RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/13/2007 1:51:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Aves share certain features with dinosaurs, that dinosaurs don't share with mammals. This indicates a 'closer' common ancestor between birds and dinos than between mammals and birds.


Again, the relationships are determined based on their features. If the features were any different, they would simply redefine the relationships to fit some other conceivable model. Since the fossil record does not show any relationships of these organisms (ie: you can't trace it back to some common ancestor because the fossil record shows that these organisms exploded suddenly all at once) the relationships are speculative.


The nested hierarchy holds for species alive today. The nested hierarchy holds for organisms that do not need to leave fossils to be studied.

quote:


quote:


Now, if you can show me a way the heirachy could be reworked to incorporate things that evolved on both lines after the divergence, I'll agree that a nested heirachy violation won't falsify what you have dubbed 'universal evolution'. Until then, this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to falsify the theory.


Again, they can re - work the hierarchy to make it such that these things received their features from some common ancestor on the same line (ie: pushing up where the divergence occurred).


No they cant. Remember, you can push the divergence point further back in time, but only while ignoring OTHER traits. Remember, you have to take all available and relavent evidence into account. You can say that feathers evolved BEFORE mammals diverged... but then you are only taking into account feathers, and ignoring all other traits mammals have.

Which is why pushing the divergence point back in time will also violate the nested hierarchy.

quote:


Since the fossil record gives no clues as to a common ancestor (rather, it shows that everything emerged suddenly in an explosion) there would be nothing stopping them from speculating that there was some common ancestor that had all these features (ie: there is nothing stopping them from speculating that dinosaurs had a common ancestor with some far earlier organism that we can no longer find fossils for).


The nested hierarchy holds for species alive today. The nested hierarchy holds for organisms that do not need to leave fossils to be studied.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/17/2007 1:21:01 AM)

quote:

Again, the relationships are determined based on their features. If the features were any different, they would simply redefine the relationships to fit some other conceivable model.

There is no other concievable model. The fossil record is quite clear: Birds share features of dinosaurs, dinosaurs share features of birds, Archaeopteryx shares features of both that they don't share with each other. Ergo: it isn't a leap of faith to presume birds are decended from dinosaurs, particulary since evolution via natural selection gives a means for this to happen. Show me a way birds could be on a seperate lineage (like mammals) and still have all these features that dinosaurs share, and I'll accept that a nested heirachy violation wouldn't falsify common descent.

quote:

Since the fossil record does not show any relationships of these organisms (ie: you can't trace it back to some common ancestor because the fossil record shows that these organisms exploded suddenly all at once) the relationships are speculative.

Since you can't provide evidence that transitionals like Archae don't exist, the concept that these organisms exploded suddenly all at once is purely speculative.

quote:

Again, they can re - work the hierarchy to make it such that these things received their features from some common ancestor on the same line (ie: pushing up where the divergence occurred).

Well, to quote BVZ: Show me. Show me how they could do this, and still take into account all the other traits. Show me how they could put birds up above dinosaurs while taking into account the features they share with dinosaurs. Or show me how they could the divergence of a feathered mammal up above mammals, and put the divergence of birds above it, while still taking into account the fact that the creature has mammal traits, birds have dino traits and all the rest of it.

It can't be done. If you think it can... Show me.

quote:

Since the fossil record gives no clues as to a common ancestor (rather, it shows that everything emerged suddenly in an explosion) there would be nothing stopping them from speculating that there was some common ancestor that had all these features (ie: there is nothing stopping them from speculating that dinosaurs had a common ancestor with some far earlier organism that we can no longer find fossils for).

Well, interestingly, we have found fossils for most of our 'common ancestors', (or branches of them, anyway), which fit neatly into the heirachy without any changes being required...

But you're saying that if we found a feathered mammal, we could speculate (I think you have something of a fetish for that word) that dinosaurs and mammals evolved from some common ancestor that had feathers, yes? And none of its decendants kept those feathers, except for this one species of mammal which left no fossils and also evolved mammalian characteristics (taking into account that the common ancestor of this feathered mammal and normal mammals must also have had feathers), and a certain species of dinosaur, which also kept its feathers and left no fossils, survived all the way to Archae's time, (evolving dinosaur characteristics that didn't evolve towards the end of the dinosaurian era, so therefore this feather dinosaur must have been the common ancestor of all scaled dinosaurs), and then evolved into modern birds.

