Lesson in Cladistics: Playing Cards
- Thread starter Loudmouth
- Start date
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Again an evolutionist demonstrates their high level of reasoning ability!
Loudmouth does not want a word mentioned in relation to traits or defining some kinds, which I have done. He wants a creationist to tell him the differences between the suits of cards.
The difference is that there are different suit diagrams on all the cards that result in 4 suits of cards. Now you know!
The hallmark of each card rests on the pictorial diagram in the corners. Clubs is made of three little rounded circles that join and that is different to the heart shaped diagram, because the heart shaped picture does not have 3 little round circles joined. The three little round circular parts of the diagram that make up the club are also different to the spade because the spade does not have 3 little circular bits and neither does a diamond.
Wow Loudmouth what a challenge!
I am surprised you thought this was a challenge! Were you unable to articulate the differences? You should have been taught to do so at school.
Oh I've got it creationists. I know what is going on here! It is because the hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades all look 'the same' to evolutionists so they have no idea what the hallmarks of any card or creature are. That is why they are so confused all the time and come up with 3 line ups for whales.
However you have demonstrated a couple of points Loudmouth......
1. Evolutionists have the ability to convolute the simplist of things!
2. Evolutionists, or at least Loudmouth in this case, is so educated that he is unable to articulate differences even in the obvious!
No wonder evolutionists nested hierarchies are a mess.
Upvote
0
The difference is that there are different suit diagrams on all the cards that result in 4 suits of cards. Now you know!
If there are different suit diagrams on all the cards then you would have 52 separate cards, correct? The reality is that some of the cards have the SAME suit diagrams on them, and you are grouping the cards based on the fact that they SHARE this same suit despite the differences elsewhere on the cards. You are organizing groups based on similarities, not based on differences. If you organized cards based on differences then you would have 52 separate cards since every card is different.
The challenge is to organize cards based on differences, not similarities. I admit that it can't be done, but creationists insist that they group things based on differences. I am trying to show the folley of that claim.
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Loudmouth said
Well you are basing your entire challenge on rubbish.
Creationists group on similarities as well as differences eg why a fish is not a whale although they both swim in water, why a human should not be classified as an ape although they are both primates and mammals. It is just the same as you lot do. To group one needs a similarity. To exclude one needs to cite differences. It is not rocket science.
Hence you have offered what you see as an impossible challenge, and as I said a spoof, based on your own ignorance and disengagement with reality.
Well you are basing your entire challenge on rubbish.
Creationists group on similarities as well as differences eg why a fish is not a whale although they both swim in water, why a human should not be classified as an ape although they are both primates and mammals. It is just the same as you lot do. To group one needs a similarity. To exclude one needs to cite differences. It is not rocket science.
Hence you have offered what you see as an impossible challenge, and as I said a spoof, based on your own ignorance and disengagement with reality.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
All three are vertebrates, however, just as the 3 of clubs, 4 of clubs, and 5 of clubs are all clubs. They are still in the same group because of the features they share. Having different numbers on each of the cards does not exclude them from being in the same group, so how could differences between vertebrate species exclude them from also being in the same group?
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The resson evolutionists are unable to to distinguish between groups is because they have classified everything according to the assumption of common ancestry.
Science needs vocabulary and terminology. To classify or identify a group, vertebrates, due to similarites is fine. To discuss various mammals is fine as you are referring to reproductive systems.
To exclude from a group is a creationist thing not based on the common ancestry of everything.
Your numerous contradictions that you term homoplasy and convergent evolution is a demonstation that indeed the assumption of shared traits denoting ancestry is flawed and has provded the excuse evolutionists require.
In whales your DNA, morphology or mixed results give three different lines. How can you sit there and defend this method of yours?
A wolf may be a vertebrate and a mammal but it is not a cat because felids and canids differ in forelimb scaling, which emphasizes the dual use of forelimbs for locomotion and prey capture in felids.
A whale and a Basilosaurus may be a mammal and a vertebrate and they both fully aquatic but it is not a tetrapod as classified because it hasn't got 4 legs.
. A bird is not a dinosaur or specifically a theropod despite them both being vertebrates because a bird has a reversed hallux and theropods do not, unless evolutionists invent them out of thin air.
A modern whale is not a Basilosaurus because a basilosaurus does not have a blow hole. A Basilosaurus is not a whale despite any similarity because one has a blow hole and the other does not.
What you do have is a huge mess above family rank and the hand waving away of obvious differencs that should separate life today into creative groups. However evolutionists cannot use this sort of reasoning and have thrown a mess of non descript and often very different species into a bigger mess that has given them headaches and inconsistency ever since.
Of course the best proof that I am correct about no ancestry across family ranks generally, and you are not, is that your bird, whale and carnivore nested hierarchies are a mess. Also, DNA, what you rely mostly on, contradicts morphology which is all you have in fossils.
Upvote
0
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
There you go. It wasn't that hard with a little thought!
Upvote
0
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
There you go. It wasn't that hard with a little thought!
Why do all of the not-spades, not-hearts, and not-clubs go into a group together instead of into separate groups themselves?
Upvote
0
The playing cards show that this is wrong. Just like cards, we group species by shared features, not common ancestry.
What is it based on?
As new evidence comes in the groups will have to be adjusted. I don't see why this is a problem. No scientist is claiming perfect knowledge.
Yes, a 3 of clubs is not the 4 of clubs, but they are both in the clubs group. They are in club group because of the features they share, not because of the differences between the 3 and 4. Having a 3 and 4 does not exclude them from the club group.
So why do differences exclude cats and wolves from being in the same group?
That is like saying that the 3 of clubs can not be in the same group as the 4 of clubs because a 3 is different from a 4.
How can DNA contradict common ancestry when these species share DNA?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Loudmouth said
Because the deck of cards is an arbitrary group that has been placed together under a false assumption that vertebrates and smaller subsets such as mammals also evolved only once.
Therefore, one can have a large set as a group, eg all the species that have eyes and are vertebrates which merely describes their skeletal system and are placental mammals that describes their reproductive system but are separated and different by a hallmark trait or suite of traits that is different from the rest, while still requiring a backbone to get around and still giving birth a certain way. eg whales have no legs and tetrapods do not have a blow hole.
Hence a group can be constructed by both similarities as well as differences that may exclude them from the larger group. Don't you get taught this stuff at school anymore?
That is why a diamond can be identified out of a group of other cards by exclusion.
I think it is much more reasonable to suggest the one designer reused similar great designs over than to believe that evolution just stumbled on them independently and convergently in non closely related lines as you would suggest. eg Red blood cells and that red blooded vertebrates evolved twice independently in jawed and jawless vertebrates.
Biologists Find That Red-blooded Vertebrates Evolved Twice, Independently - Science360 News Service | National Science Foundation
The request was for a creationist to separate cards by differences, not debate why I see what you don't see, is it by design or by common descent, which is an never ending circle. Infortunately for evolutionists your view has the most inconsistency, change and mess.
I have separated out a group based on the difference that other groups do not share, which satisfies the challenge to identify a card group based on differences.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a diamond, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or diamond symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, diamond or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
Because the deck of cards is an arbitrary group that has been placed together under a false assumption that vertebrates and smaller subsets such as mammals also evolved only once.
Therefore, one can have a large set as a group, eg all the species that have eyes and are vertebrates which merely describes their skeletal system and are placental mammals that describes their reproductive system but are separated and different by a hallmark trait or suite of traits that is different from the rest, while still requiring a backbone to get around and still giving birth a certain way. eg whales have no legs and tetrapods do not have a blow hole.
Hence a group can be constructed by both similarities as well as differences that may exclude them from the larger group. Don't you get taught this stuff at school anymore?
That is why a diamond can be identified out of a group of other cards by exclusion.
I think it is much more reasonable to suggest the one designer reused similar great designs over than to believe that evolution just stumbled on them independently and convergently in non closely related lines as you would suggest. eg Red blood cells and that red blooded vertebrates evolved twice independently in jawed and jawless vertebrates.
Biologists Find That Red-blooded Vertebrates Evolved Twice, Independently - Science360 News Service | National Science Foundation
The request was for a creationist to separate cards by differences, not debate why I see what you don't see, is it by design or by common descent, which is an never ending circle. Infortunately for evolutionists your view has the most inconsistency, change and mess.
I have separated out a group based on the difference that other groups do not share, which satisfies the challenge to identify a card group based on differences.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a diamond, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or diamond symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, diamond or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
On the other hand, 'not having a spade, heart, or club' on it IS a similarity. All 'not-spades-hearts-or-clubs' cards are similar because they are ALL 'not-spades-hearts-or-clubs'. They SHARE the fact that they are not spades, hearts, or clubs, so that is a similarity in that category..
Metherion
Metherion
Upvote
0
Cards don't have vertebrae or fur.
Groups of mammals are based on similarities. Groups of primates are based on similarities. You are creating groups by what they share.
How does one determine if a card is a diamond, why do we have a diamond group? Why do we sort cards by "not diamonds" instead of "not circles" or "not trapezoids"?
Then start a new thread and show us, through evidence, why this is reasonable. Show us the observed instances where this designer created species. Show us the mechanisms that are used to create life. Show us why a creator is not capable of producing a species with feathers and three middle ear bones.
So the creator reuses designs, except when the designer does not?
You are the one who brought biology into it. I was more than happy to stick with just the cards.
You never demonstrated why they are grouped together instead of in separate groups. You have not explained why the "not spade" group is a single group instead of 39 different groups, each with a single card.
Upvote
0
Hobz
Ponderer of Things
I must admit, it took be 2 pages of posts before I understood your point Loudmouth, the back and forth between you and Metherion was quite interesting. I never realised this fundamental difference in the way Evos/Creos look at grouping. When I first read your challenge I thought it was a typo till it sank in. Thanks for the challenge. The problems associated with non-relative grouping (i.e. kinds) are far further reaching than I thought.
Oh and for the record, when I was done with my examination of my deck, I had 56 different groups including the pokers and rules cards. Also, as promised, I didn't find any reversed halluces, gills, or blowholes on my cards. They also don't swim or reproduce in water, if you were wondering.
Hobz
Oh and for the record, when I was done with my examination of my deck, I had 56 different groups including the pokers and rules cards. Also, as promised, I didn't find any reversed halluces, gills, or blowholes on my cards. They also don't swim or reproduce in water, if you were wondering.
Hobz
Upvote
0
Similar threads
