If common design were true then designs for the same purpose (to build a digging insectivore, or a pelagic predator, or a tree, etc) should all cluster together on a tree. They should really show evidence of an actual common shared design. But they clearly don’t. These sorts of organisms pop up independently in wildly different groups when you look at trees built across numerous characters. Common ancestry with convergence due to similar selection pressures explains these data and the results in no way are congruent with any reasonable expectation of a common designer (outside of those expectations that can be thrown around wildly and chalked up to the whims of an omnipotent god, expectations that divorce the idea from being considered seriously as science to begin with).
In your dreams Bill. There is nothing about Jeanson’s Bible verse leaning, ill informed, religious propaganda that is remotely scientific to being with let alone “complete”. He has only Bible verses and misguided intuitions to delimit kinds. That’s hardly what I would characterize as a complete scientific model.
Yeah UCD is still not supposed to be a “complete model”, it’s an explanation for a particular pattern in the data. A pattern Jeanson doesn’t explain why exists.
At no point does anything in any of Jeanson’s papers even constitute an attempt at grappling with the multiple nesting clades beyond the arbitrarily delineated “kinds” he concocts.
I agree this is not in his papers. I am going to read his book to see if his arguments do deeper comparisons.
Don’t hold your breath.
I’d have to say that the level of scholarship in that paper, even on its own terms, is pathetic and should be an embarrassment to all concerned. Essentially, it just goes through a list of families (a fairly up to date list, at that) and declares each one to be a kind.
The level of stupidity in all three of those “papers” is astounding.
Hey, they’re up to almost 400 “kind” for birds and mammals alone. That’s already ~800 individual animal organisms Noah and his family need to provide care and provisions for, on one boat.
And these organisms all need to carry the viruses and parasites associated with every single living species from these clades, or at least all the virus and parasite “kind” common ancestors.
They’re probably still counting up the all the arthropod kinds.
No kidding. Here is one of the baraminological methods they use:
A cognitum is a group of organisms that are naturally grouped together through human cognitive senses. A cognitum can be above the level of the baramin (for example, mammals), below the level of the baramin (for example, foxes), or at the level of the baramin. This perception-based concept was proposed by Sanders and Wise (2003) as a separate tool in baraminology. Though not originally proposed as a means to identify baramins, the basic concept could prove useful for our purposes here. Use of this method assumes that created kinds have retained their distinctiveness even as they have diversified.
This is just using big fancy words to say “We point to animals and say ‘Horsey! Doggy! Kitty!’”
I wonder if they are aware of the work that has been done on different cultures and the congruence between folk taxonomy and scientific taxonomy. The take home is science and folk taxonomy matches up pretty well for species but quickly falls apart for higher taxonomic groups which doesn’t bode well for trying to intuit the “kinds”
Pretty jaw-dropping. As I have pointed out above, for the original readers of Genesis, a cognitum ( to use this horrible coinage with the given definition ) would have been at the level of species. Ancient people, such as reflected in Egyptian and middle eastern art, distinguished animal species familiar to them. Cognitum meant a lion is a lion, as opposed to “member of cat family”.
It is a different level of lunacy to make this statement and then go on to explain over and over again. What is going on Herman? Are you well?
I will concede that interacting with people like Bill Cole isn’t good for your long-term sanity.
“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
Don’t patronize me Joshua.
Carry on then. I honestly meant no offense. I just don’t understand what I’m seeing here…
Maybe you can find “common ground” with Bill since you are better at mingling your religious beliefs with the science than I ever was.
I don’t mingle the two in any inappropriate ways, and yes @colewd and I have found real common ground. Certainly not in repetitive arguments with him. We had to look elsewhere.
36 posts were split to a new topic: Reason, Religion, and Science
Hey guys. Nathaniel Jeanson has written a new article in which he shows one of the main reasons why evolutionists cannot accept the scientific predictions made by the YEC. He takes David MacMillan as an example. This is a must read article!
Ha! Part 3! He really has become obsessed with @David_MacMillan