Jump to content


Photo

The Myth Of The "nested Hierarchy Of Common Descent"


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#81 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 20 June 2015 - 07:40 PM

Yet none of it has rocked the scientific world.

Here is a critique of Woodmorappes anthology. This critique is one of many.

 

I've checked hundreds of Woodmorappe's references and quickly discovered that he routinely misuses and selectively ignores the literature. For example, Woodmorappe couldn't even list the proper ages of many of the "index" fossils in Table 2 (p. 28-29). Specifically, in his original 1983 article, Woodmorappe (p. 138) listed Monograptus as an "Ordovician" graptolite (#5). However, the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology (which is considered one of the best, if not the best, sources of information on invertebrate fossils) and other references say it's Silurian. I documented this error along with about 15 pages of more serious mistakes from this one article. Several years ago, Woodmorappe received a copy of my critique through email.
Now, the "Foreword" (p. 1) claims that "no changes" were made in the original papers in this volume. However, in the 1999 edition, Monograptus has been erased from #5 in Table 2 (p. 28-29), but it is clear that NO effort has been made to correct the consequences of this mistake in Map 5 (p. 31), Table 3 (p. 42-43) and other figures that use the disinformation in Table 2. In another example, Woodmorappe lists the genus Dictyonema in Table 2 (p. 28-29) as being an "Ordovician" index fossil. In reality, without citing the species, Dictyonema is a poor index fossil, because it lived from the Cambrian to the Mississippian. Because of the widespread sloppiness and errors in Table 2, Woodmorappe's subsequent arguments are utterly flawed and untrustworthy.
The later part of his stratigraphic separation article is full of hypothetical diagrams (p. 51f) that are largely inaccurate and unrealistic. They're even contradictory. For example, Figure 8 (p. 56) says that hypothetical fossil E1 stratigraphically overlaps fossil I20, E3 overlaps I18, and E20 overlaps J14. Figure 7 (p. 54) flatly contradicts Figure 8 and shows no overlap for these pairs! If Woodmorappe can't even read his own figures, how can he properly interpret the literature?
Further flaws may be seen in his interpretations of Map 36 (p. 40), which show the locations for certain Cambrian, Silurian, Lower Carboniferous, and Jurassic fossils in Nevada-Utah and Great Britian. Not surprisingly, few of the locations overlap. Woodmorappe (p. 38) erroneously believes that this lack of overlap somehow refutes evolution. However, if well cores were used to construct this map, the probabilities of striking two of the fossils on his small list in Table 2 are slim. If the data are also based on outcrops, outside of some very deep gorges or high mountains, it's unlikely that the outcrops would have rocks from more than one geologic period. So, how many deep gorges and high mountains are there in Great Britain? What's the probability of a 6-inch drill core hitting two or more fossils from Woodmorappe's Table 2 list? Also, why did Woodmorappe avoid using fossils from two consecutive periods (such as Cambrian and Ordovician)? The geologic maps of Nevada, Utah and Great Britain and even his own maps on p. 108f indicate that consecutive periods are present. However, as indicated by Table 3 (p. 42-43), by not using consecutive periods, the chances of erosion and non-deposition increase and it's less likely that they will be overlaps. Woodmorappe's exercise does nothing to refute evolution and he and his allies fail to appropriately recognize that non-deposition and erosion entirely explain the poorly preserved geologic record.
Woodmorappe's errors are also serious and prolific elsewhere in the volume. His attack on radiometric dating contains countless misquotations and misrepresentations. For example, Woodmorappe (p.151) claims that Naumov and Mukhina (1977) (Woodmorappe's reference #80) obtained "erroneous" radiometric dates of 188-270 million years for some Russian volcanics when the fossils supposedly indicate that they should be older than 225 million years. In reality, Naumov and Mukhina obtained ACCEPTABLE dates of 172-270 million years. Because of a poor fossil record, they admit that the volcanism could have extended to 172 million years (Jurassic). Woodmorappe (p. 158) also misquotes Grasty and Leelanadam (reference #386) and claims that a K/Ar date on a "hornblende" yielded an "anomalous" date of 440 million years for a Precambrian (>600 million years old) charnockite. However, Grasty and Leelanadam dated a biotite (not a "hornblende"). Under an optical microscope, Grasty and Leelanadam note that the biotites show slightly bent cleavages and a moderate wavy extinction, which supports alteration. In other words, the biotites could easily have been deformed by a metamorphic event that caused the argon to escape, which led to a 440 million year old date. Inappropriately, Woodmorappe (p. 158) misrepresents a plausible metamorphic K/Ar date on a biotite as an "anomalous" igneous crystallization date on a "hornblende." Again, Woodmorappe fails to properly read the literature.
Sometimes Woodmorappe's figures and tables end up refuting creationism. In tables on p. 88f, Woodmorappe mostly cites small and easily mobile fossils to incorrectly claim that out-of-place geologic strata and fossils are common. In contrast, Table 2 (p. 127) shows no evidence of "out-of-place" fossils. There are no examples of the Silurian overlying the Jurassic or the Cambrian overlying the Devonian. Although some periods may be missing because of erosion and non-deposition, the Cretaceous is still stratigraphically above the Permian and the Permian is above the Cambrian. Unless creationists want to invoke unrealistic conspiracies, Table 2 actually supports the geologic time scale! Also, after deriving Figure 1 (p. 25), which demonstrates that most fossil families and genera are restricted to a few geologic periods, Woodmorappe vainly tries to belittle it's meaning. Why? Because if creationism is true, we would expect most genera and families to cross all or most of the 11 geologic periods. However, the graph shows the opposite and supports evolution.
Woodmorappe's arguments (including Table 3, p. 42-43) totally fail to explain why Cambrian trilobites and Cretaceous ammonoids from western North Dakota were not mixed during "Noah's Flood," why Tertiary turtles are stratigraphically above dinosaur fossils, and why dinosaurs are directly above Cambrian trilobites in the Williston Basin and elsewhere. Whether it deals with Z-shaped coal seams, "microevolution," or radiometric dating, "Studies in Flood Geology" is a classic pseudoscientific fantasy and an utter geologic failure.

 

:funny: No wonder you didn't give a source for this. It's nothing more than a cut and paste of Kevin Henke's "review" of Woodmorrape's anthology on Amazon. One thing that has become clear in your time posting on this forum, Macten, is that the only "standard" you have with regard to evidence is...if it's avidly anti-creationist, it must be right. :rolleyes:



#82 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 20 June 2015 - 09:32 PM

After more than a century's worth of data and evidence pointing to common ancestry and nested heirarchy,  along comes genome sequencing.
Now surely this won't back up our common descent? Oh it does!?
not forgetting virology, embryology.......
 
Of course you could claim God has made it look as though genomes are the result of descent with modification.

 
Anyway, to get this back on track on the subject of nested hierarchies, I wanted to address this when it was posted, but never got the time.
 
Over the past few decades a battle has been raging between paleontologists (who by necessity can only use morphology to construct phylogenies), and biologists (who use primarily genome sequencing to construct phylogenies). As usual your assertion that genome sequencing just backs up the other data is an empty assertion.
 
Take, for example, a recent PLOS ONE analysis of squamates published by Reeder, et al., titled "Integrated Analyses Resolve Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa". Their introduction spells out the problem:
 

Higher-level squamate phylogeny is currently considered unresolved because of strong conflicts between hypotheses based on separate analyses of morphological and molecular datasets [8, 9]. Most attention has focused on the placement of iguanians (including iguanas, anoles, chameleons, dragons, and relatives), which are placed at the base of the squamate tree in morphological analyses, and in a clade (called Toxicofera) with snakes and anguimorphs (including monitor and alligator lizards, the Gila monster, and relatives) in molecular analyses.


That alone demonstrates the ubiquitous problem with present day phylogenies, and that genome sequencing does not just fall in line with other lines of evidence..

But what is especially revealing is how they "resolved" the conflict and "integrated" the two. As they note in their discussion:
 

Recent authors have suggested that squamate phylogeny is presently unresolved because trees from separately analyzed molecular and morphological datasets do not agree [8, 9]. However, such conflicts between morphological and molecular datasets can never be resolved by simply comparing trees from separately analyzed datasets. For example, using this approach, even if the morphological dataset contained only one character, and the molecular dataset contained two million, the relationships could still never be considered to be resolved. Combined analysis is a key step in resolving such conflicts (e.g. [42–44]), along with identification of causes of error (such as convergent morphological evolution associated with burrowing or feeding modes)

Emphasis added

 

Did you catch that at the end? In order to accomplish an integrated phylogeny, they have to throw out derived characters related to feeding and locomotion. It's amazing what harmony you can accomplish when you can just throw out or ignore inconvenient (homoplastic) data. Of course, all of this is entirely based on the a priori assumption of common descent, with the only goal being to determine which phyletic pattern is the "true" phyletic pattern, rather than testing the feasibility of the assumption itself. I wonder why they don't test that? <_<



#83 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 June 2015 - 12:17 PM

Did you catch that at the end? In order to accomplish an integrated phylogeny, they have to throw out derived characters related to feeding and locomotion. It's amazing what harmony you can accomplish when you can just throw out or ignore inconvenient (homoplastic) data. Of course, all of this is entirely based on the a priori assumption of common descent, with the only goal being to determine which phyletic pattern is the "true" phyletic pattern, rather than testing the feasibility of the assumption itself. I wonder why they don't test that? 

 

 

Because that's the way they have been mentally conditioned. Only the pieces of the puzzle that fit are kept. The other pieces are either cut-to-fit & forced in or disposed of.



#84 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 June 2015 - 12:49 AM

Because that's the way they have been mentally conditioned. Only the pieces of the puzzle that fit are kept. The other pieces are either cut-to-fit & forced in or disposed of.

 

Just like what they did with Lucy's skeleton... Creative licence (aka power tools)



#85 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 23 June 2015 - 01:10 AM

Bonedigger said

"

No wonder you didn't give a source for this. It's nothing more than a cut and paste of Kevin Henke's "review" of Woodmorrape's anthology on Amazon. One thing that has become clear in your time posting on this forum, Macten, is that the only "standard" you have with regard to evidence is...if it's avidly anti-creationist, it must be right. :rolleyes:

"


You're still yet to refute his post

#86 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 June 2015 - 02:44 AM

Scientists build models (theories) to explain data (observations)

That is how science works

 

Seems like I missed this one from before..

 

Actually Macten what you are talking about is a HYPOTHESIS... Thus confirming my prior claim that evolution is merely a hypothesis.

 

Macten observes similarities between fossils.

Macten hypothesizes that "evolution did it"

Macten then performs an experiment to support the hypothesis....

Yet there are no experiments Macten can perform on the past.....

 

So evolution is and always remain a hypothesis.. Until someone invents a time-machine and thus allows people to do experiments on the past.


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#87 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 June 2015 - 04:57 AM

Bonedigger said

"

No wonder you didn't give a source for this. It's nothing more than a cut and paste of Kevin Henke's "review" of Woodmorrape's anthology on Amazon. One thing that has become clear in your time posting on this forum, Macten, is that the only "standard" you have with regard to evidence is...if it's avidly anti-creationist, it must be right. :rolleyes:

"


You're still yet to refute his post

 

Don't hold your breath. I don't debate proxies.

 

Iguana, have you even bothered to read the Forum Rules, and in particular Guideline #3:

 

 

Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page. Various snippets from articles are fine, provided it is in the context of the argument you are developing. This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion.

 

 

 

In the space of two posts macten managed to violate both extremes. First he did a wholesale cut&paste of what turned out to be an Amazon review by an anti-creationist with a long history of quibbling and mudslinging. And then he just posted a link to a webpage by the same, which I appropriately countered with more "just links". The problem with both tactics (other than that they are lazy and demonstrate you have no respect for your opponent), is that as soon as I start going through and refuting a third party's argument, point by point, macten can then disown those parts, claiming that's not what he was appealing to. He has yet to demonstrate that he even understands how Helium retention in zircons could be evidence for a young earth, much less whether he is even in a position to judge that Henke has refuted it. Why do you think I told him to start a thread or go to the existing thread and demonstrate it?



#88 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 24 June 2015 - 12:33 PM

:funny: No wonder you didn't give a source for this. It's nothing more than a cut and paste of Kevin Henke's "review" of Woodmorrape's anthology on Amazon. One thing that has become clear in your time posting on this forum, Macten, is that the only "standard" you have with regard to evidence is...if it's avidly anti-creationist, it must be right. :rolleyes:

 

Are you arguing Henke's claims are incorrect due to the source?

That's ad hominem/genetic fallacy isn't it?



#89 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 24 June 2015 - 12:53 PM

Seems like I missed this one from before..

 

Actually Macten what you are talking about is a HYPOTHESIS... Thus confirming my prior claim that evolution is merely a hypothesis.

 

Macten observes similarities between fossils.

Macten hypothesizes that "evolution did it"

Macten then performs an experiment to support the hypothesis....

Yet there are no experiments Macten can perform on the past.....

 

So evolution is and always remain a hypothesis.. Until someone invents a time-machine and thus allows people to do experiments on the past.

 

No Gilbo, I am talking about scientific theory and it is true for all sciences.

Your posts suggest you do not understand the logic of probabilistic or inductive reasoning. Most of science is underpinned by simple inferences to the simplest explanations, best empirically justified mechanisms (observed), and what can basically be restated as statistical syllogisms.

Empirical = Observed, it doesn't have to come from experimentation.



#90 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 24 June 2015 - 03:42 PM

After more than a century's worth of data and evidence pointing to common ancestry and nested heirarchy,  along comes genome sequencing.

Now surely this won't back up our common descent? Oh it does!?

not forgetting virology, embryology.......

 

Of course you could claim God has made it look as though genomes are the result of descent with modification.

 

 
Anyway, to get this back on track on the subject of nested hierarchies, I wanted to address this when it was posted, but never got the time.
 
Over the past few decades a battle has been raging between paleontologists (who by necessity can only use morphology to construct phylogenies), and biologists (who use primarily genome sequencing to construct phylogenies). As usual your assertion that genome sequencing just backs up the other data is an empty assertion.
 

 

I asserted genome sequencing backs up common descent.

It does.



#91 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 24 June 2015 - 03:48 PM

I asserted genome sequencing backs up common descent.

It does.

 

And yet again you seem to confuse bare assertion with evidence. Adam suspended you for a week last year for cluttering up the forum with this nonsense. Guess what comes next? Attached File  kicked-out-smiley.gif   4.93KB   2 downloads



#92 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 June 2015 - 07:01 PM

No Gilbo, I am talking about scientific theory and it is true for all sciences.

Your posts suggest you do not understand the logic of probabilistic or inductive reasoning. Most of science is underpinned by simple inferences to the simplest explanations, best empirically justified mechanisms (observed), and what can basically be restated as statistical syllogisms.

Empirical = Observed, it doesn't have to come from experimentation.

 

Macten simply calling something a "theory" doesn't make it one... When you observe something and make a testable claim from that observation you are literally making a hypothesis, theories are based on confirmed hypotheses (confirmed by experiment by the way), NOT mere observations. I've very much like to see you try and support this belief of yours that theories are built on observation and not confirmed hypotheses as well as that observations don't lead to hypotheses...

 

 

"Briefly the Scientific Method (i.e. hypothesis-driven research) involves Observation, Hypothesis, Controlled Experiment and Conclusion."

http://www.pages.dre...hypothesis.html

 

Note how in the quote the observation leads to the hypothesis.... Which was exactly what I was saying...

 

"In the scientific method the first step is an observation. Scientific observation is any sensory experience that causes the scientist to think and ask a question. The observation leads to a search for an answer. Most observations typically are something seen or read, but sensory experiences such as hearing, olfaction, taste or touch are valid “observations”. Here are a few observations:

  • Does diabetes have a single cause, or multiple causes?
  • How are sugars used by animal cells?
  • What do the varied chickadee, bird calls and sounds mean? How many different calls and signals do they have?

An observation may generate a question that already has an answer, therefore, it is not a true unknown. If the answer exists in the literature or the Internet, it can be found. It is may be that simple, in many cases.

The Hypothesis Moves Observation to Possible Answers

Typically, when confronted with one or more unanswered, unresolved questions or observations, the scientist will propose hypotheses — possible explanations to explain the question or observation. The hypothesis, or hypotheses (plural), may be valid, or invalid."

https://suite.io/don...inhardt/1rg224v

 

So once again, the observation is the initial step in science, with it being used to create a hypothesis which is then tested via experimentation... Everything I tried to tell you...

 

 

Your posts suggest you do not understand the logic of probabilistic or inductive reasoning.

 

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate how my posts suggest that I do not understand the logic of inductive reasoning... (Rather than simply making yet more claims which you do not support, unlike yourself I have provided evidence above which demonstrates that you do not understand how science operates... An observation is the starting point of science, NOT the end result which you use to create a theory...

 

Most of science is underpinned by simple inferences to the simplest explanations, best empirically justified mechanisms (observed), and what can basically be restated as statistical syllogisms.

 

Do you know what inference means? It means a conclusion based on evidence.... Where do you get your evidence if all you have is mere observation?

 

Empirical = Observed, it doesn't have to come from experimentation.

 

Once again you've publicly demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the scientific method...

 

"Empirical Research can be defined as "research based on experimentation or observation (evidence)". Such research is conducted to test a hypothesis.

The word empirical means information gained by experience, observation, or experiment. The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.

Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation."

https://explorable.c...irical-research

 

"The Job of the Scientist is to study the surrounding world and explain why the world is the way that it is.

The way that this is carried out is by experimentation. The methods for producing experiments comprise what is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD."

http://www.science-p...com/SciMeth.htm

 

Experiments are fundamental to the scientific method, here is a quote explaining why.

 

"Importance of the Scientific Method

The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter. Even the best-intentioned scientists can't escape bias. It results from personal beliefs, as well as cultural beliefs, which means any human filters information based on his or her own experience. Unfortunately, this filtering process can cause a scientist to prefer one outcome over another. For someone trying to solve a problem around the house, succumbing to these kinds of biases is not such a big deal. But in the scientific community, where results have to be reviewed and duplicated, bias must be avoided at all costs.

­T­hat's the job of the scientific method. It provides an objective, standardized approach to conducting experiments and, in doing so, improves their results. By using a standardized approach in their investigations, scientists can feel confident that they will stick to the facts and limit the influence of personal, preconceived notions. Even with such a rigorous methodology in place, some scientists still make mistakes. For example, they can mistake a hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon without performing experiments. Or they can fail to accurately account for errors, such as measurement errors. Or they can ignore data that does not support the hypothesis."

 

So will you admit that evolution doesn't follow the scientific method?.... If so then what do you think its reliability would be?

Now consider this from the quote...

 

"For example, they can mistake a hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon without performing experiments."

 

Hmm this looks familiar I wonder where this has happened? :think:


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#93 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 21 October 2017 - 07:21 PM

the evidence supporting ToE is GARGANTUAN.
Infact it is regarded as one of the most rigorously tested and supported scientific theory we have


"And then shall be revealed the lawless one ... even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." - 2Thess 2:8-12.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users