Can a Common Design model be useful?

Conversation
, ,
81

Read the bottom of this source to see what I mean:

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good. (biblehub.com)

I just looked up the definition of species on wikipedia and realized that it is actually how I would define species. :man_facepalming:

I guess the actual objection I have stems from the examples evolutionists would use to support their definition, such as wooly mammoths being a separate species.

Again, read this for more:

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. (biblehub.com)

Again, we are merely using genesis as a starting point for further investigation. Ultimately, it will be the common design model’s confirmed predictions through observations and experiments that we use to parse species and kinds. In other words, scientific evidence will make the determination not special revelations .

82

I don’t understand how a grouping of animals that’s based on something non-scientific could be useful as a starting point for scientific investigation, hypothesis writing, model making and testing?

Here’s an attempt from someone who is not a scientist (me) at an observation about how your exercise relates to science: I believe that scientific investigation usually begins with observations made while doing science that stoke curiosity, which leads to doing more science. It seems like you’re starting in the wrong place. You’re a non-expert, not doing science yet pressing forward with attempts at hypotheses and models.

Wouldn’t it be better to start with research, investigation and experimentation that would lead to learning and observation about the natural world? And then allow ideas about how things work to flow from there?

My professional life requires that I only, legally, practice in an area of my expertise. Maybe that makes me sensitive to what you’re doing. But it appears like you’re playing at hypotheses and models with no expertise, and without attempting to do science.

Relating this to my profession, what you’re doing is like coming to me for advice about construction plans for developing a city block that you drew based on your reading of 1 Kings 6. Actually what you’re doing is worse, because 1000 BC engineering techniques and practices are much closer to what I do than Gen. 1 is to 21st century Biology.

4 Likes
83

Yes that is actually what I meant by “starting point” in regards to the common design model I crafted through research. Sorry for the confusion. Genesis is just there to define species for some of the users that asked for it but it is a definition that is not set in stone.

84

And yet none of your citations have anything to do with those portions of the tree of life with which any of your other remarks are concerned. Funny, that. But then, you probably didn’t read them, so wouldn’t know that.

It conflicts with your statements about such categories as humans, carnivorous mammals, herbivorous mammals and “creepy crawling animals” being separate creations. Since all of those groups are already known to share common ancestry, they cannot be.

Once again, I’ve said absolutely NOTHING about universal common descent. Nothing. And yet you keep bringing it up for some reason as though it has something to do with something I’ve said.

What utter tosh. If it is neither true nor a better explanation than common descent, it is of no use.

Cheeky! No, indeed. Since nothing you’ve said here has made a lick of sense, there’s nothing much to “concede.”

Your entire challenge to common descent lies outside the range of anything “already challenged by the data.” There’s no genuine dispute whatsoever that every group you’ve named shares common ancestry with every other group you’ve named.

5 Likes
85

No it isn’t. Everything you have said about species contradicts the usual definitions. (There are many, and I don’t know which one you are talking about now, but they all give fairly similar results.) And you have never answered my questions: What does “species” mean to you? What does “kind” mean? How are they different? Are there really kinds within species or was that not what you meant to say?

The bottom of the source doesn’t say what you think it does. According to that source, any large animal in the sea would count. Crocodiles, sea turtles, whale sharks, giant squid, plesiosaurs, and the various imaginary sea monsters mentioned in the bible. Further, it’s not just the big ones; it’s also every other sea animal. Or weren’t fish and shrimp created?

So we’re back to not knowing what you think a species is. How many different species of elephant do you think are now living? How many extinct species of elephant are there? How would you tell? And why this obsession with mammoths?

Why should we do that?

What predictions of the common design model will be useful in parsing species and kinds? What is a species? What is a kind? How do they differ?

You persist in ignoring the most basic questions. The answer to the title question is clearly “no”.

4 Likes
86

And most of them aren’t groups either. By his categories of long-legged mammals that can be tamed and long-legged mammals that can’t, horses and zebras are separate kinds.

4 Likes
87

That is completely unrelated to my point, so either you didn’t understand it or you’re trying to avoid it.

Then stop using the term “species”, because it doesn’t mean that.

I read that source before I replied to you. It explicitly mentions non-mammalian animals:

All birds and mammals are part of the nephesh . A very few reptilian species—for example, crocodiles and alligators—are part of the nephesh.

