Illusions of Phylogeny

[lifepsyop]

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?

Incorrect. This thread is not a critique on the actual application of conceptual nested groupings. Such a practice is independent of mystical deep-time storytelling.

Like I explained in the OP, this thread is here to show how evolutionists use these conceptual groupings and various other methods to sell the illusion that Common Descent / phylogenetic relationships are being identified and described, when they're not.

This thread also shows how the phylogenetic model is designed to be well-insulated from falsification by the employment of rescue devices.

 

[46AND2]

Incorrect. This thread is not a critique on the actual application of conceptual nested groupings. Such a practice is independent of mystical deep-time storytelling.

Like I explained in the OP, this thread is here to show how evolutionists use these conceptual groupings and various other methods to sell the illusion that Common Descent / phylogenetic relationships are being identified and described, when they're not.

This thread also shows how the phylogenetic model is designed to be well-insulated from falsification by the employment of rescue devices.

Nah, this thread is designed to point out nodes that we do not yet have the necessary resolution to confirm, while ignoring the far more numerous ones we have confirmed.

 

[lifepsyop]

Nah, this thread is designed to point out nodes that we do not yet have the necessary resolution to confirm, while ignoring the far more numerous ones we have confirmed.

A node is only an imaginary data point. So yes I would agree, evolutionists have plenty of them.

You cannot "confirm" an imaginary data point. You can only continue to imagine a mystical common ancestor existed there long ago in ages past.

 

[46AND2]

A node is only an imaginary data point. So yes I would agree, evolutionists have plenty of them.

You cannot "confirm" an imaginary data point. You can only continue to imagine a mystical common ancestor existed there long ago in ages past.

Of course you can confirm a HYPOTHETICAL data point. They do it all the time to see if people are related. Say DNA tests show that two people are related approximately 10 generations removed from one individual. You may not know WHO the person was at that node, but you can know it exists.

 

[lifepsyop]

Of course you can confirm a HYPOTHETICAL data point. They do it all the time to see if people are related. Say DNA tests show that two people are related approximately 10 generations removed from one individual. You may not know WHO the person was at that node, but you can know it exists.

The individual identity may be unknown, but we know humans only descend from humans and thus the data point was obviously occupied by a human. The reality of actual ancestry is independent of the superstitious imaginary ancestry rumored about in darwinian mysticism.

 

[46AND2]

The individual identity may be unknown, but we know humans only descend from humans and thus the data point was obviously occupied by a human. The reality of actual ancestry is independent of the superstitious imaginary ancestry rumored about in darwinian mysticism.

So...your argument about "imaginary" nodes being unable to be confirmed is entirely debunked by DNA testing between humans, and your argument becomes "but we know humans only only descend from humans" despite the fact that we have confirmed the "imaginary" nodes with primates through DNA.

In other words...handwave....

 

[sfs]

Thats funny!

Really. Another guy who's convinced he's smarter than all of the world's biologists, and anyone who presents real science must be a troll. What's particularly nice is the way he's always dead certain that evolution is wrong and the scientists are just making things up, even though every time he advances a concrete criticism it turns out to be just plain wrong, or something he simply made up.

 

[lifepsyop]

So...your argument about "imaginary" nodes being unable to be confirmed is entirely debunked by DNA testing between humans, and your argument becomes "but we know humans only only descend from humans" despite the fact that we have confirmed the "imaginary" nodes with primates through DNA.

Yes, we know humans only descend from humans... this is fairly well-known without drawing inference from molecular studies. Actually I'm pretty sure you don't need to know the first thing about DNA to confirm it. Thus human ancestry is not hypothetical but known. Simple empirical fact.

This is the tragic blurring of reality and fantasy that blinds the committed evolutionist.

Why am I sitting here having to explain that humans descending from humans is not evidence that humans descended from fish?

 

[StormanNorman]

Yes, we know humans only descend from humans... this is fairly well-known without drawing inference from molecular studies. Actually I'm pretty sure you don't need to know the first thing about DNA to confirm it. Thus human ancestry is not hypothetical but known. Simple empirical fact.

Not really. First of all, written human history only goes back about 5,000 years. Second, hominid fossils that date much further back show clear, consistent differences from modern humans. Couple that with genetics and mutation rates and suddenly "the humans only descended from humans" wish is very questionable ... if you allow it to be, that is.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, we know humans only descend from humans... this is fairly well-known without drawing inference from molecular studies. Actually I'm pretty sure you don't need to know the first thing about DNA to confirm it. Thus human ancestry is not hypothetical but known. Simple empirical fact.

This is the tragic blurring of reality and fantasy that blinds the committed evolutionist.

Why am I sitting here having to explain that humans descending from humans is not evidence that humans descended from fish?

You still haven't answered these questions. Your answers will be pertinent to the discussion of the "illusory" nature of the evolutionary classification system.

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?

 

[bhsmte]

Really. Another guy who's convinced he's smarter than all of the world's biologists, and anyone who presents real science must be a troll. What's particularly nice is the way he's always dead certain that evolution is wrong and the scientists are just making things up, even though every time he advances a concrete criticism it turns out to be just plain wrong, or something he simply made up.

When the bible trumps ecerything else, that is what you get.

He can claim science is a sham and it is all a conspiracy, but keep away from critizing the 2000 year old book.

 

[lifepsyop]

Really. Another guy who's convinced he's smarter than all of the world's biologists, and anyone who presents real science must be a troll. What's particularly nice is the way he's always dead certain that evolution is wrong and the scientists are just making things up, even though every time he advances a concrete criticism it turns out to be just plain wrong, or something he simply made up.

Proving Evolution wrong is like proving Capitalism wrong. Evolution is a philosophy of nature. Evolutionary biologists are working within a non-falsifiable metaphysical framework. That's why it seems like everything is more and more evidence for evolution. The theory is so flexible and malleable that it can accommodate nearly anything.

Evolutionists, even the most brilliant ones, are notorious for being unable to recognize their own philosophical and religious commitments. And this problem carries over to the presentation of Evolution to the public.

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”

- James Shapiro - Geneticist

The most mainstream theory of Evolution (neo-Darwinism/the modern synthesis) is practically laughed at by some first rank evolutionary biologists.

Yet from the public's perspective, Neo-Darwinism is an ironclad scientific fact, fact, FACT with "mountains and mountains" of evidence.

Very awkward.

 

[Delphiki]

Evolution is a philosophy of nature.

Wrong.

It is a process.

 

[bhsmte]

Proving Evolution wrong is like proving Capitalism wrong. Evolution is a philosophy of nature. Evolutionary biologists are working within a non-falsifiable metaphysical framework. That's why it seems like everything is more and more evidence for evolution. The theory is so flexible and malleable that it can accommodate nearly anything.

Evolutionists, even the most brilliant ones, are notorious for being unable to recognize their own philosophical and religious commitments. And this problem carries over to the presentation of Evolution to the public.

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”

- James Shapiro - Geneticist

The most mainstream theory of Evolution (neo-Darwinism/the modern synthesis) is practically laughed at by some first rank evolutionary biologists.

Yet from the public's perspective, Neo-Darwinism is an ironclad scientific fact, fact, FACT with "mountains and mountains" of evidence.

Very awkward.

If evolution is the "philosophy of nature" according to you, what would you call these two things and why?

-creationism
-christianity

 

[Split Rock]

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.

This is what you posted and what I was responding to (emphasis mine):

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.
.

We are using the same system that Linnaeus came up with, with most of the same nested traits... the same system you claimed had the purpose of "selling the idea of common descent." Get it now?

I realize that as a creationist you must hold numerous ideas in a state of cognitive dissonance, but then you wind up revising history to match up your incorrect fantasy world where the theory of evolution is an evil lie made up to convince Christians like yourself that God didn't make you.

 

[Split Rock]

Proving Evolution wrong is like proving Capitalism wrong. Evolution is a philosophy of nature. Evolutionary biologists are working within a non-falsifiable metaphysical framework. That's why it seems like everything is more and more evidence for evolution. The theory is so flexible and malleable that it can accommodate nearly anything.

.

I gave you an earlier example which you ignored. When DNA began being sequenced and compared between different organisms, this was a huge test for evolution. Genetic descent not only requires morphological nested hierarchies, but genetic ones as well. If the genetic sequences of organisms that were supposed to be closely related turned out to be more similar to distantly related organisms, this would have represented a falsification of the theory. That didn't happen, and the DNA of each organism that is sequenced today is continuing to support common descent.

 

[lifepsyop]

We are using the same system that Linnaeus came up with, with most of the same nested traits... the same system you claimed had the purpose of "selling the idea of common descent." Get it now?

No, this is extremely vague. You have yet to form a coherent argument about Linnaeus.

Use examples, please.

 

[lifepsyop]

I gave you an earlier example which you ignored. When DNA began being sequenced and compared between different organisms, this was a huge test for evolution.

Show me where the predictions were made beforehand, and the levels of discordance that were stated on record would falsify Evolution.

Genetic descent not only requires morphological nested hierarchies, but genetic ones as well. If the genetic sequences of organisms that were supposed to be closely related turned out to be more similar to distantly related organisms, this would have represented a falsification of the theory.

No, it would just be assumed that scientists were fooled by morphological similarity, and the molecular similarity really describes relationship. This happens routinely in phylogenetics. Molecular phylogeny is often at the expense of morphology.

I think what you mean to say is that we didn't find that dogs are more genetically similar to shrimp than other mammals, or something ridiculous like that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have always liked this quote, and the essay it is found in.

"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair. "--Ernst Mayr, "80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery"
80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery

 

[Split Rock]

No, it would just be assumed that scientists were fooled by morphological similarity, and the molecular similarity really describes relationship. This happens routinely in phylogenetics. Molecular phylogeny is often at the expense of morphology.

I think what you mean to say is that we didn't find that dogs are more genetically similar to shrimp than other mammals, or something ridiculous like that.

There could certainly be specific genes that would show such discordance, if they were based on function, rather than heredity. I also gave an example earlier, such as genes involved in flight muscles in bats in birds. Another example would be dolphins and sharks, which both live in marine environments and have similar lifestyles. We do not find a patchwork of genes strung together to accomodate a species' environment and lifestyle, as one might expect with species which are designed. Like we find with the parts of cars, for example.