Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

The daily post count limit for the sensei account has been set to 1.

If an eye made up of a single cell with no lens and a human eyeball are both "fully assembled" then the term is meaningless. Then please tell me what pattern of shared and derived features would be produced by common ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms if it isn't a nested hierarchy.From everything I understand of biology and evolution, we should absolutely expect to see a nested hierarchy if evolution is true. Since we do observe the same nested hierarchy in both the morphology and genomes of species, this would seem to be a rather strong piece of evidence since this is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts we should see.So how isn't this science? The theory predicts a specific pattern in the data, and when we look at that data the pattern is there. Moreover, there are no other explanations that predicts this specific signal in the data, and this specific pattern only.Instead of addressing the actual patterns in the data you want to argue about p values. I think this speaks to the power of this evidence since you have to do everything in your power to draw attention away from it.

Theodoric:

---

As the parent of a developmentally disabled adult I find this extremely offensive.

---

Theodoric:

---

But, but, but... Jesus.

---

You make comments like this, which have zero contribution, are not related to the topic and are only to offend and ridicule. And now you play the victim and start whining about being offended yourself? Just disgusting!It seems that admins just accept such comments, as long as your on the evolutionist side of the debate.

Taq:

---

Moreover, there are no other explanations that predicts this specific signal in the data, and this specific pattern only.

---

You call yourself a biologist scientist and common ancestry is the only possible explanation you can think of? How little do you know about biology.Many species have a certain amount of time for their individuals to grow into adulthood, and when the time is ripe, they become reproductive and have a way to bring forth their offspring. A lot of things are involved in these processes, which are regulated by the genetic code. This itself predicts (though I would not even call it a prediction, it's just a natural consequence of how things are) that we see similar pattern across species, as many species have a lot of these processes in common.The notion that you and many other biologists have, that everything in biology only makes sense with common ancestry, is simply not true.Also, I'm curios, what do you call this pattern, in Figure 3, found here in
Hierarchical Clustering in Astronomy
?

crawl back under your rock troll.

Common ancestry is not the only possible explanation, but it is the only pattern that we see when we map morphology and molecular data for larger groups of species. THEY NEVER FORM A DIFFERENT PATTERN. A NESTED HEIRARCHY THAT INDICATES COMMON ANCESTRY IS THE ONLY PATTERN THAT HAS EVER BEEN SHOWN !!

You would think such a statement would be followed by at least one alternate explanation that predicts a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy. Nope, no such explanation.What you can't seem to understand is that species can share features in common and still not fall into a nested hierarchy. Also, you are essentially saying that life falls into a nested hierarchy, so it's not suprising that we observe a nested hierarchy. You are simply describing the observation, but you lack any explanation as to why we observe a nested hierarchy instead of the trillions of other possible patterns. That pattern is hierarchial, but it isn't the same as seen in biology. They are clustering based on one or two features while ignoring other features. In biology, all features are part of the hierarchy. If species or species groups were separately created then I have no doubt that you could create a strongly supported hierarchy based on 2 or 3 features. However, you would get very different hierarchies based on 2 or 3 other features.There's also no DNA to compare between galaxies, so again, not comparable.

A common designer would not be limited to a nested hierarchy. A common designer could mix and match genes and features in a way that easily violates a nested hierarchy. In fact, humans do this all of the time when they genetically modify organisms. I have personally done it.In my experience, ID/creationists simply don't understand what a nested hierarchy is. They don't understand why common design does not specifically predict a nested hierarchy. Also, the common designer argument was already refuted 140 years ago.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower onesis sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.

​

. . .

​

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

Well, actual hard data has a tendency to do that when it is so heavily weighted in the one direction. The anti-science religionist, however, is always looking to hide reality with some smoke and mirrors.

Theodoric:

---

crawl back under your rock troll.

---

Thank you for yet again another most valuable contribution to this forum.

Tanypteryx:

---

Common ancestry is not the only possible explanation, but it [common ancestry?] is the only pattern that we see ...

---

You are saying that common ancestry is an explanation for the common ancestry pattern? Makes totally sense, bro!

Taq:

---

You would think such a statement would be followed by at least one alternate explanation that predicts a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy.

---

I would expect you to be able to read what was said next.

Taq:

---

... and only a nested hierarchy

---

Explanations often predict more than just one thing or have multiple possible scenarios though. I'm sorry you can't handle reality being not as simple as to fit into your puny mind.

Taq:

---

Nope, no such explanation.

---

Denial without any sensible reply.

Taq:

---

They are clustering based on one or two features while ignoring other features.

---

You can include as many features as you like.

Taq:

---

You are simply describing the observation, but you lack any explanation as to why we observe a nested hierarchy instead of the trillions of other possible patterns.

---

Observed similar features in phenotype and function explain why we expect to find similar sequences in genetic code.

Taq:

---

There's also no DNA to compare between galaxies, so again, not comparable.

---

Yeah I see your mindset. You argue that there is no DNA outside of biology, so biology is special and rules that apply in biology, don't need to apply anywhere else. So you go ahead and make up rules as you see fit.I have no use of your made up rules.

Taq:

---

A common designer would not be limited to a nested hierarchy. A common designer could mix and match genes and features in a way that easily violates a nested hierarchy.

---

Any prove of this?You argue that common ancestry is the only possible explanation, by saying that a designer could mix and match. And you are assuming that a designer would have to do so?You come up with these unsubstantiated claims and shaky assumptions, to defend your earlier dubious claims.
It's hard for you to stick to facts now, isn't it.

AZ3Paul:

---

Well, actual hard data has a tendency to do that [do what?] when it is so heavily weighted in the one direction.

---

Do what?

AZ3Paul:

---

The anti-science religionist, however, is always looking to hide reality with some smoke and mirrors.

---

Anti-science is piling up one dubious claim after another, supported only by shaky assumptions, like Taq is doing. Sadly, almost all biologists follow this line of argument.Making claims like this in the name of science, with these claims having no substantial evidence or prove whatsoever. That is anti-science.

The theory of evolution makes one prediction when there is common ancestry and vertical inheritance. That prediction is a nested hierarchy.Separately created species could fall into trillions of different patterns, only one of which is a nested hierarchy.In science, when you have a theory that predicts one thing and that thing is observed it is preferred over a theory that predicts anything and everything. In fact, that's really not even a prediction if it can't say what we should and should not see. It's just an unfalsifiable belief. 1. Why would those similar features fall into a nested hierarchy?
2. Why would this require similar sequence, and why would this sequence also form a nested hierarchy?
3. Why would introns differ more than exons when comparing sequences from those shared genes?
4. Why would the DNA differences between those shared genes have more transitions than transversions?The theory of evolution explains all of these observations. You have yet to supply a single explanation for even one of those observations.For example, even for the same amino acid there are nearly countless numbers of DNA sequences that will produce that amino acid sequence. For just a small protein like cytochrome C there are 4.94x10^46 different DNA sequences that will produce the same amino acid sequence, by my calculations. From sequence to sequence they can differ by 20 or 30%, and still produce the same protein with the same amino acid sequence and the same function. So why are the DNA sequences so similar between humans and other apes when they don't have to be? Why a nested hierarchy when there doesn't have to be one? Heck, you don't even need to use the same codons if you use different tRNA's. Then explain how your example of hierarchical clustering in galaxies applies to biology. What are the mechanisms that produce this clustering in galaxies and how does it apply to biology? Why would common ancestry and vertical inheritance produce anything other than a nested hierarchy? You have yet to come up with a reason why a designer could not mix and match.For example, look at this mouse.It fluoresces green under a blue light. Why? Because a designer, us, put a copy of a jellyfish gene into their genome. We mix and match all of the time. There are many strains of mice that have had human genes inserted into their genome. There are also fish that have a copy of a jellyfish gene, thanks to us: Home | GloFish® I will ask again. What is stopping the claimed designer from doing exactly what humans do all of the time? The only shaky assumption I see here is that a designer would be forced to fit separate designs into a nested hierarchy. No human designer is forced to use a nested hierarchy in their designs, even when designing organisms, so why would your claimed designer?And to reiterate, your argument was already knocked down 140 years ago.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. [emphasis mine]
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882

---

Nope, can't you read?This was your question: And this was my answer, with emphasis to help you understand:

Tanypteryx:

---

Common ancestry is NOT the only possible explanation, BUT it is the only pattern that we see when we map morphology and molecular data for larger groups of species.

---

And then, I added more, but it must have been beyond your ability to comprehend, I would expect you to be able to read what was said next:

Tanypteryx:

---

THEY NEVER FORM A DIFFERENT PATTERN.

---

And then I added more to connect nested hierarchy as evidence for common ancestry, I would expect you to be able to read what was said next:

Tanypteryx:

---

A NESTED HEIRARCHY THAT INDICATES COMMON ANCESTRY IS THE ONLY PATTERN THAT HAS EVER BEEN SHOWN, (I should have added ", BY SCIENCE" here so your non-scientific brain could get a clue) !!

---

So to repeat so you might be able to see it with your feeble unscientific mind: Nope, I said a nested hierarchy is the only pattern we see and IT (nested hierarchy) is evidence for common ancestry.And I tried to emphasize the important and relevant parts and it still went right over your puny mind.Are you going to ever actually tell us something you know about the definition of evolution (as per the thread title) or are you going to just keep misinterpreting everything we say as a smokescreen for your ignorance?Note: I added emphasis and some of sensei's graphic slurs , hoping sensei could comprehend, but still expecting the worst.

Tanypteryx:

---

Common ancestry is not the only possible explanation, but it [common ancestry?] is the only pattern that we see ...

---

Tanypteryx:

---

A NESTED HEIRARCHY THAT INDICATES COMMON ANCESTRY IS THE ONLY PATTERN

---

Tanypteryx:

---

Nope, I said a nested hierarchy is the only pattern we see and IT (nested hierarchy) is evidence for common ancestry.

---

You are literally saying that common ancestry is an explanation [for the pattern], and you also literally say that common ancestry is the pattern [explained by common ancestry?].And then you deny it.

Taq:

---

1. Why would those similar features fall into a nested hierarchy?
2. Why would this require similar sequence, and why would this sequence also form a nested hierarchy?
3. Why would introns differ more than exons when comparing sequences from those shared genes?
4. Why would the DNA differences between those shared genes have more transitions than transversions?

---

So your common ancestry claim relies on you not knowing how to answer some questions without common ancestry?

Taq:

---

You have yet to supply a single explanation for even one of those observations.

---

Nah, you just reject any other explanation as your standard response, as it does not fit your view. Do I need to remind you?

Taq:

---

In science, when you have a theory that predicts one thing and that thing is observed it is preferred over a theory that predicts anything and everything.

---

So first you claimed common ancestry had evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. And now you weaken it down to being the "preferred" theory over others.Next problem is, you made up how the other theory should be and claimed it predicts anything (rather a straw man tactic). Again, without any substantial proof and only assumptions about some designer according to YOUR view.

Taq:

---

Then explain how your example of hierarchical clustering in galaxies applies to biology

---

It is a clustering method. It can be applied anywhere. And no doubt, it is applied in biology as well.Just google "hierarchical clustering biology" and the first result reads:
"Hierarchical clustering is a simple but proven method for analyzing gene expression data by building clusters of genes with similar patterns of expression."

Taq:

---

The only shaky assumption I see here is that a designer would be forced to fit separate designs into a nested hierarchy.

---

Life could be designed as it is, the way it is most logical and most efficient. Like humans could design rooms to have any shape. But like 99% or so of all rooms have rectangular shape. Because it is most efficient, why change something that works?
Finding pattern often indicates intelligence. For that reason even, we send messages into space, related to large prime numbers, as the pattern could be recognized by other intelligent lifeforms in other galaxies.You think the nested hierarchy is so special. But the pattern is a very common result of most common grouping / clustering methods, also when applied to other things. It does not prove common ancestry at all. You keep insisting that it does, with hopeless attempts, using wild and shaky assumptions and made up ad hoc rules.So let me ask you, do you have any actual facts to bring to the table, or is this it, personal assumptions and rules, that you apply only when you see fit?

OK, lets start over. I will try to be clearer.This was your question: This is my answer:
NO, Common ancestry is NOT the only possible explanation we can think of,but1) it is the conclusion biologists draw when we look at family trees_** that are based on morphological phenotype that they represent a common ancestor a) at every generation to all it's future descendants.2) also, it is the conclusion biologists draw when we look at family trees_** that are based on molecular data that they represent a common ancestor a) at every generation to all it's future descendants.** family trees are nested hierarchies.A) Family trees that map ancestors(a), to descendants(b), to descendants(c)...and on and on...from one generation to the next it seems obvious that (a) is a common ancestor to (b)(c)(...)B) and family trees that map morphological characteristics or molecular characteristics from generation to generation show patterns that match each otherC) and the family tree pattern from A and B show the same pattern of inheritance from ancestor to descendants generation after generation. Biologists call that family tree pattern a nested hierarchy and a nested hierarchy is a map of common ancestors stepping back into the past generation by generation.D) The pattern of descent from an ancestor to descendent that we see in a nested hierarchy is the only pattern we see when we map and compare morphological or molecular characteristics from many different species and, in fact, all known species. What scientific basis do you have for denying that this pattern of a nested hierarchy represents common ancestry? Why don't you show us why these nested hierarchies are incorrect?

No. Where did you ever get that idea?There are patterns in the data. When we start with the first principles of common ancestry and evolution we see that they will produce those very patterns. What we observe are predictions made by the theory.So why would we see these patterns if ID/creationism is true? You seem unwilling to say. The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory. It seems you are obsessed with rhetoric and semantics instead of actual data. This is a common thread in ID/creationism, at least in my experience. Instead of complaining, why don't you show that this isn't true. Why would a designer be forced to fit separately created species into a nested hierarchy? I have asked this question over and over, and you still don't have an answer. How is the method applied for galaxies, and how does that apply to biology?Were galaxies intelligently designed which led to the clustering? Or did galaxies evolve through a veritical process of integrating star clusters which causes the clustering? Hint: it's galaxy evolution with vertical inheritance.

quote:

---

Hierarchical clustering (or hierarchical merging) is the process by which larger structures are formed through the continuous merging of smaller structures. The structures we see in the Universe today (galaxies, clusters, filaments, sheets and voids) are predicted to have formed in this way according to Cold Dark Matter cosmology (the current concordance model).

​

For example, the formation of galaxies is thought to begin when small structures (perhaps no more massive than globular clusters) merge to form larger objects. These larger objects then merge to from even larger objects, which continue to merge until we arrive at the massive galaxies we see today in the local Universe.
Hierarchical Clustering | COSMOS

---

So we see that natural processes of vertical inheritance of unique properties produces clustering. This happens in both galaxies and in biology. How is life logical? How is it its most effecient? Now you have two more bare assertions.Why does this require the following properties, and why are they both the most logical and most efficient?1. A nested hierarchy of morphological features
2. A matching nested hierarchy of DNA sequences
3. Introns having more differences than exons
4. More transversions than translations That's laughable. Patterns are found all of the time in nature, and we know they are the product of natural processes. For example, the hierarchical clustering of galaxies is caused by known natural processes of galaxy evolution that includes vertical inheritance of unique star clusters. I challenge you to apply this method to automobiles. Let's see how it goes. I'm showing you the facts. You continue to ignore them. For example, you haven't mentioned anything about introns, exons, transitions, or transversions. Instead, all we get is rhetoric and semantics. No data.

The problem there seem to be that you have to make assumptions in order to be able to make any predictions about a designer at all. You ask "why change something that works?" below, which seems to presume that the designer would value efficiency, but we know that sometimes designers do things in different ways for reasons like novelty or showing off, and it doesn't seem like it would require much if any modification to claim that a designer did something that isn't easily explainable for efficiency reasons for one of those reasons instead.The problem isn't that we can necessarily attribute a particular motivation to a designer and predict what a designer must do based on that, it's that we have a bunch of different things that a designer could do that evolution couldn't, and we don't seem to find any of those. It's not impossible that a designer could produce things in a way that is perfectly sensible according to evolution even though it didn't happen, and it may be possible to come up with plausible reasons after the fact for doing that, but it's getting in to pretty suspect territory. We seem to have a bunch of examples of changing something that works in life though. Many instances of marsupial and placental mammals with very similar features but that are still obviously marsupials or placentals. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins share many similar features as well, but still have the distinct features of their groups. They share many features with fish as well, but even those features have differences that are characteristic to that specific group (lungs vs gills, bony dorsal fin in fish vs boneless in the other two, tail extending in to the lower caudal fin only in ichthyosaurs).In the evolutionary view, many of those similarities are down to efficiency of function. There are just some shapes that are better than others at moving through water for example, so there's a strong selective pressure in favor of them. The key is that it's also easy to explain the differences through evolutionary history. If there's not a meaningful functional difference between which lobe of the caudal fin the spine extends in to, it's just a question of which version evolved in some ancestor and was carried on from there. Whereas the "why change what works" argument seems to now need to explain why it's different between groups but not within those groups, on top of things like why you would start building some of your streamlined aquatic creatures with gills and some with lungs in the first place.The comparison to architecture is interesting because I think it demonstrates the point people have been trying to make to you. A taxonomy of architecture styles probably would look like a hierarchy, there's probably some actual history to it since newer styles are influenced by older ones, and there are functional influences that produce similar features like steep roofs in places that get a lot of snow. But since those aren't actually constrained to features they've inherited, there's nothing beyond the local codes and good taste stopping you from taking elements from wildly disparate styles, up to the point of making a huge McMansion style mess.Or to put it shorter, when it comes to designers there's always the possibility that "why change something that works?" is answerable by "They just felt like it".