The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

[crjmurray]

That's like saying you want a giraffe to be like a turtle but still be a giraffe. It doesn't make any sense. The fact is that animals are identified by their characteristics, so different characteristics would make it a different animal.

Furthermore, the primary thing an evolutionist will do when they discover an animal with unique characteristics is to infer an imaginary evolutionary lineage that gave rise to those characteristics.

It's not like that at all. If I came across a bird that for all intents and purposes was genetically identical to a pelican but with the addition of mammalian breasts then there would not be an explanation that could be reconciled with our current understanding of common descent. If its the pelican that is confusing you, you can go participate in my hypothetical thread where I am addressing this issue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The nested hierarchy refers to DNA sequence. Gene regulation is irrelevant to the discussion.




You seem to think that they are referring to DNA sequence, when they are not.

I'll read it again.



[/Quote]Precisely. If I go through the effort of comparing one of those 55 genes between humans, chimps, and one of the vocal breeds of birds, will you accept the outcome? If the human and chimp gene shares more DNA sequence than the human and vocal bird gene, will you concede that evolution is supported and common design is not?[/QUOTE]

What?

 

[lifepsyop]

It's not like that at all. If I came across a bird that for all intents and purposes was genetically identical to a pelican but with the addition of mammalian breasts then there would not be an explanation that could be reconciled with our current understanding of common descent. If its the pelican that is confusing you, you can go participate in my hypothetical thread where I am addressing this issue.

Please tell me how an animal would be genetically *identical* to a pelican, and yet genetically expressing all of the function associated with development and maintenance of mammalian breasts. I would really like to know how that works.

 

[crjmurray]

Please tell me how an animal would be genetically *identical* to a pelican, and yet genetically expressing all of the function associated with development and maintenance of mammalian breasts. I would really like to know how that works.

Boy so would I! I mean it wouldn't make sense right?

 

[lifepsyop]

Boy so would I! I mean it wouldn't make sense right?

I'm trying to explain to you that things cannot be both identical and different at the same time. It's like hypothesizing the existence of a square circle.

 

[crjmurray]

I'm trying to explain to you that things cannot be both identical and different at the same time. It's like hypothesizing the existence of a square circle.

Why can't the pelican be genetically identical to other pelicans with the addition of the mammalian gene for breasts?

 

[lifepsyop]

Why can't the pelican be genetically identical to other pelicans with the addition of the mammalian gene for breasts?

For the same reason that 2 does not equal 3 or that a square is not a circle.

A "pelican" with mammary glands ceases to be a pelican, both genetically and anatomically. You can say it appears very 'pelican-like', but you could not say that it is a pelican. Again, this is because animals are classified by their physical traits. If traits suddenly do not matter to biological classification than we may as well start calling turtles giraffes and watch taxonomy implode on itself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's a strange (and predictably vague)

What's so vague about the fact that the same nested hierarchy is found in several independent fields of study?

claim considering the nested hierarchy of anatomy and fossils doesn't even concord with itself.

What do you mean?

There isn't even any standard to concord to

The standard are the organisms found in the real world, both living and dead.

, since the nested hierarchy is a constantly morphing ad-hoc model.

Errr.... What did you expect? That animals which aren't discovered yet are put on the family tree anyway?

:-/

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope, sorry. Those traits would simply be inferred to have evolved convergently in a diapsid/dinosaurian lineage. It would definitely not falsify the nested hierarchy. We know this because you cannot demonstrate any evolutionary constraint preventing such a convergence.

So, let me get this straight....

Your argument against nested hierarchies, is what you imagine the response would be from scientists to a hypothetical discovery of something of which you have no real example?

Are you joking?

 

[DogmaHunter]

For the same reason that 2 does not equal 3 or that a square is not a circle. A "pelican" with mammary glands ceases to be a pelican, both genetically and anatomically. You can say it appears very 'pelican-like', but you could not say that it is a pelican. Again, this is because animals are classified by their physical traits.

What if the "pelican" inactive genes for mammary glands?
At this point, it wouldn't be expressed in its physical traits.
This means that as long as you don't sequence the DNA, you won't be able to differentiate the "pelican" from pelicans.

Now we come to an interesting point about nested hierarchies....
You remember how you've been told that the same nested hierarchies are found in multiple independend fields?

Well, now there is a problem.

Here is this bird of which the anatomy is exactly like other birds, clearly positioning it in the nested hierarchy where it belongs.

But somehow it has inactive genes from the mammalian lineage.

So now what? Is it a Pelican?

Why don't we ever find such animals?

If traits suddenly do not matter to biological classification than we may as well start calling turtles giraffes and watch taxonomy implode on itself.

It's funny that you see this order in taxonomy, but ignore that the same order exists at the genetic level.

 

[The Cadet]

So, let me get this straight....

Your argument against nested hierarchies, is what you imagine the response would be from scientists to a hypothetical discovery of something of which you have no real example?

Are you joking?

Yeah, this is a really weak argument, based entirely on speculation and with no expertise. @lifepsyop , what training do you have in the field of evo-devo to make such a tall claim? I mean, how much do you even know about mosaic evolution and the mechanisms present? This is not some bizarre, impossible creation, like a boobie with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. This is a dinosaur whose lineage is very incomplete and which appears to have shown some form of convergent evolution. Have you considered going to the scientific literature with this, and positing in peer review that this falsifies the nested heirarchy?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's like saying you want a giraffe to be like a turtle but still be a giraffe. It doesn't make any sense. The fact is that animals are identified by their characteristics, so different characteristics would make it a different animal.

Animals are independently identified by their DNA. You don't need to know their morphology in order to sequence their genomes and put them into a phylogeny.

So why do we see a statistically significant correlation between DNA sequences and morphology? Why don't we see a species where 95% of their DNA is identical to pelicans and the other 5% is identical to walruses? Why don't we see a species of animal where their cytochrome C gene is identical to bears, their HLA genes are identical to baboons, and their myosin gene is identical to chickens? Why don't we see the mixing and matching of DNA sequences like we would expect from a design process?

Furthermore, the primary thing an evolutionist will do when they discover an animal with unique characteristics is to infer an imaginary evolutionary lineage that gave rise to those characteristics.

That scenario only exists in your head.

 

[Loudmouth]

What?

It is a rather straightforward test. You are saying that the "genetics" of humans and vocal birds are more similar for 55 genes than humans and chimps are. Shall we look at one of those genes and compare the DNA sequences? If the human and chimp DNA has more bases in common, will you admit that evolution is evidenced while common design is not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is a rather straightforward test. You are saying that the "genetics" of humans and vocal birds are more similar for 55 genes than humans and chimps are. Shall we look at one of those genes and compare the DNA sequences? If the human and chimp DNA has more bases in common, will you admit that evolution is evidenced while common design is not?

This is what I am presenting.

One of the Dec. 12 papers in Science found there is a consistent set of just over 50 genes that show higher or lower activity in the brains of vocal learning birds and humans. These changes were not found in the brains of birds that do not have vocal learning and of non-human primates that do not speak, according to this Duke team, which was led by Jarvis; Andreas Pfenning, a graduate of the PhD program in computational biology and bioinformatics (CBB); and Alexander Hartemink, professor of computer science, statistical science and biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is what I am presenting.

One of the Dec. 12 papers in Science found there is a consistent set of just over 50 genes that show higher or lower activity in the brains of vocal learning birds and humans. These changes were not found in the brains of birds that do not have vocal learning and of non-human primates that do not speak, according to this Duke team, which was led by Jarvis; Andreas Pfenning, a graduate of the PhD program in computational biology and bioinformatics (CBB); and Alexander Hartemink, professor of computer science, statistical science and biology.

This is what I am presenting.

It is a rather straightforward test. You are saying that the "genetics" of humans and vocal birds are more similar for 55 genes than humans and chimps are. Shall we look at one of those genes and compare the DNA sequences? If the human and chimp DNA has more bases in common, will you admit that evolution is evidenced while common design is not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is what I am presenting.

It is a rather straightforward test. You are saying that the "genetics" of humans and vocal birds are more similar for 55 genes than humans and chimps are. Shall we look at one of those genes and compare the DNA sequences? If the human and chimp DNA has more bases in common, will you admit that evolution is evidenced while common design is not?

You haven't provided why common design would be eliminated. The point is that this points more to common design than common ancestor.

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't provided why common design would be eliminated.

What pattern of DNA homology does common design predict in this situation, and why?

The point is that this points more to common design than common ancestor.

Why would matching DNA sequence and morphological phylogenies point to common design instead of common ancestry? Please explain.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What pattern of DNA homology does common design predict in this situation, and why?

Both sets of species have the same set of genes used for vocalization and the birds did not acquire them by common descent but each evolved independently as well as for us. Common design would fit perfectly as it would show that the design of vocalization is due to one Designer using the same "tools" for a purpose.

Why would matching DNA sequence and morphological phylogenies point to common design instead of common ancestry? Please explain.

There would be 310 million years between common ancestry with many of the vocalizing birds independently evolving this ability as well as humans having the ability but other primates not having that ability.

 

[Loudmouth]

Both sets of species have the same set of genes used for vocalization and the birds did not acquire them by common descent . . .

How did you determine that they didn't acquire them by common descent?

What pattern of DNA homology does common design predict in this situation, and why? These genes are found in vocal birds, humans, and chimps. What does common design predict when we compare their DNA sequence, and why?

There would be 310 million years between common ancestry with many of the vocalizing birds independently evolving this ability as well as humans having the ability but other primates not having that ability.

And?

How does this answer the question?

Why would matching DNA sequence and morphological phylogenies point to common design instead of common ancestry? Please explain.

 

[lifepsyop]

So, let me get this straight....

Your argument against nested hierarchies, is what you imagine the response would be from scientists to a hypothetical discovery of something of which you have no real example?

Are you joking?

You're really shooting yourself in the foot here, as the strength of a theory is typically based on a hypothetical discovery of what you imagine would potentially falsify the theory.

Evolutionists str constantly bring up hypothetical scenarios that they claim would disprove the theory.

It is comical that you suddenly have a problem with this method of reasoning. I guess no more ranting about hypothetical "Cambrian rabbits", then?