• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Illusions of Phylogeny

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
lol, no. It would simply be regarded as some kind of evolutionary offshoot.

And yet you can't point to a single instance of a primate that is not a mammal. You acknowledge that the nested hierarchy is there.

Look at monotremes again. There are only a small handful of specimens, both modern and fossilized, yet they are given their own grand lineage in the great story of phylogeny.

And this is a problem, why?

Exactly, the power of storytelling. Traits can either be viewed as derived from mystical ancestors, or be viewed as evolutionary novelties. Whatever helps the story.

So why is finding a transitional between reptiles and placental mammals a problem for evolution?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,458
773
✟103,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And yet you can't point to a single instance of a primate that is not a mammal. You acknowledge that the nested hierarchy is there.

You are confused. I have never claimed there are no nested hierarchies.

Your repeated challenge for me to identify a mammal that is not a mammal is absurd and laughable.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Okay, find me a blue-eyed blonde-haired person with brown eyes and black hair. Good luck.

Reversing the evolutionary order. I can find you a blond haired blue eyed kid that had parents with both brown eyes and dark hair though.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
You are confused. I have never claimed there are no nested hierarchies.

What is the title of this thread?

Your repeated challenge for me to identify a mammal that is not a mammal is absurd and laughable.

No, I asked you to show me a primate that is not a mammal.

I can show you a playing card that is a 4, but not a Heart. I can show you Spade and a Heart that are both a 3. I can show you a Chevy and a Doge that are both pickups. Designed things do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolved things do. Life falls into a nested hierarchy.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,458
773
✟103,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What is the title of this thread?

The Illusion of Phylogeny. And I've never once claimed conceptual nested hierarchies do not exist. In fact, that is the very basis of the illusion.

Feel free to contribute something beyond absurd irrelevancies and red herrings and rambling about playing cards and trucks. Oh and please resist the urge to argue from intelligent design in general. I know evolutionists have a hard time with that, but it's kind of off-topic.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The Illusion of Phylogeny. And I've never once claimed conceptual nested hierarchies do not exist. In fact, that is the very basis of the illusion.

Feel free to contribute something beyond absurd irrelevancies and red herrings and rambling about playing cards and trucks. Oh and please resist the urge to argue from intelligent design in general. I know evolutionists have a hard time with that, but it's kind of off-topic.

The phylogenies are not an illusion. They are very real, and supported by evidence.

The theory of evolution predicts that we should see this pattern of shared and derived features, and this is exactly what we observe. We see this pattern in the morphology of living species, in the morphology of fossil species, and in the genomes of living species. When all of the evidence keeps falling in line with the theory of evolution, we tend to accept that theory as being accurate. Why wouldn't we?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,458
773
✟103,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The theory of evolution predicts that we should see this pattern of shared and derived features, and this is exactly what we observe. We see this pattern in the morphology of living species, in the morphology of fossil species, and in the genomes of living species.

Nope. Wrong again, loudmouth. Morphology frequently violates the nested hierarchy and is rescued by convergence or loss explanations.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,458
773
✟103,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here is another example of a Paraphyletic illusion creating fake ancestral lineages. Here we are looking at the Reptiliomorpha group, which is one of the "-Morph" groups, which are named to give the impression that they are some kind of primitive prototype group that gave rise to the more streamlined "non-Morph". These will also sometimes be referred to as Stem groups (or close relatives of the stem), which again conveys the illusion that they are some kind of primitive ancestral lineage.

Reptiliomorpha is loosely defined as a Tetrapod stem group of Amniotes (egg-laying on land). They are not quite Amniotes, but more closely related to Amniotes than Amphibians. So we see the paraphyletic grouping in that they are Reptile-like Tetrapods minus Amniotes. So in this way, Reptiliomorpha is used as an imaginary data point: an ancestral Group that gives rise to Amniotes. Basically they are presented as a group transitioning into amniote Reptiles.

The reason they seem to be labeled as "Reptiliomorpha" and not simply "Reptiles" is because the evolutionary transition would appear to be too sudden a leap from Amphibians to Reptiles. That is to say that no sooner had the late Devonian/early Carboniferous "fish-a-pods" sprouted basal tetrapod limbs for an amphibious lifestyle, then there were suddenly terrestrial lizards running around all over the place. This does not sound like an evolutionary transition.

Such sudden leaps can be blended and massaged into a series of seemingly gradual steps with these fake proto-lineages.

Because reproductive systems typically do not fossilize, these "reptiliomorphs" can generally be classified as "looking like amniote reptiles but not quite" or "non-amniote reptiles". The non-amniote reptiles gave rise to the true reptiles. And the true reptiles group will nest within the "Reptiliomorphs". This provides the illusion that some kind of primitive, ancestral lineage, or stem group has been identified.


