RE: "Where is your evidence?"

RE: "Where is your evidence?" (Full Version)

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

Message

Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 5:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Evidence of common descent are the shared genetics in all living organisms for example. Now if you can give me a better explanation for matching genes in all forms of life than they are from a common ancestor, please let us hear it. Until you do come up with a feasible alternative, your tax money will be well spent, I assure you. Commonalities exist among different cars, they are not evidence that various cars share a common ancestor. The commonalities among different cars can be bought from any manufacturer. Spare parts come from everywhere. Gene sequence can only be inherited through replication, reproduction or propagation. What that means is that you have inherited those genes from the same ancestor that a Chimpanzee did or else you wouldn't have those particular genes that the chimp has too. quote: The fact that different organisms use DNA is not evidence that they share a common ancestor any more than the fact that various cars use tires is evidence that they share a common ancestor. Inanimate objects don't have ancestors.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 5:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Gene sequence can only be inherited through replication, reproduction or propagation. What that means is that you have inherited those genes from the same ancestor that a Chimpanzee did or else you wouldn't have those particular genes that the chimp has too. So according to you the original gene sequences could not have arisen unguided since they can only be inherited through replication, reproduction, or propagation. Otherwise, the first gene sequences were not replicated, reproduced, or propagated, in which case it's perfectly possible for gene sequences to come about through other means leading us back to our initial conclusion, commonalities in DNA are not evidence for UCD any more than commonalities in cars.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 5:55:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize So, the best evidence for UCD that you can come up with is some arbitrary nested hierarchy that there is no reason for evolution to predict in the first place? Another 'bait and switch' con game from the creationists. The nested hierarchy is not arbitrary, and you have been shown this before. A good example is this paper which uses non-arbitrary methodologies for constructing primate phylogenies based on ERV's.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 6:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize No, the observed mechanisms of inheritance does not produce any such hierarchy. Yes it does. There is no horizontal genetic transfer between the species in question. Therefore, the only method of inheritance left is vertical genetic transfer. This means that ERV's which occur in one lineage can not be spread to the other lineage. The ONLY PATTERN that this produces is a nested hierarchy. What is so hard to understand? quote: It's possible for someone with blue eyes to have a brother with brown eyes and a cousin with blue eyes and even to have the genes coding for eye color be more similar between the cousins than the brothers, a violation of this arbitrary nested hierarchy. It is impossible for each brother to be infected by 200,000 retroviruses in every cell in their body in order to explain the 200,000 ERV's they share. quote: No one ever observed inheritance forming any sort of nested hierarchy, it is merely speculated that the accumulation of traits will somehow form some arbitrary hierarchy. Have you never seen a gene traced through a family tree? quote: There is no reason UCD should predict any form of nested hierarchy, it predicts absolutely nothing and merely accommodates any combination of evidence that can possibly exist. At this point you are either blind or loose with the truth.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 6:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Commonalities exist among different cars, they are not evidence that various cars share a common ancestor. The fact that different organisms use DNA is not evidence that they share a common ancestor any more than the fact that various cars use tires is evidence that they share a common ancestor. We don't see cars reproducing or inheriting traits through inheritance. Also, parts can easily be swapped between car models which produces a non-nested hierarchy. Again, you supply more evidence for evolution. The fingerprint of design is a non-nested hierarchy.

Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 6:04:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Gene sequence can only be inherited through replication, reproduction or propagation. What that means is that you have inherited those genes from the same ancestor that a Chimpanzee did or else you wouldn't have those particular genes that the chimp has too. So according to you the original gene sequences could not have arisen unguided since they can only be inherited through replication, reproduction, or propagation. Otherwise, the first gene sequences were not replicated, reproduced, or propagated, in which case it's perfectly possible for gene sequences to come about through other means leading us back to our initial conclusion, commonalities in DNA are not evidence for UCD any more than commonalities in cars. Betta, common ancestry deals with matches in genomes of all species, not how the first gene sequence originated.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/6/2007 7:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method The nested hierarchy is not arbitrary, and you have been shown this before. A good example is this paper which uses non-arbitrary methodologies for constructing primate phylogenies based on ERV's. It is arbitrary, as demonstrated by the fact that they arbitrarily re - arrange the hierarchy when they found out that bats are more genetically similar to horses than cows. quote: Yes it does. There is no horizontal genetic transfer between the species in question. Therefore, the only method of inheritance left is vertical genetic transfer. This means that ERV's which occur in one lineage can not be spread to the other lineage. The ONLY PATTERN that this produces is a nested hierarchy. What is so hard to understand? Not necessarily. If an ERV infected two separate linages (which is more rare but the bird flue has been known to infect humans for example) this could cause a violation. The odds of it infecting more closely related animals would be higher than animals that are further related, so over millions of years, we would expect to see many violations. Also, since genes from ERV's aren't normally subject to natural selection, there is no reason for random mutation to preserve their sequences and they could get blurred among the various lineages, again, ruining the nested hierarchy. Secondly, you're still missing the point. While it may not be able to spread to another species horizontally, it's possible for one person to have a genetic sequence by an ERV, have a brother without that sequence, yet have a cousin with that sequence. These people may further diversify into all separate species forming nested hierarchy violations where two more closely related species don't share a common trait with two species of a further relationship. quote: It is impossible for each brother to be infected by 200,000 retroviruses in every cell in their body in order to explain the 200,000 ERV's they share. You're still missing the point. There is no reason for UCD to predict a nested hierarchy because we don't see any within the same specie. quote: Have you never seen a gene traced through a family tree? Again, as I have already demonstrated, it won't form a nested hierarchy. It's possible for brothers to not share the gene yet cousins to share it. quote: We don't see cars reproducing or inheriting traits through inheritance. You're still missing the point. The point is that commonalities are not evidence for UCD. quote: Also, parts can easily be swapped between car models which produces a non-nested hierarchy. Again, you supply more evidence for evolution. The fingerprint of design is a non-nested hierarchy. No, design can produce a nested hierarchy, there is no reason why it can't. You're still missing the point, commonalities are not evidence for UCD. quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Betta, common ancestry deals with matches in genomes of all species, not how the first gene sequence originated. Again, there is no reason why commonalities are evidence for UCD.

BVZ -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 12:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Not necessarily. If an ERV infected two separate linages (which is more rare but the bird flue has been known to infect humans for example) this could cause a violation. There are none. quote: The odds of it infecting more closely related animals would be higher than animals that are further related, so over millions of years, we would expect to see many violations. We dont. quote: Also, since genes from ERV's aren't normally subject to natural selection, there is no reason for random mutation to preserve their sequences and they could get blurred among the various lineages, again, ruining the nested hierarchy. Actually, a nested hierarchy can be built on how the ERV's were 'ruined'. This nested hierarchy matches up with the nested hierarchies built using any other conceivable way. Which kind indicates UCD. Again. quote: Secondly, you're still missing the point. While it may not be able to spread to another species horizontally, it's possible for one person to have a genetic sequence by an ERV, have a brother without that sequence, yet have a cousin with that sequence. No its not. It's really that simple. WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HERE IS NOT POSSIBLE. If you think it is possible, you don't know what an ERV is. quote: These people may further diversify into all separate species forming nested hierarchy violations where two more closely related species don't share a common trait with two species of a further relationship. They don't. Honestly, betta. You have no idea what you are talking about. All you have to do is read up on ERV's until your confusion goes away.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 1:23:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Not necessarily. If an ERV infected two separate linages (which is more rare but the bird flue has been known to infect humans for example) this could cause a violation. There are none. Aside from the fact that the hierarchy is arbitrary and whenever we do find violations they simply re - arrange the arbitrary nested hierarchy to form some other arbitrary hierarchy, assuming there are no violations and this hierarchy isn't arbitrary, again, this is a possible mechanism that could could explain violations. quote: We dont. Assuming we don't, we would expect to if UCD is true. That's the point. quote: Actually, a nested hierarchy can be built on how the ERV's were 'ruined'. This nested hierarchy matches up with the nested hierarchies built using any other conceivable way. Which kind indicates UCD. Again. Again, there is no reason why it would form any sort of (arbitrary) nested hierarchy to begin with. quote: No its not. It's really that simple. WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HERE IS NOT POSSIBLE. If you think it is possible, you don't know what an ERV is. Yes it is possible, it's based on what we know about genetics. It's possible for someone to have a trait (or a genetic sequence from a recently acquired ERV) have a brother without this trait, and have a cousin with the trait. The resulting branches would not form any sort of nested hierarchy, the only thing we ever observe them form is a tangled mess with violations all over the place. Since it won't form a nested hierarchy on the level of the species (despite the fact that these hierarchies are arbitrary) there is no reason to conclude it would form any sort of nested hierarchy when speciation occurs. quote: They don't. You are basing this on evolutionary presuppositions. Again, we never observe species forming any sort of (arbitrary) nested hierarchy, there is no reason to presume evolution predicts such an arbitrary hierarchy to begin with.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 11:24:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ Actually, a nested hierarchy can be built on how the ERV's were 'ruined'. This nested hierarchy matches up with the nested hierarchies built using any other conceivable way. Which kind indicates UCD. Again. We would not necessarily expect to see a nested hierarchy from the distortions either. Lets assume that a specie all has the sequence for an ERV. It speciates into species 1 and 2. Parts of the population in specie 1 gets a mutation and a part with the mutation speciates into specie A while a part without the mutation speciates into specie B. It's perfectly possible for population 2 to speciate into species C and D with species C and D not containing this mutation, leading to a violation in the nested hierarchy. Species A and B will be more closely related to one another yet specie B will have a genetic similarity shared with specie C and D that it no longer shares with specie A due to the earlier mutation.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 11:31:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Also, parts can easily be swapped between car models which produces a non-nested hierarchy. Again, you supply more evidence for evolution. The fingerprint of design is a non-nested hierarchy. Yes, but humans often like to structure concepts into a nested hierarchy for convenience. Our computer directories are structures into a nested hierarchy (a file within a folder within a folder, etc...), many organizations are structured into a nested hierarchy (5 people report to one boss, five of those bosses report to a higher boss, etc... until you reach the CEO), and we try to structure living organisms into some arbitrary nested hierarchy to make it easier to classify and identify organisms. The thing is that it takes predetermined effort to put things in a nested hierarchy and often to keep them in a nested hierarchy as well. Without a conscious effort by a designer, things will tend to form a tangled mess. In the examples you're describing, there is no effort to keep things in a nested hierarchy and so things may not be or stay in a nested hierarchy. Likewise, a tangled mess is exactly what we would expect if UCD is true, there is no effort to put and keep things in a nested hierarchy, natural selection does not care to do so (it only cares about survival). So this alleged nested hierarchy is exactly what we would not expect to see if UCD is true.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 12:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize It is arbitrary, as demonstrated by the fact that they arbitrarily re - arrange the hierarchy when they found out that bats are more genetically similar to horses than cows. The specific placement of bats in the mammal hierarchy has always been controversial because of a lack of morphological data. However, no one has ever nested bats anywhere else but within the mammal clade. Why is that? quote: Not necessarily. If an ERV infected two separate linages (which is more rare but the bird flue has been known to infect humans for example) this could cause a violation. We are talking about ORTHOLOGOUS ERV'S. Pay attention now. When a retrovirus inserts itself into the host genome it does so among thousands and thousands of insertion sites. If ERV's were produced by independent insertions then they should not be found in the same position in the genome (i.e. orthologous) more than once every thousand or so insertions. Of the 200,000 ERV's found in the human genome less than a hundred are not found in the same genomic position in chimps. This is the exact opposite of what we would expect from independent insertion. This is exactly what we see with PtERV insertions. This retrovirus is found in many ape species, but not all. For instance, it is found in chimps and macaques but not in humans. Given the distribution of PtERV insertions evolution predicts that they should NOT be found at orthologous positions, and this prediction is found to be accurate. It is the genomic position of ERV's which evidences common ancestry. quote: Also, since genes from ERV's aren't normally subject to natural selection, there is no reason for random mutation to preserve their sequences and they could get blurred among the various lineages, again, ruining the nested hierarchy. They would become equally blurred in each lineage. quote: Secondly, you're still missing the point. While it may not be able to spread to another species horizontally, it's possible for one person to have a genetic sequence by an ERV, have a brother without that sequence, yet have a cousin with that sequence. These people may further diversify into all separate species forming nested hierarchy violations where two more closely related species don't share a common trait with two species of a further relationship. This is a possibility, but a rare one. There are two instances of this that I know of that involve ERV-K insertions in chimps, humans, and gorillas. However, two violations among 200,000 confirmations seems to tip the scales towards ERV's either moving towards fixation or removal quite quickly. Also, there are very few human ERV's that have not reached fixation in the human population, a tiny percentage of the 200,000 total ERV's. quote: You're still missing the point. There is no reason for UCD to predict a nested hierarchy because we don't see any within the same specie. Remember what I said about horizontal and vertical transfer? There is horizontal transfer within species. However, there is not horizontal transfer between species. Therefore, a nested hierarchy is expected between species but not within species. quote: You're still missing the point. The point is that commonalities are not evidence for UCD. Specific patterns of commanlities are evidence of common descent. quote: No, design can produce a nested hierarchy, there is no reason why it can't. You're still missing the point, commonalities are not evidence for UCD. There is no reason that design can not produce a non-nested hierarchy. Everything that humans design (eg cars, planes, trains) do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 12:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Yes, but humans often like to structure concepts into a nested hierarchy for convenience. Let's do this for automobiles. First, let's group them by manufacturer. We have Fords, Chevrolets, Dodges, to keep it simple. Now, let's break down the automobiles made by each manufacturer. We can break them down into cars, SUV's, and trucks. Already we have a problem. Not all cars are Fords and not all SUV's are Chevrolets. A nested hierarchy is violated right away. It get's even worse when we look at engines and car models where engines can be moved into many models. quote: Our computer directories are structures into a nested hierarchy (a file within a folder within a folder, etc...), many organizations are structured into a nested hierarchy (5 people report to one boss, five of those bosses report to a higher boss, etc... until you reach the CEO), and we try to structure living organisms into some arbitrary nested hierarchy to make it easier to classify and identify organisms. Computer directories can have an identical file in many different branches, violating a nested hierarchy. Organizations can have members that serve in several branches that are not joined, again violating the nested hierarchy. If you can name one bird that has three middle ear bones I will agree with you that the nested hierarchy is arbitrary. quote: The thing is that it takes predetermined effort to put things in a nested hierarchy and often to keep them in a nested hierarchy as well. It does take effort, which is probably why creationists have such a tough time understanding them. However, nested hierarchies follow rules that are independent of any conclusion. Linnaeus discovered the nested hierarchy of life and he was a creationist. He did this work before Darwin was even born. No one is forcing anything into a nested hierarchy. quote: Without a conscious effort by a designer, things will tend to form a tangled mess. In the examples you're describing, there is no effort to keep things in a nested hierarchy and so things may not be or stay in a nested hierarchy. Likewise, a tangled mess is exactly what we would expect if UCD is true, there is no effort to put and keep things in a nested hierarchy, natural selection does not care to do so (it only cares about survival). So this alleged nested hierarchy is exactly what we would not expect to see if UCD is true. The absence of horizontal genetic transfer is what produces a nested hierarchy and keeps it from being a tangled mess. Among prokaryotes there is horizontal gene transfer and relationships do resemble a tangled mess. However, among primates there is no horizontal gene transfer, only vertical gene transfer. Therefore evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy and this is exactly what we see with orthologous ERV's.