I personally think that you'd have to be as thick as concrete (as well as highly inventive) to come up with that as a legitimate explanation. So, the only way this is possible is by assuming complete incompetence on the part of all the scientists who work on the problem.

Betta, your argument makes no sense. If you truly think a nested heirachy violation, such as a bird with feathers, can be worked into evolution... show us how. Stop us from making these strawmans (They're strawmans unless you are actually seriously proposing that evolutionists faced with the problem would suddenly become incompetent) and show us how a feathered-bat could fit into a nested heirachy.

Heck, here's one to work with:

----------------(#)
---------------/
--------------/\
-------------I--\
------------/----G
-----------/\-----\
----------/--\----/\
---------/----\---\-\
--------/\-----\---\-\
-------H..\-----\---\-\
------/----\-----\---\-\
-----/\-----\-----\---\-\
---A--B----C----D---E-F

Fossils show examples of G, H I and J.
A shares features with B it shares with no other.
A and B share features with C and H they share with no other.
A,B,C all share features with D.
A,B,C and D all share features with I.
E shares features with F and G shares features with both of them.
# shares features with all of them.

How could you get X, a creature with features of A and features of E, but without features of either G or F into this heirachy?
This fits the 'Bat with feathers' template perfectly.

If you prefer a 'bird with fur' scenario:
How could you get Y, a creature with features of A,B,C,D,H and I and features of E, but without features of either G or F into this heirachy?

I claim it can't be done in either case. If you think it can: show me.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 3:50:59 AM)

Bump, just in case you missed it...



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 10:30:17 PM)

I think nested hierarchies are apt descriptions of an organisms development on the edges, but it doesn't explain how the major changes occurred, and it is seeming increasingly unlikely that it was the product of gradual and incremental changes.

There is an interesting new paper proposal that has been submitted to the journal Biology Direct by Eugene V. Koonin, Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information, proposing an evolutionary 'big bang' hypothesis. Basically it offers an alternate hypothesis to explain the numerous biological entities that don't fit the tree pattern predicted by evolution.

What I find interesting about the paper is that it acknowledges the problematic nature of a number of transitions, including the well known Cambrian explosiosn, and the fact that these really represent something wholly different than ordinary incremental and incidental evolutionary development - indeed, that they "enigmatic nexuses", and include:

1. Origin of protein folds

2. Origin of viruses

3. Origin of cells

4. Origin of the major branches (phyla) of bacteria and archaea

5. Origin of the major branches (supergroups) of eukaryotes

6. Origin of the animal phyla

Though the paper proposal in no way acknowledges ID (indeed, comments on the paper express fears that the paper could be read that way) it certainly acknowledges that the current ideas of evolution are insufficient to explain the development of life, something IDists have been saying for awhile.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 10:42:06 PM)

Very interesting. However, to my uneducated eyes it seems to only apply when the cells are capable of huge amounts of horisontal gene transfer, which doesn't really apply beyond cambrian lifeforms. Maybe you'll correct me. Highly probable, in fact.



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 10:51:09 PM)

quote:

Very interesting. However, to my uneducated eyes it seems to only apply when the cells are capable of huge amounts of horisontal gene transfer, which doesn't really apply beyond cambrian lifeforms. Maybe you'll correct me. Highly probable, in fact.


Well of course I don't think this adequately explains the Cambrian explosion either, but I don't think such changes are the product of incidental forces, even explosive ones. I just found it interesting that someone was willing to acknowledge the inadequacy of ordinary evolution to explain it.

Another interesting bit I ran across in my reading was a study concerning the phylogeny of protein folds.

Basically, it appears that the earliest life had a large and diverse populations of the most complex protein folds; later groups were a product of a reduction of the diversity of protein folds, not the development of novel ones. Rather turns evolution as it is commonly understood on it's head.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 11:02:32 PM)

Also interesting.

From what I understood already, and some things from the article I didn't know, the first life to populate the earth had no natural selection, and was all essentially one species. So many protein folds were developed all around the place and shared throughout the global population. As different types of life (and hence different species) developed, they began to specialise, utilising only certain specific protein folds. Multi-cullular and complex life needed to keep most of the folds, but other creatures like the Archaea found no use for them and they were selected against.

Very interesting.



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 11:11:56 PM)

quote:

From what I understood already, and some things from the article I didn't know, the first life to populate the earth had no natural selection, and was all essentially one species. So many protein folds were developed all around the place and shared throughout the global population. As different types of life (and hence different species) developed, they began to specialise, utilising only certain specific protein folds. Multi-cullular and complex life needed to keep most of the folds, but other creatures like the Archaea found no use for them and they were selected against.


Well, sure, but this is basically an acknowledgement that the work evolution was supposed to be doing - developing the complex proteins that entail the workings of life -happened at the very beginning. That doesn't leave much for evolution to do, and simply puts the development of complexity at the beginning of life, without a naturalistic explanation.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 11:48:57 PM)

quote:

Well, sure, but this is basically an acknowledgement that the work evolution was supposed to be doing - developing the complex proteins that entail the workings of life -happened at the very beginning. That doesn't leave much for evolution to do, and simply puts the development of complexity at the beginning of life, without a naturalistic explanation.

I'm sorry, I thought that this was the development of the Protein Folds, which (from what I gathered from the article) are the three-dimensional 'shapes' and structures that proteins develop, and I thought a single protein fold could have hundreds of different uses depending on what proteins it actually contained. Thats just what the article seemed to say to me...



Jhud -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/8/2007 11:56:12 PM)

quote:

I'm sorry, I thought that this was the development of the Protein Folds, which (from what I gathered from the article) are the three-dimensional 'shapes' and structures that proteins develop, and I thought a single protein fold could have hundreds of different uses depending on what proteins it actually contained. Thats just what the article seemed to say to me...


Protein folds don't 'contain' proteins - various proteins are differentiated by their folds, which determine the function of the respective proteins.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (10/9/2007 12:17:50 AM)

quote:

Protein folds don't 'contain' proteins - various proteins are differentiated by their folds, which determine the function of the respective proteins.

Then I must have misunderstood the article. I must have been reading this section wrong:
quote:

All proteins are composed of architectural elements, called domains, which can be identified by their structural and functional similarities to one another. Protein domains are the gears, belts, springs and motors that allow the larger protein machinery to function as it should. Every protein contains one or more of them, and proteins that perform very different tasks can contain identical domains.

Protein domains are grouped into what are called fold families and fold superfamilies. Members of a fold superfamily may differ in their underlying amino acid sequences, but retain structural and functional similarities and are evolutionarily related. Fold superfamilies are grouped together into broad categories, called folds.

I was viewing it as a bit of a nested heirachy... you know, like this:
solar system --- galactic arm --- galaxy --- local cluster --- local supercluster
protein --- domain --- ...

And I've just seen what my problem was. In reality, it goes like this:

domain --- family --- superfamily --- fold

And the different proteins have different folds... OK, I've got it now. Hang on while I digest this...



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/18/2008 2:05:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
The nested hierarchy holds for species alive today. The nested hierarchy holds for organisms that do not need to leave fossils to be studied.


The nested hierarchy does not hold.

quote:


No they cant.


Yes they can.

quote:


Remember, you can push the divergence point further back in time, but only while ignoring OTHER traits. Remember, you have to take all available and relavent evidence into account. You can say that feathers evolved BEFORE mammals diverged... but then you are only taking into account feathers, and ignoring all other traits mammals have.


They can claim those other features were acquired earlier as well.

quote:


Which is why pushing the divergence point back in time will also violate the nested hierarchy.


No it won't (for reasons already given). I've already given examples of times where the previous arbitrary nested hierarchy was violated (ie: bats, cows, and horses) and they simply re - work the hierarchy to form some other arbitrary hierarchy. No reason they can't do it again.

Aside from the fact that UCD does not predict a nested hierarchy and I've already given examples of violations of a previous alleged hierarchy (that were just re - worked to form some new arbitrary hierarchy) here are more examples of violations.

quote:


The elephant shark's genome is so similar to ours that we wind up having more in common with it, genetically speaking, than with other species, such as teleost (bony skeleton) fishes, which are nearer to us on the evolutionary tree.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1937469.htm

Even though UCD does not predict a nested hierarchy (ie: it's possible for me to share features with my cousin that I do not share with my brother, so the above violations of the nested hierarchy that this thread posts are acceptable within the framework of UCD and they do not violate UCD in any way), this is something that UCD should never predict. Organisms with a closer ancestry should never have more in common, genetically, than those of a further ancestry. ie: My cousin should never be more genetically similar to me than my brother. This is not only a violation of this alleged nested hierarchy (which UCD does not predict to begin with for reasons already given, so I never saw violations to this alleged hierarchy as a problem for UCD. I expect them to exist since I can share features with a cousin that I may not share with a brother) this is a complete violation of what we would expect to see if common ancestry is true.

Either we are more closely related to the Elephant shark than the teleost (which further demonstrates the arbitrary nature of this alleged nested hierarchy. We can simply move things around the tree arbitrarily to form some conceivable hierarchy even though UCD does not predict a nested hierarchy to begin with) or UCD is simply not true. If you are telling me that we are more closely related to the teleost than the elephant shark and we are more genetically similar to the elephant shark then the teleost then something is seriously wrong. A closer ancestor of mine should not be less genetically similar to me than a further ancestor (ie: a cousin vs a brother), that makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of common ancestry.

Does this falsify UCD? Of course not. This further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.

So Quasar6. I found you a violation of this alleged nested hierarchy. Would you admit that UCD has been falsified? Or are you going to deny it and continue to demonstrate to me how UCD is unfalsifiable (since you believe that UCD somehow predicts a nested hierarchy)?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/18/2008 2:37:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
There is no other concievable model.


If the features were different, there would be some other conceivable model.


quote:


The fossil record is quite clear: Birds share features of dinosaurs, dinosaurs share features of birds, Archaeopteryx shares features of both that they don't share with each other.


Even if so, so?

quote:


Ergo: it isn't a leap of faith to presume birds are decended from dinosaurs,


Yes it is.


quote:

particulary since evolution via natural selection gives a means for this to happen.


Evolution via natural selection has never been observed to produce the difference between humans and chimps yet alone between birds and dinosaurs. It does not give us a testable method, just a speculated, unfalsifiable one that is never observed to produce the differences between birds dinosaurs or any sort of differences of the kind.

quote:


Show me a way birds could be on a seperate lineage (like mammals) and still have all these features that dinosaurs share, and I'll accept that a nested heirachy violation wouldn't falsify common descent.


They can claim that they diverged earlier and acquired some of the features of a dinosaur and some of a mammal.


quote:


Since you can't provide evidence that transitionals like Archae don't exist, the concept that these organisms exploded suddenly all at once is purely speculative.


How is an Archae a transition? I think you're confused.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Archae


quote:


It can't be done. If you think it can... Show me.


quote:


Well, interestingly, we have found fossils for most of our 'common ancestors', (or branches of them, anyway),


We haven't found anything. Darwin himself admits it and he attributes it to the incomplete nature of the fossil record. At best, our alleged transitions are poorly interpreted wishful thinking.

quote:


which fit neatly into the heirachy without any changes being required...


Examples?

quote:


But you're saying that if we found a feathered mammal, we could speculate (I think you have something of a fetish for that word) that dinosaurs and mammals evolved from some common ancestor that had feathers, yes?


Yes

quote:


And none of its decendants kept those feathers


Some of them may have.

quote:


except for this one species of mammal which left no fossils


Darwin constantly referred to the incomplete nature of the fossil record. He attributed the complete lack of transitions due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record. What you're looking for is sort of a transition and they don't exist anyways. That's not stopping UCD from surviving. Heck, the fossil record shows that organisms tend to stay the same throughout it, yet that doesn't stop UCD from surviving.

quote:


and also evolved mammalian characteristics


Or it already had mammalian characteristics.

quote:


survived all the way to Archae's time, (evolving dinosaur characteristics that didn't evolve towards the end of the dinosaurian era, so therefore this feather dinosaur must have been the common ancestor of all scaled dinosaurs), and then evolved into modern birds.


Or share a common ancestor with modern birds (not necessarily that they evolved into modern birds).

"so therefore this feather dinosaur must have been the common ancestor of all scaled dinosaurs"

Why would it have to have been? They merely have to share a common ancestor.

quote:


I personally think that you'd have to be as thick as concrete (as well as highly inventive) to come up with that as a legitimate explanation.


Your explanation is strawman.

quote:


Betta, your argument makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense.

quote:


If you truly think a nested heirachy violation, such as a bird with feathers, can be worked into evolution... show us how.


I already have.


quote:


Stop us from making these strawmans (They're strawmans unless you are actually seriously proposing that evolutionists faced with the problem would suddenly become incompetent) and show us how a feathered-bat could fit into a nested heirachy.


Already done. See previous posts.

quote:


How could you get X, a creature with features of A and features of E, but without features of either G or F into this heirachy?


By claiming that X diverged earlier in the tree and acquired features of A and E. As far as G, that is a speculated transition with speculated features that allegedly won't show up in the fossil record for reasons mentioned in Darwins book (he constantly argued that it's highly unlikely for transitions to show up since the fossil record is very incomplete).

quote:


If you prefer a 'bird with fur' scenario:
How could you get Y, a creature with features of A,B,C,D,H and I and features of E, but without features of either G or F into this heirachy?


Again, you're referencing alleged earlier transitions. Transitions don't show up in the fossil record so they can just attribute it to the incomplete nature of the fossil record. You are trying to reference a fossil record that is allegedly very incomplete, and if it is indeed incomplete, it's unlikely that the transitions you seek would appear.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (2/19/2008 8:17:42 AM)

Wow. Old thread!

Anyway, show me.

SHOW ME.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (7/16/2008 11:04:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

Wow. Old thread!

Anyway, show me.

SHOW ME.


It's already been shown.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (7/18/2008 7:29:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

Wow. Old thread!

Anyway, show me.

SHOW ME.


It's already been shown.


Post number please.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (12/7/2008 2:01:55 AM)

This is in response to

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Not so. The 'descent with modification' model of evolution is based on a huge mass of convergent evidence - a long history of sedimentary geology, datable to hundreds of millions of years by a variety of methods; a fossil record showing the appearance and disappearance of organisms within ecological assemblages over time; nested genetic and homologous relationships between species with ample evidence of divergence of inherited characteristiscs over time; and a mass of expertimental and observational evidence for mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for the inhertance of modification.


on

Natural Selection



GHitch -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (12/8/2008 3:12:50 PM)

Gradualism is dead and punctuated equilibrium has never felt very well.
Nested hierarchies are falling apart.
Cladists say one thing, geneticists say another.

Who ya gonna call? Darwinian myth busters! Go Betta go! [:D]



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/12/2009 11:40:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
There is no other concievable model. The fossil record is quite clear: Birds share features of dinosaurs, dinosaurs share features of birds, Archaeopteryx shares features of both that they don't share with each other. Ergo: it isn't a leap of faith to presume birds are decended from dinosaurs, particulary since evolution via natural selection gives a means for this to happen.


Despite the fact that I have shown you to be wrong, now there is more evidence showing you to be wrong.

quote:


Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."

These studies were just published in The Journal of Morphology, and were funded by the National Science Foundation.
...
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.


Birds not evolved from dinosaurs

but of course I don't actually expect you to come here and admit that evolution has been falsified.

quote:


No mammals have features in common with birds that the dinosaurs (the birds ancestors) didn't share. Indeed, they cannot, because the same feature can't evolve twice... the chances against it are far too great.


In other words, strong evidence indicating that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs would falsify evolution. However, birds came BEFORE dinosaurs, but I'm sure that STILL won't falsify (the unfalsifiable hypothesis) of evolution because they will simply push the divergent point back. In other words, what I said was true, nested hierarchy violations do not violate UCD, they simply push the divergent point back. But you won't admit to that will you?

quote:


Show me a way birds could be on a seperate lineage (like mammals) and still have all these features that dinosaurs share, and I'll accept that a nested heirachy violation wouldn't falsify common descent.


Show me a way birds can come BEFORE dinosaurs and still have evolved from dinosaurs and I'll accept that what you are saying isn't completely insane (though that doesn't mean I'll believe what you are saying, I'll just believe it is less insane. Still insane though). I think this evidence I just linked to (posted by Jhud) has refuted evolution according to what you just said, now I just want to see you admit to it (but I doubt it).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/13/2009 12:07:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
There is only one nested hierarchy. If an organism is found that does not fit into it, evolution is disproved. I repeat, there is only one nested hierarchy.


The hierarchy has been broken, plain and simple (ie: birds came BEFORE dinosaurs) but, as I have always contended, they can always re - work the hierarchy (ie: push the divergence point back) no matter what the evidence. It still won't falsify UCD, it only demonstrates the arbitrary nature of this hierarchy. And now, once again, we are seeing exactly what I said coming true (the pushing back of the divergent point to accommodate the fact that the evidence does not support UCD, or at least what evolutionists have always believed the evidence should show if UCD is true).



DanJames -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/13/2009 3:08:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
There is only one nested hierarchy. If an organism is found that does not fit into it, evolution is disproved. I repeat, there is only one nested hierarchy.


The hierarchy has been broken, plain and simple (ie: birds came BEFORE dinosaurs) but, as I have always contended, they can always re - work the hierarchy (ie: push the divergence point back) no matter what the evidence. It still won't falsify UCD, it only demonstrates the arbitrary nature of this hierarchy. And now, once again, we are seeing exactly what I said coming true (the pushing back of the divergent point to accommodate the fact that the evidence does not support UCD, or at least what evolutionists have always believed the evidence should show if UCD is true).

Holy rising dead, Batman! What an old thread!



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/14/2009 4:14:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Holy rising dead, Batman! What an old thread!


I know. I bring it up because much of what evolutionists used to claim later turns out to be wrong but then evolutionists like to deny what they used to argue (and they'll change their claims). I want to show that this is what used to be argued by them and it's wrong. Yet, despite this, evolution has not been falsified, evolutionists have simply moved the goal posts, changed what they argue would falsify UCD, but there is no reason that what they're arguing now would falsify UCD and this is supported by the fact that the falsification of what they used to argue has not falsified UCD. IOW, UCD is unfalsifiable.



DanJames -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/14/2009 9:41:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Holy rising dead, Batman! What an old thread!


I know. I bring it up because much of what evolutionists used to claim later turns out to be wrong but then evolutionists like to deny what they used to argue (and they'll change their claims). I want to show that this is what used to be argued by them and it's wrong. Yet, despite this, evolution has not been falsified, evolutionists have simply moved the goal posts, changed what they argue would falsify UCD, but there is no reason that what they're arguing now would falsify UCD and this is supported by the fact that the falsification of what they used to argue has not falsified UCD. IOW, UCD is unfalsifiable.


One thing that I love saying is: EVERYTHING proves Evolution!!!! [sm=dance.gif][sm=dance.gif][sm=dance.gif]



RCC -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/16/2009 1:18:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

In other words, strong evidence indicating that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs would falsify evolution. However, birds came BEFORE dinosaurs, but I'm sure that STILL won't falsify (the unfalsifiable hypothesis) of evolution because they will simply push the divergent point back. In other words, what I said was true, nested hierarchy violations do not violate UCD, they simply push the divergent point back. But you won't admit to that will you?


If you could show that birds are not descended from dinosaurs and that this violates the nested hierarchy predicted by UCD, evolution would be in trouble. But so far as I can see, you haven't demonstrated either one. The fact that one or two paleontologists claim that birds probably aren't descended from dinosaurs doesn't make it true. Nor have you pointed out any actual nested hierarchy violations, so far as I am aware.



shakezula -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/16/2009 4:04:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCC

The fact that one or two paleontologists claim that birds probably aren't descended from dinosaurs doesn't make it true.


i am intrigued by the findings. but i agree with those who said that this simply means that birds are descended from another animal. i am reminded though of a cover article in discover magazine back in the 90's. a researcher did a study and came up with compelling reasons why dinosaurs were cold-blooded, which runs counter to conventional theory. the guy seemed very reasonable and his study was pretty good. but no one since has found any evidence to support the cold-blooded view, so the warm-blooded assumption still holds.

if this is the beginning of a major revision, then that is great. the more we learn, the better. but this does not refute evolution. instead it confirms that scientists are honest and are seeking the truth, and there is no conspiracy to force a false theory upon people.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI