Endogenous retroviruses

[dad]

You don't. Noah did not exist, the flood never happened.

You are misinformed. I have looked at just about all claimed evidences against it, and they are boogey men.

You go from the evidence, if you do that you get to the universal common ancestor.

Which is the common ancestors that were created. You cannot deny this.

No, only similarities. Grouping things, that is what the tree is based on. Do it with animals, you get a tree. Do it with anything that is designed, and you don't.

Assuming you have some idea of what was designed, and what happened to it since!! You don't, you just assume it was always the present ways, rates, and state. And that is unsupportable. Gotcha.

No, but the evidence does. Whatever your funny fantasies, dad, they do not top evidence.

They FIT it better than your funny fantasies.

Then there is only one original created kind for the whole of biological diversity, because the whole of biological diversity fits into one single nested hierarchy.

No, the after creation evolution filled in the gaps, so you simply can't tell the difference, and assume the evo glue is all there was.

I can show you how it fits that all life shows a common ancestor. Now, can you show me where the tree of life breaks down?

No, you can't do that at all. Where is it this 'tree of life' is supposed to break down in your mind? All I see on it are creatures that God made, and the various adapted species, etc. Looks fine to me. Except of course the way you like to group it, some Christians prefer to consider fish, and animals as seperate creations, being made on seperate days.

Oh, apparantly. And nested itself in orthologous position also I presume?


But why in orthologous positions?

Well, that could be a little deep for this thread. The question arises, how is it determined that a common ancestor was responsible?? Then, we get into some real basic assumptions, based on the present.
DNA works a certain way, now, but who says it was just that way before?
"Basic aromatic rings are aromatic rings in which the lone pair of electrons of a ring-nitrogen atom is not part of the aromatic system and extends in the plane of the ring. This lone pair is responsible for the basicity of these nitrogenous bases, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_aromatic_ring
If we want to 'get down' here, we may start at the realization that the present atomic arrangements are assumed to be the same in the past. And, yes, what does that mean? You guessed it, this whole mess rests on one big assumption, the same one that is made in all ideas that look at the past or present, that the universe fabric, and state was the same, not different!!!
Now, if we take what I might call created state matter, and atomic state, adding in the spiritual component, this changes everything! What little electrons might revolve around what, and what attracts and repels the other thing, etc!
So, in Eden, if the past was different, we had that different state. What would it mean? Before the big change, we would have had real differences in how it worked. We could, for example, even after the fall of man, live nearly a thousand years. Also, it seems, from the evidence, that much evolution went on at a very fast rate. How could this be? It just does not work like that now? Well, perhaps the coding in creation was more in tune with God, and the spiritual, so as that the information was able to change on the fly. Not, say, like a locked down 'instinct' but more of a daily impulse, or updating, as needed.
That is getting off on a tangent there, but suffice it to say that the life process, including dna worked differently, so it was no single common ancestor.

Unless you have a mechanism how ERV's would fit themselves in orthologous positions in non-related 'kinds', whether the past was different makes not one iota of difference for the reasoning that man and chimps share one common ancestor.

You seem to want a present way that could happen, but but can't happen in the present. The only thing that stops ERVs from getting around in the past is your artificial, unsupported imposing of the present on the past. You would need to back that up.

No, it doesn't. Get your science straight.

I just read some articles where they claimed that chimps and men lived for millions of years together, and some of that stuff went on. That is not my claim, but science's. I can dig it up if you want. Get with it on the updated science, will you?

It doesn't ignore creation, it derives directly from studying it.

And assuming the present ways were the way of the past, in fact it is nothing more than that, really!

Yup, that is right. And your evidence that this didn't happen is?

My evidence we were not once worms, is that nothing says we were of any substance. Why would I adopt that insulting self view? To me, it is just the devil that hates men, thumbing his nose, behind the shadows, and laughing at those that believe him.

 

[dad]

Parallel infection between species does not explain the nested hierarchy, dad.

Of ERVs, I think, was the idea there.

 

[dad]

Without common ancestry, there is no explanation for this natural arrangement of species.

Not true. Creation explains it as well. We simply have to realize that it was not the same in a lot of basic ways back then.

Seen through evolution, however, we understand this hierarchy as being due to descent with modification.

In some cases, yes, in other cases, no. The original kinds were created. With all the modifications afterwards, you get lost in the idea everything was due to modification. No, we had creation, and modification, beyond your grouping ability imagination.

Each taxa described by taxonomy encompasses a set of species that inherited their diagnostic traits from some ancestor in which the traits first appeared. In fact, this organization of a nested hierarchy is the required consequence of descent with modification.

No. The way you determine that things were passed down has real and present limits. It won't take you out of the ball park.

The only answer creationists can give for taxonomy is that god did it that way. But that answer can explain any natural arrangement of species. It therefore fails to explain any specific arrangement.

I did that. Maybe you realize that now. Your only comeback can be proving that genetics, and the state of the past was the same. Nothing else can help your case. And I have some news, you will necver be able to do that! Creation rules.

But you have yet to expain how a nested hierarchy is the required consequence of any model of creationism.

It is what we got, from what we had. To understand exactly what that was, you need more than an understaning of the present. But it can be said it was different.

Except that the same logic that groups species into genus or family are able to keep grouping spcies into higher taxonomic levels.

But not 'lower'. You can only go back so far, no further. You may get back to just a cat pair, or a couple pairs, but you can't make the cat come from a squirel. Right there is the fly in your ointment, and where the evo tree withers and dies.

All vertebrates are vertebrates because of their shared character traits. Just like all Hominidae are Hominidae because of their shared traits, or Aves because of their shared traits.

Well, in your mind that is important. To me, it is just a strange inistance on luming the majority of living things into the same basket, with broad terms.

No, there is a huge difference between prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells. Not only do eukaryotic cells have nucleuses and chromosomes, they also have mitochondria to power them. All animals, all plants and all fungi are eukaryotes. All of them.

So what??? I guess it is safe to say that Eden was quite a eukaryotish place!

You apparently missed the point. Why is it that all chordates (which includes all vertebrates) develop an anus before they develop a mouth? It certainly seems like a rather arbitrary distinction, and yet it is consistently true. If descent with modification is true, then it is because this specific pattern of development was locked into the ancestor of all deuterstomes, and has been subsequently inherited by all of its descendents. How does a creationist explain this.

What is wrong with a pattern passed down from ancestors? The things had to descend from somewhere? Yes, there came a time when the coding was locked, loaded, and passed down! But can you prove that the dna was always locked in the created creatures at first? No. You can't do that, can you??

We are not talking about the average person, we are talking about taxonomists. It is interesting because it requires explanation.

Been there done that. Last few posts, actually. Still didn't find the creatures all that interesting.

And how does that explain the fact that cats can be grouped with other Carnivoria, such as civets, based on shared traits.

"traits"? What precise traits are these?

The logic that lets us group cats into a group also lets us extend that grouping to higher taxonomic levels.

But the logic only applies so far unless we had a same past! You want to take'er back too far, you need to prove a same past. Sorry, road closed, no entry.

Running cladistic methods on modern species will give you a single, nested hierarchy of species. One with stroing statistical support. There will be no evidence of created kinds.

What we get out of a method depends on what is in the method! Seldom have I heard of so ridiculous a method and so called science as the sadistic manipukation of stats, that is cladistics.

You make no assumptions. You pick your taxa, you pick your most informative traits, and you run your algorithms. Computers do the rest. And out pops a tree.

You assume the traits mean we came from a worm, don't forget that! 'Hey, computer, we had a common ancestor, take the stats, and give us the best tree you can'. Period. How anyone takes it seriously, honestly, is beyond my comprehension.

Now there's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. I explain how we can consistently test and confirm hypotheses about specied relationships, and you claim that's evidence of faith. Since when is successful testing an element of faith?

Since it deals with part of the facts, and leaps to wormy conclusions about man and creation.

No, you didn't and I wish you would. You have to explain how a single nested hierarchy that encompasses all species is the required consequence of creationism.

Covered, as I think you will agree by now. A fast recap here, in case you speed read the post, the atomic stucture was different in the past, and molecular differences, meaning that DNA worked another way than today. By the way, this is the same reason radioactive dating is truly invalid!

And as shown above, the grouping of eukaryotes is not arbitrary.

Hey, sure there are some characteristics we could lump together. What for, I have no idea? What, has some better ring to it in the old age evolution mindset?

Retrovirues can and do infect multiple species. However, what we see is that when we get the same retroviral sequence in the same location in multiple species, that analysis of slight differences of these orthologous areas produces a phylogeny that is consistent with that created using other, independent data sets, thus further supporting the single, nested hierarchy of all living things.

We are talking past here, and how they did, not do infect things. And the rest of your 64 dollar word paragraph there, I think refers to some evolving that went on after it was passed down? If so, so what? If not, what is your point?

 

[Chalnoth]

Of ERVs, I think, was the idea there.

Parallel transmission of ERV's between species would explain why you find the same ERV in two different species. But it does not explain why you find the same ERV at the same location in two different species, nor does it explain why these ERV's form a nested hierarchy.

 

[Ondoher]

Not true. Creation explains it as well. We simply have to realize that it was not the same in a lot of basic ways back then.

You have not yet explained how a single, nested hierarchy that encompasses all species is a necessary
consequence of special creation. Nor can you. "Things were different" doesn't explain it, it's just hand waving.

In some cases, yes, in other cases, no. The original kinds were created. With all the modifications afterwards, you get lost in the idea everything was due to modification. No, we had creation, and modification, beyond your grouping ability imagination.

That whole mess was rather nonsensical. I was explaining what is expected if evolution were true, so that we can then compare those expectations against the evidence. That's how science works.

No. The way you determine that things were passed down has real and present limits. It won't take you out of the ball park.

Perhaps you fail to understand what's going on here. We are testing the hypothesis that all species are related via common ancestry. To do so we need to first determine the necessary consequences of that process, such as a single, nested hierarchy of all species.

I did that. Maybe you realize that now. Your only comeback can be proving that genetics, and the state of the past was the same. Nothing else can help your case. And I have some news, you will necver be able to do that! Creation rules.

You have still not explained how a single, nested hierarcy of species that encompasses all living things is a necessary consequence of special creation.

It is what we got, from what we had. To understand exactly what that was, you need more than an understaning of the present. But it can be said it was different.

Enough hand waving. What exact processes occurred after the global flood that caused all species to form a single, natural, nested heirarchy?

But not 'lower'. You can only go back so far, no further. You may get back to just a cat pair, or a couple pairs, but you can't make the cat come from a squirel. Right there is the fly in your ointment, and where the evo tree withers and dies.

Taxonomic levels move higher as they become more generalized. The lowest taxonomic level is the species, or the sub species. The highest is the domain, just above kingdom. The nested hierarchy of taxonomy creates a single tree out of all species.

Well, in your mind that is important. To me, it is just a strange inistance on luming the majority of living things into the same basket, with broad terms.

Why are there no prokaryotic plants?

So what??? I guess it is safe to say that Eden was quite a eukaryotish place!

This is how taxonomy works, by grouping species by shared traits. All eukaryotes have traits in common.

