Even for rivers, deltas violate the nested hierarchy. Then there are reverse deltas, in which rivers split and rejoin.
1 Like
What data am I ignoring?
Again, Darwin merely modified Owenâs theory by replacing the platonic ancestor with a concrete one. So why would it not produce the same patterns?
Yes, a contingent human designer could and do produce subjective and arbritrary nested patterns all the time. But, What you are saying here would not apply to God since he is a non-contingent perfect human that produce objective nested patterns that exist necessarily.
I am having a hard time addressing this objection coming from you. It is like asking me âwhy is 2+2=4â or âwhy is P and non-P both cannot be true at the same timeâ. Here is the short answer: The information stored in Godâs mind look like nested patterns because they need to be that way. If it were any other way, we would not be able to ask the question in the first place.
Long answer: Immaterial or quantum mechanical nested hierarchies explain why God exists at all (i.e. why is there something rather than nothing?). For instance, Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. It must be true in every sense of intuition, practices, and bodies of beliefs. A logical truth such as the logical absolutes, mathematical laws, or moral values are considered to be true in all possible worlds.
These logical truths or abstract laws seem to be grounded in Godâs nature according to science. This means that God would contain the reason and cause for his own existence in the form of nested patterns. He not only exists in all possible modifications but he must or needs to exist in all possible modifications because he is the only one that can create and sustain every possible configuration of biological life.
This means that some things just exist necessarily and contain the reason for its own existence, such as the mathematical laws of nested hierarchy. Again, Can you explain why 2+2=4?
So it has to use the term ânested hierarchiesâ to show that Owenâs theory was referring and predicted those patterns?
If so, did Darwin ever use the term ânested hierarcharcyâ when formulating his theory?
This would be the only diference between the two writings on the topic.
Do you at least accept that Darwin merely modified Owenâs theory by replacing the platonic ancestor with a concrete one?
If so, why does this small modification make you think Owenâs theory did not predict nested hierarchy?
"Owenâs Platonism, as we have seen, is fully compatible with Cuvierâs fragmentation of the Great Chain of Being into diverse âembranchments,â placing new emphasis on individual species. Upon this structure, Owen was able to superimpose his theory of archetypes and other modifications which had been formulated to explain the lacunae in the chainâs continuity [7].
âOwen explained that each section of the chain had its own archetype and does not have to be temporally complete. Certain intermediate species may exist either in the past or the future: âThe possible and conceivable modifications of the vertebrate Archetype are far from having been exhausted in the forms that have hitherto been recognized, from the primaeval fishes of the Paleozoic ocean of this planet up to the present time.ââ
How is the highlighted part not referring to âgroups within groupsâ?
NO, just the first part involving HGT explaining why we see nested patterns among closely relate species.
What do you mean? They specifically said:
âWe demonstrate that instances of high gene-tree conflict (discordance in phylogenetic signal across genes) in mammals, birds, and several major plant clades correspond to rate increases in morphological innovation.â
âPhylogenomic conflict often appears to coincide with important episodes of morphological differentiation among major lineagesâŚWe therefore suggest that phylogenomic conflict observable at deep timescales may often stem from the same population processes that facilitated the rapid and dramatic episodes of phenotypic change underpinning the origins of major clades.â
I am talking about the gene conflicts found on the nodes of the tree that they were referring to here :
âThe vast majority of the nodes we highlight have been difficult to resolve using multiple data types and analytical techniques (5, 7, 14, 15, 21, 52), suggesting that the conflicting signals we examined stem predominantly from evolutionary processes rather than error.â
They suggested that this is where underlying causal proceses or mechaisms are most likely at play:
âWe suggest that episodic evolutionary and population events leave signatures of conflict within genomes that may offer important insight on the processes responsible not only for conflict but also for massive changes in phenotype across disparate lineages.â
The nodes are exactly where we would expect God to create the groups of basic types from the archetypical blueprints that you assume to be ancestors.
According to Todd Elder, "most of the kinds equate with the Family level, a few with the Sub-Family or Super-Family level, and rarely it will equate with the Genus or Order levels.
âŚthere are 360 kinds listed among reptiles, birds, and mammals. Within the 360
listed kinds, 297 of them (82.5%) fall at the Family level. The others include 32 orders, 2
suborder, 1 infraorder, 2 superfamily, 23 subfamily, and 3 genera. This follows the expected
bell curve, but suggests the averaged center is slightly higher than Family."
So although it is rare, there are still some that are at the level of order, which is why I chose that level and suggested that these nested patterns donât exist below the level of Order from the supposed universal tree of life.
By comparing anatomy between organisms rather than gene sequences and then map them according to geographical location or the fossil record. If there is no gene conflict, then this would be a real nested pattern rather than an appearance based on only comparing trees to gene sequences. Read this study for more on this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03482-x
This is what I mean:
"The bushes in the tree of life (TOL) recently have been examined in some detail, and their appearance has been attributed, primarily, to cladogenesis compressed in time that appears to be characteristic of transitional epochs in evolution. Also, the erosion of the phylogenetic signal inevitably results in poor resolution of phylogenetic trees for ancient divergence events like all those listed above. Nevertheless, it is generally assumed that, in principle, the TOL exists and is resolvable although, in practice, full resolution might never be attained and, furthermore, might not even be particularly important for understanding the actual events that transpired during the respective transitional stages .
Here, I argue for a fundamentally different solution, i.e., that a single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist , although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees. I suggest that evolutionary transitions follow a general principle that is distinct from the regular cladogenesis." [Emphasis added]
The highlighted parts are examples of what I mean.
Yeah but, what separates my argument from theirs is that I go a step further by providing experiments showing that only human designers could both life and artificial systems.
For instance, a recent prebiotic experiment ,I referenced earlier, demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules can âevolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedlyâ. On the other hand, metabolism-first experiments and the Lenski experiment has shown that materialistic processes do not produce these type of complex systems.
More importantly, the digital information harbored in life is supposed to be immaterial and non-local because we have evidence that the wave-function is real and non-local or immaterial. We also know that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in collapsing the wave-function. This means that it is physically impossible for unguided natural process to produce life. Only humans have been capable of producing both life and artificial life.
Right, but I donât see your point here because inductive reasoning is inherently a part of the scientific method. As Fuz Rana has pointed outâŚ
" If a scientist then observes transcription factors binding to DNA, it is reasonable to conclude that these binding sites play a role in regulating gene expression. Though not certain, this conclusion is probabilistic. Despite the uncertainty associated with it, the conclusion is still reasonable because a vast body of data demonstrates that transcription factors bind to specific DNA sequences that regulate gene expression. Yes, another explanation for why these transcription factors bind to DNA may exist. Confirmatory experiments can reduce this uncertainty.
The key point is this: there is nothing wrong with concluding, when using inductive reasoning, that sequences that bind transcription factors are functional. By extension, there is nothing wrong with the reasoning the ENCODE Project employed to assign function to sequences in the human genome. The ENCODE Project did not affirm the consequent because they were making use of induction (as do all scientists), not deduction."
Finally, it looks like you have a relevant objection on whether Owen/Fuzâs theory was truly confirmed.
As Fuz Rana further points out, this objection âfails to take into account other workâsuch as research involving pseudogenesâthat not only identifies function for individual members of this junk DNA class, but also presents an elegant framework to explain the function of all members of the category. (Go here and here to read about the competitive endogenous RNA hypothesis as a comprehensive model for pseudogene function.) This type of advance coheres nicely with the catalogue of functional elements ENCODE identified.â
Give me a second hereâŚ
Why would it produce the same pattern? You canât seem to answer this question. Why would platonic ancestors fall into a nested hierarchy?
Why would separately created kinds necessarily fit into a nested hierarchy? That makes no sense. Why couldnât there be a platonic ancestor that had a mixture of derived bird and mammal features, as one example?
Because âconcreteâ ancestry entails the ancestor passing on their DNA, with occasional mutations, which in turn entails âdescent with modificationâ which entails a nested hierarchy.
âPlatonic ancestryâ doesnât entail any of these. In fact it is unclear if it entails anything much. It is more airy philosophical hand-waving than a rigorous detailed hypothesis.
Well, thatâs for sure. Your âexplanationâ seems to boil down to âitâs that way because itâs that wayâ. And apparently âit has to be that way because it has to be that wayâ. But nothing you said made the least bit of sense.
No. It has to show some words to that effect, which nothing you have quoted does.
I do not.
Because it says nothing about groups within groups in any form.
I mean just what I say, which clearly distinguishes me from you. And please stop quoting from things you donât cite in the post you quote them in. Without context, thereâs no way to know what youâre talking about.
Yes, and why does Todd Elder, whoever he is, think that? Why should anyone believe him?
That article says nothing relevant to your claim.
Are they? I donât think you have any clear idea what you mean or what the highlighted bits mean.
Iâve given you months. Nothing so far. Should I stop waiting?
What do 2/8, 3/15, and 2/2 L mean? How do you (or whoever, uncredited here, made that list) know that alligators, crocodiles, and gharials are separate basic types?
Are we claiming that Fish are a single basic type?
Are we claiming that aquatic invertebrates are a basic type? But separate from crustaceans, another basic type? This list seems entirely incoherent.
And then we get a for some reason alphabetical list of what seem to be bird basic types, apparently just a regurgitation of some alphabetical list of families. Useless. And it happens that I can show, from my own published work, that all these bird families belong to a single group related by descent. I can do the same thing for the crocodylians. All you can do is regurgitate random crap you pull off the web, without noting that itâs quoted, without noting where itâs quoted from. Why should I even respond to you?
4 Likes
Now I know about Divide Creek and Two Ocean Pass. Cool!
Because Godâs purpose for creating animals and humans the way they are is to survive and reproduce under a particular environment AND fill other environments around the globe. As a result, we would expect to see a creationary phylogenetic tree that is very similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree. However, we would also expect to see a creationist tree that traces life back to a number of unrelated populations that roughly resemble the forms of life we see today.
For example, there are 18 breeds of the Dawn Blind Snake Kind, 50 breeds of the African Rear-Fanged Snake Kind, and 22 breeds of the Mole Viper Kind that all can be traced back to an original created kind for each of the 3 basic types of snakes.
However, these 3 basic types would represent an unrelated population of snakes that were created from an ideal platonic snake exemplar or blueprint. God used this snake blueprint to create those 3 modified forms of snake that are degradation of the snake exemplar he had in mind. As a result, it would look like a nested hierarchy on the tree diagram, but in reality, it would be an unrelated population of snakes that branched out into different breeds within each of the 3 created snake kind. This is why platonic ancestors fall into a nested hierarchy .
Because when you build an evolutionary tree of animals based on their molecular data, it often fits much better with their geographical distribution compared to morphological data. For example, as Matthew Wills, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath, has pointed out:
ââŚtiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees have all come from the same big branch of mammal evolution â despite the fact that they look completely different from one another (and live in very different ways).â
âMolecular trees have put them all together in a group called Afrotheria, so-called because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography.â
Because God is a perfect being, these blueprints are supposed to be perfect idealized examples of a bird or a mammal in the perfect mind of God. A platonic ancestor that had mixed features of the two animals would be a logical contradiction (i.e. square-circle, married-bachelor). God cannot make logical contradictions.
What is DNA though? it is essentially a genetic blueprint plastered on genomes of the cell on how to build an organism. If you take away all the material components from that DNA molecule, you are left with a blueprint that is purely digital by nature. Again, those material constituents are merely the emergent and manifested form of the archetypical blueprints.
In that case, just read and comment on my response to @T_aquaticus since he seems to do a better job at making it easier for me to address this point of yours.
Then, you are ignoring a historical fact, but that is your issue.
My point was that I am not the one who is exaggerating the studies on high gene-conflict. But, it is you who is downplaying the significance of those studies. Thatâs all.
This is why apparently:
". At the www.baraminology.net website, there is now an ongoing project to display the Creation Orchard and make a comprehensive list of currently recognized created kinds. The following statistics, taken from those lists, are more consistent with methods that produce a splitting effect in taxonomy
At the time of writing this book, there are 360 kinds listed among reptiles, birds, and mammals. Within the 360 listed kinds, 297 of them (82.5%) fall at the Family level. The others include 32 orders, 2 suborder, 1 infraorder, 2 superfamily, 23 subfamily, and 3 genera. This follows the expected bell curve, but suggests the averaged center is slightly higher than Family." [Ask for same reference]
The list of basic types I provided you is what he is referring to here a.s well
Thatâs because I gave you the wrong article unfortunately. Here it is instead:
My point was that it looks like a bush or star tree of life at the base of the tree of life.
He actually does not know if those basic types of crocodiles are related or not. Sames goes with birds and other groups of animals that closely resemble each other morphologically. He just knows that those groups of crocodiles and birds and others donât have any precursor ancestors that donât resemble them today .(i.e.transmution) . Also, these numbers â2/8, 3/15, and 2/2â are referring to the number of genus/ species of that basic type.
For now, I am, but future research will likely reveal that there were multiple created kinds of certain fish. We just donât know what they are yet. However, we are saying that there are no precursor ancestors that donât resemble them at all.
Everything I said about fish being a single basic type applies to marine invertebrates as well. We just donât have the research on it yet to split them apart into multiple created kinds or identify certain fish as species within a created kinds. But, we apparently can separate them from crustaceans.
All that type of work amounts to is just scribbling lines together on a piece of paper and then claiming they are related. For instanceâŚ
Summary:" New research suggests that determining evolutionary trees of organisms by comparing anatomy rather than gene sequences is misleading. The study shows that we often need to overturn centuries of scholarly work that classified living things according to how they look."
Read more on what researchers have said about experts in your field and the conclusions they make when they build trees:
Study suggests that most of our evolutionary trees could be wrong: Scientists say convergent evolution is much more common than previously thought â ScienceDaily
The only method that can truly show how those basic types are related is the hybridization method.
Why is a nested hierarchy required for animals and humans to survive and reproduce under a particular environment and fill other environments around the globe?
Why would snakes fall into a nested hierarchy with the rest of the vertebrates?
No it doesnât. The insects around me are much more genetically distant than the mammals living on continents on the other side of the globe from where I sit. I am more genetically related to chimps and gorillas thousands of miles away on a different continent than I am to any mammal on the continent or environment I live in. The bats found in Australia are more genetically similar to bats in the NA than they are to other mammals in Australia.
So you know the mind of God? Ha, thatâs a good one.
We find fossils that are a mixture of reptile and mammal features. We find fossil that are a mixture of whale and terrestrial mammal features. We find fossils that are a mixture of fish and amphibian features. Why not fossils or living species that are a mixture of mammal and bird features?
What a steaming pile of ⌠balderdash!
Living, âmaterialâ creatures with DNA reproduce â disembodied archetypes donât.
Therefore DNA-ancestry forms a nested hierarchy, whereas âPlatonic ancestryâ doesnât appear to do anything much except exist in the minds of woolly-thinking philosophers.
Nested hierarchies are tied to reproduction (and more specifically to imperfect reproduction), and therefore tied to living, material creatures.
Purely digital blueprints donât reproduce.
Therefore purely digital blueprints donât form nested hierarchies.
You would appear to be trying to replace the most fundamental theory of biology, when you donât understand the most fundamental mechanics of biology. This is never going to go well, and never going to convince science educators to teach your theory.
3 Likes
I believe you mistake the claim, which is that molecular trees are, in general, a better match to biogeographic distributions than morphological trees are. One could, for example, point to Afrotheria as a fine example. What @Meerkat_SK5 gets from this, or how he does it, is unclear.
So this list is just pulled out of his nether regions with no actual evidence or even criteria. As I thought. Of course there are fossil intermediates for various crocodylians, birds, and their relatives. And of course thereâs excellent evidence for their common ancestry. Here, chew on this simple demonstration that crocodylians are all related by actual descent:
For birds, try this one:
I really encourage you to look into this source if you want the answer to these questions because it does a great job at explaining and addressing them. I would just be copying and pasting what they said since I think they adequately address your questions. If not, then just let me know. I am just trying to avoid copying and pasting walls of text as much as possible via @John_Harshman and @Dan_Eastwood 's request. It is pretty brief anyways so it should not be a problem:
Intelligent Reasoning: Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 2 Nested Hierarchy
Thanks for correcting @T_aquaticus for me. Before this comment, He said: âWhy would separately created kinds necessarily fit into a nested hierarchy?â
Again, created kinds would necessarily fit into a nested hierarchy in regard to molecular trees but not morphological trees because they are separately created.
No, you just did not read the last part of my post on the list of basic types because it was so long. So, I will repost it here:
OBERSERVATIONS
As I mentioned before, it has been suggested by Todd Elder that basic types are likely to be identified near or at the level of the family. Moreover, a survey by Parker et. al indicates that members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels.
Parker, S.P. 1982. Volume 2. Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms, McGraw-Hill, New York: [i], [1]-1232.
I got the information below from Todd Elderâs model.
DEFINITIONS
Original created kind
A recognizable base form and structure that does not change over time. They are separate and unique ( no common ancestors) - fully functional (no primitive ancestors) - similarity in form / design due to similarity in function and common designer. Example - Adam and Eve
Species
Breeds within a kind that are able to reproduce with others of the same species and potentially able to hybridize with other breeds/species within a Kind. Limited variation in surface features from changes over time. Example â Caucasians and Asians
Basic type
Represents the entire group related by common ancestry including both past (Original created kind) and present generations (Species). Reproductive discontinuity between kinds; Reproductive continuity within a kind. Example - all of mankind
HYPOTHESIS
The differences between a particular pair or set of basic types that are similar in morphology and/or molecularly similar are due to the different design requirements that each of them will need for their environment.
Null hypothesis: these similar basic types are not multiple kinds with a common design element, but are species from an original created kind.
The testing subjects in this experiment will be the Fea Viper Kind and the Pit Viper Kind since molecular studies have shown that they are closely related. Plus, âthe venom profile of Feaâs viper is remarkably similar to that of the Waglerâs viper, which is a Genus of the Pit Viper kind.â
PREDICTIONS
The habitats between these similar created kinds should be substantially different from each other.
There are real sequencing differences found within the regulatory genes rather than the structural genes.
EXPERIMENT
We can automatically disconfirm this hypothesis with a successful hybridization attempt. If this was a failed attempt, we use the same method to test a different set of species from each of the two basic types. According to Kurt Wise âA successful hybridization is defined as the successful acceptance by a receiver (for example, egg) cell of a complete complement of DNA from a donor (for example, sperm cell), followed by at least one non-artificially induced , cell division (for example, mitosis plus cytokinesis)."
j06_2_122-137.pdf (creation.com)
Now, if none of the attempts show positive results after testing every possible combination of species, we can start attempting to confirm the common design hypothesis by looking for convergent genes between the two basic types. However, if we cannot find convergent genes, we can confirm this hypothesis by examining where each basic type lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.
There is a survey of 5 theoretically-defined membership criteria down below where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A through E) and a title in the form of a question. If the answer is âyesâ to the question of âIs there a substantial difference in Habitat?â, we can automatically conclude that God constructed each basic type for that environment. However, if the answer is âNOâ or âTBDâ, then we have to rely on other questions to make a confident conclusion. If majority of the questions yield a âNOâ or âTBDâ answer, then the results are inconclusive. Now, letâs do the testâŚ
RESULTS
IS THERE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE?
YES / NO / TBD
âŚ
(A) Habitat?.YesâŚ
Fea Viper
âFound in mountainous regions at altitudes up to 1000 m. Sometimes it is found on roadsides, in straw and grass, in rice fields, and even in and around homes. In Vietnam, its preferred habitat is described as forests of bamboo and tree ferns, with clearings, where the forest floor is covered with rotting vegetation, where there are plenty of rock outcroppings and there are many open and subterranean streams. The species is crepuscular, prefers temperatures of 18-25 °C, and very moist environments for shelter.
âŚâŚObservations of captive individuals indicate that these snakes do not tolerate dry conditions, and develop skin problems when maintained at less than 100% humidity. Ideal temperatures are between 60 and 68°F, surprisingly cool for a reptile â [ask for reference]
Life is short, but snakes are long: Feaâs Pitless Pitvipers
Pit Viper
âThis group of snakes inhabits many different environments in the Americas and Eurasia. They live anywhere from the arid desert home of the western diamondback rattlesnake to the humid rainforest where the fer-de-lance is a native. Some, like the eyelash viper, live in the trees, and others, like the water moccasin, live near water and eat fish.
Most species eat rodents (as do many other snakes), but some eat bats, eggs, or snatch birds out of the air while they hang from a tree branch. Others prefer fish, frogs, lizards, and toads.â
Pit Viper Animal Facts - AZ Animals (a-z-animals.com)
(B) Shelter?..
(C) Prey?..
(Dâ) Predators?..
(E) Trophic level?
DISCUSSIONS
Although both Vipers are known to live in rainforest or moist and cool areas, the Fea viper cannot tolerate dry environments while Pit vipers are known to live and tolerate many different environments. Since there was a definite yes to the âHabitat criteriaâ, there was no need to use the other methods to look for signatures of common design.
CONCLUSION
Assuming that the hybridization attempts were not successful, we can confidently conclude that God constructed the Fea viper kind for only that particular environment while he blessed the Pit Viper kind to fill many different environments.
Disclaimer: I acknowledge that this is far from being a rigorous statistical method. But, I am just here to provide a cursory view of how to test for common design. In the future, I think experts in this field can and will be able to fill in the details and make improvements that are scientifically appropriate.
That makes no sense. Why should separately created kinds fit into any kind of nested hierarchy? Why should they fit into a molecular one but not a morphological one? There is no reason for that.
Please donât. I read it the first time. It makes no sense, and it doesnât explain why the list is correct or how to recognize basic types.
Useless. Nor are Adam and Eve a created kind, merely the supposed first representatives of a supposed created kind. None of the suppositions are correct for humans. And here you appear to be saying that created kinds and basic types are the same, or maybe theyâre different. Who can tell?
This hypothesis is falsified by just about any observation you care to make. Most molecular differences, for example, have nothing to do with design requirements or environment. The supposed test is gibberish.
Based on this example, your prediction is not warranted.
Well wow! As a source, you link to the blog of JoeG.
Sorry, but you have just lost any remaining credibility. Thatâs the same JoeG who has been banned both at this forum and at The Skeptical Zone.
If JoeG is your reference, then youâve got nothing.
3 Likes
This is another really, appallingly, bad, utterly clueless source.
The US Army is structured as a nested hierarchy- by design.
No it is not! At least not in the way that biological life follows a nested hiearchy.
New weapons, armor, regulations, training, etc, etc spread throughout the US Army, and are not restricted to the unit that originally trialed them (or their âdescendantâ units).
The US Army does not follow a nested hierarchy, because following a nested hierarchy is blatantly sub-optimal when the objective is to make the whole tree as effective as possible.
Evolution however, cannot do this, because it is constrained by the fact that new features can only be transmitted to descendants. This is why bats donât have feathers, even though feathers make for more efficient flight. This is why Evolution follows a nested hierarchy.
There is no reason to expect that a designer would accept this arbitrary constraint on their designs. Therefore there is no reason to expect a designer to follow a nested hierarchy.
It would seem that JoeG does not understand nested hierarchies.
That is the problem with citing apologists rather than scientific experts on scientific subjects.
This is the same problem you had with Faz Rana, âInspiring Philosophyâ, and Jonathan Witt.
Summarising:
-
A nested hierarchy is an unnecessary constraint on design, leading to a sub-optimal design.
-
Donât cite apologists.
2 Likes
Yes it is. Groups within groups, thatâs all it takes. These groups are however not dependent on the characteristics of the units included. The problem is that the army is an arbitrary nested hierarchy, not that it isnât a nested hierarchy.
Well, duh. Neither does @Meerkat_SK5. I doubt he even understands JoeG.
I draw your attention to my second sentence:
At least not in the way that biological life follows a nested hiearchy.
The US Army follows a nested hierarchy of command. It does not follow a nested hierarchy of features (weapons, armor, regulations, training, etc, etc).
Biological life follows a nested hierarchy of features, it does not follow a nested hierarchy of command.
This makes the two very disanalogous.
A designer might find it optimal to design a system with a nested hierarchy command system. They would not find it optimal to design a system with a nested hierarchy feature system â as this would prevent them from replicating new and more optimal features from one branch of the hierarchy into another.
This was my point.
First paragraph:
As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as âgroups within groupsâ, otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are specified design processes.
Wrong. Even if you discard evolution itself as being under dispute, evolutionary/genetic algorithms generate such patterns.
The next part is also wrong:
Transportation can be structured as a nested hierarchy- land, air or sea- with the different types specified under each. Each set having specifically defined characteristics which also include the definitions of all the levels above it.
1 Like
Citation, including links, copied directly from http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/Reference.aspx?id=1302.
As usual, @Meerkat_SK5 is lying about his actual sources.
Explain it in your own words. I have yet to see a single explanation why we can have species with a mixture of mammal and reptile features but not a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. Care to explain?
WHY???
Why would the original kinds fall into a nested hierarchy between them? Why couldnât a created kind have a mixture of bird and mammal features, or a mixture of dolphin and fish features? Why would dolphin DNA be much closer to human DNA than the DNA of fish found in their same habitat?
2 Likes