Common Design and Phylogenies

essentialsaltes · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure he did a fine job breaking ground.

Was Linnaeus 100% correct?

I suppose not. But when he organized everything according to the derived characteristics that he could see, it's impressive how well it matches the similarities in inheritance that he couldn't see. He placed Homo among the Primates, and lo and behold, these species have the most similar inherited genetics.

AV1611VET · Mar 17, 2016

essentialsaltes said:
I suppose not. But when he organized everything according to the derived characteristics that he could see, it's impressive how well it matches the similarities in inheritance that he couldn't see. He placed Homo among the Primates, and lo and behold, these species have the most similar inherited genetics.

Thanks to that ... ahem ... man ... all life is assumed genetically linked, isn't it?

essentialsaltes · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Thanks to that ... ahem ... man ... all life is assumed genetically linked, isn't it?

No, Linnaeus was simply creating a classification system based on the features he could observe. I don't think he had any idea that "all life is genetically linked". After the idea of common descent gained scientific credence, it then provided a powerful explanation for this previously observed organization. This is what strong theories do -- provide explanations for broad collections of observational data.

AV1611VET · Mar 17, 2016

essentialsaltes said:
After the idea of common descent gained scientific credence, it then provided a powerful explanation for this previously observed organization.

After how many tries?

How much finagling had to be done first to make everything dovetail?

essentialsaltes · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
After how many tries?

One.

Common descent explained why Linnaean classification based on derived features falls into a hierarchy. Sure, taxonomy has not been static since Linnaeus, but the 19th century theory successfully explained the overarching structure of the 18th century results.

Genetics added yet an additional, independent tool in the 20th century that has made the connection all the more certain.

AV1611VET · Mar 17, 2016

essentialsaltes said:
One.

I don't believe that one bit.

I've seen Wikipedia entries where an animal has had its binomial changed.

I can't remember what it was, but I'm sure zoology isn't an exact science.

Even Mr. Edison didn't create the light bulb the first time.

Not to mention Tombaugh's Folly that went 76 years before it was changed behind closed doors.

VirOptimus · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
I don't believe that one bit.

-snip-

Why? What is your argument?

The facts are what they are and they are neatly explained by the ToE, thats just the way it is. If you have facts that go against the ToE, by all means, present them.

essentialsaltes · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
I don't believe that one bit.

Only because you are willfully misunderstanding me.

"After the idea of common descent gained scientific credence, it then provided a powerful explanation for this previously observed organization."

This explanation was immediate and obvious, and didn't require any jiggery-pokery. It took one try.

I've seen Wikipedia entries where an animal has had its binomial changed.

I acknowledged as much in my post. It's irrelevant to the point at issue, which is the nested hierarchy that already existed in Linnaean classification.

AV1611VET · Mar 17, 2016

VirOptimus said:
The facts are what they are and they are neatly explained by the ToE, thats just the way it is.

Yes, indeed.

Just a fancy Bildungsroman, is all it is.

VirOptimus said:
If you have facts that go against the ToE, by all means, present them.

Sure:

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

AV1611VET · Mar 17, 2016

essentialsaltes said:
This explanation was immediate and obvious, and didn't require any jiggery-pokery. It took one try.

Let's try this again ... with emphasis.

How much finagling had to be done first to make everything dovetail?

That "everything" includes species that have had their binomials changed.

essentialsaltes · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Let's try this again ... with emphasis.

How much finagling had to be done first to make everything dovetail?

That "everything" includes species that have had their binomials changed.

To make everything dovetail? I assume that hasn't happened yet. There are millions of extant species of beetle. I rather doubt they've been organized in a fashion that aligns their taxonomic, genetic, and evolutionary historical features.

AV1611VET · Mar 17, 2016

essentialsaltes said:
To make everything dovetail? I assume that hasn't happened yet. There are millions of extant species of beetle. I rather doubt they've been organized in a fashion that aligns their taxonomic, genetic, and evolutionary historical features.

Okay ... suit yourself.

I can only take so much of your scientific garbage, then you guys really start to get on my nervous system.

essentialsaltes · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Okay ... suit yourself.

I can only take so much of your scientific garbage, then you guys really start to get on my nervous system.

That's just cognitive dissonance you're experiencing. It is the discomfort one feels when facts contradict one's worldview; it creates a tension that one can only resolve in two ways:

the hard way involves changing one's mind
the easy way results in doubling down on the failed belief, and possibly lashing out and calling facts 'garbage'.

VirOptimus · Mar 17, 2016

AV1611VET said:
-snip-
Sure:

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thats not facts. Dont be deliberately obtuse.

Loudmouth · Mar 18, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Why do you use the term "fall into"?

Because that is the terminology for describing when objects form a nested hierarchy of shared and derived features.

Scientists are adept at force fitting their philosophies into one coherent pseudohistory.

Thanks to computers.

The conclusion of a nested hierarchy was reached before computers were invented. Even Darwin described it.

I request the reader to turn to the diagram illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups. In the diagram each letter on the uppermost line may represent a genus including several species; and the whole of the genera along this upper line form together one class, for all are descended from one ancient parent, and, consequently, have inherited something in common. But the three genera on the left hand have, on this same principle, much in common, and form a subfamily, distinct from that containing the next two genera on the right hand, which diverged from a common parent at the fifth stage of descent. These five genera have also much in common, though less than when grouped in subfamilies; and they form a family distinct from that containing the three genera still further to the right hand, which diverged at an earlier period. And all these genera, descended from (A), form an order distinct from the genera descended from (I). So that we here have many species descended from a single progenitor grouped into genera; and the genera into subfamilies, families and orders, all under one great class. The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently strike us, is in my judgment thus explained.--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Loudmouth · Mar 18, 2016

AV1611VET said:
You mean like a duck-billed platypus?

No, not like a duck billed platypus. A duck billed platypus does not have DNA from many different and disparate species.

Loudmouth · Mar 18, 2016

AV1611VET said:
You mean like father and son?

Cocker Spaniel and Great Dane?
Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

The former can be observed; the latter has to be force fitted on paper with computers.

Notice that you didn't even attempt to answer either question.

Then what pattern of shared DNA would a REAL connection produce?
How would it be different from what we observe?

If you can't answer either question, then you have to admit that the evidence is precisely what we should see if evolution is true.

Loudmouth · Mar 18, 2016

AV1611VET said:
It's more likely a Ford will give birth to a Dodge, than it is that the life in Genesis 1 appeared via evolution.

Fords and Dodges do not fall into a nested hierarchy. All you are doing is supporting our argument.

AV1611VET · Mar 18, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Because that is the terminology for describing when objects form a nested hierarchy of shared and derived features.

Micro objects.

But when nested heirarching is used to connect genera, it's gone too far.

Luke gives us our nested hierarchy ... all the way back to God, Adam's creator.

AV1611VET · Mar 18, 2016

Loudmouth said:
A duck billed platypus does not have DNA from many different and disparate species.

Where did all those snap-on parts come from then?

Common Design and Phylogenies

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

A nihilist who cares.

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency