Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 248 (451635)
01-28-2008 9:40 AM


I may be misunderstanding some of the replies, but isn't asking why no new phyla are forming today the same as asking why you're not gaining any new great great grandfathers?
Though I've just participated, I'm reserving my right to moderate this thread. I'll try to keep my participation light.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 10:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 248 (451654)
01-28-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
01-28-2008 10:45 AM


Re: not the same
randman writes:
No, it's not the same, as I have shown several times now.
Not that I can see. The questions you repeat yet again have been answered and not rebutted.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 10:45 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 10:58 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 248 (451665)
01-28-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
01-28-2008 10:58 AM


Re: not the same
randman writes:
So we have multiple new lines of vertebrates that have evolved/arisen from invertebrates over the past 500 million years?
Could you cite something showing that?
You've argued that because evolution predicts that such lines should exist, the fact that they don't is evidence against evolution. The replies have explained why you're looking at this the wrong way. I think you need to engage rather than ignore these explanations.
Edit to add a comment that may help. In your analogy about your grandfather and your father, let's imagine that they never die and keep having kids. They keep on living as invertebrates have.
You should then continually have new brothers and sisters and new cousins, etc,...... that "evolve" outside the line you are in.
New distant cousins from great great grandfather lines? Sure! New brothers and sisters? Of course not. I think there must still be something about this that you're not getting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 10:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 11:38 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 248 (451673)
01-28-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
01-28-2008 11:38 AM


Re: not the same
randman writes:
There is really no reason then for vertibrates not to evolve again and again, and newer different body forms.
I'm trying to keep my involvement in this thread light. Several people have explained to you why this isn't true, and I think you need to engage those people in discussion.
Think of like this. Your great grandfather has sex and has children and they get married and do the same, but this old guy never dies. He's the same. The sex is the same, and he keeps spitting out children.....except in your theory, even though everything is presumably the same, he keeps having sex, but stops producing children.
Does that make sense?
It's comprehensible but not analogous to evolutionary history.
I am repeating myself again and again, and you aren't addressing the point. I am not missing your or anyone's argument here. It's quite simple. The old lines are still around in one form or another. Why have they quit producing?
I'm going to slip into moderator mode.
Randman, you're going to have to figure your own way out of the maze you're creating for yourself. The moderators will not be continually intervening in threads you participate in. "Why have they quit producing?" is a valid question, but it's been answered several times. Engage in discussion those who have been offering you answers (I only tried to produce an analogy consistent with those answers, I wasn't trying to provide my own answer) and stop repeating the question.
Google provides a spellchecker for IE and Firefox, and Firefox has a built in spellchecker.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 11:38 AM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 248 (451710)
01-28-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
01-28-2008 2:04 PM


Re: moving the topic forward
randman writes:
bluegenes writes:
When you do get convergent evolution, it's always far less complex, and it's superficial.
Evos say that all the time like a mantra, but it's not true. Is the mammalian ear, for example, "superficial"? Why would it evolve independently 3 times?
By superficial he's referring to the resemblance between separately evolved implementations of the same thing. A good example is the eye. A superficial examination of the mammal and octopus eyes reveals a great deal of similarity, but a more detailed examination reveals that the similarities are superficial. For instance, the blood supply is on the retinal surface in mammals causing a blind spot and decreased sensitivity because of the obstructing blood vessels, problems the octopus eye does not have.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 2:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2008 2:58 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 67 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 4:14 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 248 (451760)
01-28-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
01-28-2008 4:14 PM


Re: moving the topic forward
randman writes:
Is the mammalian ear then superficial or not?
Huh? Of course not. Why would anyone call an ear superficial? Once again, Bluegenes was saying that the resemblance between independently evolved structures for the same purpose is superficial. He was not saying that the mammalian ear itself is superficial, but that the resemblance to other independently evolved ears is superficial, i.e., that the similarities of structure produced by convergent evolution are superficial.
And there are differences in all similar designs between each species right? My eyes are not the same as a cat's eyes. How is that not equally "superficial" based on the definition you give?
The proper interpretation of "superficial" is a function of context, like almost all words.
The superficial similarity of the octopus and human eye is that they both have an iris, a cornea, a lens, a retina. But this superficial resemblance dissolves when you examine them more closely. The blood supplies are on opposite sides of the retina, and the rods and cones point in opposite directions (the octopus eye is inside out, as Arachnophilia put it), and of course there are other significant differences.
The cat eye, on the other hand, is the same as the human eye in these particular details.
And that we've placed cats, humans and octopuses in the right places in a nested hierarchy of classification based upon morphology is confirmed by genetic analysis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 4:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 5:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 80 of 248 (451777)
01-28-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
01-28-2008 5:00 PM


Re: moving the topic forward
Rather than me trying to continue to explain, I'll think I'll just return to my original intention of light participation in this thread. There are plenty of other participants who can address your questions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 5:00 PM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 93 of 248 (451841)
01-28-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by molbiogirl
01-28-2008 5:14 PM


Re: moving the topic forward
molbiogirl writes:
The process did not end 500 million years ago. It has been mentioned, repeatedly, that only ~8 phyla were established in the Cambrian explosion. Please acknowledge that you understand this.
You and someone else have been saying this, and it would probably be helpful if we could establish the degree to which science accepts this view at the current time. A bit of Googling seems to indicate that the origin of almost all, if not all, of the animal phyla originated at the Cambrian, with a sprinkling of speculation that they may have originated earlier during a period when most creatures had soft body parts that don't often fossilize.
Can we get to bottom of why the different viewpoints on this?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by molbiogirl, posted 01-28-2008 5:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by molbiogirl, posted 01-28-2008 11:00 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 103 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 1:54 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 131 by molbiogirl, posted 01-29-2008 9:03 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 155 of 248 (452389)
01-30-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by randman
01-30-2008 1:20 AM


Another Meyer Article
randman writes:
The Cambrian Explosion | Discovery Institute
Btw, this is a published explicitly ID paper.
It's an article at the Discovery Institute website. It is not a published technical paper in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. It's merely a very detailed rhetorical argument constructed around existing data and represents no research whatsoever. At best it might be considered an unreviewed survey paper.
The only way for ID to become an accepted scientific theory is by the same route that all other accepted scientific theories became accepted. Scientific theories become accepted through an intense process of experiment, observation, analysis, publication, replication and validation of predictions that eventually results in a consensus among the relevant subcommunity of scientists.
Merely posting articles at websites does almost nothing to achieve this goal. Creating ID journals and conferences also does nothing to achieve this goal. Isolating themselves from the larger scientific community makes it impossible to convince this community of their views. Since the only science that will be taught in science classrooms is that around which a consensus has formed in the scientific community, this isolation makes it impossible for ID to achieve its goals.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 1:20 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Wounded King, posted 01-30-2008 1:11 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 164 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 2:08 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024