Illusions of Phylogeny

Delphiki · Jan 30, 2014

So, from what I gather in this thread, lifepsyop would rather scientists jump to conclusions and drop platypus in the same clade as otters instead of being intellectually honest and setting it aside until more data is gathered.

Also, he would rather they believe in magic and call it science and denounce science by calling it magic.

Does that sound about right?

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
This is what makes evolutionary storytelling so comical. By default, any trait is going to be said to be either a derived innovation (apomorphic) or a retained ancestral trait (pleisomorphic).

Your argument boils down to ridiculing science while ignoring the evidence. It's really not that convincing.

bhsmte · Jan 30, 2014

Delphiki said:
So, from what I gather in this thread, lifepsyop would rather scientists jump to conclusions and drop platypus in the same clade as otters instead of being intellectually honest and setting it aside until more data is gathered.

Also, he would rather they believe in magic and call it science and denounce science by calling it magic.

Does that sound about right?

This would be a common side effect from putting a 2000 year old book, above empirical evidence.

Scramble mode will most definitely ensue.

Delphiki · Jan 30, 2014

I'm starting to learn the most unforgivable sin among creationists is saying "I don't know".

bhsmte · Jan 30, 2014

Delphiki said:
I'm starting to learn the most unforgivable sin among creationists is saying "I don't know".

No question about that!

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

Delphiki said:
I'm starting to learn the most unforgivable sin among creationists is saying "I don't know".

When you use an argument from ignorance it paints you into a corner. That is where creationists find themselves.

bhsmte · Jan 30, 2014

Loudmouth said:
When you use an argument from ignorance it paints you into a corner. That is where creationists find themselves.

Its sort of like the kid who gets caught red handed. He makes up a story to cover for himself and when questioned, he has to make up another story to cover for the original story he made up.

And, on and on it goes...........

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

bhsmte said:
Its sort of like the kid who gets caught red handed. He makes up a story to cover for himself and when questioned, he has to make up another story to cover for the original story he made up.

And, on and on it goes...........

I think it is more about different worldviews. When a scientist gives a very vague and poorly defined mechanism for something that is a scientific mystery, this is only the start of the investigation. Things like dark matter or dark energy are really just placeholders until we learn more.

For creationists, the vague and unevidenced mechanisms are the end of the conversation. You don't go past "God did it!!". That's the end of their investigation into the matter.

This thread probably offers the best example of this. How many ID or creationist proponents are actively doing research dealing with the comparison of species and genomes? Few, if any. Why? They have their answer. God did it. What more do you need to know?

Look at the flip side. Biologists are doing active research in comparative phylogenomics. "Evolution did it" is just the start of the investigation. Scientists keep plugging away at these questions, and gaining knowledge. This is the EXACT opposite of ID/creationism.

Split Rock · Jan 30, 2014

Delphiki said:
So, from what I gather in this thread, lifepsyop would rather scientists jump to conclusions and drop platypus in the same clade as otters instead of being intellectually honest and setting it aside until more data is gathered.

He's stuck with the contradiction that a madeup fantasy that is not dependent on the evidence keeps changing with new evidence. He stuck himself with that because he is playing the creationist game where evolution is a "dogma" that also "changes with the flavor of the week." This is of course makes no sense, but it gives them more mud to throw against the wall, in the hopes that something will stick.

Delphiki said:
Also, he would rather they believe in magic and call it science and denounce science by calling it magic.

He is also playing the creationist game where he tries to sink evolution to the same level as creationism. Therefore, evolution must use "magic" just as creationism does. Then they achieve the parity with science they are so desperate for.

Atheos canadensis · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
This is what makes evolutionary storytelling so comical. By default, any trait is going to be said to be either a derived innovation (apomorphic) or a retained ancestral trait (pleisomorphic).

If an animal has a trait found in a supposed "ancestral group" then it is retained from evolutionary ancestors.

If an animal has a trait not found in a supposed "ancestral group", then it's an evolutionary innovation! .

I think it 's time to address the issue you have with using morphology to infer relatedness. Specifically, I think we should address the inconsistency I suspect characterizes your methodology. First I would like you to clarify something by answering a few simple questions:

1. Do you believe in created kinds?

2. How do you decide what constitutes a created kind?

3. Is morphology a reliable way of assessing relatedness within a kind?

4. Is molecular evidence a reliable way of assessing relatedness within a kind?

lifepsyop · Jan 30, 2014

See, when the heat gets turned up on the evolutionists, they want to get the subject off of Evolution as fast as possible. They want to distract with red herrings about Creationism and lead the audience down all sorts of rabbit holes.

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
See, when the heat gets turned up on the evolutionists, they want to get the subject off of Evolution as fast as possible. They want to distract with red herrings about Creationism and lead the audience down all sorts of rabbit holes.

Projection.

bhsmte · Jan 30, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Projection.

You nailed it!

lifepsyop · Jan 30, 2014

Split Rock said:
Can you explain please how Carl Linnaeus came up with basically the same nested hierarchy system we still use today, when he knew nothing of evolution and was in fact a creationist?

I don't understand your question. Is there some kind of challenge being posed?

Linnaeus demonstrated that evolutionary mysticism is irrelevant to classifying life based on shared traits.

This shows we can still come up with some conceptual ways of organizing biodiversity, without the burden of believing fairy-tales about fish turning into people over millions of years.

It's a win-win scenario.

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
I don't understand your question. Is there some kind of challenge being posed?

Linnaeus demonstrated that evolutionary mysticism is irrelevant to classifying life based on shared traits.

This shows we can still come up with some conceptual ways of organizing biodiversity, without the burden of believing fairy-tales about fish turning into people over millions of years.

It's a win-win scenario.

Argument from ridicule.

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have some science to discuss?

lifepsyop · Jan 30, 2014

Split Rock said:
Yes, changing our theories to match reality...

No, changing your theory to save the theory. Been going on since the time of horse and buggies.

Split Rock said:
Trying to hedge your bet, now? Only genetic descent produces nested hierarchies, and you know it. That is why you are trying so very hard to claim that life doesn't fall into one.

There is no genetic nested hierarchy. A particular molecular data set can easily topple the supposed 'nest'. And is frequently at odds with morphology.

We also know that culled genetic accidents can't build animals. Obviously.

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
No, changing your theory to save the theory. Been going on since the time of horse and buggies.

Creationist complaint #1: Scientists never change their mind when presented with contradictory evidence.

Creationist complaint #2: Scientists are always changing the theory because of contradictory evidence.

There is no genetic nested hierarchy.

From the Orangutan genome paper:
Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

There it is.

lifepsyop · Jan 30, 2014

Loudmouth, hope it's not too important. I've had you on ignore for a couple days now since it became obvious you were trolling.

Loudmouth · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
Loudmouth, hope it's not too important. I've had you on ignore for a couple days now since it became obvious you were trolling.

Another creationist ignoring the evidence.

bhsmte · Jan 30, 2014

lifepsyop said:
Loudmouth, hope it's not too important. I've had you on ignore for a couple days now since it became obvious you were trolling.

Thats funny!

Illusions of Phylogeny

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Newbie

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency