Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
755 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, marc9000, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 747 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,893 Year: 21,929/19,786 Month: 492/1,834 Week: 492/315 Day: 88/82 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 16 of 78 (711634)
11-20-2013 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
11-20-2013 2:52 PM


Re: Disappointing
If you want to see an example, you can look at mindspawn's posts on Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD

Yes, I've been following that. It is indeed a prime example. Nice work on that thread. I like how you're now point blank asking him to explain such things as why independent methods display such consillience. When you're really focused like that it makes his evasions and cognitive dissonance more explicit.

At the very least I'm hoping this thread will produce some novel absurdities, but maybe an industrious creationist might post something of worth. But not even an attempt yet. Is Mindspawn the only evolution-denying creationist around these days?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 2:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2013 8:34 AM Atheos canadensis has responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 17 of 78 (711635)
11-20-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
11-20-2013 3:32 PM


Because Bible.

It says otherwise.

Excellent! Case closed. Thanks for stepping in so that the evolution deniers didn't have to strain themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2013 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4781
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 18 of 78 (711648)
11-21-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Atheos canadensis
11-15-2013 9:32 AM


If morphology can be used to reliably infer relatedness in the Cat "kind" for example, why can the same method not be used to infer that cats are more closely related to canids than artiodactyls?

Because they are totally different kinds! You atheist evilutionists just will not get that straight.

Dogs don't give birth to cats and neither of them give birth to giraffes.

OK, so there was a common ancestor between cats and dogs in the miacids some 30 million years ago and there was a common ancestor between this cat-dog miacid and the giraffes in the protungulates some 30 million years before that ...

but

... this was all well before the creation so it doesn't count!

So no more of this satanic morphology stuff. God hates it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-15-2013 9:32 AM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 11:53 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 19 of 78 (711649)
11-21-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Atheos canadensis
11-20-2013 10:25 PM


calling marc9000 ...
see On The Limits of Human Talent for another example.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-20-2013 10:25 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 11:49 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 20 of 78 (711692)
11-21-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
11-21-2013 8:34 AM


Re: calling marc9000 ...
see On The Limits of Human Talent for another example.

Wow, that's even more egregious. To deal with such strong dissonance he has appointed himself the arbiter of what is real science and what is not. I guess we know without marc9000 even posting on this thread what his answer to my question would be. As the self-appointed authority on what is real science and what isn't, he would just say that using morphology to infer relatedness within kinds is true science but applying it more broadly is mere "metaphysical searches for support of the atheist worldview".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2013 8:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 21 of 78 (711693)
11-21-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by AZPaul3
11-21-2013 8:34 AM


Because they are totally different kinds! You atheist evilutionists just will not get that straight.

Dogs don't give birth to cats and neither of them give birth to giraffes.

It is a sad state of affairs when it is so difficult to distinguish satire from sincerity. Being new here I was unfamiliar with your views and I was halfway through your post before I realized you were joking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2013 8:34 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2013 1:27 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4781
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 78 (711716)
11-21-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Atheos canadensis
11-21-2013 11:53 AM


To Poe or Not To Poe
I was halfway through your post before I realized you were joking.

My apologies, A. canadensis. Obviously my Poe is not yet sufficiently developed. I will try harder next time.

By the way, welcome to EvC. Glad to have you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 11:53 AM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 2:04 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 23 of 78 (711720)
11-21-2013 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AZPaul3
11-21-2013 1:27 PM


Re: To Poe or Not To Poe
My apologies, A. canadensis. Obviously my Poe is not yet sufficiently developed. I will try harder next time.

By the way, welcome to EvC. Glad to have you.

Thanks, glad to be here. I appreciate the italics too. I'm sure with practice your Poe will be the envy of creationists and normies alike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2013 1:27 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 24 of 78 (715398)
01-05-2014 1:29 AM


Are we referring to homology here?

I don't see how you can make a strictly lawful inference this way.

If you Google look alike's you'll see surprising images of strangers who happen to look strikingly like celebrities. Isn't it true that we don't conclude from this they are related directly? Unless you have a twin you tend to resemble family members to some degree but don't tend to look identical. The resemblances can be quite subtle

It seems clear that there are cases of resemblance that do not occur due to relatedness.

If you have a theory then you can make evidence support that theory by careful selection but without scrutinising the assertions you are making in that process.

It seems that assumptions of relatedness based on appearance are usually simplistic and pre-theoretical. You wouldn't want to convict someone of a crime solely because they looked like the suspect.

With a huge numbers of species and fossils all with some different aspects in common then there seems to be a degree of arbitrariness in how you chose which features to make a pathway between.

Also if we found a fossilised bonobo chimp we might assume it is our ancestor but bonobo chimps coexist with us.

I can see how homology might be some kind of evidence but at the same time I don't see how you can draw strong conclusions from it based on what I have said.


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 01-05-2014 9:57 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 10:11 AM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 51 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-17-2014 8:39 PM AndrewPD has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5413
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 25 of 78 (715406)
01-05-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:29 AM


Also if we found a fossilised bonobo chimp we might assume it is our ancestor but bonobo chimps coexist with us.

I have Welsh ancestry. The thieves and other folks of Wales coexist with me.

And no, bonobos are not a ancestor to humans, just like the people now in Wales aren't ancestors to Coragyps. Don't make the mistake, though (I don't know that you are....) of thinking that Species A must be extinct for Species A1, a descendant group of A, to exist. We still have wolves......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:29 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 26 of 78 (715410)
01-05-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:29 AM


Hi AndrewPD, welcome to the fray.

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message) your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

I assume it is Message 1:

Evolutionary biologists look at the morphology of organisms to infer relatedness. This is a robust method that is pre-ToE and that produces results that are almost always consistent with more recent molecular evidence of relatedness. Creationists are inconsistent in their application of this method ...

when you reply

Are we referring to homology here?

I don't see how you can make a strictly lawful inference this way.

If you Google look alike's you'll see surprising images of strangers who happen to look strikingly like celebrities. Isn't it true that we don't conclude from this they are related directly? Unless you have a twin you tend to resemble family members to some degree but don't tend to look identical. The resemblances can be quite subtle

It seems clear that there are cases of resemblance that do not occur due to relatedness.

Can you tell me how evolutionary biology knows that these two critters are only very very distantly related?

Morphology means much more than surface appearances.

By "Pre-ToE" Atheos canadensis means the system was developed before Darwin and the classification nomenclature system was developed by Linneaus.

If you have a theory then you can make evidence support that theory by careful selection but without scrutinising the assertions you are making in that process.

Which implies that you think science is a conspiracy to fabricate theory and then only select evidence that supports it. Do you have any evidence of such a conspiracy?

With a huge numbers of species and fossils all with some different aspects in common then there seems to be a degree of arbitrariness in how you chose which features to make a pathway between.

And your conspiracy theory does not explain why the use of morphology to develop a tree of life pre genetic science is virtually identical to the one that comes from genetics: if the system was prone to errors why is there such consilience in results?

Also if we found a fossilised bonobo chimp we might assume it is our ancestor but bonobo chimps coexist with us.

With nothing more than the skeleton we would assume that it was an ape. Where it would likely fit into the tree of life would depend on the age of the fossil and its relation to other fossils in the area.

I can see how homology might be some kind of evidence but at the same time I don't see how you can draw strong conclusions from it based on what I have said.

Perhaps because what you have said just covers a surface inspection of the science rather than an in depth critique.

See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml for general information on evolution science and http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...evo101/IIC1Homologies.shtml in particular to learn about homologies and analogies. It should not come as a great surprise that scientists have already considered your "problem" and determined methodologies to ensure confidence in actual relatedness rather than haphazard guessing.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : ,


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:29 AM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 12:48 PM RAZD has responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 27 of 78 (715418)
01-05-2014 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
01-05-2014 10:11 AM


And your conspiracy theory does not explain why the use of morphology to develop a tree of life pre genetic science is virtually identical to the one that comes from genetics: if the system was prone to errors why is there such consilience in results?

It is not about a conspiracy theory it is about valid interpretation of evidence. Its about whether the logical leap is valid.

On the subject of DNA I don't know how many fossils contain DNA so that the fossil homology claims are backed up by DNA also there are similar DNA patterns in many species and so many species that you could easily create a tree based on coincidental similarities.

There are fossils like the Ida fossil declared with pomp as a an ancestor then the claim challenged or refuted.

