Biological classification vs 'Kind'

quote:

---

I'm happy to add my own welcoming reply, BobTHJ. Your posts so far have been quite refreshing. I'd like to get down to some topical details, but first, I'll indulge in a few snarky knee-jerk reactions that, alas, tend to be all too common in a forum like this one.

---

Thanks....I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to make a reasoned reply to my arguments.

quote:

---

Indeed. Many who are familiar with the study of "baraminology" have concluded that its distance from "an exact science" is so great that it turns out not to be any kind of science at all. A major factor in this conclusion is the admission made by all baraminologists that they start from a "foundational truth" based on a particular interpretation of scripture, and their goal is to figure out how to get physical evidence to be consistent with that "truth". This simply is not science.

---

As I mentioned previously, all scientists begin with a bias - a set of assumptions or preconceived notions. I pointed out some of the common assumptions that darwinist scientists make. I'll relist them here in an effort to be comprehensive:
1. abiogenesis
2. uniformation in the geological record
3. a fixed decay rate across time for all radio-isotopesIn the same fashion YEC scientists begin with a bias toward the scriptural account of creation in Genesis.Now, certainly in some of the simple observational sciences where results can be observed and repeated in a labratory bias plays a minimal factor. But not so with origin sciences. Ancient history (whatever form it may take) can not be repeated and observed. Therefore - like it or not - bias plays a major role in any such science. Just because bias plays a role however does not mean the science is invalid. The data remains the same regardless of the problem the scientist is attempting to solve.Bias tends to show itself most in the conclusions drawn form the data - take the example of the semi-recent discoveries of preserved soft-tissues in the fossil record. The darwinist's conclusion from the data was that some as yet unknown chemical process preserved the tissue for millions of years. This was based on their preconceived bias or "foundational truth" of molecules-to-man evolution. Creation scientists on the other hand made the much more reasonable conclusion that the fossil was merely thousands of years of age. Never once did I hear any darwinist say "Hey, wait a minute....this doesn't make sense. Perhaps this fossil isn't really millions of years old!" - why? Because it would conflict with their prior assumptions about the fossil record and the age of the earth.Now, I understand that darwinists consider these assumptions to already be proven - but it is exactly this unwillingness to question the assumptions that leads to bad science. The trick to drawing good conclusions from the data is to leave you bias at the door - a difficult task for both sides of the aisle.

quote:

---

It would be worthwhile to look at some particular cases of disagreement among baraminologists about how things group into "baramins", and compare these with contemporary cases of disagreement among evolutionary biologists and taxonomists about how things group into clades and lines of descent. On identifying a few representative disagreements within each field, it would also be instructive to see how disputes are debated, and how (or whether) they get resolved.

​

But here I have to admit that, like you, I'm not a credentialed scientist (nor a baraminologist), and it would be a stretch for me to try pursuing this in detail -- too much information to find, and too many other things I have to do instead. But you have already provided a useful reference, for which I am sincerely grateful. (More on that below.)

---

I agree a comprehensive evaluation is beyond both my level of skill as well as the limits of my free time. Here's an article however (which I may have linked earlier, I don't recall) on some serious issues with the comparisons between the morphological and genetic trees of ancestry.

quote:

---

I think it's fair to draw analogies here, like: discovering general relativity didn't make Newtonian physics any less valid; or: discovering that planetary orbits were elliptical didn't make the Copernican theory of perfectly circular orbits any less valid; or: discovering that the Earth's circumference around the poles is not really a circle didn't make the concept of a spherical Earth any less valid. In each case the latter (supplanted) notion simply "hasn't been fully fleshed out" -- actually, it is less accurate, which means more error-prone -- when compared to the notion that supplanted it.

​

Now the question becomes: where will our time and effort be better spent? Going back to flesh out those supplanted notions, or coming to grips with, understanding, and building on the notions that replaced them? Bear in mind that in trying to make those older notions more accurate, it's a safe bet that you'll be retracing the steps that led to our current notions on these matters (which still have some margin of error, but this has been measurably reduced).

​

So it is with baraminology (based on scripture) vs. cladistics (based on physical evidence). The vast majority of people who have pursued advanced degrees in biology, archaeology, zoology and geology over the last 150 years or so have made this transition, if they ever gave any credence to the scriptural account in the first place.

---

I don't think this is a reasoned comparison. You are assuming that cladistics has supplanted baraminology as a more refined method of classifying organisms. This is only the case if you are willing to accept the "foundational truths" of darwinian evolution - which are shaky assumptions at best.And yes, while the mainstream scientific consensus at this point accepts those assumptions this does not mean Baraminology is a waste of time or effort. If the history of science has taught us anything it is that those willing to buck the common assumptions of the day were the ones to make the most significant breakthroughs. If anything science dissenting from the mainstream is beneficial to scientific thought as a whole - because it continues to challenge the underlying assumptions upon which modern science is based. Take for example the recent evidence disproving certain assumptions used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

quote:

---

The second sentence there takes us to the crux of the matter. I think you have misstated it, but I can see how you arrived at this misstatement. I would paraphrase: The only purpose for having a YEC model is to have humans be a distinct kind from other life.

---

This is a mis-characterization. YECs are not bible-thumping mongrels out to prove how special we humans are. Yes - there is no doubt that humans must be a distinct kind for the YEC model to be consistent - but it is only one of many facets of YEC science.

quote:

---

You might want to look at a review of Wood's paper by a biologist (at the Panda's Thumb web site). The main point is: if you abandon the dogmatic notion of having to divide these fossils into just two distinct groups, and instead allow a taxonomy that reflects a series of gradual transitions, it becomes a lot easier to make sense of the physical evidence.

---

I may be in error here as I don't fully speak the scientific lingo - but to simplify my understanding of both Wood's paper and Matzke's review:Wood's classification algorithm separated homonids into groupings of humans and apes. Au. africanus didn't fit neatly into either group. Wood's conclusion from the data is that Au. africanus is in a third group by itself. Matzke's conclusions from the data is that Au. africanus is a transitional form between the groups. This seems to me to be a clear case of both scientists acting upon their bias - which in this case makes a lot of sense as it appears neither conclusion is more reasonable than the other (unless considered with bias). In the end the data is not conclusive enough to show either interpretation to be correct.

quote:

---

But we do see a continuity with all vertebrates, including humans. YEC and baraminology can not explain this. With YEC there is no reason that we should not see a feathered bat or a bird with three middle ear bones. There is no reason that separate baramins should fall into a nested hierarchy or clade. The only way this makes sense is if common ancestry is true.

---

For kinds of vertebrates to be grouped into larger classes is not at all an indication of common ancestry. The Bible speaks of larger classes of vertebrates as well. This just demonstrates order - an attribute of the Creator.It would be nice for you if there was the level of continuity to neatly fit every vertebrate into clades - but it's just not there. Consider the hundreds of cases of similarities in supposedly unrelated species conveniently explained away as convergent evolution (what a weak assumption!). Scientists can't even decide if birds evolved from dinosaurs.

quote:

---

1. and 2. are not the assumptions that science makes. Abiogenesis is not assumed, and is in fact an active area of research. All evolution needs is life, and the fossil clearly indicates that life existed so no assumption. The constant decay rate of isotopes is an observation backed by millions of data points and by quantum physics. 2. is assumed. Science does assume that the laws of nature are the same through space and time so when we see a chalk deposit forming today we assume that an identical chalk deposit in the past was formed the same way. What is wrong with that?

---

Let's look at them one at a time, shall we?1. As I've stated previously scientists must either accept intelligent design or abiogenesis (or some as yet unknown third method). Since many scientists can't get away from ID fast enough they make the assumption of abiogenesis. Admittedly, not all do - some are wise enough to realize just how foolish abiogensis is: there is no working theory as to how it could take place and a host of evidence against it as a possibility.2. Uniformation in the geological record is all well and good if the world were static - but it is not. Catastrophic events have been demonstrated to rapidly change geological formations (see creation research published RE: the Mt. Saint Helens eruption of 1980). A global catastrophic event such as Noah's Flood much better explains many elements of the geological record - such as vast sandstone deposits thousands of miles from their origin (was going to provide a link here but can't seem to find it now).3. You are correct that over the past century science has observed a fairly steady rate of radio-isotope decay. However, assuming that same constant rate of decay for 4+ billion years is a bad assumption. As it turns out radio-isotope half-lives can vary substantially based upon a host of factors.*NOTE: Above are several links to the blog of Dr. Jay Wile. I recently read the full archive of this blog and Dr. Wile covers a broad number of subjects so to the content is fresh in my mind.

quote:

---

No. The goal of science is to construct hypotheses that are then tested. How do you test for the supernatural? Specifically, what hypothesis can you form for the existence of baramins, and what evidence if found would falsify the hypothesis?

---

You don't, of course. But I'm not referring to the supernatural as a testable hypothesis. I'm referring to it as a prior assumption in cases where no naturalistic assumption is reasonable.For baramins specifically, I know if know test capable of falsifying the hypothesis - just as there is none for common ancestry. The only way to test either hypothesis would be to re-run history which (at present) is impossible. It is not observable science. We can however draw reasonable conclusions based upon the visible evidence.

quote:

---

Then you look for other pathways. What you don't do is invent an untestable supernatural realm from whole cloth and claim it is the cause. That is not science.

---

Can you give me an example of the generation of life that's more reasonable than intelligent design? Abiogenesis isn't anywhere close.

quote:

---

Genetics and morphological data are more than enough to establish common ancestry.

---

Genetics and morphology are simply indicators and provide no actual proof of common ancestry. If they did we wouldn't have any need for this conversation, would we? The only way to establish proof of common ancestry is to re-run history - still impossible since we last checked two paragraphs above.

quote:

---

We do disagree. The fingerprints of evolution are all over the human genome, and they indicate our shared ancestry with the rest of life on this planet. You claim that there is a different fingerprint, but you are incapable of describing it. What is it?

---

Obviously, I meant we agree on the evolutionary process - not on the results of that process.

quote:

---

Why would an all powerful and all knowing deity need to reuse any kind of design or genetic makeup? Isn't it just as likely that every single kind would have it's own genetic systems, or at least it's own codon usage? For an all powerful being reusing designs is just as easy as starting from scratch.

---

Just as easy perhaps - and certainly within the grasp of the God of the Bible. However, a collection of creatures - each completely unique from any other species - would be quite chaotic, and would fail to demonstrate order. The Bible clearly demonstrates that God acts according to his nature - of which order is a part.

quote:

---

Also, why does the reuse of design fall into a nested hierarchy, into a clade? Why do bats have three middle ear bones and fur while birds have a single middle ear bone and feathers? Why should bats share more features with a fox than it does another flying creature? We don't see this pattern of shared characteristics when humans re-use designs. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Even more, humans readily move genes between different species which violates the nested hierarchy. Again, the only explanation for this pattern of shared characteristics is common descent and evolution.

---

Why do bats and dolphins share the same protiens/enzymes for use in echolocation? There is no real nested heirarchy - it looks good at the big-picture level, but dig a little deeper and you'll see the details don't fit. I'd love to dive deeper into this topic, but perhaps we should start a new thread for the discussion?

quote:

---

We observe retroviruses inserting themselves into genomes. We observe that they do this randomly. Therefore, when you see two insertions at the same spot in two different genomes the only explanation is that it is from a single insertion in a common ancestor. Also, the divergence of ERV sequences (both overall sequence and LTR divergence) produces the same phylogenetic tree as the placement in the genome. Three different sources of phylogenetic ERV data all point to the same thing, humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor. Your scenario does not explain these phylogenetic signals. For more reading go here.

---

I demonstrated already that its not the ONLY explanation. Perhaps the more reasonable one given the assumption of common ancestry, but not when given the assumption of Biblical creation. Where you start leads to your interpretation of the data.

quote:

---

No, it is not speculation. The genetic evidence (such as the ERV evidence in the paper above) clearly indicates shared ancestry.

---

You keep stating this without providing any backing evidence, and without addressing the opposing evidence I previously posted. Maybe you meant to post a link above - I didn't see one (if I missed it I apologize). I'd be happy to examine the basis for your claims, but simply telling me I'm wrong without providing supporting data does nothing to further the discussion.

quote:

---

Surely the different genomes contain different information, do they not? That different information is due to different sequences. Mutations produce different sequences, and selection filters out the bad and allows the good to prosper. If you disagree, then please pick two genomes from two different baramins and show us which differences evolution could not produce.

---

I'm not sure I'm following here. Are you trying to say "different genomes contain different information, therefore we have proof that evolution can add information to the genome"? because that's circular logic - it begins with the assumption of common ancestry.I thought I had already made my position clear. I do not believe the evolutionary process capable of adding any information to any genome - there is no evidence to suggest it (unless you assume common ancestry). Even in experiments with rapid-mutating bacteria the only development of new capability comes as a result of decay - breakdown of already existing enzymes - not the creation of new ones. Now, if evidence came to light clearly demonstrating the evolutionary process adding information to a genome then I would revise my position - but I would not revise my belief in YEC, as it would still be the model that most consistently fits the data.

quote:

---

Compare the genome of humans and chimps. Those differences are what evolution is capable of producing. It really is that simple.

---

Again, this assumes common ancestry - an assumption I'm not willing to make because the data I've seen doesn't support it.

quote:

---

Past events create evidence that can be observed in the here and now. This includes fossils and inherited DNA. One can construct hypotheses and use this evidence to test the hypothesis. For example, if common ancestry is true then you should not find a fossil with feather impressions and three middle ear bones.

---

agree.

quote:

---

So what hypotheses can one construct using baraminology? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify baramins? What genetic features would one need to observe in order to falsify baramins? This is how you get rid of bias, by making risky predictions. Baraminologists refuse to make these risky predictions.

---

No fossil in and of itself would falsify Baraminology - because baramins are based on the work of an omnipotent Creator, who could (theoretically) make anything he desired. It could be falsified if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive.

quote:

---

That's false. It was based on the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil. The age of the fossil is known and is solid. You can go measure the rocks yourself if you think their results are biased. The problem is figuring out how tissue can be preserved for about 65 million years.

---

The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques. You prove my point here that darwinists were unable to come to the reasonable conclusion (a young fossil) since they were unwilling to question their base-assumption of the accuracy of radio-isotope dating methods.

quote:

---

Like you have already shown, you don't even know what these assumptions are. The assumptions of science (including the biological sciences) are rather mundane. First, there are knowable causes for natural phenomenon. Second, the universe is rational and can be examined by rational beings. Third, knowledge is gained through empirical observations. Fourth, nature behaves the same through space and time (uniformity). If water boils at 100 C today it will boil at 100 C tomorrow if the variables are the same. That's about it. The constant decay of radioisotopes is not assumed, it is observed. Abiogenesis is not an assumption, it is a field of research where nothing is assumed. Common descent is not speculation or an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from hundreds of thousands of tested hypotheses

---

You successfully list SOME assumptions - and I agree that these assumptions are made in most all cases, these are the common assumptions. Any conclusions based on evidence are assumptions as well. If new data or a more logical interpretation of the data comes to light then those conclusions can be shown to be false. I'm surprised you are having trouble seeing this.

quote:

---

What you seem to be missing is that evolution is USEFUL. Phylogenetics is a very important tool. In the field of comparative phylogenomics the theory of evolution allows one to use common ancestry and evolution to predict protein function, as one example. No one is using baraminology to do . . . well, anything (unless you count christian apologetics as something).

---

Phylogenetics is a useful tool ONLY if the assumption of common ancestry is correct. If the YEC model assumption is correct then Baraminology is a useful tool and phylogenetics is not. Baraminology (and other creation sciences) can be used to make predictions as well - such as "transitional forms between distinct known kinds will not be found in the fossil record" or more specifically "transitional forms demonstrating common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees will not be found".

quote:

---

Observable science is drawing reasonable conclusions based upon observing the evidence (it doesn't have to be visible. X-rays can be observed for example).

---

Of course....this is what I meant. Using the word "visible" was a poor choice on my part.

quote:

---

Evolution is observable science. By your previous criticism you seem to be suggesting that it is not experimental science. As if all science has to be experimental in nature. Here is an astronomer, Charles Bailyn, Thomas E. Donnelley Professor of Astronomy and Physics and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Astronomy at Yale:

---

According to your quote you are correct - it seems I mixed the terms. My apologies.

quote:

---

Baramins don't give us a story that gives us a deep understanding of what's going on. Common ancestry does, it even leads to nontrivial predictions that have been tested.

---

Your first sentence is speculative opinion. Mine is the opposite.I would be interested in reviewing successful predictions made by common ancestry - as I am constantly in search of data that might invalide the YEC model (I have yet to find any - but I'm keeping an open mind).

quote:

---

Unless you were one of the many billions of humans that can sometimes get it wrong even when the proof is staring them in the face. Not all proofs are necessarily persuasive to all human beings.

---

Quite true. Psalm 19:1 - The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

quote:

---

What we see is exactly what we should see if common ancestry were true. Baramins are a rudimentary observation of the same phenomenon by an intelligent group of people with insufficient resources to explore the nature of the 'kinds' any deeper than they did.

​

Why rest on such a concept? These people couldn't build computers, or save themselves from small pox. Why rely on their interpretations of their observations when more precise observations and more powerful interpretations of those observations has been made?

---

Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to imply that baraminology is an ancient science only? Modern baraminologists would disagree with you.

quote:

---

Injecting agency in a time period which predates all known agency seems wildly premature and while I feel the temptation to do so for all sorts of things, I would hardly consider it reasonable.

---

So when exactly would it cease to be premature? What would be required for you and other darwinists to accept a supernatural cause for a natural phenomena?Your use of the word premature is humorous, considering the mythology of most every ancient culture on earth contains a creation story (in many cases bearing striking similarity to each other). Humans have accepted a supernatural creation of life for as far back in history as we can determine - the concept of a naturalistic origin is both recent and laughable considering there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.

Sorry everyone - I didn't have time yet to respond to each post which warranted a response. I do intend to do so, but will be away for the weekend. I'll try and get back to this on Monday.

quote:

---

Hi Bob! Just wanted to say that since few of your sentences don't invite multitudes of responses, its possible you might return Monday to find far more responses than any non-obsessive/compulsive could ever answer (I know I'll be doing my part if I can find the time). If that happens then don't feel the need to reply to every message, especially since many people are probably telling you the same thing.

​

Also note that at the bottom of responses to you is a link that says, "BobTHJ has not yet responded." Click on it and it magically becomes, "BobTHJ acknowledges this reply." Poof, like that, you're done!

---

Thanks for the greeting - and also thank you for the tip! Unfortunately, I am a bit OCD so I'll probably respond to most of these messages anyway (sooner or later) - I look forward to the discussion!

quote:

---

Such as? Or if one cannot find a natural solution invoke magic? There is not anything that cannot have a reasonable natural assumption.

---

The origin of life comes immediately to mind (and I've mentioned this in several previous posts on this thread). The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.Note here the critical flaw in the "new" (past 150 years) naturalistic approach to science (which I have also pointed out in previous posts). If you rule out the supernatural prior to drawing your conclusions you will never be able to understand a process with a supernatural origin. Now, you can certainly argue that there are no such supernatural processes - and maybe you would be correct - but there is no way to be certain...and therefore you blind yourself to an entire realm of possible explanations.

quote:

---

Since when is a nested hierarchy an attribute of the Creator?

---

Order - order is an attribute of the Creator. Sorry for the confusing language.

quote:

---

Pick out a similar feature that is the product of convergent evolution and we will discuss. I promise that you will be very disappointed. Convergent features are only superficially similar. An examination of the specific features demonstrates that they were derived through different means.

---

Sounds fantastic - though off topic. I started a new thread for the discussion here.

quote:

---

Also, you first argue that we should see a nested hierarchy if creationism and baramins are true, and now you are arguing that there are clear violations of the nested hierarchy. It would be nice if you were more consistent.

---

No, I did not argue for nested heirarchy. I said creatures could be divided into general classes or groupings - but there are even some exceptions to this.

quote:

---

As to birds and dinosaurs, birds are now classified as dinosaurs. The Aves clade sits within the theropod dinosaur clade along with such famous dinosaurs as raptors. Given the number of dinosaurs with feathers and the numerous transitionals between non-avian dinosaurs and birds the matter has been settled. Can you explain why there is not a baramin that contains mammals with bird features or birds with mammal features? Evolution can explain it.

---

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.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?

quote:

---

You don't have to assume either one in order to conclude that life has changed over time through the mechanisms of evolution and shares a universal common ancestor. Darwin himself suggested that life was breathed into a single mor many forms by a creator from which all life evolved.

---

Yes and no. 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.

quote:

---

You just used uniformitarianism when you compared modern catastrophic events to evidence past catastrophic events. Of course catastrophic events are taken into account because we can observe them creating geologic structures today. These observations allow geologists to determine if a geologic structure was produced by gradual or catastrophic means. A good example is the Channeled Scablands in the northwestern United States which hold strong evidence for catstrophic formation, and geologists interpret it as such. We also have the chalk cliffs at Dover which can only form slowly over long spans of time due to the fact that they are formed from tiny creatures (coccolithophores) settling slowly to the ocean floor in calmer waters. You can't get chalk cliffs hundreds of feet high in a flood. Doesn't work that way

---

In an effort to not veer too far off-topic I'm not going to research a response to this section. I would like to come back and revisit this topic at a later time, but one new thread spawned from this post is more than enough for the limits of my spare time.

quote:

---

This has been tested inside and out. The pressures and energies needed to change the half lives of the isotopes used for dating would destroy the rocks. We can also look at distant supernovae that are hundreds of thousands of light years away and observe the same decay rates. On top of that, we can also look at naturally occuring nuclear reacotrs (e.g. Oklo reactors) and observe the results of the same half lives. Read more here. In order to change the decay rates of isotopes in a way that would falsify an old earth would require scientific laws to be turned on their head.

---

Again here...

quote:

---

If no naturalistic explanation is reasonable then you keep searching for one. That is how science works. Thousands of years ago there was no reasonable natural explanation for lightning so people ascribed it to the actions of the supernatural. How did that work out for them? What you are describing is a God of the Gaps, a deity who resides in our ignorance. As we learn more about nature your god gets smaller and smaller. Is that really the way you picture your god?

---

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)

quote:

---

There are many ways to falsify common ancestry. A rabbit in pre-cambrian strata. A bird with three middle ear bones. A bird with teats. A bat with feathers. There are thousands and thousands of potential falsifications for common ancestry. So what evidence, if found, would falsify baramins? Nothing? Are you telling me that no matter what evidence I show you that it will never convince you that baramins are false?

---

I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry. Perhaps there are others - I don't know. I'm certainly open to them. An actual baraminologist could likely provide a more reasoned list of tests.

quote:

---

That is completely wrong. The theory of evolution makes millions of predictions about what one should and should not see in modern species, in fossil species, and in the genomes of modern species if evolution is true. I have listed a few above (e.g. bats with feathers). These predictions have been shown to be true for the last 150 years. Genetics was perhaps the biggest test for evolution in its history, and it passed with flying colors. Can you name a single prediction made by baraminology?

---

I readily admit to a limited knowledge of baraminology. What's been discussed here so far is the full extent of my knowledge on the subject. To help answer you question I googled baraminology predictions and found this. It appears to be a few as-yet-untested predictions regarding the creationist hypothesis on ERVs we were discussing earlier. I'll be curious to see how these predictions hold up to the evidence.

quote:

---

The reason that we are having this conversation is that religious dogma has blinded you. Nothing more. Genetics and morphology are the evidence for common ancestry, evidence that your religious beliefs have blinded you to. We don't need to re-run history. We have that history. It is found in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species.

---

I find this to be entirely offensive. While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs (a fact I have not tried to hide) I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is. While I'm confident that the data supports a YEC model, I won't shy away from the data that does not or try and sweep it under the rug. If there is not a reasonable YEC interpretation of the data I'll happily admit it. I am more than capable of reasoning for myself - and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting.

quote:

---

If "grouped into larger classes" is your term for a nested hierarchy, then your conclusion that a nested hierarchy doesn't imply common descent is hard to fathom.

---

Not nested hierarchy - just groupings of similar features. There is some overlap - and still not everything fits nicely into a group.

quote:

---

So I click on the link to find the list of these "hundreds of cases" of convergent evolution so I can get a rough idea of why you think it's a weak assumption and what do I find? Jay Wile in his blog simply declaring that there are hundreds of cases. He doesn't provide even a single example.

​

So since Mr. Wile provides nothing supporting what he says, can I presume that you can't explain why you think convergent evolution is an assumption? Can I also suggest that you not use as your guide someone so long on opinions and so short on supporting evidence?

---

If you would have read the article in question you would have noted that it is a review of a book by Simon Conway Morris (a theistic evolutionist) that documents hundreds of cases. I thought quoting the review article better than quoting entire chapters from the book - no?Side note for truthful disclosure: I have not read Morris' book, but have added it to my future reading list as I am curious to learn more about various cases of convergent evolution.

quote:

---

Sure there are tests that falsify common ancestry. As already pointed out, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, for one.

---

Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes?

quote:

---

Things that actually happened leave evidence behind. There is no need to rerun history because we have the evidence of past events

---

Yes, the evidence gives us clues as to what occurred - and fairly examining that evidence is indeed important.I'm having to spend most of time here repeating myself about issues like this. Just because I disagree with the conclusions darwinists draw from the data does not mean I'm an incompetent nincompoop that lacks the understanding of the processes involved.

quote:

---

I hope you really meant something like "apparent evidence" or "detectable evidence," because a great deal of evidence isn't visible. Much evidence requires instrumentation to detect, or is only apparent to one of the other senses.

---

Yes, as stated in a previous post that is exactly what I meant. Sorry for not using clearer language.

quote:

---

We're having this conversation because evidence isn't how many people decide what to believe. Too often a good story trumps evidence. If this weren't true then homeopathy, chiropractics, ghosts, perpetual motion machines, creation science and ID would not still be with us. It's why many people want to teach a good story in science class instead of evidence-based science.

---

I couldn't agree more. Darwinian evolution is a fascinating story, isn't it? Honestly, I find it to be highly interesting - it appeals to me. Too bad it isn't supported by the evidence.Now, can we move on from the baseless accusations?

quote:

---

Genetics and morphology represent extremely strong evidence of a nested hierarchy and common descent. Common descent and a nested hierarchy are things that we know for absolute certain are true of ourselves because of what we each know about our own family's history, such as the common ancestor we share with distant cousins three and four times removed. And when our genealogical evidence runs out there is no evidence suggesting that life long ago didn't reproduce precisely the way it does today, which can only produce nested hierarchies. For another example, the Belmont Stakes is this weekend, and many of the horses have known common ancestors going many generations back. Common ancestry is a known phenomenon of the real world.

---

Yes, yes....ancestral descent is an observable phenomena. The assumption arises when applying ancestral descent to creatures of different species. This is not an observable phenomena. So next you have to look at the evidence of past events to see if the evidence suggests it is a reasonable assumption to make. The scant evidence I've seen would lead me to believe the answer is no.

quote:

---

You're a couple decades late on this one, Bob. Ardipithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus?
We've got the fossils, Bob.

---

It should be clear by now that creationists do not draw the conclusion of common ancestry from the data of these fossils. Given a YEC framework this is a very reasonable conclusion. Complain all you want about my 'religious dogma' preventing me from seeing the truth - but that won't advance the conversation. Instead, if you'd like to examine and discuss these fossils on a case by case basis, start a new on-topic thread and I'd be glad to join the discussion (as my time permits).

quote:

---

This would include feathered bats, would it not?

---

Yes, in a YEC model there could theoretically be a feathered bat.

quote:

---

What evidence would you accept for human/chimp common ancestry, outside of time travel? Any?

​

The fossil evidence clearly shows transitional fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

​

The genomes of both humans and chimps carry irrefutable markers that point to common ancestry (e.g. shared pseudogenes, ERV's).

​

What more do you want?

---

I'd like to dive into this topic a little deeper - and I fully admit I'm bumping into the limits of my knowledge on the subject. I'd like to learn more - and I'd be happy to let you guide me in that learning process if you wanted to set up a separate thread for such purpose. Though I admit - I'm starting to get spread a little thin here....I'm behind about 20 posts of replies at this point (and the OCD in me prevents me from just ignoring those replies).

quote:

---

Nope, those are the assumptions. I find it strange that you accuse me of not seeing these other assumptions and then fail to describe them yourself.

---

My point is that initial conclusions are then used as assumptions for further evaluation of data. Take the example of radiometric dating - once a common decay rate is concluded - that conclusion is then assumed to be correct when evaluating the age of a fossil. Yes, that is how science works - and I don't have a problem with it. But if one (or more) of the base conclusions/assumptions turns out to be wrong all subsequent conclusions based upon that assumption must be re-evaluated.

quote:

---

Flatly wrong. It is useful period. Using an algorithm based on evolution scientists are capable of predicting the function of proteins with 96% accuracy.

---

OK, you've got me interested - can you provide me with some links detailing further information on the SIFTER project? I'd like to learn more.

quote:

---

With this comment, I think you're just asking somebody to throw out a list of "recent" things that have been shown to outperform things that humans have accepted and used for as far back in history as we can determine. For instance, guns, cars and calculators easily outperform spears, chariots and abacuses, respectively.

---

Not at all. I'm suggesting that just because something is new doesn't mean it is better than the old. Take for example Betamax, LOLspeak, or Google Wave . Before accepting the naturalistic approach to the origin of life we should have some good evidence that it is a better assumption than the supernatural one humanity has traditionally assumed.

quote:

---

(lengthy explanation of GULO gene observations - omitted for brevity)

​

You know the result before I say it, because why else would I bring it up?

---

I read several articles to check up on this - here'sone. Apparently there are 47 'shared mistakes' between humans and guinea pigs which suggest mutational hotspots as the more likely conclusion (instead of common ancestry). Or am I missing more recent data showing otherwise?

quote:

---

Well I'm glad you accept that you might be fallible but I fail to see the point of citing poetry? Actually, of course, I do know. You think that the evidence (the heavens/firmament) is staring us in the face. But then - that's just the personal opinion of a long dead poet and that should be remembered.

​

The question is - was he right?

---

To you, it may just be the words of a long-dead poet. I accept it as the divinely inspired word-of-God - but that's moving into the realm of apologetics and not scientific debate which means I took us off-topic

quote:

---

I have no idea what a 'supernatural cause' is and how we would tell there had been one. Nor am I a 'darwinist'. I'm just a guy that heard someone say that evolution was falsified by the 2nd law of thermodynamics so I excitedly began to study the subject to find out more. I quickly learned that evolution was on much stronger evidential ground than I had originally suspected - though understanding what was being claimed by the two broad camps took a lot of time and supplementary reading.

---

I use 'darwinist' in the sense of "subscribes to the darwinian theory of evolution" which it appears you do....my apologies if I am mistaken.Another tangent that might be of interest to you: Here's another article from my favorite Dr. Wile on why the second law of thermodynamics does NOT falsify evolution, but does impose some constraints upon it.

quote:

---

Basically, if someone found evidence that there was a designer, then it wouldn't be premature to conclude that there was a designer. "I can think of no other way than to invoke a mysterious agent." is not evidence of a mysterious agent. It's just giving up. Be glad the police do not use this methodology: "Well I can't figure out how a robber can break into the shop, kill the manager, steal the goods and not be seen by any witnesses...so we're clearly looking for an invisible robber."

---

I see your example - but I stand by my assessment that this leads to flawed science. The naturalistic detectives in this case would rule out invisibility before ever evaluating the evidence - thus they would never be able to catch an actually invisible robber, were such a thing to exist. A silly example, yes...but it does make my point.

quote:

---

What surprises me is that you think recent ideas are somewhat lesser than older ones. Surely if the modern era has taught us anything its that we got a lot of things wrong in the past, and fantastic things are possible when we get them right (disease, communications, travel, sanitation etc).

---

Not at all. I believe modern ideas should supersede ancient ideas ONLY in cases where they are shown to be more correct than the ancient idea they replace. Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it should be accepted without question.

quote:

---

I have a thread that explains why I have confidence in evolution, feel free to check it out and participate - Confidence in evolutionary science

---

I appreciate the invitation, and if/when I have the time I would be glad to join the discussion. I also appreciate your response to my post - yours has been one of the more reasoned and thought-out replies I have received and I appreciate the consideration and discussion.

quote:

---

To say that "both sides are showing bias" is to do serious violence to the meaning of "bias". Actually, this term tends to be used in so many ways with so many nuances that we should drop it completely when comparing scientists and YECs. Consider: I can honestly say that people who engage in rational, objective research are biased against unfounded assertions and vague generalizations, and I doubt that any of the people I'm referring to (the scientists) would dispute my statement. (They might express a preference for saying it in a different and more direct way, like "we do not accept unfounded assertions...") I can also say honestly that religious apologists are biased against any factual findings that contradict or diminish their articles of faith, and there's no shortage of evidence to support this claim. I am therefore able to agree with your statement that both sides are "biased", while disagreeing completely with your intent. This word doesn't help the discussion

---

You may be surprised that I agree with the gist of this paragraph (if you were to insert the word "some" before religious apologists).That being the case, I was using the word "bias" in a specific manner - to indicate that both Woods and Matzke were most likely (and did) come to a conclusion that fit their model (and which is reasonable within their respective models) - this I'm sure came as no surprise to either of us.

quote:

---

But the important thing here is to clarify the contrast between Wood and Matzke -- that is, between the two approaches that they represent. Wood begins with a hypothesis that the fossils of interest should fall into two clearly distinct groups: human and non-human. It turns out that the evidence does not fully support this hypothesis. There is one group that is clearly "human" and another group that is not, but then a third set of fossils turns out to share characteristics of both of those other groups, and doesn't fall clearly into one or the other.

---

Woods hypothesis is supported by the evidence. The fossils do separate into human and non-human - there were just two groups of non-humans. It may not be the conclusion you would come to as a darwinist - but it is the reasonable conclusion given a YEC model.

quote:

---

If you say "well then, this is a third distinct group", you are (a) admitting that the initial hypothesis was wrong, and (b) misinterpreting the results rather badly, because this "third group" doesn't actually have any traits unique unto itself that make it different -- it simply has a distinct combination of the traits found in the other two groups. (That was the basis for Wood's "experiment": grouping fossils based on differentially shared traits.)

---

This still does not preclude the possibility of a third group. The data fits both a third kind and common ancestry as possible conclusions.

quote:

---

Now, Matzke's review of Wood didn't actually lay out the details of the evolutionary account for this same set of fossils -- that information is available elsewhere: several good urls are provided under the "Paleoanthropology" heading on the Panda's Thumb links page (NB: this heading is about two-thirds down from the top of a very long page full of many fascinating things). For example this one (chronology view) and this one (line-of-descent view). I'm sure there are even better ones to be found (I've seen them cited and quoted here at EvC over the last couple years).

---

I briefly reviewed these....and I've seen similar charts in the past. Creationists have a variety of evidential reasons to not accept many of the "hominid" fossils as human ancestors - but that seems to be beyond the scope of this thread.

quote:

---

Not only does the evolutionary explanation provide a consistent account for all the gradations of features displayed by all the fossil evidence, but its account is also consistent with the temporal relations among the fossils, which have been established and confirmed by multiple independent measurements of both the fossils themselves and the materials in which they were embedded when they were uncovered. Again, there's nothing here having to do with bias -- just straight observation.

---

It would be nice for you were this true. Unfortunately it is not. While I agree there is SOME consistency and evidence indicating common ancestry it is not the overwhelming body that you suggest. For example, take a look at this recent article outlining some of the internal conflicts between darwinists over the Ardi fossil.

quote:

---

As for the large number of sites that present the information accurately, please don't waste time asserting that this is a "conspiracy". The facts and explanations arise from detailed debates and critical reviews about data collection methods, analytic procedures, and the logical consistency of conclusions. Researchers don't just make this stuff up, and presenters and publishers don't just buy it wholesale.

---

I'm not crying conspiracy. Certainly the majority of scientists subscribe to the darwinist model. Apart from some fringe elements I don't think there is a concerted effort to suppress the creationists or to falsify data. I do however believe that darwinist scientists are more apt to come to a conclusion that fits a darwinian model than to arrive at a much more reasonable conclusion that does not. This is due to that 'bias' we've been talking about.

quote:

---

Dr. Wile advertises himself as having a "PhD in Nuclear Chemistry", mainly to help sell his set of "science" text books that are tailored to the Christian home-schooling market. (His arguments against radiometric dating make it clear that he either forgot or never learned some very important stuff from his college and graduate courses.)

​

There's no denying that Wile puts religious apologetics first in his priorities (one of his home-schooling titles is "Exploring Creation with Chemistry"). His blog is rampant with quote mining and distortions, citing articles in popular science magazines in order to draw conclusions that really aren't warranted by those articles, let alone by the original research that the magazines are summarizing.

​

It's clear that he has an economic incentive for promoting creationism, so he can sell more books. And it's pretty easy to spot details in his blog posts that show how "promoting creationism" includes being dishonest, so apart from falling short of being a competent scientist, he isn't even a good Christian. I'd avoid him like the plague.

---

This is pure rubbish. You discredit Dr. Wile because he does not subscribe to a mainstream view on radiometric dating - a dissenting viewpoint does not indicate ineptitude. Also, according to your line of reasoning we should throw out the opinions and of any scientist who has ever published - since data and conclusions are subservient to cashflow - or is this only the case among the Christian homeschooling movement? You accuse him of dishonesty without citing any examples. Perhaps if you'd like to perform a character assassination of Dr. Wile a new thread would be appropriate?I personally highly respect Dr. Wile for his willingness to look at the data and draw the most reasonable conclusions. Yes, he quotes frequently from papers published in darwinist journals, but only to demonstrate how the data from those papers actually far better supports a YEC model - a conclusion the scientists who published the paper were unwilling to draw because it conflicted with their model (their 'bias').