Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness

The simple answer is that they start with a different set of assumptions. For example, that there is a "human kind" and a "chimp kind" is a basic starting assumption, therefore any similarity in morphology is purely coincidental. Whereas the rest of us start with the assumption that a creature's morphological features were inherited from their ancestors. Therefore, the question that needs to be asked is which assumption is more reliable, can be applied objectively and has the most explanatory power. (Hint: the "kind" concept ... not so much)Now regarding inconsistency, what gets me is how they reject "macroevolutionary" changes as being an impossibility, but propose the idea that a "created kind" could rapidly adapt to become 1000's of modern species in just a few thousand years. All of that without anything more than arbitrary (meaning not objective) boundaries between these "kinds", ie. flies are still flies, bacteria is still bacteria, etc ...I would also suggest that morphology may not be all that reliable. Many times it is all that data we have, but it can be misleading. Structures that appear homologous can actually arise from unrelated genes or closely related genes can produce significantly different morphological structures. The rearrangements in the plant kingdom in recent years are a good example of this. However, we are learning more about how genes affect morphology and are getting better at interpreting morphological data.HBD

I didn't mean to. There has been some work (and I use that term loosely - more like imaginings) on identifying the Ark Kinds.Some good quotes from the article:

quote:

---

"In this analysis, only twice was the level of the kind assigned to a rank below family. It was placed at the subfamily level for hedgehogs (Erinaceinae) and gymnures (Galericinae) because they could be fairly easily distinguished based on whether or not they had spines, at least in the photos that were available."

​

"In biology it is relatively easy to observe, measure, and identify similarities and differences. It is often much less straightforward to interpret the similarities and differences."

​

"In this serious attempt to quantify the kinds represented on the Ark, the numbers which resulted are lower than many had anticipated. Previous work had estimated the genus as the level of the kind, knowing this would significantly overestimate the number, in order to emphasize that the Ark had sufficient room for its intended purpose. In discussing the results of this study with other creationists, many are surprised at how incredibly spacious the accommodations on the Ark would have been."

---

But anyway, they start with this assumption that there are original created kinds (or ark kinds) which the Bible does suggest there is (at least in their minds), and try to make observations fit that assumption. Touche'HBD

The same could be said of most any scientific endeavor. Why go to the moon? Why explore outer space? Did we gain something by landing on the moon? Not really, but it was the process of getting to the moon that benefited us so greatly. Do you have any idea of the technology that came with the space exploration programs? NASA claims more than 1,600 spin-off technologies. See also: NASA Spinoffs.The same could be said of the search for answers about origins. Once it was understood that there was a mechanism of inheritance, the search began for what that mechanism was. Would we have discovered DNA without the context of origins? Perhaps, but it is the drive to answer questions that inspires innovation. I would argue that our questions about biological evolution and origins has driven much of our understanding of our world and is a significant part of the reason why our knowledge has grown exponentially in the last century. Actually, any scientific endeavor requires a framework within which to operate. This is what theories and models provide - the framework. Without this framework scientists would just be taking stabs in the dark. Even an incorrect theory is better than no theory. An incorrect theory can be corrected and adjustments made to provide a better framework; however, having no theory at all would make it virtually impossible to conduct scientific investigations. However, if I proposed to you that the moon was made of cheese, what framework would you use to decide whether my assertion had any merit? You would test that hypothesis against the model that planetary bodies are made from rocky materials (or gasses for some of them) rather than food products. Testing competing hypotheses is crucial to scientific investigation. It is simply not enough to say this particular theory is supported by the evidence, it must explain the data better than competing models.In another post you mention phylogenetic trees and quoted from Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, ...

---

This is correct, but what we really want is to compare a particular phylogenetic hypothesis against other hypotheses and show that it is the BEST fit, that a particular hypothesis explains the data better than any other hypothesis.This is one of the problems I have with people who suggest that evolutionary theory should be abandoned because a couple of details don't seem to fit perfectly or leave some uncertainty. The problem is, what model or theory should we replace it with? Is there a model that fits the data better? Scientists are not going to abandon a theory unless there is a better theory to replace it. Biological evolution has provide us with one of the most comprehensive and effective theories in the history of science. What to replace it with???? Nothing???HBD

Science has advanced to the point where it is very difficult for the lay person to understand all of the issues involved. People study for years to learn a very narrow focused field of study. That's what can be insulting to scientists when a layperson who has browsed some websites suddenly knows so much more than scientists do and can expose all the flaws in scientific theories with ideas that don't even fit the data, but are based on preconceived and ill-informed notions. One doesn't start with a theory and then find data to fit it. One uses the theory to explain the data and then as data accumulates, that theory may have to be adjusted or abandoned for a better one.Now, on the other hand, a creationist starts with a theory that is immutable and looks to find data that supports the theory. What does one then do with data that doesn't fit this immutable theory? Well it can just be dismissed as irrelevant or erroneous since it contradicts the unquestionable theory.So, which way do you operate?HBD