What is wrong with a pattern passed down from ancestors? The things had to descend from somewhere? Yes, there came a time when the coding was locked, loaded, and passed down! But can you prove that the dna was always locked in the created creatures at first? No. You can't do that, can you??

I have no idea what you are saying. I gave you the explanation as to why all chordates are also deuterstomes. How do you explain this using a creationist model?

Been there done that. Last few posts, actually. Still didn't find the creatures all that interesting.

And you have still not explained the fact that all chordates are deuterstomes as a necessary consequence of special creation.

"traits"? What precise traits are these?

"Carnivores can be told by their enlarged canine teeth, by the presence of three pairs of incisors in each jaw (with rare exceptions), and by the shape of their molar teeth...Another carnivore feature is the jaw articulation; unlike many mammals, such as primates and ungulates, carnivores cannot move their jaws from side to side."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/carnivora/carnivoramm.html

I'm sure a little more digging could turn up a host of diagnostic traits for carnivoria.

But the logic only applies so far unless we had a same past! You want to take'er back too far, you need to prove a same past. Sorry, road closed, no entry.

The logic that groups things according to shared characters exists outside of the concept of common ancestry. One need not assume evolution to discover the nested heirarchy of species. Carl Linnaeus certainly didn't.

What we get out of a method depends on what is in the method! Seldom have I heard of so ridiculous a method and so called science as the sadistic manipukation of stats, that is cladistics.

"I don't like it, therefore it is false" is not actually an argument against taxnomy, linnaean or cladistic.

You assume the traits mean we came from a worm, don't forget that! 'Hey, computer, we had a common ancestor, take the stats, and give us the best tree you can'. Period. How anyone takes it seriously, honestly, is beyond my comprehension.

The methods only try to produce a tree given the character matrix. That the methods work so well is indiciative that common ancestry is likely correct.

Since it deals with part of the facts, and leaps to wormy conclusions about man and creation.

I have nothing to say about this nonsense.

Covered, as I think you will agree by now. A fast recap here, in case you speed read the post, the atomic stucture was different in the past, and molecular differences, meaning that DNA worked another way than today. By the way, this is the same reason radioactive dating is truly invalid!

"God created various kinds, there was a global flood, and then god changed things and *hand waving, hand waving* we got a single, nested heirarchy of species that encompassed all species of life." That's not actually an explanation.

Hey, sure there are some characteristics we could lump together. What for, I have no idea? What, has some better ring to it in the old age evolution mindset?

Whether you like it or not, all animals, plants and fungi are eukatryotes. None are prokaryotes. Or something else. You've not explained this.

We are talking past here, and how they did, not do infect things. And the rest of your 64 dollar word paragraph there, I think refers to some evolving that went on after it was passed down? If so, so what? If not, what is your point?

My point is that you cannot explain the single, nested hierarchy of life using a creationist model. And that ERV analysis just further reenforces this tree of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to want a present way that could happen, but but can't happen in the present. The only thing that stops ERVs from getting around in the past is your artificial, unsupported imposing of the present on the past. You would need to back that up.

If the past were the same as the present, would agree that ERV's are strong evidence for common ancestry as proposed by the theory of evolution? We can talk about the continuity of the physical laws in another thread. If you still think that ERV's are not evidence, even given the same past and present, then we can discuss just the ERV's.

 

[dad]

If the past were the same as the present, would agree that ERV's are strong evidence for common ancestry as proposed by the theory of evolution?

Possibly.

We can talk about the continuity of the physical laws in another thread. If you still think that ERV's are not evidence, even given the same past and present, then we can discuss just the ERV's.

They cannot be looked at in the context of a same past, cause there is no such scientific thing. If all you want to do is imagine that same past, then you can claim all kinds of things about the fantasy. If we are talking explanations of actual evidence, then for a creation arguement the enviroment is germain.
But, I think it is your thread, and I more or less gave my opinion, so keep it on your unsupported turf if you like.

 

[dad]

You have not yet explained ...

I think the thread meister wants to limit the debate in the thread to the confines of the box. Maybe in another thread somewhere, some day, I can finish you off. Ha.

 

[dad]

Parallel transmission of ERV's between species would explain why you find the same ERV in two different species. But it does not explain why you find the same ERV at the same location in two different species, nor does it explain why these ERV's form a nested hierarchy.

See above post.

 

[dad]

Parallel transmission of ERV's between species would explain why you find the same ERV in two different species. But it does not explain why you find the same ERV at the same location in two different species, nor does it explain why these ERV's form a nested hierarchy.

I just looked at it again. Phred was the thread originator, not loudmouth.
So, I guess we can go at it a bit more.
The ERVs would be at the same location because they got there in the past in a way they can't get around now.

 

[dad]

You have not yet explained how a single, nested hierarchy that encompasses all species is a necessary
consequence of special creation. Nor can you. "Things were different" doesn't explain it, it's just hand waving.

No more than same pasting it away! " A nested structure of divisions related to their probable evolutionary descent.." wikipedia

We need to look at what you claim makes it probable that any certain creature decended from another. Traits don't cut it. Because traits could have been evolved in respnse to a need here. Like carnivores, having to adapt to eating meat, and getting better teeth, etc. WE can't say that having meat eating ability means things are evolved from each other.

I was explaining what is expected if evolution were true, so that we can then compare those expectations against the evidence. That's how science works.

So was I. If an evolved creature is looked at, we have to ask if it evolved from the created kind. The evolution itself does not mean it went back to the pond.

Perhaps you fail to understand what's going on here. We are testing the hypothesis that all species are related via common ancestry. To do so we need to first determine the necessary consequences of that process, such as a single, nested hierarchy of all species.

You also need to determine that the hierarchy we see must have been only due to evolution. You can't do that.

You have still not explained how a single, nested hierarcy of species that encompasses all living things is a necessary consequence of special creation.

Well, the catch phrase has little meaning to me, for starters. We can look at specific examples. Say, man. The way the monkeys, and chimps, etc are grouped makes it look like we have a common ancestor. We don't. The ERVs don't show that at all. I don't know how much of the other stuff you can drag into the thread here. Either way, there are other explanations than some single common ancestor.

Enough hand waving. What exact processes occurred after the global flood that caused all species to form a single, natural, nested heirarchy?

Enough phrase waving! Can you be more specific? How about the elephant species? Well, we had a pair of elephants, and they bred, and evolved, into all the species that were since then. What more do you need?

Taxonomic levels move higher as they become more generalized. The lowest taxonomic level is the species, or the sub species. The highest is the domain, just above kingdom. The nested hierarchy of taxonomy creates a single tree out of all species.

And.....so?? Anyone can make a single tree if they have a pencil. They just draw one! That doesn't mean shrews are related to man. Not at all.

Why are there no prokaryotic plants?

Well, why would we need any? Why would God create some? I think He did a pretty good job with plants.

This is how taxonomy works, by grouping species by shared traits. All eukaryotes have traits in common.

Well that may be how taxonomy works, but so what? Can you prove that traits were not either creation traoits, and similarities, or something that evolved from them?? If you can't you have no case! If you could, why I think you would have by now.

I have no idea what you are saying. I gave you the explanation as to why all chordates are also deuterstomes. How do you explain this using a creationist model?

Here is what one site lists as features for chordates.
"

All chordates have the following features at some point in their life (in the case of humans and many other vertebrates, these features may only be present in the embryo):

• pharyngeal slits - a series of openings that connect the inside of the throat to the outside of the "neck". These are often, but not always, used as gills.
  dorsal nerve cord - a bundle of nerve fibers which runs down the "back". It connects the brain with the lateral muscles and other organs.
  notochord - cartilaginous rod running underneath, and supporting, the nerve cord. post-anal tail - an extension of the body past the anal opening."
  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/chordata.html
  That is really silly. It takes in people, animals, and etc. Sorry, it is meaningless. God made things with throats and bums. Whoopee doo! A whole whole lot of things. Right. And ..so??? You suggest that that means we evolved from little thingies with bums and throats? Ridiculous.

And you have still not explained the fact that all chordates are deuterstomes as a necessary consequence of special creation.

Hey, the words, and silly groupings are not even meaningful, ridiculously broad, and I see no need for the silly words, let alone how they might relate to God's majestic creation, that incluses all the little thingies with bums.

"Carnivores can be told by their enlarged canine teeth, by the presence of three pairs of incisors in each jaw (with rare exceptions), and by the shape of their molar teeth...Another carnivore feature is the jaw articulation; unlike many mammals, such as primates and ungulates, carnivores cannot move their jaws from side to side."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/carnivora/carnivoramm.html

I'm sure a little more digging could turn up a host of diagnostic traits for carnivoria.

So, this is a good way for things to evolve that would need to eat meat, no? So??????? Doesn't mean everything that adapted into a meat eater came from the same created kind! No, teeth that are well designed to rip meat are in no way indicitive of evolution from a common ancestor. Maybe in some cases, yes. Like the cat family. You need to learn the difference.

The logic that groups things according to shared characters exists outside of the concept of common ancestry. One need not assume evolution to discover the nested heirarchy of species. Carl Linnaeus certainly didn't.

Neither do I! No need to at all. Traits lie outside any need for a common ancestor. So???

"I don't like it, therefore it is false" is not actually an argument against taxnomy, linnaean or cladistic.

Well, neither is it an arguement against creation. Creation started with many kinds, and then we also had a lot of evolution.

The methods only try to produce a tree given the character matrix. That the methods work so well is indiciative that common ancestry is likely correct.

No, it isn't. It is obfusicating, and blurring the creation picture with the evolution, and common traits, and running a make me a tree program.

"God created various kinds, there was a global flood, and then god changed things and *hand waving, hand waving* we got a single, nested heirarchy of species that encompassed all species of life." That's not actually an explanation.

What's missing?

Whether you like it or not, all animals, plants and fungi are eukatryotes. None are prokaryotes. Or something else. You've not explained this.

Why does it need explaining? You guys invented the terms? I know plants are not animals!! This is news? What do you want, an apple tree made of bacteria??

My point is that you cannot explain the single, nested hierarchy of life using a creationist model. And that ERV analysis just further reenforces this tree of life.

Well, I can explain all creation. He made it. If you want to talk evolution, I can explain that too, there was plenty as well. If you want ERVs, I already did those. I don't know why you guys keep saying those words over, and over, and over again, 'nested hierarchy '. The traits do not mean common ancestor, except where the traits happen to coincide with actual evolution, and adaption, where there was a common ancestor down to the original created kind.

 

[Ondoher]

Lets forget evolution for a moment, and concentrate on taxonomy. Modern taxonomy groups all species into a single, nested hierarchy, based on traits that they all share. At the top we have the domains of Eubacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes. These are the most generalized groupings. All other species fit within these three. As we look into each of these groupings, called a taxon, we further refine the species that occupy that taxon. So, for instance, all eukaryotes have a nucleated cell. However, within the eukaryotes we find a number of smaller groups, one of which is the metazoans (animals). These are multi-celled, free floating eukaryotes that lack a ridged cell wall. Within animals we have more groups, such as Bilateria, which consists of animals that have bilateral symmetry and three germ layers. Inside of Bilateria we find deuterostomes, which are animals that develop an anus before a mouth. The groups continue to be more and more refined until you get down to individuals species.

With this arrangement of species we do not encounter species that need to be classified in more than one taxon. This makes this arrangement considered to be natural.

All this is true, regardless of the truth of evolution.

Now, a scientist studying biology would want to explain why species are so naturally arranged. Because that's what scientists do, they try to explain things. In science, in order to have a scientific explanation (an hypothesis) you must be able to explain something as a necessary consequence of your explanation. That means there is no other possible outcome than what you are observing. This leads to falsifiability. An explanation that can lead to any hypothetical outcome, cannot be tested, and is therefore not science.

Evolution does explain this nested hierarchy of species as a necessary consequence of descent with modification. Because descent with modification will always produce a tree, that tree being the actual lines of descent.

Creationism does not explain this nested heirarchy of species as a necessary consequence. Creationism is compatible with any arrangement of species. If the great chain of being was correct, creationism would be able to accommodate it.

The whole issue with ERV's is that they further support a single, true nested hierarchy of species because phylogenic reconstruction using ERV data produces trees that are consistent with trees using other data sets. This is a necessary consequence of evolution. Were this false, evolution as we understand it, would have to be false.

Creationism is not bound in this way. It can accommodate any observation. It is therefore an unscientific way of explaining the data.

In summary: the single nested hierarchy of species is something that can be shown to exist outside of evolutionary theory. However, absent the concept of common ancestry, it remains unexplained.

 

[Chalnoth]

The ERVs would be at the same location because they got there in the past in a way they can't get around now.

What way? Just saying that there might be an explanation is, in itself, not an explanation.

 

[dad]

Lets forget evolution for a moment, and concentrate on taxonomy. Modern taxonomy groups all species into a single, nested hierarchy, based on traits that they all share.

OK, so, forget evolution, what we have is some similar traits. Got it.

At the top we have the domains of Eubacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes. These are the most generalized groupings.

I'll say! Generalized is a very good word there.

All other species fit within these three.

No, they don't, some are out of place. The created ones. A whale is grouped in the fish day in creation. So the traits that make it more like animals, are possibly evolved traits, even though evolution does not say it could be. Either that, or created traits. You got something against created traits???!

As we look into each of these groupings, called a taxon, we further refine the species that occupy that taxon.

You do, not creationists, generally. But how precisely you do think you group things futher is interesting. Care to put it on the table?

So, for instance, all eukaryotes have a nucleated cell. However, within the eukaryotes we find a number of smaller groups, one of which is the metazoans (animals). These are multi-celled, free floating eukaryotes that lack a ridged cell wall.

No!! The grouping is arbirtrary. Who asked you to invent a word like eukaryotes, that lumps in most of creation? Having a certain cell does not mean that much. It simply notes that in the present a heck of a lot of things have nucleated cells. Who says that is some great grouping criteria?

Within animals we have more groups, such as Bilateria, which consists of animals that have bilateral symmetry

"bilateral symmetry
n. Symmetrical arrangement, as of an organism or a body part, along a central axis, so that the body is divided into equivalent right and left halves by only one plane."
(freedictionary)
Who, in heavens's name says that is some big thing we need to look for to divide creatures???
I mean, our body has a few parts, and a shrew has a few parts, rather than being, say, an ameoba! You gotta be kidding. How about say, animals that have souls? That would be imporatant! Eden's creatures by and large did have souls. Oh, wait, you prefer an anus before mouth as some big criteria! Well, get over it. I think the world has had pretty well enough of that sort of thing!

and three germ layers.

Well, so some creatures have cell layers. God set up something so we could reproduce, and develop. I think the keyword there is reproduce, and even creatures not in your group do that.

Inside of Bilateria we find deuterostomes, which are animals that develop an anus before a mouth. The groups continue to be more and more refined until you get down to individuals species.

Well, you like that way of grouping, fine. I think it is quite base.

With this arrangement of species we do not encounter species that need to be classified in more than one taxon. This makes this arrangement considered to be natural.

So, natural is defined by 'similar looking, similar traits, similar size, similar anus formation', and such things you feel are imporatant. I think we could leave the little anus and mouth things out of it, really. I don't think they have souls, and are eternal. Often creationists primarily look at the creation of animals, and fish, and man, and birds. These are the kinds we generally mean. You guys ignore the spiritual, so miss the boat there. I mean about as low as we generally go, in the tree of life is insects, and 'creeping things'. Plants are usually considered different than animal life! However the cells are now arranged.

Now, a scientist studying biology would want to explain why species are so naturally arranged.

And he would want to do it looking only at natural processes, and things we have in the present. Then, would assume the past also was the same, by and large.

Because that's what scientists do, they try to explain things.

Lots of people do, some use just the natural, some see the limits of that, and look beyond that.

In science, in order to have a scientific explanation (an hypothesis) you must be able to explain something as a necessary consequence of your explanation.

Those explanations are dealing with observations and testing, and the present. Guessing at the past, they don't strain the brain too hard on, they simply assume the past and future are the same. That is all the poor souls can do, because those are their limitations.

That means there is no other possible outcome than what you are observing.

Right, unless you group things a certain way, we could always group them another way, and redefine natural. But the main point there, is that you need to remember what it is you are observeing, however you chose to group things, and that would be the here and now. Not the there and then. And creation was in the there and then.

This leads to falsifiability. An explanation that can lead to any hypothetical outcome, cannot be tested, and is therefore not science.

Bingo, you can't test the past state, or creation, so.... guess what? It is science falsely so called when you try to go there by imagination only.

Evolution does explain this nested hierarchy of species as a necessary consequence of descent with modification.

So do I, from created creatures.

Because descent with modification will always produce a tree, that tree being the actual lines of descent.

