Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
lifepsyop

The Myth Of The "nested Hierarchy Of Common Descent"

Recommended Posts

Here's a rather devastating criticism of Humphreys' work for RATE regarding helium diffusion:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

 

It is a rather lengthy essay of additional evidence and discussions that demonstrate Dr. Humphreys' work is fatally flawed and never achieves its YEC objectives.

 

You had to go all the way to Talkorigins for that one, did you? I noticed you didn't give a source for the cut and pasted "critique" of Woodmorappe's anthology, but it sounds like the typical mud slinging you find there.

 

Here is Humphreys' devastating rebuttal of Henke's quibbling and constantly changing page (Humphreys had to start archiving the versions he was changing it so much in response to Humphreys' rebuttals).

 

And before you retrace the path that has already been traced a number of times here on this forum, here is Humphreys' summation of the several critiques as of 2008. And here is the exchange with Loechelt that followed where Humphreys demonstrates that the temperature difference that Loechelt is arguing for amounts to nothing more than spitting in the ocean to raise sea level, in terms of explaining the amount of Helium retained in the zircons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was no overreaction. One of my mentors always wore a T-shirt that said:

 

"I am a...

(pictures of various archaeological artifacts like arrow heads, etc. with a line drawn through each one of them)

Archaeologist

PALEONTOLOGIST"

 

Let me repeat my statement. YOUR IGNORANCE BETRAYS YOU. Creationists are and have been funding a whole host of projects. In fact, the just released volume 51 issue 4 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly is entirely devoted to the iDino project which includes, among other things, the collection and examination of soft tissue osteocytes from the horn core of a Triceratops collected from the Hell Creek Formation, new radiocarbon dates (some even lower than 21Ka) for dinosaur bones collected from the HCF, as well as other Phanerozoic localities, and an assortment of analyses on the viability of long term preservation of soft tissue. John Woodmorappe did an extensive global quantitative assessment of the non-existence of the  geologic column in CRSQ 18(1), available as part of an anthology here. From your post it's obvious you're completely unfamiliar with the R.A.T.E. project, and the problems associated with retaining the Helium produced by the decay of 238U into 206Pb in zircons over billions of years. These are just a very tiny selection of all of the creationist research that has taken place over the past several decades. Your straw man challenges mean nothing in the context of the research actually being done.

Should've posted these sooner :)

 

I'll be checking them carefully, unfortunately I don't have much time right now, so that might take a while, I also have to check the rebuttals other members have posted, and the rebuttals to the rebuttals too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

At Fossil-Bluff there is a mammal preserved in sandstone with a shark and other marine-creatures.

Source, please?

 

 

 

The answer by creation scientists, Iguana, is Ecological Zonation. The reason a bunny isn't found in the cambrian is because we would assume that flood-depositions would largely create a situation where preservation was in line with the zones of ecology that existed pre-flood. So you forget that we wouldn't be treating planet earth as though it had had millions of years of evolution. The same error occurs when they argue that impaction for coal could never be in line with a young earth, the problem with that argument is that again, they are ASSUMING eons of time and FORGETTING that we would be assuming a pre-flood world, NOT a pre-historic evolutionary world. They would be treating it as though we accepted uniformity, (present-is-the-key-to-the-past). But in that example, the present would very much be the wrong key for the door. Sparse vegetation, deserts and the antarctic, are about as far away from a pre-flood world as you can get!

That's fine and dandy, but only explains why we find different animals at different zones, not at different depths. Why did no old-according-to-evolution fossils swim up during the flood? Particularly the marine animals

 

 

 

1. The 'cambrian' doesn't always exist. It depends on your location. BD has shown that at certain locations there simply is no, 'cambrian' which would be expected if a global flood was responsible for the cambrian if that deposition simply had not reached that area or was washed away or whatever.

Source? I suspect erosion is responsible here, but I don't know the specifics of what you're talking about.

 

 

 

2. Bunny's are not marine-mammals. (though the PRATT will continue)

No one said they were.

 

What I am asking is not for a bunny in the same geographical location as a trilobite, that has already been found. I'm asking for a bunny in the same depth as a trilobite.

 

 

 

Can you see the error in the logic of the request? If I know the cambrian doesn't exist and I ask you to show me a trilobite in a location where there is no cambrian, then it is a false request and a rigged-game, because I already know you won't find one.

Fine, I'll reword the request: Show me a bunny in the same geographical location and geological stratum as organisms evolution says lived during the Cambrian. The first part of the request is already fulfilled, the latter isn't, unless you can show me an example of a mammal in the same layer as a trilobite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had to go all the way to Talkorigins for that one, did you? I noticed you didn't give a source for the cut and pasted "critique" of Woodmorappe's anthology, but it sounds like the typical mud slinging you find there.

 

Here is Humphreys' devastating rebuttal of Henke's quibbling and constantly changing page (Humphreys had to start archiving the versions he was changing it so much in response to Humphreys' rebuttals).

 

 

 

The link I provided deals with Humphreys devastating rebuttal to Henkes devastating critique in a devastating way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link I provided deals with Humphreys devastating rebuttal to Henkes devastating critique in a devastating way.

 

Yet more bare assertion from the bare assertion king. Why don't you start a thread in the Young Earth vs Old Earth section and demonstrate that?

 

Or better yet, go to the pinned topic we already have on the subject and demonstrate it there.

Edited by Bonedigger
Added last sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? <_>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? kicked-out-smiley.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/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 “observationsâ€. 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/donald-reinhardt/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.com/empirical-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-projects.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:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(thought I would present a more streamlined version of some earlier threads of mine, with updated fossil discoveries, hope nobody minds :gotcha: )

 

How many times have you heard this?

 

"We know Evolution is true because all of life falls into a nested hierarchy of common descent."

 

Evolutionists like to paint the picture that this nested hierarchy is tightly constrained, and that any violation would disprove the theory. This is important because they need people to believe that Evolution is constantly being rigorously tested and confirmed in this way.

 

As with most of their grand sweeping claims of the theory's superiority, this one is also false. This is because the "nested hierarchy of common descent" is designed to always be able to be molded around to fit in new data that doesn't agree with it.

 

For example, a recently discovered dinosaur that did not fit.

 

nature14307-f1.jpg

Bizarre 'platypus' dinosaur: Vegetarian relative of T. rex - ScienceDaily

 

"Palaeontologists are referring to Chilesaurus diegosuarezi as a 'platypus' dinosaur because of its bizarre combination of characters that resemble different dinosaur groups. For example, Chilesaurus boasted a proportionally small skull, hands with two fingers like Tyrannosaurus rex and feet more akin to primitive long-neck dinosaurs.

 

The different parts of the body of Chilesaurus were adapted to a particular diet and way of life, which was similar to other groups of dinosaurs. As a result of these similar habits, different regions of the body of Chilesaurus evolved resembling those present in other, unrelated groups of dinosaurs, which is a phenomenon called evolutionary convergence.

 

 

Chilesaurus represents one of the most extreme cases of mosaic convergent evolution recorded in the history of life. For example, the teeth of Chilesaurus are very similar to those of primitive long-neck dinosaurs because they were selected over millions of years as a result of a similar diet between these two lineages of dinosaurs.

 

 

Martín Ezcurra, Researcher, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham said: 'Chilesaurus can be considered a 'platypus' dinosaur because different parts of its body resemble those of other dinosaur groups due to mosaic convergent evolution. In this process, a region or regions of an organism resemble others of unrelated species because of a similar mode of life and evolutionary pressures. Chilesaurus provides a good example of how evolution works in deep time and it is one of the most interesting cases of convergent evolution documented in the history of life."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427124631.htm

 

 

An enigmatic plant-eating theropod from the Late Jurassic period of Chile - Nature 2015

 

"Chilesaurus represents an extreme case of mosaic evolution among dinosaurs, owing to the presence of dental, cranial and postcranial features that are homoplastic with multiple disparate groups. Using quantitative morphospace analysis, we explored morphospace occupation of different skeletal regions in Chilesaurus with respect to a variety of avian and non-avian theropods. This shows that Chilesaurus has a ceratosaur-like axial skeleton, a 'basal tetanuran' forelimb and scapular girdle, a coelurosaur-like pelvis, and a tetanuran-like hindlimb. General ankle and foot construction does not group with any theropod clade, probably as a result of the characters shared by Chilesaurus, sauropodomorphs and herrerasaurids."

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14307.html

 

Notice the rescue devices at work for any unexpected patterns. It is usually some type of independent "convergence" of traits, or a "mosaic" of traits. Evolutionists can never tell you what the limits are to this supposed convergence, they just keep invoking it whenever they need to explain something unexpected. There is no evidence that these traits "convergently evolved"... it is just assumed that they must have.

 

(notice that evolutionists will never distinguish for you what they're assuming and what is actually found in data. They always want to equivocate and keep things confusing for their audience)

 

So this is why the "nested hierarchy of common descent" can so easily adjust to new unexpected data.

 

Evolution theory is always basing its nested hierarchy models on the existence of imaginary "common ancestors". You are frequently presented a tree-like diagram depicting major animal groups at the node ends. What you are usually not told is that the base of those tree nodes (which represent common ancestors) are imaginary.

 

nested_clade_static.gif

 

So because the ancestral nodes are imaginary, whenever an animal is discovered exhibiting an unexpected pattern of traits, evolutionists can simply carve out a new imaginary branching event for that animal in their nested hierarchy diagrams. They can root this animal's lineage as far back as necessary to show where it would have branched off from a "common ancestor" and began developing its unique pattern of traits.

 

This is all possible because evolutionists are constantly working with imaginary events in the mystical imaginary evolutionary past.

 

Furthermore, even existing lineages can be fundamentally rearranged if it means harmonizing evolutionary models with new data. All of it is malleable play-doh that is designed to accommodate unexpected data.

 

So essentially whenever their "nested hierarchy" is broken, they can simply fabricate a new nested group to fix it.

 

This is all fine and dandy for the purposes of working with hypothetical models... but hopefully you now see how absurd the claim is that Evolution is somehow being rigorously 'tested' because all of life falls into a "nested hierarchy of common descent". This is yet another myth that the evolutionary community perpetuates to sell you their creation religion.

 

 

Here is another example. When animal morphology is discovered showing a major contradiction to all known groupings, evolutionists simply say "Well, Evolution did it.", and carve out a new imaginary lineage for the animal in their 'nested hierarchy of common descent'...

 

...and then they simultaneously argue that Evolution has passed some rigorous scientific testing because all of life "fits" into that nested hierarchy.

 

Yi qi: Bat-Winged Dinosaur Discovered in China

 

yi-qi.jpg?w=600

 

The most striking feature of the dinosaur is the presence of an anomalous, slightly curved, distally tapered, rod-like bone, which is morphologically unlike any normal theropod skeletal element.

 

“Indeed, no equivalent of the rod-like bone is known in any other dinosaur even outside Theropoda, but similar structures are present in a diverse array of extant and extinct flying or gliding tetrapods like bats.â€

 

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-yi-qi-bat-winged-dinosaur-china-02750.html

 

 

A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran theropod with preserved evidence of membranous wings - Nature 2015

 

...Most surprisingly, Yi has a long rod-like bone extending from each wrist, and patches of membranous tissue preserved between the rod-like bones and the manual digits. Analogous features are unknown in any dinosaur but occur in various flying and gliding tetrapods, suggesting the intriguing possibility that Yi had membranous aerodynamic surfaces totally different from the archetypal feathered wings of birds and their closest relatives. Documentation of the unique forelimbs of Yi greatly increases the morphological disparity known to exist among dinosaurs, and highlights the extraordinary breadth and richness of the evolutionary experimentation that took place close to the origin of birds.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7550/full/nature14423.html

 

 

There's another one of those fuzzy phrases to watch out for: "evolutionary experimentation"... It is nothing but imagination but they make it sound like it is a scientific concept. The line between data and Darwinian mysticism is always blurred.

 

This is what happens when you have an Evolutionary creation religion hiding behind the life sciences.

 

Evolution is a fog that settles around the shifting landscape of data.

In the Modern Synthesis, genes were adaptive characteristics of species, not a level of evolution with a deep history or with branching processes potentially different from those of species. This view was linked to the assumption that species history was dominated by the fine evolutionary adjustment of sub-organismal traits to specific functional ends. Strong selection capable of quickly molding traits for current utility was also expected to erase the history of sub-organismal traits. This strong commitment to the power of selection may be why Mayr wrote the following in 1963:

 

"Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives". – Mayr [2] p. 609

 

If the genes of each species are assumed to be perfectly tuned to current function, mechanistic convergence should often result, leading not only to erasure of evolutionary history, but also to extensive homoplasy in the molecular and cellular machinery of diverse species. Thus mid-20th Century biology usually assumed that species were the durable units of evolution while organs, genes, and cells evolved to match the functional demands placed on those species. When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation supplied.

 

This assumption of parallelism across levels has now been widely dropped. By the start of the 21st Century, molecular evolution had taught us that genes duplicate within species, and protein-coding genes are often recognizably conserved for tens or hundreds of millions of years, longer than the duration of many species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(thought I would present a more streamlined version of some earlier threads of mine, with updated fossil discoveries, hope nobody minds :gotcha: ) How many times have you heard this?"We know Evolution is true because all of life falls into a nested hierarchy of common descent."Evolutionists like to paint the picture that this nested hierarchy is tightly constrained, and that any violation would disprove the theory. This is important because they need people to believe that Evolution is constantly being rigorously tested and confirmed in this way.As with most of their grand sweeping claims of the theory's superiority, this one is also false. This is because the "nested hierarchy of common descent" is designed to always be able to be molded around to fit in new data that doesn't agree with it.For example, a recently discovered dinosaur that did not fit. nature14307-f1.jpgBizarre 'platypus' dinosaur: Vegetarian relative of T. rex - ScienceDaily"Palaeontologists are referring to Chilesaurus diegosuarezi as a 'platypus' dinosaur because of its bizarre combination of characters that resemble different dinosaur groups. For example, Chilesaurus boasted a proportionally small skull, hands with two fingers like Tyrannosaurus rex and feet more akin to primitive long-neck dinosaurs.The different parts of the body of Chilesaurus were adapted to a particular diet and way of life, which was similar to other groups of dinosaurs. As a result of these similar habits, different regions of the body of Chilesaurus evolved resembling those present in other, unrelated groups of dinosaurs, which is a phenomenon called evolutionary convergence.Chilesaurus represents one of the most extreme cases of mosaic convergent evolution recorded in the history of life. For example, the teeth of Chilesaurus are very similar to those of primitive long-neck dinosaurs because they were selected over millions of years as a result of a similar diet between these two lineages of dinosaurs.Martín Ezcurra, Researcher, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham said: 'Chilesaurus can be considered a 'platypus' dinosaur because different parts of its body resemble those of other dinosaur groups due to mosaic convergent evolution. In this process, a region or regions of an organism resemble others of unrelated species because of a similar mode of life and evolutionary pressures. Chilesaurus provides a good example of how evolution works in deep time and it is one of the most interesting cases of convergent evolution documented in the history of life."http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427124631.htmAn enigmatic plant-eating theropod from the Late Jurassic period of Chile - Nature 2015"Chilesaurus represents an extreme case of mosaic evolution among dinosaurs, owing to the presence of dental, cranial and postcranial features that are homoplastic with multiple disparate groups. Using quantitative morphospace analysis, we explored morphospace occupation of different skeletal regions in Chilesaurus with respect to a variety of avian and non-avian theropods. This shows that Chilesaurus has a ceratosaur-like axial skeleton, a 'basal tetanuran' forelimb and scapular girdle, a coelurosaur-like pelvis, and a tetanuran-like hindlimb. General ankle and foot construction does not group with any theropod clade, probably as a result of the characters shared by Chilesaurus, sauropodomorphs and herrerasaurids."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14307.htmlNotice the rescue devices at work for any unexpected patterns. It is usually some type of independent "convergence" of traits, or a "mosaic" of traits. Evolutionists can never tell you what the limits are to this supposed convergence, they just keep invoking it whenever they need to explain something unexpected. There is no evidence that these traits "convergently evolved"... it is just assumed that they must have.(notice that evolutionists will never distinguish for you what they're assuming and what is actually found in data. They always want to equivocate and keep things confusing for their audience)So this is why the "nested hierarchy of common descent" can so easily adjust to new unexpected data.Evolution theory is always basing its nested hierarchy models on the existence of imaginary "common ancestors". You are frequently presented a tree-like diagram depicting major animal groups at the node ends. What you are usually not told is that the base of those tree nodes (which represent common ancestors) are imaginary. nested_clade_static.gifSo because the ancestral nodes are imaginary, whenever an animal is discovered exhibiting an unexpected pattern of traits, evolutionists can simply carve out a new imaginary branching event for that animal in their nested hierarchy diagrams. They can root this animal's lineage as far back as necessary to show where it would have branched off from a "common ancestor" and began developing its unique pattern of traits.This is all possible because evolutionists are constantly working with imaginary events in the mystical imaginary evolutionary past.Furthermore, even existing lineages can be fundamentally rearranged if it means harmonizing evolutionary models with new data. All of it is malleable play-doh that is designed to accommodate unexpected data.So essentially whenever their "nested hierarchy" is broken, they can simply fabricate a new nested group to fix it. This is all fine and dandy for the purposes of working with hypothetical models... but hopefully you now see how absurd the claim is that Evolution is somehow being rigorously 'tested' because all of life falls into a "nested hierarchy of common descent". This is yet another myth that the evolutionary community perpetuates to sell you their creation religion.  Here is another example. When animal morphology is discovered showing a major contradiction to all known groupings, evolutionists simply say "Well, Evolution did it.", and carve out a new imaginary lineage for the animal in their 'nested hierarchy of common descent'......and then they simultaneously argue that Evolution has passed some rigorous scientific testing because all of life "fits" into that nested hierarchy.Yi qi: Bat-Winged Dinosaur Discovered in Chinayi-qi.jpg?w=600The most striking feature of the dinosaur is the presence of an anomalous, slightly curved, distally tapered, rod-like bone, which is morphologically unlike any normal theropod skeletal element.“Indeed, no equivalent of the rod-like bone is known in any other dinosaur even outside Theropoda, but similar structures are present in a diverse array of extant and extinct flying or gliding tetrapods like bats.â€http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-yi-qi-bat-winged-dinosaur-china-02750.htmlA bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran theropod with preserved evidence of membranous wings - Nature 2015...Most surprisingly, Yi has a long rod-like bone extending from each wrist, and patches of membranous tissue preserved between the rod-like bones and the manual digits. Analogous features are unknown in any dinosaur but occur in various flying and gliding tetrapods, suggesting the intriguing possibility that Yi had membranous aerodynamic surfaces totally different from the archetypal feathered wings of birds and their closest relatives. Documentation of the unique forelimbs of Yi greatly increases the morphological disparity known to exist among dinosaurs, and highlights the extraordinary breadth and richness of the evolutionary experimentation that took place close to the origin of birds.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7550/full/nature14423.htmlThere's another one of those fuzzy phrases to watch out for: "evolutionary experimentation"... It is nothing but imagination but they make it sound like it is a scientific concept. The line between data and Darwinian mysticism is always blurred.This is what happens when you have an Evolutionary creation religion hiding behind the life sciences.Evolution is a fog that settles around the shifting landscape of data.

In the Modern Synthesis, genes were adaptive characteristics of species, not a level of evolution with a deep history or with branching processes potentially different from those of species. This view was linked to the assumption that species history was dominated by the fine evolutionary adjustment of sub-organismal traits to specific functional ends. Strong selection capable of quickly molding traits for current utility was also expected to erase the history of sub-organismal traits. This strong commitment to the power of selection may be why Mayr wrote the following in 1963:"Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives". – Mayr [2] p. 609If the genes of each species are assumed to be perfectly tuned to current function, mechanistic convergence should often result, leading not only to erasure of evolutionary history, but also to extensive homoplasy in the molecular and cellular machinery of diverse species. Thus mid-20th Century biology usually assumed that species were the durable units of evolution while organs, genes, and cells evolved to match the functional demands placed on those species. When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation supplied.This assumption of parallelism across levels has now been widely dropped. By the start of the 21st Century, molecular evolution had taught us that genes duplicate within species, and protein-coding genes are often recognizably conserved for tens or hundreds of millions of years, longer than the duration of many species.

 

Molecular evolution had taught us that genes duplicate within species, and protein-coding genes are often recognizably conserved for tens or hundreds of millions of years, longer than the duration of many species

"

 

So "Molecular Evolution" had taught you that did it?.. How can somthing that has ZERO Intelligence "Teach" ANYTHING?

 

Oh By the way...Who or what has the time machine that allows us to "recognize" that "protein-coding genes are often recognizably conserved for tens or hundreds of millions of years"..?

 

OR

 

Are you just writing Science Fiction novels about "Long Ago and Far Away" again...? You DO know that Science Fiction is NOT Part of the scientific method dont you?

 

 

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.†Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure how science would know genes were "conserved" for millions of years.

i'm quite positive the genes that code for how DNA is stored and read has remained fixed.

i would also assume the protein coding genes for the kernal of phyla has also remained fixed.

HOX genes apparently remain unchanged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

No. Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for a end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.

 

If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works.

 

This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of prediction repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly.

 

 

That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell.

 

 

An analogy is that whenever to see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms