nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

Very good question. Reminds of me of something I often ask: why assume one common ancestor. If abiogenesis is possible, wouldn't it happen all the time? Moreover, assuming it is constrained by the properties of chemistry, it would be likely to be similar but not identical....(the 3 kingdoms?).Of course, we really have no evidence for abiogenesis, at least not as natural process.I think these questions raise some interesting doubts about the claims of evos. So often some piece of evidence is given for something, but it's not exclusively supportive of that. Take the idea here: just because we see similar designs in nested hierarchies, does that really mean they descend from a common ancestor?Certainly, we see common traits that evos admit could not emerge from a common ancestor. Evos call this parallel evolution, but perhaps another way to think of it as falsification of the idea that similarities can be used as evidence of common ancestry.

Please try to stay on topic, Rand. Neither abiogenesis nor parallel evolution is relevant to the OP.Should you wish to argue abiogenesis, write a PNT. I work in the field (ribozymes) and would be happy to discuss abiogenesis.

Parallel evolution actually is part of the topic, imo, because we are talking about nested hierarchies and the evo assumption is that common traits indicate a common ancestor. See point 4 of my OP.But let's not divert too far, I agree, and get into abiogenesis.Edit: changed "designer" to "ancestor" since that's what I meant to post and it caused confusion.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : fixed mistake

quote:

---

Parallel evolution actually is part of the topic, imo, because we are talking about nested hierarchies and the evo assumption is that common traits indicate a common designer. But let's not divert too far, I agree.

---

When I studied evolution I never heard that in evolution "common traits indicate a common designer." Could you cite some source for that idea?And is it normal here to refer to those who support the theory of evolution as "evos?" That seems to be condescending, if not downright nasty.

My understanding is the term "evo" as an abbreviation for evolutionist was fairly normal here, or used to be, and was used by evos and non-evos alike.On the point of common traits indicating common ancestry, yes, that's pretty standard and is the means by which nested hierarchies were created. If your school didn't teach it, I am not sure why.

quote:

---

My understanding is the term "evo" as an abbreviation for evolutionist was fairly normal here, or used to be, and was used by evos and non-evos alike.

---

I am new here, so I don't know. That's why I asked. I still find the term condescending.

quote:

---

On the point of common traits indicating common ancestry, yes, that's pretty standard and is the means by which nested hierarchies were created. If your school didn't teach it, I am not sure why.

---

Your original post didn't include "common ancestry" but rather "common designer."Do you have a citation for "common designer" as being a normal assumption in evolutionary studies?

Common designer is not what evos teach. I am not sure what part of my prior posts you are referring to.On the evo thing, it's just an abbreviation.

quote:

---

Common designer is not what evos teach. I am not sure what part of my prior posts you are referring to.

---

See Message #18, above.

quote:

---

On the evo thing, it's just an abbreviation.

---

OK. Is there an accepted disparaging abbreviation we are expected to use for creationists, just to keep things equal?

creo just doesn't work as good, but you can use IDer for ID proponents. Young Earth Creationists can be abbreviated YECers.I made a mistake in message 18. I meant common ancestor, not common designer, and didn't realize I made the mistake.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This is fun, where it gets good. Rand, please tell which of the 33 extant animal phyla began during the Cambrian explosion. Which ones? A list would be awesome. You specified animal, but what about the fungi and plants?Before you try you will find all of the plant and fungi are post Cambrian, as well as a number of animal taxa. But I will accept evidence of all animal taxa at a phylum level. List would be great.

The thread is about animal phyla but there hasn't been any new plant phyla in what, 150 million years or something?The point is not when the phyla first started appearing but why they have stopped.Also, you know as well as I do that there really hasn't been any new animal phyla since then. There is one, which I alluded to earlier, thought to have arisen around 470 million years ago, but it could well be earlier and we haven't found the fossils for it.If you know of new animal phyla arising, please feel free to post them. I am not going to list all the phyla for you though, if that is what you are requesting.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You said that all animal phyla appear during the Cambrian explosion. I am asking that you account this with a list of which phyla. You did not.
There are 33 currently recognized phyla, how many of those are found in the Cambrian explosion?ABE: I know the answer to this, you do notEdited by Lithodid-Man, : To be snarky

I was in process of editting so not sure what you read. This is my comment in the OP. If you have a factual objection to this, feel free to show your evidence.

The names of the groupings is manmade and arbitrary - this is understood, yes? Why do you consider phyla special? Why not Kingdom or 'life'? Oh wait, you already went there: "If abiogenesis is possible, wouldn't it happen all the time?" The answer is straight forward: Any children nodes of phyla will be called a subphyla, and then superclasses and then classes and so on. We wouldn't call the descendants of a superclass a new phyla.If a new phyla did crop up - it wouldn't be a nested hierarchy. You haven't explained why they should.

Sorry, I stupidly thought you would do better. Most animal phyla did not occur during the Cambrian explosion. In fact ~8 or so did out of the 33 recognized phyla. I was trying to be nice. Let you find this out. But anyway. False statement? Admit wrongness or stick to it like a good YEC?

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"