nested hierarchies
-=research links=-
http://www.accessexcellence.org/BF/bf02/scott/bf02a02.html elementary, short, but a starting point
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch3-d.html not biological but interesting, part of a larger book
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence13.htm short but to the point best intro so far
It is interesting to note that things that are actually designed by conscious "intelligent designers" (such as people) don't fit into a pattern of "nested hierarchy" (see main text). This has to do with the ways real "intelligent designers" actually design things. Consider, for instance, things like cars, airplanes, or musical instruments: new designs (or new "generations" of designs) of such objects are often said to "evolve" over time thanks to modifications of pre-existing models undertaken by their conscious human designers. New models are "derived" from earlier generations of cars, instruments, etc., and they typically combine some new features with a mix of older features retained from earlier models. And yet, unlike biological species or human languages, consciously designed objects resist any attempts to consistently classify them into nested hierarchies. Why is that? The reason is simply that "intelligent designers" are not limited to using and modifying only whatever components were available in the immediately preceding generation of designs; they can (and do) innovate and enrich their designs by tapping into a number of different evolutionary lines (not just closely "related" ones) and "skipping around" and sampling simultaneously among a number of different prior generations, not just the immediately preceding generation. In this way, conscious designers will often construct a novel design out of models which had not been at all closely related.
from:
http://rwor.org/a/v24/1161-1170/1170/evol5 box.htm
this is my point exactly. In software writing you take modules from WHEREVER, you are not limited to the ancestor(s) of the program you are working on. Rather you are limited by your ability to know the field and to grab what you can tailor to fit the current needs. This in biology would form chimeras, which does NOT happen in real life, except deliberately through man's intervention with genetic manipulation. (exception is maybe viral transposons with remnant genes from first host )
7) Evidence of evolution of species from the fact that the features of living organisms fit into a system of "nested" hierarchical classification
This sounds complicated but it really isn't. As previously mentioned, a "nested hierarchy" simply refers to the pattern of "group within group" classification (sort of like those Russian dolls that fit one inside the other) that all living species naturally fit into whenever you draw up phylogenies ("family trees") merely on the basis of a succession of shared characteristics. It turns out that only things that are genuinely related to each other by lines of historical descent (in which ancestors pass on some features to descendants, from one generation to the next) will consistently fit into a pattern of "nested hierarchy." If, on the other hand, you try to force things that are not genuinely connected by lines of actual descent and inheritance into such a pattern of nested hierarchy (things that have not actually evolved one out of the other over generations on the basis of some form of inheritable variation), you simply won't be able to do it: unrelated objects just can't be made to fit into such a consistent "group within group" pattern. For instance, you can make a simple list of the names and features of all the known chemical elements, or you can make a simple list of all the known minerals and their features. But what you can't do is connect the basic chemical elements to each other in any kind of "group within group" hierarchy on the basis of shared features, and you can't do that with the different kinds of mineral elements either. Why not? Because chemical elements didn't evolve out of pre-existing chemical elements, and minerals didn't evolve out of pre-existing minerals. There is therefore no way to establish family ties which could successfully group these objects into a nested hierarchy of bigger and bigger groups simply on the basis of sets of features they have in common.
from:
http://rwor.org/a/v24/1161-1170/1170/evol5.htm#Box 1 return the parent essay of the previous link
intro to hierarchy theory, lots of references:
http://psycho-ontology.net/hierarchies/
university course intro to terms including clade:
http://biology.fullerton.edu/courses/biol_403/Web/Hierarchies.html
this is what i am looking for, glance at the rest, prepare to read this one:
http://www.ping.be/spr/c8a.htm
The big point is that the nested hierarchical structure supports common descent, and is evidence against design, because a designer would have a far larger repertory of modules to swap in as needed. For instance, why doesn't man have the eyes of an owl, the speed of a cheeta, the hearing of a dog? Why don't we see chimeras in nature, since they are so popular and pervasive in human cultures? We find the ideas of chimera attractive and natural because of the way we think and design. Why didnt God do things this way as well? but rather severely limited Himself to only the raw material at hand, no swapping from other branches of the tree of life that had really good solutions and designs already.
) most of the arguments in favor of old earth and of common descent.
