|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 7:48:14 AM
|
|
|
PhiloKGB
Posts: 13
Joined: 11/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Not to mention, universal evolution doesn't predict a nested hierarchy in the first place.
Why? Because ReMine says so? What a joke.
quote:
Nor does the theory predict the nested pattern evident in classification. If evolved traits were lost and replaced at a high rate, then a nested pattern would not result. Descendants could bear little resemblance to their ancestors with no pattern of nested similarities linking them.
That passage doesn't even appear in the linked-to material.
But in any case, so what? If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he hopped. Evolution does not have a mechanism by which evolved traits can be "lost and replaced at a high rate" which is one reason why the nested hierarchy is so powerfully evidential.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 8:24:22 AM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
There is even a mechanism which could violate the nested hierarchy. Lateral gene transfer could in principle, move genes from one unrelated species to another.
It even happens in prokaryotes, although it seems rare to nonexistent in other organisms. The nested hierarchy wasn't predicted by evolution; it was discovered before Darwin, by a creationist. Darwin explained it. And his theory predicts that we will see the nested hierarchy confirmed in each case, which has been observed to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 11:25:21 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yehren
The genes are most like those of marsupials.
Yeah so? You still seem to be missing the point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
No ancestor of bats have feathers, so it cannot be a common ancestor.
While I agree, they only conclude that because bats don't have feathers. If they did they can attribute it to either common ancestry or convergent or parallel evolution. If bats were too similar to birds they can claim that this similarity is due to a common ancestor.
quote:
Convergent evolution cannot result in a bat with bird feathers.
They only conclude that because bats don't have bird feathers.
quote:
However, since a bat with feathers is impossible to fit into the nested hierarchy, they will fail.
It is not impossible and they will probably succeed. Sure, it doesn't fit the current hierarchy but they can make adjustments to make it fit. They can find a way to either attribute it to common ancestry or parallel or convergent evolution (or some other naturalistic phenomena).
quote:
Actually, the reason it is claimed that a bat with feathers will not fit the nested hierarchy, is because a bat with feathers will not fit the nested hierarchy.
It will not fit the current hierarchy but the hierarchy could be adjusted.
quote:
Chimps with feathers ALREADY violate a nested hierarchy.
...
Fish with feathers ALREADY violate the nested hierarchy.
You seem to be missing the point. They may violate the current hierarchy but a team of committed naturalists funded by our tax dollars can find a way to make it fit some sort of nested hierarchy or naturalistic explanation. Then they can claim that some other creature with bird feathers would violate the nested hierarchy when in fact even if that other organism did have bird feathers they would find a way to make it fit some sort of naturalistic explanation and they then can claim that it doesn't violate the arbitrary hierarchy.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/1/2007 11:27:56 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 11:33:47 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhiloKGB
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Not to mention, universal evolution doesn't predict a nested hierarchy in the first place.
Why? Because ReMine says so? What a joke.
Why does universal evolution predict an arbitrary nested hierarchy that can be adjusted to accommodate just about any sequences of evidence? Because Darwin says so? What a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 11:41:20 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhiloKGB
Evolution does not have a mechanism by which evolved traits can be "lost and replaced at a high rate" which is one reason why the nested hierarchy is so powerfully evidential.
Well, naturalistic processes do have mechanisms by which traits can be lost at a high rate (ie: bottlenecks within a population) but I do agree in that they don't have a demonstrable mechanism in which they can be replaced (another problem with universal evolution). The point is even if they did they can find naturalistic explanations to accommodate just about any sequence of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 11:50:49 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
For instance, during the alleged Cambrian explosion they speculated unobserved mechanisms that traits can supposedly be replaced or created at a high rate. So they can speculate a series of "explosions" followed by high rates of genetic loss (ie: bottlenecks) to accommodate this possible sequence of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 12:14:24 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Heck, losses of genetic information at a high rate (ie: bottlenecks) are very common, so there is no reason to suspect that universal evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in the first place (assuming that such a hierarchy is somehow objective and not arbitrary or subjective). Natural processes don't care to maintain any form of hierarchy. Where in nature do we see a nested hierarchy originate through natural, unguided processes where such a hierarchy was not already present (ie: not man made)? If we do not observe a nested hierarchy emerge as a result of unguided natural processes in the real world, independently of already existent nested hierarchies, there is no reason to believe that naturalistic processes can plausibly account for a nested hierarchy to begin with (again, assuming that such a hierarchy is somehow objective and not subjective or arbitrary).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 1:39:25 PM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
That sort of thing occurs in bacteria. We can show it happening over a few month's time, in say, a culture of E. coli, in which selective pressures have split it into various other populations, each from a single bacterium taken from previous populations.
Some creationists consider bacteria to be "cheating" because their generation times are so short, and their numbers so large that we can model very long periods of time in a period short enough to actually observe.
But what we get in such instances is always a nested hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 2:05:34 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Heck, losses of genetic information at a high rate (ie: bottlenecks) are very common, so there is no reason to suspect that universal evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in the first place (assuming that such a hierarchy is somehow objective and not arbitrary or subjective). Natural processes don't care to maintain any form of hierarchy. Where in nature do we see a nested hierarchy originate through natural, unguided processes where such a hierarchy was not already present (ie: not man made)? If we do not observe a nested hierarchy emerge as a result of unguided natural processes in the real world, independently of already existent nested hierarchies, there is no reason to believe that naturalistic processes can plausibly account for a nested hierarchy to begin with (again, assuming that such a hierarchy is somehow objective and not subjective or arbitrary).
Loss of genetic information due to selection occurs. A bottleneck is a large decrease in information. -- Agreed. A rapid loss of information would not violate the nested hierarchy. Increases in information could possibly violate nested hierarchy, if evolution proceded at a pace approaching what YEC's need to explain the observed diversity. But at the rate observed in the real world, the rate of mutation would increase information fast enough to violate the nested hierarchy.
Evolution produces a nested hierarchy because the rate of change from mutation is not fast enough to violate the hierarchy.
We do see violations in the nested hierarchy. For example when an intelligence (such as human intervention) manipulates the genome, the result can be and often is a violation of the hierarchy. ID proponents should be looking for violations in the nested hierarchy not caused by human intervention. This would contradict evolution, and support Intelligent Design. I can't help but wonder why ID proponents have not persued this...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 2:30:04 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
It seems evolutionists want to have it both ways; if a bat or fish had 'feathers' they would be poorly designed; and evolutionists would say, "Ah Hah! They can't have been designed by an intelligence because look how poorly they are designed!". Of course, if they don't have such things, then this is proof of evolution as well, because their structure is consistent with other structures in nature.
All of which begs the question of course because common descent does not at all prove that the mechanisms of evolution produce the strutures we see in the creatures that exist. The evolutionist does not have to explain why the bat has no feathers, he must explain how it is the entire structure of microbats came to work together in conjunction to produce an extremely eleaborate sonar based flight feeding system. And this an evolutionist cannot do, so his theory fails.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 5:41:20 PM
|
|
|
Plebe
Posts: 40
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It seems evolutionists want to have it both ways; if a bat or fish had 'feathers' they would be poorly designed; and evolutionists would say, "Ah Hah! They can't have been designed by an intelligence because look how poorly they are designed!". Of course, if they don't have such things, then this is proof of evolution as well, because their structure is consistent with other structures in nature.
Why would a bat or fish with feathers be poorly designed? Penguins seem to do just fine in the water with their feathers. So why don't we see fish with feathers? There is no functional reason that they could not. Same for bats. Bats also do well feeding their young with milk, so why don't we see birds with mammary glands? Bats do fine with the mammalian diaphram lung, so why don't we see birds with the same instead of flow through lungs?
quote:
All of which begs the question of course because common descent does not at all prove that the mechanisms of evolution produce the strutures we see in the creatures that exist.
The nested hierarchies demonstrate the pattern of heredity that is predicted by the theory of evolution. ID nor creationism can make any such prediction.
quote:
The evolutionist does not have to explain why the bat has no feathers, he must explain how it is the entire structure of microbats came to work together in conjunction to produce an extremely eleaborate sonar based flight feeding system. And this an evolutionist cannot do, so his theory fails.