Homoplasy shows that similar features that would have otherwise indicated ancestry can coexist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 10:11 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 1:31 PM AndrewPD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 28 of 78 (715422)
01-05-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 12:48 PM


It is not about a conspiracy theory it is about valid interpretation of evidence. Its about whether the logical leap is valid.

But your thesis depends on all scientists making the same mistakes in the same lineages ... it's either due to conspiracy or it is due to proper derivation of relationships from the evidence.

There are fossils like the Ida fossil declared with pomp as a an ancestor then the claim challenged or refuted.

By other scientists yes? This is part of science -- testing, replication, and peer review. That this occurs does not mean the process is wrong or prone to errors, it means that people are people. It also means that as we learn more we know more.

Homoplasy shows that similar features that would have otherwise indicated ancestry can coexist.

Convergent evolution in similar habitats -- like the flying squirrel (placental) and the honey glider (marsupial) shown in Message 26, analogous rather than homologous. Like flight in birds and insects.

Similar features can either be derived, ancestral or homoplastic (analogous)

See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...vo101/IICTreebuilding.shtml regarding shared derived traits. Shared derived traits are homologous by definition. See also http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...vo101/IIC1Homologies2.shtml and http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...1/IIC1aUsingparsimony.shtml

quote:
Of course, this was just an example of the tree-building process. Phylogenetic trees are generally based on many more characters and often involve more lineages. For example, biologists reconstructing relationships between 499 lineages of seed plants began with more than 1400 molecular characters!

The more characteristics you can use in developing the phylogenies the more likely you are to have correct results and there gets to be a point fairly quickly where the arrangement becomes statistically unlikely if due to chance or random choices.

On the subject of DNA I don't know how many fossils contain DNA so that the fossil homology claims are backed up by DNA also there are similar DNA patterns in many species and so many species that you could easily create a tree based on coincidental similarities.

I'm not sure you understood the question. The question is that

  1. we have two independent ancestral phylogenic trees
  2. one is developed solely from morphology and shared derived traits as discussed by Berkeley's Evolution 101 series (links above), and
  3. one is developed solely from genetic evidence of shared genetic traits and non-coding inserts, and
  4. they match virtually 1 for 1 on their division of all life on earth into the various phylogenic distributions ... so
  5. why does this match occur if either is prone to errors and random choices

For example both morphology and genetics independently tell us that our closest relatives are chimpanzees and we are more distantly related to gorillas.

Both morphology and genetics independently tell us that flying squirrels and honey gliders are only related by their ancestral division of mammalia into placental and marsupial mammals, that the honey glider is more closely related to the kangaroo than the flying squirrel and the flying squirrel is more closely related to the kodiak bear than the honey glider.

If either tree were based on "coincidental similarities" then they ought to be different at many places. They aren't.

The consilience is easily explained by them both representing the same process of evolution over time.

It is not explained so easily by any other mechanism ... (unless perhaps you want to consider the evidence to be intentionally 'god-did-it' made to deceive ... and I don't think you do).

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : ....


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 12:48 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:59 PM RAZD has responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 29 of 78 (715432)
01-05-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
01-05-2014 1:31 PM


But your thesis depends on all scientists making the same mistakes in the same lineages ... it's either due to conspiracy or it is due to proper derivation of relationships from the evidence.

Do you agree with this claim on wikipedia?

"Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/...etics#Limitations_and_workarounds

It then detail issues with homoplasy, horizontal genes transfer and taxon sampling among other issues.

There is a limit to how much I could refute genetic claims but I would not surprised that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them. Just like a car and a bus have similar wheels without a reproductive link. I think there is a limit to what kind of valid claims we can make about the past.

Take for example the Jack The Ripper case. It happened relatively recently in history but we are unlikely to be able to prove the perpetrator despite quite a lot of preserved evidence. So I would not make large claims about things with no hope of really proving them conclusively.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 1:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2014 3:30 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 4:02 PM AndrewPD has responded

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 30 of 78 (715440)
01-05-2014 2:39 PM


I don't see why we must have an explanation for the origin of species and why it would be possible.

I can accept that there may be truths that are hard or impossible to access I don't think we have permission to concoct a theory on the grounds that somehow a theory is demanded.

I don't have to believe the moon is made of cheese just because I haven't proffered an alternate explanation.


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2014 3:10 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2014 3:34 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 01-05-2014 6:04 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 01-07-2014 11:34 AM AndrewPD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019