Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Taq:

---

No. Where did you ever get that idea?

---

Oh boy, now Taq is starting their denial tactics.

Taq:

---

The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory.

---

Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even.I'm not even gonna continue arguing against you. You come up with one ad hoc rule after another.

Taq:

---

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?

---

Wow, you really think these conditions are necessary to be able to use hierarchical clustering? Where do you pull all of your nonsense from?What scientific experiment have you conducted, that lead to this conclusion?

Taq:

---

Why would a designer be forced to fit separately created species into a nested hierarchy?

---

What a nonsense question. Why do you even think that a designer was forced at all?

Taq:

---

I'm showing you the facts.

---

Hahahahahhahaha, no you don't.But please tell me, which scientific experiment has lead to YOUR conclusion that there is no reason for a designer to use similar design across different species?

popoi:

---

We seem to have a bunch of examples of changing something that works in life though.

---

Yeah sure, some things are the same for certain reasons, while other things are not.Taq came with the rule that a designer should make all things differently in different species. Of course, without any scientific experiment to back up this rule of theirs.

Saying this a little more formally, theories are never proven because of the principle of tentativity. All theories, indeed all knowledge, remains tentative. A theory can never be proven. All that can happen is that a consensus builds around a theory as evidence accumulates. If the consensus within the relevant scientific community becomes strong enough then the theory is said to have become accepted.But acceptance of a theory is not permanent. A theory is always open to change in light of new knowledge or improved insight, and can even be rejected, has happened with the ether theory of light.Anyone can decide they do not accept the scientific consensus on something. A couple years ago someone perished in his desert launch area proving to himself the world was flat. He's dead and the scientific consensus of an oblate spheroid remains intact.But he was correct in his belief that challenging the consensus required evidence, and he died trying to gather that evidence. You're taking a different approach, mocking the data and working hard to misunderstand it. Proving that your mistaken understanding of a nested hierarchy is wrong will not accomplish your goal of demonstrating that the scientific consensus on evolution is wrong.--Percy

sensei's daily post limit has been increased to 2.

All rhetoric and semantics. No data. The usual ID/creationist tactics. According to you, it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if:1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Makes specific predictions no other theory makes, and those predictions are supported by observations.Could you explain? Those conditions are what produced the hierarchical clustering in galaxies. I even gave you a reference. Here it is again:

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

---

A process of vertical inheritance of engulfed and unique star clusters is what causes this pattern in galaxies, according to the scientists who study galaxies. It is worth noting that this is strongly analogous to the process that produces a nested hierarchy in biology.You also have failed to explain why ID/creationism would predict a nested hierarchy in biology. All of the experiments humans have done in genetically modifying organisms. We regularly violate a nested hierarchy when we do so.Also, your continued inability to explain why a designer would would be forced to fit life into a nested hierarchy.The theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. Thus far, there is no reason to think that ID/creationism predicts this pattern. Therefore, the theory that makes specific predictions that are borne out in the data is the preferred theory.

This is why I add the qualifier "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Taq:

---

According to you, it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if ...

---

Show me where I said this.

Taq:

---

Those conditions are what produced the hierarchical clustering in galaxies.

---

What conditions? You don't even seem to know what you are talking about.

Taq:

---

You also have failed to explain why ID/creationism would predict a nested hierarchy in biology.

---

The pattern appears as a result of the clustering method, as I said often enough already. You failed to stick to facts, and brought up one dubious claim after another. And you defend those using shaky assumptions and mad up ad hoc rules.

Taq:

---

Also, your continued inability to explain why a designer would would be forced to fit life into a nested hierarchy.

---

Why explain something that is not even true?
Why even think that a designer is forced? Forced by whom?
You make zero sense!Logically, it's more likely that a designer is free to choose as they please. Not forced at all.

Taq:

---

All rhetoric and semantics. No data. The usual ID/creationist tactics.

---

I stick to facts, unlike you.

Right here:"Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even."So I will ask again.According to you, it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if:
​
1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Makes specific predictions no other theory makes, and those predictions are supported by observations.
​
Could you explain? I will quote the same reference for the third time.

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

---

That's false. The nested hierarchy was recognized 100 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. Linnaeus was the first to document the nested hierarchy, and he did so without any "clustering methods".Also, you might as well claim that mass only exists because weight balances exist. What you and nearly all ID/creationists fail to understand is that tree-like structure in data is objectively and empirically measured.

quote:

---

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
https://www.talkorigins.org/...ection1.html#nested_hierarchy

---

If you throw in a matrix of morphological features with randomly assigned features then you get really low measurements of phylogenetic signal. With actual data from biology, you get high scores. The same for DNA sequences. Exactly. Therefore, ID/creationism does not predict an objective and empircally measurable nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution does make this prediction, and that prediction is borne out in the data.This is why I stated that there is no other explanation for the data other than common descent and evolution. It seems you agree with me. No, you don't. You falsely claim that phylogenetic signal is just an artefact of the method. Randomized data does not produce a phylogenetic signal when using these methods.

I assume you finished your assignment to troll the libs and unbelievers. Did you learn anything? You certainly reaffirmed our beliefs.

One has to wonder if any creationists take a step back and ask a really simple question. Do you really think that millions of biologists from every culture and faith are all conspiring to support a fake scientific theory devoid of any empirical evidence, and have done so for 150 years?It's as silly as creationists who think the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Do they really think a scientific concept they learn about in high school is something biologists just happened to overlook?If only there were more honest creationists like Todd Wood.

quote:

---

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

​

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

​

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.
--Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

---

Taq:

---

sensei:

---

Show me where I said this.

---

it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if:
1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
...