This is how they are described on Wikipedia:


During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, some tetrapods started to evolve towards a reptilian condition. Some of these tetrapods (e.g. Archeria, Eogyrinus) were elongate, eel-like aquatic forms with diminutive limbs, while others (e.g. Seymouria, Solenodonsaurus, Diadectes, Limnoscelis) were so reptile-like that until quite recently they actually had been considered to be true reptiles, and it is likely that to a modern observer they would have appeared as large to medium-sized, heavy-set lizards.

http://en.wikipedia....tionary_history
Some "Reptiliomorphs":

250px-Solenodonsaurus1DB.jpg

Solenodonsaurus
250px-Seymouria1.jpg


01300000399633124801110109732_s.jpg

Liminoscelis
Orobates-pabsti-3.jpg

Diadectomorpha


Westlothiana_BW.jpg

Westlothania
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
That is to say that no sooner had the late Devonian/early Carboniferous "fish-a-pods" sprouted basal tetrapod limbs for an amphibious lifestyle, then there were suddenly terrestrial lizards running around all over the place. This does not sound like an evolutionary transition.

Why not?

Why don't we see any transitionals between lobed finned fish and birds, or transitions between lobe finned fish and dolphins? Why do we only see the transitionals that the theory of evolution predicts we should see?

That is what you keep missing.

Such sudden leaps can be blended and massaged into a series of seemingly gradual steps with these fake proto-lineages.

It is the geologic record that takes sudden leaps, and our search of the fossil record can hardly be called complete.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Then show us a primate that isn't a mammal. If you think the tree is wrong, then show it is wrong.


A rat is a mammal, I don't see you claiming we evolved from it. A whale is a mammal, I don't see you claiming primates or man evolved from whales. The tree takes out all the diversity that exists. So they are all mammals, being classified as mammals does not mean any evolved from any others. It simply means they share the same overall traits, that is : mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes distinguished from the reptiles and the birds by the possession of hair, three middle ear bones, mammary glands in females, and a neocortex.

Yet whales don't have hair, yet they are mammals. So already we have a discrepancy within the classification system.

As I have said many times, your classification system is in a complete and utter mess, and totally useless to describe animals.

So if I tell you my mammal died today, what animal am I telling you about? A completely and utterly worthless classification system that does nothing to further knowledge. In fact it hides knowledge, by merging dissimilarities into one classification.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
A rat is a mammal, I don't see you claiming we evolved from it. A whale is a mammal, I don't see you claiming primates or man evolved from whales. The tree takes out all the diversity that exists. So they are all mammals, being classified as mammals does not mean any evolved from any others.

Evolution predicts that living species, fossils species, and the genomes of living species should produce the same phylogenetic tree, within error. They do.

Why isn't this evidence in support of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,458
773
✟103,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As I have said many times, your classification system is in a complete and utter mess, and totally useless to describe animals.

So if I tell you my mammal died today, what animal am I telling you about?
A completely and utterly worthless classification system that does nothing to further knowledge. In fact it hides knowledge, by merging dissimilarities into one classification.

Excellent example! :)

And when that same vague classification is disguised as an ancestral lineage, we see how ridiculous it becomes.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Excellent example! :)

And when that same vague classification is disguised as an ancestral lineage, we see how ridiculous it becomes.

Evolution predicts that life should fall into a nested hierarchy, and it does. Why is this not evidence in support of the theory?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,458
773
✟103,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
NESTED GROUPS / HIERARCHIES:

phylo.gif


Justatruthseeker's argument stands. The "nested hierarchy of common descent" easily breaks down depending on which traits we use.

What if we add a couple more traits near the "Vertebrate" section group:


An aquatic oxygen-exchange system
110px-Tuna_Gills_in_Situ_01.jpg


Fins:
140px-Latimeria_Paris.jpg


Lateral line system
440px-LateralLine_Organ.jpg



Mammals do not nest within these traits. So those traits are removed from the nested hierarchy diagram. The problematic data is deleted. This shows how arbitrary the chosen nested traits are, it's main purpose being to sell the idea of common descent.



Like was mentioned before. Turtles (Testudines) are considered by most taxonomists to nest within the Diapsid group (a major order of reptiles), which are characterized by two openings in the posterior of the skull.

220px-Skull_diapsida_1.svg.png





Yet turtles lack these openings.

215px-Skull_anapsida_1.png


220px-Caretta_carettaZZ.jpg


So the nested hierarchy breaks down within the Diapsid group. Yet evolutionists just claim that turtles "lost the trait" at some point in the mystical evolutionary past.

This serves as a clear example of how the nested hierarchy fails, but is still "saved" with ad-hoc rescue devices.

When evolutionists assert there is a "nested hierarchy of common descent" it is only a mantra. Most of them have probably fallen for the illusion themselves.
 
Upvote 0