It does not mention short or long legs.

Wow.

Poppycock. RTB do not say that crocodiles are mammals. That piece of idiocy is yours, and yours alone.

You’re clearly not qualified to do so.

5 Likes
88

That’s what I am asking for: a phylogeny based on observations, such as those that already exist for the evolutionary model (see below). The idea of common ancestry has only existed for just over a century. The idea of “Created Kinds” has existed for millennia before that. With such a head start, one would expect phylogenies to already exist based on that idea. So why can I not find any?

4 Likes
89

Yes, but the common design model can equally explain all those shared features. So the evidence does not conflict with common design. It is your interpretation that conflicts with it.

Oh, I see. The supposed evidence you are referring to that conflicts with common design is the scientific consensus. Sorry, I don’t think this is strong enough evidence against my model. Give me observations and experiments showing a conflict.

Prove it then. Create another topic showing how you are right.

I agree with this definition:

A species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as 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.
I think “kinds” would be classified as genera, family and orders.

Why is defining species or kinds a priori important to you? why not allow observations and experiments define it instead?

Because you asked for me to define what a species or kinds is and the bible is a proven method for investigating history and certain aspects of natural history.

Here is my major prediction from the common design model:

"One might imagine that as scientists continue to sequence more and more environmental samples or newly discovered organisms, some organisms will emerge that do not fit nested hierarchies already in place.

Newly discovered (and sequenced) organisms should fit into the ever-bushier plethora of nested hierarchies depicting evolution’s common descent from the last universal common ancestor in the evolutionary model.

In contrast, if true, progressive creationism would predict that independent hierarchies may be discovered."

For example, as AJ points out… " Eglit and her colleagues were able to isolate single cells and sequence transcriptomes (RNA sequences) from the two captured hemimastigotes: Hemimastiix and Spironema. 3 Previous observations had placed hemimastigotes in a phylum of eukaryotes designated as Hemimastigophora.4 The Hemimastigophora were thought to be similar to Euglenophyta (euglenids) or perhaps alveolates or Rhizaria (Sar), apusomonads or ancyromonads (Amorphea+) based on shared morphological features.5

After isolating and characterizing the newly collected hemimastigotes but prior to sequencing their intracellular RNAs (transcriptomes), Eglit and colleagues made some bets on which supergroup their newly sequenced organisms would fall into. Following extensive bioinformatic clean-up, phylogenomic trees comparing the new sequences to existing eukaryotic sequences revealed that no one won the bet.6 Hemimastigotes did not fall within any previously characterized major group of eukaryotes . They represented a supergroup, now designated as a new supra-kingdom, of their own.7

This current hemimastigote study does not compare genomes; it compares concatenated gene sets from existing eukaryotic sequences and extensively culled transcriptome sequences. Nevertheless, it provides enough data to indicate that a new supergroup of organisms exists that are “always distantly related”8 to other known eukaryotes. Certainly, this finding can be fit into an evolutionary interpretation of the data. However, researchers do so with statistically based inferences, a degree of subjectivity, a degree of uncertainty, and speculation, as indicated by the authors, methods, and supporting phylogenomic analyses.9 Evolutionary interpretations are always possible. However, the data in this study suggests that an independent hierarchy of organisms has been discovered and is now partially described. It also highlights some possible molecular archetypes such as Golgi and cytoskeletal proteins and additional proteins involved in membrane trafficking.

Regardless of whether evolution or progressive creationism is true, this study shows that some model features may be predicted, but others are not predictable and must simply be discovered. This is the nature of reality and is a first principle for progressive creationism."

Revision of the Family Spironemidae Doflein (Protista, Hemimastigophora), With Description of Two New Species, Spironema Terricola N. Sp. and Stereonema Geiseri N, G., N. Sp. - FOISSNER - 1993 - Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology - Wiley Online Library

Read my reply to John

90

Indeed. I remain particularly impressed with the notion of “creepy crawling animals” as a taxon.

2 Likes
91

This is similar to the observation in @Winston_Ewert work. Unique gene sets that show some deviation from the tree pattern…

92

That reply would suggest you believe “Kinds” are divided at the supra-kingdom level. Is that really what you believe? i.e. that all eukaryotes, save Hemimastigophora, belong to the same “kind”?

1 Like
93

No, you’re wrong there. The only way “common design” can be made consistent with those shared features is by a limitless series of ad hoc “the Designer, Hallowed Be His Name, must have wanted it to look like there was common descent.”

No, the evidence isn’t the consensus. The consensus is based upon the evidence. And while everyone has the right to his opinion, no matter how ill-founded, your “I don’t think this is strong enough” statement doesn’t sound that good coming from a guy who thinks that “creepy crawling animals” are a “species” and who is capable of reading a species definition and STILL not understanding how ludicrous that is.

I don’t think you’re ready to understand anything about phylogeny. You’ve not shown any interest in phylogenetic concepts, and certainly have shown a complete lack of knowledge of them. So while those observations are indeed out there, it’s hardly my particular job here to point them out to you. You should follow my previous advice and try to remedy your colossal ignorance on these matters. A good start would be a college textbook on the diversity of some major group of creatures – I have previously recommended Janis et al’s textbook Vertebrate Life (and you do seem to be more interested in the vertebrates than in other creatures, so that would fit nicely), but there are any number of other works that would do. Colin Tudge’s The Variety of Life, though a bit dated at this point, does a really nice job of explaining basic phylogenetic concepts and methods AND laying out the relationships between living groups. If you’d like to better understand the origins of mammals, Kemp’s Origin and Evolution of Mammals is a good start if a bit technical at times.

When you’ve understood the evidence for common descent, instead of just hand-waving it off, you’ll see the monumental task that sits in your path. Until you’ve understood that evidence, you can contribute nothing on the subject, as this thread demonstrates.

But I’m just pointing out to you what scientists have already demonstrated. It’s not a matter of “me” being right. I could change my mind, and it would alter nothing but my own credibility as a thinker.

And so, you should probably familiarize yourself with what scientists think about these things, and why. And that’s your job. It’s not mine, and it’s not science’s. It may come as news, but the fact is that the mission of science is not to convince every last angry crank. The mission is to explore the phenomena under investigation and to develop a better understanding. And so when you display, as you have time and again, woeful, contemptible ignorance, you really can’t expect people to take their time to educate you on matters where you could easily educate yourself. Go read, come back with good questions about phylogenetics, and someone (probably someone with actual expertise in phylogenetics!) will answer them. I have found scientists to be remarkably helpful when I have questions.

But, no. Your attitude is common among creationists, and highly regrettable. It reminds me of the classic Zippy comic, where the “normal way” is contrasted with the “Zippy way” of doing various tasks. One is a job interview. In the “normal way” panel, a young man expresses his enthusiasm for working in a retail chain and learning the business and perhaps working his way up to manager. In the “Zippy way” panel, Zippy sits with his feet up on the interviewer’s desk and demands, “Massage my feet while I decide whether capitalism or communism is better!” Alas, while it’s funnier to see, you will find that the Zippy way doesn’t actually produce useful results.

…and there you are again, mucking about in the origin of eukaryotic groups the names of which you probably didn’t know ten minutes ago, and citing this stuff as though it has some bearing upon the subject of your claims, which is the phylogeny of big metazoans.

I have news for you. Nobody ever sequences the genome of the spider monkey and discovers that they’re more closely related to spiders than to monkeys. Phylogenetic disputes within large-animal groups such as those you are interested in tend to be on the level of “there’s an unresolved polytomy between Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, and Carnivora – are the ungulates a clade with Carnivora as a sister group, or do the Carnivora emerge amid the ungulates?” That’s about ten million miles from “is Carnivora, minus its herbivorous members and plus carnivorous animals not members of Carnivora (e.g., the Tasmanian Devil), a natural grouping, and did it spring from an act of special creation?”

5 Likes
94

Once again, we see a complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the fundamental concept of evidence.

8 Likes
95

Do these definitions work?

Evidence: Definition and Types

Evidence is used at trials to prove or disprove certain facts that would tend to show whether something was true or not. There are four types evidence by which facts can be proven or disproven at trial which include:

  1. Real evidence;
  2. Demonstrative evidence;
  3. Documentary evidence; and
  4. Testimonial evidence.

Not all of these types of evidence carry the same weight at trial. For instance, real evidence may be more believable than demonstrative evidence. It’s the jury’s role to weigh each type of evidence and make a determination as to the believability of the evidence presented.

Real Evidence

Real evidence, often called physical evidence, consists of material items involved in a case, objects and things the jury can physically hold and inspect. Examples of real evidence include fingerprints, blood samples, DNA, a knife, a gun, and other physical objects.

Real evidence is usually admitted because it tends to prove or disprove an issue of fact in a trial. Real evidence is usually involved in an event central to the case, such as a murder weapon, clothing of a victim, narcotics or fingerprints.

In order to be used at trial, real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic. The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites is called laying a foundation, accomplished by calling witnesses who establish the item’s chain of custody.

Demonstrative Evidence

Demonstrative evidence, usually charts and diagrams, demonstrate or illustrate the testimony of a witness. It’s admissible when it fairly and accurately reflects the witness’s testimony and is more probative than prejudicial. Maps, diagrams of a crime scene, charts and graphs that illustrate physical or financial injury to a plaintiff are examples of demonstrative evidence. Witnesses create and use demonstrative evidence at trial, and opposing counsel may use the same evidence to prove contrary positions.

Documentary Evidence

The production of documents at trial is documentary evidence which is presented to prove or disprove certain allegations at trial. These documents can be from a vast number of sources from diaries, letters, contracts, newspapers, and any other type of document that you can think of. There are restrictions and qualifications for using documents at trial as there is a need to make sure they are authentic and trustworthy.

Testimonial Evidence

When a person gets up on the stand at trial and relates something that they saw or heard, that is testimonial evidence. It is simply a witness giving testimony under oath about the facts of the case.

96

Fuz Rana himself seems to regard placental wolves and the thylacine (aka the “Tasmanian wolf”) as separate kinds as he talks about the convergence between them. So that sort of does it in for your notion that all of “carnivorous mammals” are a single kind.

7 Likes
97

More or less, if we are talking about the legal system and not about science. These aren’t formal categories of legal evidence but they do encompass much of what the legal system regards as evidence so as a simplified understanding, it’s not a bad treatment. It’s not much good as a definition of “evidence” for scientific purposes – you’ve got to remember that the legal rules of evidence as they come down to us are shaped and constrained by centuries of common law tradition, practice and procedure. So, for example, the nature of courtroom practice is that essentially all evidence at some point comes down to testimonial evidence – other types of evidence need testimonial authentication – but this arises not from some sort of epistemic need but from the requirements of adversarial procedure in a system which originated from an oral testimony-based method for resolving questions of fact. It works, and sometimes doesn’t work, in its own peculiar way but is just not terribly applicable to science.

Ah, it’s Christine Janis, whose textbook I have mentioned above! Hi, Christine!

3 Likes
98

No it can’t. Common design can only say that whatever there is, it must have been designed. That isn’t an explanation. You have previously said that different kinds must have separate nested hierarchies. Since mammals are all part of the same nested hierarchy, by your previous statements they must all belong to the same kind. Why are you now backpedalling on that?

For example:

I could have shown you many others. The molecular data for mammalian relationships are copious and conclusive.

You realize that this completely contradicts your previous claims that kinds fall within species, that carnivorous mammals are all a single species, and so on. Is it asking too much for you to be both clear and consistent?

Definitions precede observation. Once you have a criterion to identify species, then you can make observations to determine what the species are. But in fact nothing you are arguing for is relevant to species, only to “kinds”, the supposed separately created groups.

Do tell. How was that proven? What aspects of natural history has the bible proven to be a useful method for?

Sorry, but hemimastigotes fit the nested hierarchy of eukaryotes just fine; they’re just a very deep branch. Besides, we’ve been talking so far only about animals, and in fact only about mammals and birds. Hemimastigotes are irrelevant. What you need to predict is that we will find new species of mammals that don’t fit into the mammal hierarchy. Good luck with that. That prediction is falsified.

Doesn’t answer his question; as is your habit.

7 Likes
99

Those are legal definitions, not scientific ones. #1 counts as evidence in science.

Have you considered examining it for yourself instead of using hearsay?

3 Likes
100

That prediction has been tested literally thousands upon thousands of times.

Every time, they fit. The discontinuities simply aren’t there. Your hypothesis has been falsified.

5 Likes