Thanks for the info and correction. I am guessing that polyphyletic is another term @Meerkat_SK5 may not understand.
2 Likes
Thus removing the main aspect of what constitutes a species and guaranteeing that anything you write about ‘species’ will be misunderstood.
I would ask whether you’re remotely interested in accurate communications, except I already know you aren’t:
No they did not.
They wrote in their abstract that “Closer examination of the biological significance of phylogenomic conflict may yield improved connections between micro- and macroevolution and increase our understanding of the processes that shape the origin of major lineages across the Tree of Life.”
I don’t for a single second believe that you have read the actual paper, as opposed to just the abstract, or have any knowledge whatsoever about what the authors concluded within it. Nor do I believe you will ever stop lying about your sources.
2 Likes
Organisms don’t have taxonomic ranks. Ranks are properties of the taxa.
It might be helpful if you looked it up before posting again.
1 Like
We’re all in the cellular life kind.
2 Likes
For what it’s worth, I’ll suport the flood as a key component of the theology of the Hebrew Bible! 
@Meerkat_SK5 , if by support for the flood you mean YEC Flood Geology, run brother!! The only thing that stuff supports is that we Christians will go to crazy lengths to try to hold on to our traditions and misreadings of the Bible.
8 Likes
Don’t worry. In ten minutes he’ll claim that he never meant to suggest that there was support for the story, and then ten minutes later will say that he only said there was support for it because he knew that was wrong but wanted others to help him understand exactly how wrong, and then he will misquote an abstract about the channeled scablands of Washington State as support, and then he’ll say that he never meant to cite that paper and hasn’t read it anyway, and then he’ll go back to the beginning and start all over again.
By the way, kinds are within species. Except when they’re not. Except I didn’t mean to say that. Except you keep misconstruing everything I say. Except I didn’t mean that, either. But species are also within kinds. Wait. No, I didn’t mean to argue that, I just wanted to find out how wrong it was. Except it’s true. Right?
8 Likes
Can Meerkat’s Common Design model be useful? No!
IMO this thread has outlived its usefulness as the question in its title has been properly investigated and answered.
9 Likes
Waitaminute please …
You asked questions of me and I responded (see comment #151). To sum up, it’s hard to even pose a scientific question about common design, and you haven’t stated what should be falsified by functional convergence. Without meaning to be critical, I think you are asking the wrong questions. This is why I keep going on about specificity, because no answer can be sufficient until you first understand the question.
4 Likes
I agree. I meant it from an OEC/ local or worldwide flood.
1 Like
Keep in mind, I specifically said, “Under the common design model, species is defined as…”
In other words, I am not trying to follow the mainstream definition of species under a common descent model, but define it under my model, which is designed to be a departing of the mainstream model.
So what is the actual underlying issue here?
The main problem is that your definition is a moving target. Your latest definition is:
“Moreover, it is the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.”
As @John_Harshman stated, this would put horses and donkeys in separate species. Do you agree with this? Would you expect a hybrid between a house cat and a tiger to be fertile, or even viable?
2 Likes
No, by all means be critical if you feel it will be helpful or force me to end this topic or model again.
I actually did pose the question on common design: What if all living organisms have a common design from a universal common designer?
Are you saying this is the wrong question? If so, why?
In regards to falsifying it, I have already explained how on my previous topic. Lenski’s experiment (or something like it) would potentially falsify the common design model.
At this point the only thing worth talking about is the complete incoherence and incomprehensibility of your message. Nobody understands what you’re trying to say, and you seem incapable of expressing it.
2 Likes
It depends on what you mean by separate species. If you mean they have no common ancestor or were created de novo, then I don’t agree with his assessment.
NO, which is why I would classify them as different kinds of cats. But, I understand that there should be another classification term to be more clear and accurate.
If anyone can explain it, I’ll give him sixpence. I don’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it.
2 Likes
Keep in mind that formulating/proposing a coherent model should never require the redefinition of already well-defined terms. Why not coin a new term for this (to date ill-defined) concept?
3 Likes
My vocabulary may get messy here, so I apologize if I make the mess worse.
I think Meerkat wants to come up with a hypothesis and model that proposes groups of organisms where each group comes from its own common de novo created ancestor. I believe that in his mind there isn’t one tree, but lots of trees, each with its own de novo created ancestor.
Essentially, he recognizes that ID isn’t accepted science. So, he’s trying to take ID’s ideas and create hypotheses and models so that ID’s ideas can be tested. And he has come to real scientists to get feedback on his endeavor.
When I think about it this way, I can appreciate what Meerkat is trying to do, even if it’s an errand doomed to fail. ID seems to spawn lots of non-experts wading into some deep waters. In my short time here I’ve seen more than one person who is not a scientist pop up to present some ID ideas to the group. I took note of a couple who stated that they were engineers because I’m an engineer. My thought when I saw those posts was, “friend, I think you and I have the same education, and there is NO WAY that I’m ready to move the science of biology forward!”
5 Likes
You explained nada. You only demonstrated your profound misunderstanding of Lenski’s LTEE. Forget it man, you have no case.
2 Likes
No, it depends on what YOU mean by separate species. That’s what we are trying to figure out.
So you agree that separate species can share a common ancestor?
But they are still cats, aren’t they? Doesn’t that put them in the same kind? Do you believe that the house cat and tigers share a common ancestor?
3 Likes
Again, we can turn that experiment into something that directly tests my model, which makes it in principle testable.