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 1:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method This is a possibility, but a rare one. There are two instances of this that I know of that involve ERV-K insertions in chimps, humans, and gorillas. However, two violations among 200,000 confirmations seems to tip the scales towards ERV's either moving towards fixation or removal quite quickly. Also, there are very few human ERV's that have not reached fixation in the human population, a tiny percentage of the 200,000 total ERV's. The problem here is that you are assuming UCD to be true. You are saying it's a rare possibility based on the evidence we already observe to be there. However, if UCD is true we would expect to see it more often for reasons I already gave. So if it weren't rare, that would be evidence for UCD. The fact that it is rare is evidence against UCD. Like I already pointed out, UCD never forms a nested hierarchy within a species so there is no reason to suppose that it should form one outside the species. You are only saying it is a rare possibility because we don't see patterns that would indicate it has occurred among various groups of organisms; however, this does not mean that it would not be expected to occur. It would be expected to occur because we see it occurring very often within a specie so when the species branch off to other species they should likewise form no such hierarchy. Your argument assumes that chimps, humans, and gorillas share a common ancestor when the very purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not they do. You are saying that because such violations are rare among these organisms this is what UCD predicts but you haven't actually demonstrated that this is what UCD would predict and I have given good reason why it's what UCD would not predict. quote: The specific placement of bats in the mammal hierarchy has always been controversial because of a lack of morphological data. No, it's not that it has always been controversial, it's that they found a violation in one arbitrary hierarchy and arbitrarily re - arranged the hierarchy to some other arbitrary hierarchy. They arbitrarily place these organisms in some hierarchy and arbitrarily re - arrange them as violations are found to form some other arbitrary hierarchy. quote: However, no one has ever nested bats anywhere else but within the mammal clade. Why is that? Because we already know they have characteristics of what humans define to be a mammal, but this doesn't indicate common ancestry. However, we found a violation and arbitrarily re - arranged the hierarchy based on previously unknown characteristics showing that the arbitrary hierarchies we form have nothing to do with their alleged relationships. Likewise, there is no reason to believe mammals share a common ancestor. quote: They would become equally blurred in each lineage. Not necessarily. If they all become blurred there would be no nested hierarchy, it would just be a tangled mess, however there are many different sections of the genome that could become blurred. The genome as a whole would become about equally blurred with each lineage, but this section may not within one horizontal linage and may become blurred within another, forming violations.

Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 1:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize The problem here is that you are assuming UCD to be true. You are saying it's a rare possibility based on the evidence we already observe. However, if UCD is true we would expect to see it more often for reasons I already gave. Betta, Uncommon Descent is true. You are the one who does not believe what you are being shown. Also, if Common Descent could be seen then one should also be able to see mountain ranges being formed. But, in order to witness the eruption of mountain ranges, you would have to live the same amount of years to observe the event as you would to observe evolution acting out what we see indisputable evidence for.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 1:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Remember what I said about horizontal and vertical transfer? There is horizontal transfer within species. However, there is not horizontal transfer between species. Therefore, a nested hierarchy is expected between species but not within species. One those species further speciate there is no reason they should form a nested hierarchy (for reasons already explained above). If they don't form a nested hierarchy within species they should not speciate to form any sort of nested hierarchy. quote: Specific patterns of commanlities are evidence of common descent. Why? How specific and why that specific? Humans can make objects with specific patterns of commonalities that don't share a common ancestor. quote: There is no reason that design can not produce a non-nested hierarchy. Everything that humans design (eg cars, planes, trains) do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Design can produce either or. However, there is no reason for unguided processes to produce a nested hierarchy. quote: First, let's group them by manufacturer. We have Fords, Chevrolets, Dodges, to keep it simple. Now, let's break down the automobiles made by each manufacturer. We can break them down into cars, SUV's, and trucks. Already we have a problem. Not all cars are Fords and not all SUV's are Chevrolets. A nested hierarchy is violated right away. It get's even worse when we look at engines and car models where engines can be moved into many models. Again, in your example there is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy. Likewise, with evolution, there is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy so we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. Natural selection does not care to produce a nested hierarchy, it only cares about survival. quote: Computer directories can have an identical file in many different branches, violating a nested hierarchy. Organizations can have members that serve in several branches that are not joined, again violating the nested hierarchy. Which is exactly why it often takes a conscious effort to (create and) maintain a nested hierarchy, as already stated before. Natural selection does not consciously try to (create or) maintain a nested hierarchy (it only cares about survival) so if evolution were true we would not expect to see one. quote: However, nested hierarchies follow rules that are independent of any conclusion. And unguided natural processes do not care to follow such rules. quote: The absence of horizontal genetic transfer is what produces a nested hierarchy and keeps it from being a tangled mess. Among prokaryotes there is horizontal gene transfer and relationships do resemble a tangled mess. However, among primates there is no horizontal gene transfer, only vertical gene transfer. Therefore evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy and this is exactly what we see with orthologous ERV's. Again, you are assuming evolution to be true. We never observe speciation produce this alleged nested hierarchy, we never observe a nested hierarchy within a specie so there is no reason for them to branch into a nested hierarchy.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 1:58:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Betta, Uncommon Descent is true. I agree (though you probably just had a typo). quote: You are the one who does not believe what you are being shown. Also, if Common Descent could be seen then one should also be able to see mountain ranges being formed. But, in order to witness the eruption of mountain ranges, you would have to live the same amount of years to observe the event as you would to observe evolution acting out what we see indisputable evidence for. What?

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 3:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize One those species further speciate there is no reason they should form a nested hierarchy (for reasons already explained above). If they don't form a nested hierarchy within species they should not speciate to form any sort of nested hierarchy. Again, it is about horizontal and vertical genetic transfer. There is horizontal transfer between lineages within a species. There is no horizontal transfer between lineages in different species. For separate species there is no way for an ERV insertion to be inherited between species. Therefore, orthologous ERV's can only be explained by shared ancestry through vertical transfer. A nested hierarchy IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME. quote: quote: Specific patterns of commanlities are evidence of common descent. Why? How specific and why that specific? Humans can make objects with specific patterns of commonalities that don't share a common ancestor. A nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution. quote: Design can produce either or. However, there is no reason for unguided processes to produce a nested hierarchy. Given the known mechanisms of inheritance, mutation, and retroviral insertion the only pattern that would be produced by common ancestry and subsequent speciation is a nested hierarchy. Period. Please show me how I am wrong. quote: Again, in your example there is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy. Likewise, with evolution, there is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy so we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. Natural selection does not care to produce a nested hierarchy, it only cares about survival. A river makes no conscious decision to move downhill, and yet it does so with predictable consistency. Just like a river, the only pattern that can be produced by the observed system of inheritance, retroviral insertion, and speciation is a nested hierarchy. quote: Which is exactly why it often takes a conscious effort to (create and) maintain a nested hierarchy, as already stated before. The lack of horizontal transfer between species is what maintains a non-nested hierarchy. In fact, it takes conscious effort on the part of geneticists to violate the nested hierarchies. For example, Glofish violate the nested hierarchy and they are the direct product of hard work on the part of scientists. quote: quote: However, nested hierarchies follow rules that are independent of any conclusion. And unguided natural processes do not care to follow such rules. But unguided natural processes DO FOLLOW RULES. A mutation that occurs in chimps is not transferred to humans through inheritance. That rule is followed. It is that rule, along with the rule which retroviruses follow, that produce a nested hierarchy. quote: Again, you are assuming evolution to be true. We never observe speciation produce this alleged nested hierarchy, we never observe a nested hierarchy within a specie so there is no reason for them to branch into a nested hierarchy. We observe the production of genetically isolated populations. The accumulation of lineage specific mutations is an unavoidable consequence of genetic isolation. There is every reason for this process to produce a nested hierarchy.

Aristocrat -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 3:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat Betta, Uncommon Descent is true. I agree (though you probably just had a typo). It was more than a typo, hon. It was a total blond moment. [:D] quote: You are the one who does not believe what you are being shown. Also, if Common Descent could be seen then one should also be able to see mountain ranges being formed. But, in order to witness the eruption of mountain ranges, you would have to live the same amount of years to observe the event as you would to observe evolution acting out what we see indisputable evidence for. What? What.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 3:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method A nested hierarchy IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME. I already demonstrated why this is not true. quote: A nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution. No it's not. quote: Given the known mechanisms of inheritance, mutation, and retroviral insertion the only pattern that would be produced by common ancestry and subsequent speciation is a nested hierarchy. Period. Please show me how I am wrong. See above. It's possible for two brothers not to share a trait that someone shares with his cousin and for those three people to diversify into different species, leading to violations. quote: Just like a river, the only pattern that can be produced by the observed system of inheritance, retroviral insertion, and speciation is a nested hierarchy. This is not true. quote: The lack of horizontal transfer between species is what maintains a non-nested hierarchy. In fact, it takes conscious effort on the part of geneticists to violate the nested hierarchies. For example, Glofish violate the nested hierarchy and they are the direct product of hard work on the part of scientists. There is no reason why UCD predicts a a nested hierarchy. quote: But unguided natural processes DO FOLLOW RULES. A mutation that occurs in chimps is not transferred to humans through inheritance. That rule is followed. It is that rule, along with the rule which retroviruses follow, that produce a nested hierarchy. No, they do not produce a nested hierarchy, they produce violations. quote: We observe the production of genetically isolated populations. The accumulation of lineage specific mutations is an unavoidable consequence of genetic isolation. There is every reason for this process to produce a nested hierarchy. There is no reason to produce a nested hierarchy. Species don't produce is so when they speciate those subspecies should not be arranged in a nested hierarchy.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 3:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method A nested hierarchy IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME. I already demonstrated why this is not true. Where? Let's focus on this for right now if that's ok with you. quote: See above. It's possible for two brothers not to share a trait that someone shares with his cousin and for those three people to diversify into different species, leading to violations. Brothers and cousins are in the same species. I am a talking about a nested hierarchy of species. Also, how do you explain the 200,000 orthologous ERV's that they do share? Independent insertion or common ancestry? Do you really think that they were each infected 200,000 times in the womb and those insertions just happened to end up in the same spots in their genome? quote: There is no reason why UCD predicts a a nested hierarchy. Let's use ERV's as an example. Let's say that a gorilla has a retrovirus insert into one of it's germ line cells and that insertion is inherited by one of it's offspring. How does that insertion get into humans at the same exact spot in the genome? quote: No, they do not produce a nested hierarchy, they produce violations. Care to explain how a lack of horizontal genetic transfer between species can produce a non-nested hierarchy? How does this happen? quote: There is no reason to produce a nested hierarchy. Species don't produce is so when they speciate those subspecies should not be arranged in a nested hierarchy. Are you saying that after two populations become isolated from one another they stop accumulating mutations, including ERV's? This is a new one on me.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 4:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Brothers and cousins are in the same species. I am a talking about a nested hierarchy of species. Again, if they speciate, there is no reason for them to produce a nested hierarchy. They would produce violations where species more distant would have commonalities not shared by more closely related species. quote: Let's say that a gorilla has a retrovirus insert into one of it's germ line cells and that insertion is inherited by one of it's offspring. How does that insertion get into humans at the same exact spot in the genome? You're still not understanding what I'm trying to say. If the gorilla has the sequence yet it has a brother without the sequence and a cousin with the sequence and all three speciate they could form violations where more closely related organisms don't share characteristics that organisms with a further relationship do share. quote: Care to explain how a lack of horizontal genetic transfer between species can produce a non-nested hierarchy? How does this happen? Already explained. quote: Are you saying that after two populations become isolated from one another they stop accumulating mutations, including ERV's? This is a new one on me. No, I am merely saying it's possible for two populations with a further relationship to share genetic sequences that two populations with a closer relationship don't share, again, producing violations. Evolution does not produce a nested hierarchy on the specie level so when those organisms speciate there is no reason for it to produce a nested hierarchy.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 4:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method Brothers and cousins are in the same species. I am a talking about a nested hierarchy of species. Again, if they speciate, there is no reason for them to produce a nested hierarchy. They would produce violations where species more distant would have commonalities not shared by more closely related species. If who speciates? Also, you keep failing to take into account the 200,000 ERV's that these brothers and cousins DO share. quote: quote: Let's say that a gorilla has a retrovirus insert into one of it's germ line cells and that insertion is inherited by one of it's offspring. How does that insertion get into humans at the same exact spot in the genome? You're still not understanding what I'm trying to say. If the gorilla has the sequence yet it has a brother without the sequence and a cousin with the sequence and all three speciate they could form violations where more closely related organisms don't share characteristics that organisms with a further relationship do share. That would be one ERV out of around 200,000 that did not fit the pattern. ALL gorillas share hundreds of thousands of ERV's just like humans and chimps. After they speciate the number of ERV's that would accumulate in each lineage would soon outnumber the violations caused by homoplasy. quote: quote: Are you saying that after two populations become isolated from one another they stop accumulating mutations, including ERV's? This is a new one on me. No, I am merely saying it's possible for two populations with a further relationship to share genetic sequences that two populations with a closer relationship don't share, again, producing violations. So each lineage would accumulate ERV's not found in the other species, correct? So we would see many lineage specific insertions that do fall into a nested hierarchy.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 4:24:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Also, you keep failing to take into account the 200,000 ERV's that these brothers and cousins DO share. I'm referring to recently acquired ERV's not allegedly ancient ones. Assuming those are ancient ERV's, again, when the ancestors who received them speciate there is no reason for them to have formed any sort of nested hierarchy. We don't ever see species forming nested hierarchies so when they speciate they shouldn't form them either. It's not that I'm failing to consider them it's that they're irrelevant since you're assuming they are the product of UCD. quote: That would be one ERV out of around 200,000 that did not fit the pattern. ALL gorillas share hundreds of thousands of ERV's just like humans and chimps. After they speciate the number of ERV's that would accumulate in each lineage would soon outnumber the violations caused by homoplasy. It shouldn't produce any such hierarchy. They would speciate into all different directions forming all sorts of violations, just like the violations that we see within a specie. Yes, this is just one example, but there should be many such examples, there is nothing stopping many such examples from occurring, especially over millions of years. quote: So each lineage would accumulate ERV's not found in the other species, correct? So we would see many lineage specific insertions that do fall into a nested hierarchy. We would see many violations for reasons I mentioned above.

Method -> RE: "Where is your evidence?" (11/7/2007 4:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method Also, you keep failing to take into account the 200,000 ERV's that these brothers and cousins DO share. I'm referring to recently acquired ERV's not allegedly ancient ones. Assuming those are ancient ERV's, again, when the ancestors who received them speciate there is no reason for them to have formed any sort of nested hierarchy. We don't ever see species forming nested hierarchies so when they speciate they shouldn't form them either. It's not that I'm failing to consider them it's that they're irrelevant since you're assuming they are the product of UCD. You are trying to use modern examples to show that speciation would not produce a nested hierarchy in the absence of horizontal transfer using ERV's specifically. If you are using modern examples then you must include all 200,000 ERV's, not just the handful that differ between any individual human. If you include all ERV's, as any model should, then it becomes quite apparent that after millions of years these lineages will still share hundreds of thousands of ERV's even though they have not interbred in all that time. Each lineage will also have ERV's not found in the other lineage due to accumulation of those ERV's since they diverged. Let's call these lineages A and B. At this point let's say that lineage B splits once again into lineage C. That lineage will have the lineage B specific ERV's that accumulated since the split from lineage A as well as the ERV's shared between lineage A and lineage B. After a few million years all three lineages will accumulate lineage specific ERV's but all three lineages will share ERV's from the common ancestor of all three lineages (the common ancestor of lineages A and B) and lineages B and C will share ERV's that accumulated before the divergence of lineage C. Voila, a nested hierarchy. quote: It shouldn't produce any such hierarchy. They would speciate into all different directions forming all sorts of violations, just like the violations that we see within a specie. Only if individual ERV's outnumbered shared ERV's. They don't.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI