Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[mickiio]

They don't cross kinds. Diversity in species, yes. Kinds no.

 

[lasthero]

They don't cross kinds. Diversity in species, yes. Kinds no.

What's a kind?

You still haven't given a consistent definition of that word.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

They're not patterns, they're sequences. As far as sequences, they're simply indicators of common building blocks.

They are indeed sequences of nucleotides. And the sequences show patterns of similarity. Patterns which are consistent with morphologically derived phylogenies. This refutes your assertion that the patterns are really illusions.

 

[justlookinla]

They are indeed sequences of nucleotides. And the sequences show patterns of similarity. Patterns which are consistent with morphologically derived phylogenies. This refutes your assertion that the patterns are really illusions.

It's no more than saying animals that breathe air are.....(insert whatever name you wish).

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's no more than saying animals that breathe air are.....(insert whatever name you wish).

Please expand on this post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does it address the consilience between morphologically and molecularly derived phylogenies\.? Why do these patterns match so well?

 

[justlookinla]

Please expand on this post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does it address the consilience between morphologically and molecularly derived phylogenies\.? Why do these patterns match so well?

I'm saying take whatever criteria you wish and see whatever you want.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'm saying take whatever criteria you wish and see whatever you want.

That response is not sufficient to refute the argument that the consilience between the patterns of relationships inferred morphologically and molecularly indicates that both patterns are real. I would appreciate it if your next post contained a much more specific rebuttal to this argument rather than the unproductively vague post to which I am responding.

 

[justlookinla]

That response is not sufficient to refute the argument that the consilience between the patterns of relationships inferred morphologically and molecularly indicates that both patterns are real. I would appreciate it if your next post contained a much more specific rebuttal to this argument rather than the unproductively vague post to which I am responding.

The responses aren't vague, I've been specific.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The responses aren't vague, I've been specific.

Then please rephrase your post so that it more clearly addresses the argument I've made. As it is I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Explain in more detail why the consilience between inferred patterns of relationship based on morphological and molecular analysis.

 

[justlookinla]

Then please rephrase your post so that it more clearly addresses the argument I've made. As it is I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Explain in more detail why the consilience between inferred patterns of relationship based on morphological and molecular analysis.

The point I'm making is that one can take sequences in DNA and create subjective categories in life forms.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The point I'm making is that one can take sequences in DNA and create subjective categories in life forms.

Thanks for clarifying somewhat. So if such categorizations are entirely subjective, why is it that morphological and molecular lines of evidence display such consilience?

 

[justlookinla]

Thanks for clarifying somewhat. So if such categorizations are entirely subjective, why is it that morphological and molecular lines of evidence display such consilience?

Fear of reprisal?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Fear of reprisal?

So in fact your best counter argument for why these separate lines of evidence produce consilient patterns is that they do not actually display consilience but rather researchers lie and claim they do for fear of reprisal.

This is the best you can offer by way of rebuttal? In other words you cannot refute the implications of such consilience and must therefore argue that no such consilience exists and is the result of fraud.

 

[justlookinla]

So in fact your best counter argument for why these separate lines of evidence produce consilient patterns is that they do not actually display consilience but rather researchers lie and claim they do for fear of reprisal.

This is the best you can offer by way of rebuttal? In other words you cannot refute the implications of such consilience and must therefore argue that no such consilience exists and is the result of fraud.

We see various forms of coercion and fear within the Darwinist environment. Speaking out, differing, questioning, having contrary views is a carrier killer.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

We see various forms of coercion and fear within the Darwinist environment. Speaking out, differing, questioning, having contrary views is a carrier killer.

Two questions:


1. To clarify, you concede that you cannot refute the implications of the consilience I describe. Correct?

2. Can you actually present some evidence that the similar topology of morphologically and molecularly derived phylogenies is really a fabrication?

 

[justlookinla]

Two questions:


1. To clarify, you concede that you cannot refute the implications of the consilience I describe. Correct?

2. Can you actually present some evidence that the similar topology of morphologically and molecularly derived phylogenies is really a fabrication?

1. To clarify, I've pointed out the issues with the implications of the consilience and the associated bias/fear within the scientific community.

2. It's really subjective categorization dependent upon one's interpretation of the information. That's why humans are called apes when in fact they're a life form unto themselves.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

1. To clarify, I've pointed out the issues with the implications of the consilience and the associated bias/fear within the scientific community.

2. It's really subjective categorization dependent upon one's interpretation of the information. That's why humans are called apes when in fact they're a life form unto themselves.

I understand that you think the consilience does not exist because it's all too subjective. But just pretend for a second that this consilience was real. Can you refute the implications of such consilience, yes or no? If yes, please give your reasoning why such consilience does not suggest that we are seeing real patterns of relatedness (note I'm not looking for a denial of the consilience right here, that can come below)

And You haven't actually given any evidence beyond mere assertion that such consilience is fraudulent. You should either provide this evidence or retract your claim. And please clarify whether you think the pattern is subjective and non-existent or if it is simply fraud. And explain how the morphological method, which was developed long before we knew about DNA, is showing subjective patterns that just happen to align with the allegedly subjective patterns found in DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

I understand that you think the consilience does not exist because it's all too subjective. But just pretend for a second that this consilience was real. Can you refute the implications of such consilience, yes or no? If yes, please give your reasoning why such consilience does not suggest that we are seeing real patterns of relatedness (note I'm not looking for a denial of the consilience right here, that can come below)

And You haven't actually given any evidence beyond mere assertion that such consilience is fraudulent. You should either provide this evidence or retract your claim. And please clarify whether you think the pattern is subjective and non-existent or if it is simply fraud. And explain how the morphological method, which was developed long before we knew about DNA, is showing subjective patterns that just happen to align with the allegedly subjective patterns found in DNA.

No, I'm not a pretender. But some folks do, subjectively, pretend that humans are apes. I don't pretend to believe that.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, I'm not a pretender. But some folks do, subjectively, pretend that humans are apes. I don't pretend to believe that.

This sounds like a cop out. I know that you don't accept the premise (the consilience is real) so I'm trying to first make sure you understand the conclusion (common ancestry). Can you not muster the courtesy to respond to a simple question? Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I note also that you didn't clarify whether you think this consilience is simply imagined and subjective or an actual intentional fraud carried out by scientists. I'd appreciate a direct answer to this and my above question.

 

[justlookinla]

This sounds like a cop out. I know that you don't accept the premise (the consilience is real) so I'm trying to first make sure you understand the conclusion (common ancestry). Can you not muster the courtesy to respond to a simple question? Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I note also that you didn't clarify whether you think this consilience is simply imagined and subjective or an actual intentional fraud carried out by scientists. I'd appreciate a direct answer to this and my above question.

Can you not actually go back and read my responses concerning the fear/bias within the 'scientific' community? I've not said anything about fraud.