baramins must be falsifiable, I am only saying the same thing you are saying, that baramins must be based upon objective criteria. If a baraminological hypothesis did not meet those criteria, it would be falsified. Until such objective criteria are described by baraminologists though, we have no criteria upon which we might judge the worth of the idea. If we have no objective criteria, we have no way of testing the hypothesis. And with no way of testing the hypothesis, our hypothesis becomes quite useless.
Nothing can falsify a phantasm. If you want to show us the worth of baraminology, you must demonstrate that it is more than a phantasm.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 372 of 385 (567273)
06-30-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by BobTHJ
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


Hi Bob, glad you decided to stick around.
If conclusive evidence of feathered dinosaurs were shown this would not invalidate kinds. It would fit a new taxon between birds and dinosaurs - likely a separate extinct baramin (or baramins).
First, we have conclusive evidence that birds are dinosaurs; dozens of examples of feathered dinosaurs, birds with teeth, and a whole raft of morphological intermediates between birds and maniraptorans. Given this, it is hard to visualise what you might think was conclusive evidence. Care to help me out? What would you consider suitable evidence?
Second, I disagree that the "kinds" model is not falsified by this observation. One of the central planks of baraminology is that the baramins cannot interbreed or mix. Here we have birds and dinosaurs, two groups of animals that no baraminologist would place together, actually evolving from one state to the other. This is the exact opposite of what baramin enthusiasts say is going on.
Also, why would it be a separate baramin? Why not simply incorporate feathered dinosaurs into a dinosaur baramin? Why not include birds in the dinosaur baramin? What objective reasons can you give for claiming feathered dinosaurs belong to their own baramin as opposed to any other? Because if you have none, I am forced to conclude that the term "baramin" is so infinitely flexible that it has no meaning.
Conclusions based on evidence are assumptive in nature - because we never have full evidence. To use our example the evidence in question is several distinct fossils. We can draw reasonable conclusions from these fossils (and maybe feathered dinosaurs is a reasonable conclusion) but that conclusion requires a certain level of assumption - because there is much that remains uncertain.
I think the word you are reaching for is "tentativity". Yes, all scientific conclusions are tentative, but this does not make them assumptions. Tentativity is good practise. You should try applying it to your religious beliefs some day.
Using the principle of tentativity to damn a particular paper is childish and self-defeating. You can complain all you like that Xu et al 's conclusions are tentative, but you show no concern that the practise of baraminology is also tentative - unless you have mistaken the baraminologists for gods.
As I've stated previously, I agree that the ontology based on genetic and morphological similarity models life with greater than 95% accuracy. This agreement does nothing to vindicate darwin (who made an assumption/conclusion of common ancestry based upon morphological evidence) it merely demonstrates that life shares much similarity.
Deluded nonsense. Darwin predicted that life would display nested similarities. And that is exactly what we see. Every time a new species is discovered, whether living or fossilised, it fits into the nested hierarchy predicted by Darwin's theory. That is a vindication of the prediction.
Further, these similarities fit into an evolutionary framework - every single time. There are no exceptions. If the ToE were false, there would be no reason for this pattern to emerge, but it does. Exactly as predicted.
I have no idea what planet you come from where the repeated confirmation of a theory's predictions, based upon millions of observations, does not constitute evidence for that theory.
Your own pet theory, the baramin, predicts absolutely nothing of course and so could never have any supporting evidence, no matter what was observed.
I agree wholeheartedly - and can state with certainty that my YEC belief is a result of the evidence (at least the evidence I have seen).
But your beliefs are often in direct contradiction to easily observed and very clear evidence. Take your comments on the fossil record for instance, where you say in one message;
It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried. Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer.
Now that is not what the fossil record shows, It just isn't. There are many bottom dwellers above trilobites in the fossil record. There are complex, free swimming organisms above. There are simple bottom dwelling organisms right through the record, not just near the bottom. The picture you paint here is so astonishingly removed from reality that it bears no resemblance at all.
You cannot possibly have based this view upon the evidence, It's simply too obviously wrong. Instead you based your view on something you read somewhere, probably some creationist lie-site.
The evidence is not biased. Sometimes it is ambiguous, hard to read. Sometimes however it is not. Sometimes the evidence is very clear indeed and the conclusions it gives us are near inescapable. The idea that birds evolved from a reptilian ancestor is one such idea, as is the common ancestry of humans and chimps.
A hypothesis that isn't falsifiable isn't necessarily incorrect. It is however of limited use to objective science until a method of falsification is devised.
Agreed. An unfalsifiable theory might be correct, but it is no use to science.
Specific baraminological hypothesis are falsifiable. The science as a whole would also be falsified if humans and chimps (or some other primate) were shown to have common ancestry.
Interesting that you say that, given that you have already claimed that evidence for bird/dinosaur transition would not falsify the baramin. What is it about humans and chimps that is so special? What would constitute good evidence for human/chimp common ancestry in your view?
Just to set the record straight: I am not in any way suggesting that a spiritual enemy 'fixed' our observations (Though Granny's new avatar is cute) - evidence is evidence. I am suggesting that a spiritual enemy might influence the conclusions drawn from those observations. This is of course opinion on my part and should in no way be construed to be anything else.
So, to be clear, your theory, the one you find so much more convincing than the ToE, requires not one invisible, undetectable supernatural entity, but two? Wow. And you actually have the gall to attack Xu et al for making "assumptions". Stunning.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed a question answered elsewhere in Bob's reply.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by BobTHJ, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM BobTHJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 381 of 385 (567574)
07-01-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by CosmicChimp
06-30-2010 4:42 PM


Hi CosmicChimp. I think that Huntard and Crashfrog have done a great job answering this one already, but I would just like to add a couple of things.
To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication.
Yes, it very strongly argues for heritable change, with modification, leading to speciation. The case is so compelling that besides a deliberately deceitful god, I can't see any other possibilities - and Bobthj has explicitly rejected that notion.
But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.
It isn't. The problem is that nothing can be distinguished from Last Thursdayism. Appealing to the meddling of an undetectable supernatural entity is an answer that can equally be applied to anything. There is no observation or question to which it could not be applied. Of course it could then be turned around and used to make just as strong a case for the counter-argument. We must either reject such an answer or we must seriously consider the possibility that all human knowledge is compromised by supernatural trickery.
I have to say that for my tastes, undermining all knowledge seems a high price to pay for a single religious apologetic.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-01-2010 9:57 PM Granny Magda 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