If we knew everything to an absolute we wouldn't need a theory. It seems that you want to insert your designer into yet another gap in our knowledge. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/1/2007 5:58:39 PM
|
|
|
Plebe
Posts: 40
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Why does universal evolution predict an arbitrary nested hierarchy that can be adjusted to accommodate just about any sequences of evidence? Because Darwin says so? What a joke.
The nested hierarchy was first proposed by the creationist Linne. Darwin disocovered the mechanism that produced the hierarchy. There is no way that a single nested hierarchy can accomodate the dinosaur-bird transitionals, reptile-mammal transitionals, and a feathered bat. That would require two very different hierarchies which would falsify evolution. The prediction that the theory makes is that you will not discover a living or extinct species that violates the established and non-arbitrary nested hierarchy, and that prediction continues to hold.
We can look at cars, amphibious cars, planes, sea planes, and motor boats as a non-biological example. If we group everything that has tires we get cars, amphibious cars, and planes in the same group wth sea planes and boats in the outgroup. If we group things by the presence of a propeller we get both types of planes, amphibious cars, and boats in the same group with cars as the sole member of the outgroup. If we group them by their cockpits we have some cars (convertibles), some amphibious craft, most boats and no planes in one group and a mix of all different types in the outgroup. There is no way to create a single nested hierarchy with these forms of transportation. It is not because nested hierarchies are arbitrary, it is because of the mixture of shared characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/2/2007 12:45:03 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 486
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
No ancestor of bats have feathers, so it cannot be a common ancestor.
While I agree, they only conclude that because bats don't have feathers. If they did they can attribute it to either common ancestry or convergent or parallel evolution.
We don't say bats don't have ancestors with feathers because bats don't have feathers. We say that because no ancestors of bats have feathers. No ancestors of ANY mammals have feathers.
quote:
If bats were too similar to birds they can claim that this similarity is due to a common ancestor.
No ancestors of bats were birds. Since no ancestor of bats were birds, the similarity in your scenario cannot be because of common ancestry.
quote:
Also,
quote:
Convergent evolution cannot result in a bat with bird feathers.
They only conclude that because bats don't have bird feathers.
No. They conclude that because the odds of convergent evolution developing a bat with bird feathers are so small, that it is effectively impossible. The chances are so small, that when a bat with bird feathers are found, evolution will be destroyed.
quote:
quote:
However, since a bat with feathers is impossible to fit into the nested hierarchy, they will fail.
It is not impossible and they will probably succeed. Sure, it doesn't fit the current hierarchy but they can make adjustments to make it fit. They can find a way to either attribute it to common ancestry or parallel or convergent evolution (or some other naturalistic phenomena).
You cannot make adjustments to the hierarchy 'to make it fit'. There is only one hierarchy, and that is the one found in reality. Are you seriously suggesting that we can change reality to make a bat with bird feathers fit into the nested hierarchy?
quote:
quote:
Actually, the reason it is claimed that a bat with feathers will not fit the nested hierarchy, is because a bat with feathers will not fit the nested hierarchy.
It will not fit the current hierarchy but the hierarchy could be adjusted.
There is only one nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy cannot be modified.
quote:
quote:
Chimps with feathers ALREADY violate a nested hierarchy.
...
Fish with feathers ALREADY violate the nested hierarchy.
You seem to be missing the point. They may violate the current hierarchy but a team of committed naturalists funded by our tax dollars can find a way to make it fit some sort of nested hierarchy or naturalistic explanation. Then they can claim that some other creature with bird feathers would violate the nested hierarchy when in fact even if that other organism did have bird feathers they would find a way to make it fit some sort of naturalistic explanation and they then can claim that it doesn't violate the arbitrary hierarchy.
If a bat with feathers are found, it will violate the nested hierarchy. Scientists will try to fit the bat with feathers into the hierarchy, but since the hierarchy CANNOT BE CHANGED, and since THERE IS ONLY ONE NESTED HIERARCHY, they will fail.
Since they are scientists, they will try to find a naturalistic process to explain the bat with feathers.
But rest assured, this natural process they will be looking for will not be evolution, since evolution CANNOT ACCOMMODATE A BAT WITH FEATHERS.
Evolution, at this point, will be very very dead.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/2/2007 8:18:00 AM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
To have feathers, a mammal would need to have had dinosauran scutes at some point in its evolutionary history. I don't think that is the case for any mammal. We call the bony plates of armadillos "scutes", but they aren't the same as the keratinous scutes of birds and dinosaurs.
Even if we found something in mammals that looked like feathers, they wouldn't have the same chemistry, genes, structure, etc. It would be like calling bats "birds" because they have convergent structures that are superficially alike.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/2/2007 5:06:13 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
Interesting and I think pertinent new paper called Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics (Biological Theory,Fall, 2006, Vol. 1, No. 4, Pages 357-371)
Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the "molecular assumption".
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/2/2007 7:16:50 PM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
Would you mind expressing, in your own words, what you think that quoted passage means? I suspect that you think it means something it does not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/2/2007 11:26:37 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Would you mind expressing, in your own words, what you think that quoted passage means? I suspect that you think it means something it does not.
It says Darwinian assumptions don't neccesarily apply to molecular systematics.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 8:37:20 AM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
Nope. Read it again carefully. It says nothing about "Darwinain assumptions." You've stumbled onto an argument between the proponents of phenograms and cladograms.
And not knowing what they are, you jumped to the conclusion it was about "Darwinian assumptions."
Look up some of the big words, and try again.
This journal, when it was foiunded last year, hasn't had as much interest as it had hoped. That's why it has an article on molecular systematics written by an American anthropologist an an Italian pharmacist.
Both are convinced of evolution; neither have any criticism of "Darwinism." In fact, Schwartz is dedicated to the same process that Darwin followed; he's merely reflecting here the opinion of one who bases theory in the anatomical evidence, as opposed to those using molecular information.
< Message edited by Yehren -- 3/3/2007 8:45:01 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 4:52:43 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Nope. Read it again carefully. It says nothing about "Darwinain assumptions." You've stumbled onto an argument between the proponents of phenograms and cladograms.
I think you need to read again a little more clearly (and read the whole paper)
This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the "molecular assumption".
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 9:15:26 PM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
Ah, you've confused scientific models with "assumptions." Becaise ID is a religion, based on faith, the idea of basing models on evidence is sometimes a difficult one for IDers. Maybe you could review here to learn more about it; it would help you understand the quote you've posted here.
Here's a hint: Learn the difference between a phenogram, and a cladogram, and you'll probably figure it out. If not, here's another: you don't see many molecular phenograms.
Let us know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 9:45:59 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Ah, you've confused scientific models with "assumptions." Becaise ID is a religion, based on faith, the idea of basing models on evidence is sometimes a difficult one for IDers. Maybe you could review here to learn more about it; it would help you understand the quote you've posted here.
Here's a hint: Learn the difference between a phenogram, and a cladogram, and you'll probably figure it out. If not, here's another: you don't see many molecular phenograms.
Well no, you are dissembling; the paper is clear:
Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the "molecular assumption".
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 10:00:59 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Evolution produces a nested hierarchy because the rate of change from mutation is not fast enough to violate the hierarchy.
Could you elaborate? What does speed/rate have to do with it?
quote:
A rapid loss of information would not violate the nested hierarchy. Increases in information could possibly violate nested hierarchy...
Why? How can this be falsified (since we don't really see "increases in information" in the real world it seems such a claim is untestable (for all practical purposes), just speculative. Why resort to an unfalsifiable claim, or one that can't practically be falsified?).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 10:08:26 PM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 531
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
The journal Biological Theory was only launched in 2006 and it's a pretty obscure one, so that's why I've been having trouble finding information on it.
I find Schwartz's article bizarre. I don't get what he means by this:
quote:
Schwartz argues that the structure of the genome — the genetic material that controls an organism’s development — does not keep changing, based on the presence of stress proteins, also known as heat shock proteins, in each cell. Their main function is to eliminate the potential for cellular error and change. This regular cellular maintenance is what Schwartz says is behind his refutation of constant cellular change. “The biology of the cell seems to run contrary to the model people have in their heads,” says Schwartz. He contends that if molecules were changing constantly, it would threaten proper survival, and strange animals would be emerging rapidly all over the world. Consequentially, Schwartz argues that molecular change is brought about only by significant environmental stressors, such as rapid temperature change, severe dietary change or even physical crowding.
If an organism’s stress proteins are unable to cope with a significant change, the genomic structure can be modified. However, Schwartz notes, a mutation also can be recessive in an organism for many generations before it is displayed in its offspring. Whether or not the offspring survives is another matter. Is he suggesting that mutations (molecular change he calls it) only happen in the case of heat? I thought heat shock proteins were only useful in proteins, not genetic materials...
quote:
If it does in fact live, the presence of this genetically modified organism is not the product of gradual molecular change but a sudden display of the genetic mutation, which may have occurred many years prior, he says. Um, I think he's getting mixed up with molecular evolution and the expression of mutations. Gradual molecular evolution happens in the genetic material in germ cells and accordingly through descendants/populations. Individual somatic mutations happen all the time and they can be suddenly expressed into the phenotype...
He makes this conclusion at the end:
quote:
But only altered
germ cells have potential evolutionary impact. In short, the
notion that molecules of germ cells—DNA, RNA, and proteins
and transcription factors necessary, e.g., for DNA repair,
protein folding, chaperone functions, and control of signal
transduction pathways, which are necessary for the survival
of cells and their bearers—are in states of perpetual change is
not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This
does mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that
mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous
and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca
and Schwartz 2006)—which will preclude their persistence
into future generations. Which is again, bizarre. Mutations happen all the time and they are often detrimental or lethal, but Schwartz seems to think that evolution is not gradual, that genetic material is not in a constant flux and that mutationonly happens in short jumps. He's arguing for a speeded up Punctuated Equilibrium. I think he's put up a strawman because Neo-darwinism has accepted PE as an equally likely mechanism alongside the traditional gradual evolution.
What he's challenging is the assumption in molecular phylogeny that more similar creatures are more closely related. But I don't think that's true of today. Now scientists in systematics use cladistical methods. But apparently he doesn't think so: quote:
Although
this will undermine the assumed hegemony of molecular systematics
in determining phylogenetic relationships, it will
mend the unnatural schism that has kept morphological and
molecular systematics apar That was well over thirty years ago. Science has moved on from simplistic notions that just because proteins are more similar between certain animals, they must be closely related. They use molecular data and put it into phylogenies now, with multiple lines of evidence.
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 10:16:39 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Plebe
We can look at cars, amphibious cars, planes, sea planes, and motor boats as a non-biological example. If we group everything that has tires we get cars, amphibious cars, and planes in the same group wth sea planes and boats in the outgroup. If we group things by the presence of a propeller we get both types of planes, amphibious cars, and boats in the same group with cars as the sole member of the outgroup. If we group them by their cockpits we have some cars (convertibles), some amphibious craft, most boats and no planes in one group and a mix of all different types in the outgroup. There is no way to create a single nested hierarchy with these forms of transportation. It is not because nested hierarchies are arbitrary, it is because of the mixture of shared characteristics.
This would depend on how specific or general you want to be. I can group them by motor vehicles and get all vehicles that have an engine/motor. I can form another group called vehicles that don't have motors / engines and get bicycles, tricycles, among others (perhaps horses if you consider them a "vehicle" (ie: if you define vehicle as something that aids us in transportation)). A motor is a physical characteristic. How you choose to group them and what kind of hierarchy you want is arbitrary.
quote:
There is no way to create a single nested hierarchy with these forms of transportation.
One can group them by more than one thing at a time. It's possible to do this if you make the grouping scheme "complicated" enough (would require a lot of time, time that committed naturalists spend to form arbitrary hierarchies for living organisms at tax payer expense). The question is; how "complex" must the grouping system be with respect to biological systems to violate such a nested hierarchy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? - 3/3/2007 10:40:35 PM
|
|
|
Yehren
Posts: 48
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why? How can this be falsified (since we don't really see "increases in information" in the real world
Every mutation in a population produces an increase in information. This is very easy to demonstrate, using information theory. Would you like to see it?
quote:
it seems such a claim is untestable (for all practical purposes), just speculative.
They lied to you about that, too, or possibly didn't know any more than you do about it.
quote:
Why resort to an unfalsifiable claim, or one that can't practically be falsified?).
This one can. Want to see?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