---

No, you claimed that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked you for your evidence and reasoning.
You support it by stating that it is the preferred theory.And yeah, it is nonsense, that being the preferred theory, makes the theory proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is your ad hoc nonsense rule. You have plenty of such rules, and you just cannot stick to facts.Here, I needed to spell it all out for you yet again. But I doubt, that you will get it now even, as you rarely do.But let me ask you this. Suppose we find extraterrestrial life. And we analyze life on Earth and the lifeforms we found from other planet(s). And we find that single celled lifeforms on other planets have similarities with those on Earth. Then we could fit all into a single hierarchical tree, could we not?Would that, in your opinion, prove beyond reasonable doubt, that we share common ancestor with life on those other planets?If you are consistent in your reasoning, you would not doubt that you are related to the aliens in this case. If you do have doubts for whatever reason, then you gonna have to admit that your whole reasoning that leads to believing in common ancestry, is shaky at best. And that the hierarchical tree itself does not prove common ancestry at all.

Yeah, that would be stupid. No one would think that except a religious crackpot. Fortunately the reality is that these are preferred theories BECAUSE that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can rely on them. They work every time. Serious? What is "have similarities with"?Carbon-based? That's not enough "similarity" to conclude any connection let alone a single hierarchical tree.So what specific similarities would you propose?Even the use of amino acids would not suffice. Is there a genome? DNA? The same bases as in ours? Etc. We would need to see the pattern of hierarchy between the two systems.If we had such data we could do so easily. Or just as easily show no connection at all. Just a separate genesis from a roughly similar chemical environment. The details would be needed, not just "similarities".

I've already given the evidence and reasoning in multiple posts throughout this thread. Just to refresh your memory:1. A nested hierarchy
2. A specific pattern of transition and transversion mutations.
3. A specific pattern of sequence conservation in introns and exons.
4. Transitional fossils.
5. 200,000 shared Endogenous Retroviruses.And that's just the tip of the iceberg.But let's get a refresher on what was said.

quote:

---

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.

​

sensei: 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.

​

Taq: 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.

​

sensei: Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even.​
I'm not even gonna continue arguing against you. You come up with one ad hoc rule after another.

---

I have given two characteristics for a preferred theory:1. It makes specific predictions that are then supported by observations. This is preferred over a theory that predicts anything and everything.2. The preferred theory is one that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Again, why are either of these not a characteristic of a preferred theory?Added in edit:We can use general relativity as analogy. We have two theories:1. General Relativity
2. Planets move about the solar system because invisible fairies are pushing them.General relativity predicts one specific orbit for each planet. The Invisible Fairy theory makes no predictions about what paths planets should take around the Sun because Invisible Fairies can move the planets wherever they want.General relativity is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and is considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the community of physicists.I say that General Relativity is the preferred theory because:1. It makes specific predictions that are borne out in experiments. The competing theory predicts anything and everything.2. General Relativity is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not what I said. I said that the theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt makes it the preferred theory. Do you think theories that are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt are the preferred theory? Not necessarily, no. It seems you still don't understand what a nested hierarchy is.Let's say that we found a species with the following features here on Earth:1. Three middle ear bones (like those found in mammals)
2. Teats (like those found in mammals)
3. Flow through lungs (like those found in birds)
4. Feathers (like those found in birds)All of the features found in this species are similar to other species found on Earth. So would this fit into a nested hierarchy with the rest of life on Earth? NO!!!!!!! This species would be a massive violation of a nested hierarchy.A species with a mixture of mammal and bird features would seriously challenge common ancestry. If these sort of violations were common place, then we would have to throw common ancestry out of the window, even if all of these features were shared between multiple species.A nested hierarchy isn't simply shared features between species. IT IS THE PATTERN OF BOTH SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES THAT MATTER.

Are you lying? Lying by ommission is still lying. That was not all that Taq said about this. You do realize we can go back and look at previous posts do you not?

And you said that was nonsense: Moving on: That doesn't accurately characterize the discussion. People have presented evidence in this thread, in Taq's case of a nested hierarchy. By reversing the definition Taq provided you've stated a fallacy. When Taq says a theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt he only means that it has enough evidence to have developed a consensus within the relevant scientific community and has become broadly accepted within that community. But instead of using all those words, people speaking casually usually just say a theory is proven or accepted. Parading ignorance isn't an effective approach. Becoming personal isn't an effective approach, either. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that if alien life is discovered that it will absolutely fit into the nested hierarchy of life on Earth. That's not true. Only if alien and terrestrial life shared a common ancestor would that be true, something that is possible only if life on Earth was seeded from space. But that common ancestor would be from billions of years ago. No, of course not. It would be a possibility. Even if it were a fact that life on Earth came from space, we likely wouldn't be able to uncover evidence of that fact sufficient to create a broad consensus. That's because the common ancestor existed billions of years ago, and both alien and terrestrial life have been evolving for all the billions of years since. The hypothesis that life on Earth came from space would be competing with the hypothesis that conditions conducive to the formation of life based upon nucleotides on a backbone of sugar-phosphate existed on more planets than just Earth.And of course if this alien life used a non-DNA blueprint for life then we would know from the outset that it wasn't related to life on Earth. We can only reason from evidence. If the evidence strongly supports that life on Earth was seeded from space then a consensus will form and that theory will become accepted. Proven, in the vernacular. Doubt is fundamental to science. The underlying principle is tentativity.--Percy

Even if DNA is somehow a common solution, there are other features that we strongly suspect are arbitrary. One such example is codon usage where there is an apparent arbitrary relationship between the amino acid and 3 base anti-codon on the same tRNA. If humans wanted to we could create a genetic system where codon usage is entirely different. Precisely. We wouldn't expect to see a single cell organism that shared 90% of it's DNA sequence with E. coli, as an example. In other words, it wouldn't nest within a family or genera of bacteria. Instead, it would branch off at the very base of the tree of life on Earth.