That tree also includes the original creation, whether your present based observation deck can see that far or not.

Creationism does not explain this nested heirarchy of species as a necessary consequence. Creationism is compatible with any arrangement of species. If the great chain of being was correct, creationism would be able to accommodate it.

It does.

The whole issue with ERV's is that they further support a single, true nested hierarchy of species because phylogenic reconstruction using ERV data produces trees that are consistent with trees using other data sets. This is a necessary consequence of evolution. Were this false, evolution as we understand it, would have to be false.

You stumble on ERVs because you don't know what went down in the past. The clues you have are how it now works. We draw different conclusions from those clues.

Creationism is not bound in this way. It can accommodate any observation. It is therefore an unscientific way of explaining the data.

Hey, just because it can accomodate more than Darwinism, does not mean it is against science. Science is dealing with the present, and only assumes what the past or future may have been like.

In summary: the single nested hierarchy of species is something that can be shown to exist outside of evolutionary theory.

Thank you.

However, absent the concept of common ancestry, it remains unexplained.

No. I can see nothing here that I can not explain.

 

[Loudmouth]

Possibly.

Care to be more specific?

They cannot be looked at in the context of a same past, cause there is no such scientific thing. If all you want to do is imagine that same past, then you can claim all kinds of things about the fantasy.

If you read carefully I did not claim that the past was the same. I said IF the past were the same as the present are ERV's consistent with common ancestry. What I am trying to do is find points that we can agree on. If you agree that ERV's are strong evidence under these circumstances then we can stop discussing ERV's and move to discussions on the continuity of physical laws.

If we are talking explanations of actual evidence, then for a creation arguement the enviroment is germain.

ERV's are genetic facts. What they imply is a matter of interpretation. I have given a framework of interpretation. All I am asking is if this framework and explanation is internally consistent.

 

[Chalnoth]

No. I can see nothing here that I can not explain.

Then explain it. What specific mecchanism allows for the existence of a nested hierarchy in this different past of yours?

 

[Ondoher]

OK, so, forget evolution, what we have is some similar traits. Got it.

That is actually a good starting point. We have a bunch of species, and they share character traits. The job of a taxonomist is to try to discover the best, most natural way to classify these species. Carl Linnaeus in 1735 published Systema Naturae, in which he first categorized species into a nested hierarchy.

This classification was done by grouping species according to the traits that they shared. Linnaeus did not have the wealth of information about species that we have now, so he was forced to use gross morphological characters, whereas modern taxonomy can use molecular characters like gene sequences.

Nevertheless, much of this nearly 300 year old work still holds true today. A nested hierarchy is still the best classification system.

I'll say! Generalized is a very good word there.

Yes, it is. The higher taxonomic levels are the most general.

No, they don't, some are out of place. The created ones. A whale is grouped in the fish day in creation. So the traits that make it more like animals, are possibly evolved traits, even though evolution does not say it could be. Either that, or created traits. You got something against created traits???!

Yes, they do. All whales are eukaryotes. You will not find a tree that's actually a eubacteria. All species fit within the top three domains. Whales are not fish because they do not fit the taxonomic definition of a fish. Whereas they do fit the taxonomic defintion of a mammal.

You do, not creationists, generally. But how precisely you do think you group things futher is interesting. Care to put it on the table?

It is a rare creationist who will actually argue that taxonomy is wrong. It is usually evolution they have a problem with. If you want a good site that covers modern taxonomic relationships, go here: http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

No!! The grouping is arbirtrary. Who asked you to invent a word like eukaryotes, that lumps in most of creation? Having a certain cell does not mean that much. It simply notes that in the present a heck of a lot of things have nucleated cells. Who says that is some great grouping criteria?

I did not invent the word eukaryote. It is used as a classification because it defines a generalized taxon, the description of which unites within it a large number of sub groups.

"bilateral symmetry
n. Symmetrical arrangement, as of an organism or a body part, along a central axis, so that the body is divided into equivalent right and left halves by only one plane."
(freedictionary)
Who, in heavens's name says that is some big thing we need to look for to divide creatures???
I mean, our body has a few parts, and a shrew has a few parts, rather than being, say, an ameoba! You gotta be kidding. How about say, animals that have souls? That would be imporatant! Eden's creatures by and large did have souls. Oh, wait, you prefer an anus before mouth as some big criteria! Well, get over it. I think the world has had pretty well enough of that sort of thing!

Like eukaryotes, bilateria defines a set of characters that describe a wide array of species, but is more refined that its containing taxon the metazoans.

Well, so some creatures have cell layers. God set up something so we could reproduce, and develop. I think the keyword there is reproduce, and even creatures not in your group do that.

Developmental biology provides a rich set of characters unavailable to Linnaeus. Developmental characters, for instance a ventral or dorsal nerve chord, tend to get fixed within a taxon, and are carried by all subtaxa. In this case, the number of germ layers that go on to form all the structure of the adult. Humans, who are bilaterians, also have three germ layers.

Well, you like that way of grouping, fine. I think it is quite base.

The persistence of this rather arbitrary distinction through all members of the deuterstomes is informative, and serves to create a new taxon. Humans are deuterostomes.

So, natural is defined by 'similar looking, similar traits, similar size, similar anus formation', and such things you feel are imporatant.

No, in this case natural refers to the fact that the nested heirarchy is not artificial. We do not have to arbitrarily pick a taxon in which to place a species due to character conflicts. You won't find a species that wants to be both a plant and an archaea.

I think we could leave the little anus and mouth things out of it, really. I don't think they have souls, and are eternal.

As mentioned above, humans are deuterstomes.

Often creationists primarily look at the creation of animals, and fish, and man, and birds. These are the kinds we generally mean. You guys ignore the spiritual, so miss the boat there. I mean about as low as we generally go, in the tree of life is insects, and 'creeping things'. Plants are usually considered different than animal life! However the cells are now arranged.

Describing a more primitive, less informed, method of grouping species does not make your method better. I'm telling you what science has known for nearly 300 years.

And he would want to do it looking only at natural processes, and things we have in the present. Then, would assume the past also was the same, by and large.

Unless given a good argument otherwise, the assumption that universe worked the same in the past as it does in the present is a good one. And yes, science is limited to natural explanations, as these are the only ones that are testable.

Lots of people do, some use just the natural, some see the limits of that, and look beyond that.

Classification of species the domain of the natural. I see no reason to resort to the supernatural to classify species.

Those explanations are dealing with observations and testing, and the present. Guessing at the past, they don't strain the brain too hard on, they simply assume the past and future are the same. That is all the poor souls can do, because those are their limitations.

There is no reason to think that the universe operated differently in the past than it does currently. Besides, taxonomy is a science that classifies existing species, not necessarily past, extinct species.

Right, unless you group things a certain way, we could always group them another way, and redefine natural. But the main point there, is that you need to remember what it is you are observeing, however you chose to group things, and that would be the here and now. Not the there and then. And creation was in the there and then.

We are still just talking about taxonomy, we've not yet got to the explanation for our taxonomic observations. Taxonomy happens in the present and includes present species.

However, if you think you can provide a better, more natural, more parsimoneous classification for species, please do. You might even get a Nobel prize.

Bingo, you can't test the past state, or creation, so.... guess what? It is science falsely so called when you try to go there by imagination only.

The past can be tested by deducing things that must be true today, if your hypothesis about the past is correct. And then testing for these things.

So do I, from created creatures.

You would not get a single nested hierarchy of species that encompasses all species if you started with specially created kinds. Each of these specially created kinds when they radiated diversity would form the root of a series of unconnected trees. Your explanation does not explain a single tree.

That tree also includes the original creation, whether your present based observation deck can see that far or not.

Special creation of kinds does not predict a single, nested hierarchy of species.

It does.

No it doesn't. It can accommodate any organization of species.

You stumble on ERVs because you don't know what went down in the past. The clues you have are how it now works. We draw different conclusions from those clues.

Who is stumbling. I'm explaining. I'm explaining why orthologous ERV's infer phylogenies that are consistent with independent phylogenies using different sets of data. You cannot do this with creationism. How does creationism explain shared, orthologous ERV's between chimpanzees and humans? How does it explain that ERV phylogenies of primates, including humans, are convergent with those created using other characters?

Hey, just because it can accomodate more than Darwinism, does not mean it is against science. Science is dealing with the present, and only assumes what the past or future may have been like.

It isn't that it can accommadate more. It's that it can accommodate anything. It cannot be tested. It just isn't scientific.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

No. I can see nothing here that I can not explain.

Then please do so. Please explain the single nested hierarchy of taxonomy as a necessary consequence of creationism.

 

[dad]

Care to be more specific?

Well, as I see it, it is kinda like the verse,
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. In other words, basically, if the PO present is all there is, our whole faith is in vain! But, of course we know there is a glorious new future, where we will live forever, so it is not really even a concern for us if we have read the bible enough to have a little faith. Likewise, as I see it, if the future were to be the same, we all would be hooped, or if the past were the same, I can't see how the bible could be true. In that sense was where I was coming from there.

If you read carefully I did not claim that the past was the same. I said IF the past were the same as the present are ERV's consistent with common ancestry.

See above, like the if in the verse I included.

What I am trying to do is find points that we can agree on. If you agree that ERV's are strong evidence under these circumstances then we can stop discussing ERV's and move to discussions on the continuity of physical laws.

Well, I must admit, I just started looking into this a few days ago! I may not be fully aware of all aspects of how it works. Sounds like a Christian here, Mark, thinks you may have it wrong, so I can't really say he is wrong. I suspect he may simply be PO bound in his assumptions as well, but from a godly vantage point, and is trying to make it fit to a PO past.
Because I looked at a lot of areas, and realize that it had to be different, it is easy for me to see where the mistake here could be. But, yes, there had to be, I now feel, a different past.

ERV's are genetic facts. What they imply is a matter of interpretation. I have given a framework of interpretation. All I am asking is if this framework and explanation is internally consistent.

Well, it looks like a pretty solid case to me.

 

[dad]

Then explain it. What specific mecchanism allows for the existence of a nested hierarchy in this different past of yours?

Well, I think that 'nested hierarchy' is too big a word. It says so much, it says nothing at all. Any tree is only as good as it's branches. So, it is better to be specific. Like elephants, say.

Here is a tree that is like the one you talk of, but more specific. Ignoring the timeframes, here, it looks pretty good at first boo. From this, I deduct that either in Eden, [edit maybe the bottom one in Eden, and the one on the ark, the Primeelehas!] or on the ark, the elephant they had may have been young mastrodons. Now, we simply replace the 36 million years, to 4500 years, and voila. A creation tree, nested, and all.
Tring to get below this tree, and claim the elephant came from something else is where your tree breaks down.

 

[dad]

This classification was done by grouping species according to the traits that they shared. Linnaeus did not have the wealth of information about species that we have now, so he was forced to use gross morphological characters, whereas modern taxonomy can use molecular characters like gene sequences.

Do we have these for every creature put on the tree?

Nevertheless, much of this nearly 300 year old work still holds true today. A nested hierarchy is still the best classification system.

Well, in some ways, it is fine. But rather meaningless.

Yes, they do. All whales are eukaryotes.

Whales did not come from the thing on the left. Your tree needs a tweek somethin fierce. Prove it if you say it does.

You will not find a tree that's actually a eubacteria.

Good, I wasn't planning to look.

All species fit within the top three domains. Whales are not fish because they do not fit the taxonomic definition of a fish. Whereas they do fit the taxonomic defintion of a mammal.

I know that. But they were made on fish and bird day. We don't really know the what first whales were like, I think. Maybe they were different.

It is a rare creationist who will actually argue that taxonomy is wrong. It is usually evolution they have a problem with. If you want a good site that covers modern taxonomic relationships, go here: http://www.tolweb.org/tree/[/QUOTE]
There they admit this.
"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. "
http://www.tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1

Basically, they really are out on a limb, on this!

I did not invent the word eukaryote. It is used as a classification because it defines a generalized taxon, the description of which unites within it a large number of sub groups.

Great, it covers so much, I find it meaningless. But if you enjoy the word, and concept, somehow, enjoy.

Like eukaryotes, bilateria defines a set of characters that describe a wide array of species, but is more refined that its containing taxon the metazoans.

Great, guess I can rest easy tonight then, now that that is cleared up, whatever it is.

Developmental biology provides a rich set of characters unavailable to Linnaeus. Developmental characters, for instance a ventral or dorsal nerve chord, tend to get fixed within a taxon, and are carried by all subtaxa. In this case, the number of germ layers that go on to form all the structure of the adult. Humans, who are bilaterians, also have three germ layers.

God made some layers in different kinds, yes.

The persistence of this rather arbitrary distinction through all members of the deuterstomes is informative, and serves to create a new taxon. Humans are deuterostomes.

Meaningless. Having ovaries, or cells doesn't really do it for a mom, pop relationship with fungi.

No, in this case natural refers to the fact that the nested heirarchy is not artificial.

Neither is creation.

We do not have to arbitrarily pick a taxon in which to place a species due to character conflicts. You won't find a species that wants to be both a plant and an archaea.

Me either, I don't want to be a plant. Good thing God made us with some smarts.

As mentioned above, humans are deuterstomes.

And...so? They are a lot of things. Image of God, sexual, destined to rule forever, male and female, smart, etc etc etc. Oh, yes, and free willed. Where is deuterstomenity some great thing???

Describing a more primitive, less informed, method of grouping species does not make your method better. I'm telling you what science has known for nearly 300 years.

The creation grouping is well informed, and highly advanced, and will apply after these temporary heavens are no more. Original kinds will again likely come to the fore, and the picture becaome very clear.

Unless given a good argument otherwise, the assumption that universe worked the same in the past as it does in the present is a good one.

Because....?? It is your assumption?

And yes, science is limited to natural explanations, as these are the only ones that are testable.

Right, so unless the past and future are also the 'natural' we now know, all your ideas are in serious need of a complete new look!

Classification of species the domain of the natural. I see no reason to resort to the supernatural to classify species.

Depends if they were created by the Supernatural One, and what the 'natural' of the past was at the time they were created. I see no need to resort to the natural of today for the different natural of the far past.

There is no reason to think that the universe operated differently in the past than it does currently. Besides, taxonomy is a science that classifies existing species, not necessarily past, extinct species.

But you try to extend that back into the past, so basing it on the present is no plus. Unless you stick to the present with your preferred grouping tree.

We are still just talking about taxonomy, we've not yet got to the explanation for our taxonomic observations. Taxonomy happens in the present and includes present species.

Great. There are many kinds of creatures with many similarities. Fine.

However, if you think you can provide a better, more natural, more parsimoneous classification for species, please do. You might even get a Nobel prize.

Our prizes are in heaven. The grouping we have are fine, if you don't read to much into it, and try to jail the past with it.

The past can be tested by deducing things that must be true today, if your hypothesis about the past is correct. And then testing for these things.

Reeallly now!? What is true about today that has to be true about the past, and can be tested?

...Each of these specially created kinds when they radiated diversity would form the root of a series of unconnected trees. Your explanation does not explain a single tree.

Says you. Why would it be unconnected? There are a lot of connections here. Like similarities in creations. God made a full spectrum of creatures. So we can expect traits that are similar. There also was a lot of evolving, so that obscures the picture as well. You look at traits, and evolving, and throw it all together, and group things that way. True, originally it was just the traits.

Special creation of kinds does not predict a single, nested hierarchy of species.

Where that NH is determined by traits, and evolution, it does. We have both.

No it doesn't. It can accommodate any organization of species.

Including the one we have! This is the one He actually made.

Who is stumbling. I'm explaining. I'm explaining why orthologous ERV's infer phylogenies that are consistent with independent phylogenies using different sets of data. You cannot do this with creationism.

Sure I can.

How does creationism explain shared, orthologous ERV's between chimpanzees and humans?

Both chimps and man had the ancestor of the retrovirus, and passed it down.

How does it explain that ERV phylogenies of primates, including humans, are convergent with those created using other characters?

Well, the monkey tree changes all the time. You need to be more specific. What ERV where exactly is a concern?
“Claims of large numbers of species in either human or chimpanzee evolution now look implausible,” Curnoe says."
http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/medweb.nsf/page/shownewsstory?OpenDocument&LinkID=3A0005D819
Are you you thinking of something in particular here, like chimps?

It isn't that it can accommadate more. It's that it can accommodate anything. It cannot be tested. It just isn't scientific.

The past can't be tested, that is why science is not scientific if applied there! The main thing to keep in mind here, is that it can accomodate what we have! And that is what counts. No sense trhowing a jealous fit at all the things it might also accomodate, unlike the stuck in the mud ideas of a common single old age ancestor!