I am surprised you haven’t. Over 200 comments and Meerkat is still rambling incoherent balderdash.
Ok let me show a better model for identifying basic types. Now, I am not going to use this term again since it seem to create my confusion than alleviate it: “Original created kind”.
First, we are going to group organisms together based on similar morphological appearances and common features. Then, we separate these groups of organisms based on the discontinuities found in the fossil record among the origin of major new biotic designs. Here is the list showcasing these methods in action::
Jawless Fish
Marine invertebrates
Vascular plants
Marine Nekton animals
Amphibians
Insects
Crocodiles
Turtles
Snakes
Land Dinosuars
Flowering plants
Birds
Small lizards
Herbivore (Perrisodactyl) mammals
Herbivore (Artiodactyl) mammals
Carnivore mammals with paws
Rodents
Bats
Marsupials
Primates
Other mammals
Each group of organisms have further been split into a certain number of basic types based on the fossil record. This is because research has not revealed a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
Keep in mind, this is merely the current number of basic types for each group that have been studied up until now. There are many more that have not been studied yet and ,thus, the number of basic types will likely increase for each group:
Jawless Fish (unknown)
Marine invertebrates 1
Vascular plants 10
Marine Nekton animals (unknown)
Amphibians 5
Insects 4
Crocodiles 3
Turtles 11
Snakes 24
Land Dinosuars 1
Flowering plants 25
Birds 196
Small lizards 43
Herbivore (Perrisodactyl) mammals 3
Herbivore (Artiodactyl) mammals 18
Carnivore mammals 10
Rodents 35
Bats 17
Marsupials 22
Primates 15
Other mammal 18
To be clear, the lack of lineage between basic types merely means we have no reason to group organisms together. Grouping them first is important because continuity and discontinuity are related observations. You cannot see discontinuity without seeing continuities in order to discover basic types. However, this means that we are a long way from recognizing the real basic types.
Right now, current research is trying to determine whether a set of basic types either came from a large kind with much variation or represent multiple kinds with a common design element,
According to observations, a number of alleged design flaws have been found to be optimal. This involves the survival, reproduction or fit within an environment of those basic types.
This suggests that organisms were already programmed to survive and reproduce after its kind to fill environmental niches. In other words, the reproductive and adaptive capacity or ‘seed’ of an organism was always programmed ‘in itself’ to reproduce ‘after its kind’ so that the organism could be ‘fruitful [divide/branch into diverse progeny] and multiply’ to deliberately pioneer or “fill” environments of “the earth.”.
This means that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same basic type. For this reason, the best method for reducing the number of basic types and determining common descent between them is Hybridization
Other observations suggest 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.
This means that different ecological or trophic features should delineate separate basic types because basic types are supposed to be preprogrammed to survive a particular environment.
For this reason, the best method for determining common design is the ecology criteria.
If both methods yield negative results, then…
Number 2 method for determining common descent: finding congruency between morphological and molecular phylogenetic trees including biogeographic
Number 2 method for determining common design: Finding convergent morphological and molecular evolution in regulatory genes
Keep in mind, natural selection is merely a mechanism among many God uses to shape organisms. So your objection about natural selection doing the same is irrelevant. However, you are right to say that the Lenski experiment is irrelevant as well.
What I meant to point out is that showing how God was not involved in the evolutionary scheme is more relevant. Metabolism-first experiments would demonstrate an unguided process.
That’s not a model. That’s just a random list of incommensurable assemblages.
What common features define “marine invertebrates”? What common features define “small lizards”? Your list is nonsensical. The entire post is nonsensical.
How? You don’t say, nor do you say what the basic types are.
So you have no idea. This means nothing.
It’s inevitable that when you start a sentence with “to be clear”, what follows is never clear. For example, what could this possibly mean?:
What observations would those be?
How does God using natural selection distinguished from natural selection just happening on its own?
There is no way to show such a thing, since God could choose to act in undetectable ways. He could even affect the results of experiments.
I have learned a great deal from this thread about the formulation of “basic types,” and now am ready to have a go:
Antlers
Swimming reptiles
Forks
Flashlights with handles
Shoehorns (the kind with teeth)
Lagomorphs
Parking attendants
Parking meters
Meter maids
Planetary gear sets
Dumplings
Extrusions
Penguins and Auks
Abstractions
Metaphors
Horseplay
Round things
It needs a bit of work, as you can see, but I am quite sure this will form the core of a new system of classification which will be useful. For what, I am unsure.
4 Likes
You forgot to list “animals belonging to the emperor”.
1 Like
Do the Queen’s swans on the Thames nest within that?
Not sure. They could instead fall into “animals that from a distance resemble flies”.
Systematics is hard!!!
It’s easy. Just use your cognitum!
1 Like
I actually meant to say common function. Here is what I mean according to Elder’s model:
“Lizards are recognized as reptiles with a long body, tail, moveable eyelid, eardrum, and (usually) four legs. Most live on the ground, but some can be found in water, up in trees, or in burrows. They typically have claws on their toes (except the legless lizards) which can be used for climbing. They include the iguana, chameleons, geckos, burrowing, and worm lizards. There are a tentative 43 extant lizard kinds”
Not sure about marine invertebrates since little research has been done on this group because it’s in the waters.
Anyhow, if you want me to give you a description of the rest and the source, just ask for it.
Here is Walter J. ReMine’s description of how they use the lineage criteria to group organisms:
"Organisms may be viewed as data points within a multidimensional morphology space. Lineages must curve their way through morphology space with ancestors and descendants in succession. A nondescript “cloud” of data points in morpho logy space is not a lineage. Rather, a lineage must have a special pattern. A lineage must be a trail of data points, long and narrow, with an absence of data points in the regions adjacent to the lineage.
If two organisms are connected by a clear-cut lineage in morphology space, then this qualifies as sound empirical evidence that they are in the same [species]. If a lineage is sufficiently clear-cut, then it can unite organisms into [species], even if there are large morphological distances between the data points in the record of life. This criterion only requires that the data have a special type of pattern – a lineage. This criterion is quite powerful, and in principle could span large "gaps· in the record of life. "
No, we have an idea but it is not fully concrete yet. I think we can say with confidence that the Canididae, Felidae, and Equidae are basic types because each one represent the complete set of organisms related by common descent. Or a group containing all and only those organisms related by common descent.
For example, the placental dogs, coyotes, foxes, wolves, and jackals are all shown to be related by common descent from hybridization tests and lineage sorting. Therefore, they would represent a group of species that descended from a larger kind with a lot of variation.
On the other hand, the created kind of Bovinae may include other organisms that seem to look and function the same way, such as deer and certain antelopes. However, they have not had the hybridization tests done or shown a clear-cut lineage between living and fossil forms.
For this reason, Cattle, deers, and antelopes are considered multiple created kinds with a common design element according to the creation model.
The same goes with Marsupials, Primates, Bats, etc.
Keep in mind, basic types are identified through a process of successive refinement. Because every group of species are a subset of a basic type, a basic type is approached as a species is successively increased in membership. (as Remine suggested)
For example, as more members are added to the Bovinae ( cattle, bison, African buffalo, water buffalos) the basic type in which they are found is gradually approached.
On the other hand, since every basic type is a subset of “groups of basic types” (such as herbivore mammals), the basic type is also approached as “groups of basic types” are subdivided into smaller groups of basic types.
For example, as the Herbivore mammals are successively subdivided into smaller groups of mammals called Artiodactyl, the basic type containing Cattle is approached. In this way, the successive increase of cattle species and the successive subdivision of the Artiodactyl mammals will converge on the basic type that includes cattle.
Thus, basic types are identified by successively refining our knowledge of “species” and “groups of basic types” as described by Walter Remine.
I was actually referring to experiments done not observations. I have already showed you the statistical bell curve method creationists used to determine this.
Not true…
Again, because the evidence in quantum physics is only compatible with a form of idealism, we don’t have to prove or assume some extra supernatural force/substance exists first in order to use God as a potential explanation for a natural phenomenon.
More importantly, we have good evidence that suggests God is a perfect human. This means that we don’t have to worry about using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a perfect being is immutable and cannot violate his own nature in comparison to imperfect beings, which can change and violate those principles.
In other words, the immutable trait this particular designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait this designer would also have to possess if true.
This is what makes the difference on why we can treat an omni-potent God/Jesus the same way as other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens,etc.) when we want to use an intelligent cause to explain a phenomena over a mindless force.
Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is supposed to be fundamental not classical physics.
For instance, a recent prebiotic experiment ,I referenced earlier, demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules can “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly”.
On the other hand, metabolism-first experiments and the Lenski experiment has shown that materialistic processes do not produce these type of complex systems.by themselves.
Furthermore, as I argued, the hallmark characteristics of biochemical systems are identical to the features of systems and objects produced by human designers"
More importantly, a high number of alleged design flaws have been found to be optimal.
Why wouldn’t that plan include a platonic form that had a mixture of bird and mammal features?
It suggests no such thing. There is no reason why a bird-mammal platonic form could not exist in Owen’s theory. It does not predict a nested hierarchy.
That’s baloney. We see the exact pattern of shared and derived features that we should see if common descent is true. That is evidence. That is what compels people to conclude that common descent occurred.
How in the world do you determine if a fossil suddenly appears or is fully formed?
The conflicts are minor, exactly what we would expect from known biological processes.
WHY DO THEY FALL INTO A NESTED HIERARCHY???
Like what???
1 Like
Do you see how nonsensical this is? No, you probably don’t. According to that, chameleons aren’t lizards, since they don’t have moveable eyelids, but crocodiles are, because they have all the defining features. And apparently lizards aren’t a basic type, so what are they? How do you know how many lizard kinds (= basic types??) there are?
That’s silly. Lots of research has been done, just not by creationists. But creationists don’t do research at all. And of course that category covers most phyla, including chordates, and many of the animals in that “group” are nektonic, which you also put on your list.
What I want is a description of some basic types and reasons why they should be considered basic types. When I ask for that, you give me gibberish, and that’s the only way in which you are consistent.
You will note that he applies this criterion to find species. Are you claiming now that every species is its own basic type, or will you agree that Remine’s criterion is useless for your purpose? (It’s useless for his purpose too, but that’s another matter.)
Sorry, but that isn’t true. Canidae (that’s how it’s spelled) is related to Felidae and to other carnivores. Equidae is related to Rhinoceratidae, Tapiridae, and other perissodactyls. And of course they’re all related to other mammals too. You can’t find a dividing line.
What do you mean by lineage sorting? Not, apparently, what it means to biologists. Nothing you say here is supported by actual evidence.
How would you know any of that? Have we not agreed that reproductive isolation can evolve and so the absence of hybridization is not useful for delimiting basic types? And there are no clear-cut lineages in fossil Bovinae, or Bovidae, or Ruminantia.
There is no creation model, just a bunch of random assertions with no operational criteria.
Why should there be such groups? Why, in other words, should there be a nested hierarchy above the level of basic type?
But you have no operational criteria for such refinement. It’s all just whim.
Would it be too much to ask you to be more careful about what you write? This is the second time in this post alone where you’ve admitted that what you said wasn’t what you meant. How about trying harder to get it right the first time? And “the statistical bell curve method” tells you nothing. Of course it’s not an experiment, so what experiments did you mean?
I ask one more time if you’re LDS. Since you always ignore the question, I’m assuming that you are and don’t for some reason want to say.
The rest of that argument can’t be dignified by the name.
1 Like
That’s charitable.
1 Like
Extremely silly?
That’s closer, for sure.
My goodness, I just about fell off my chair. Not much study has been done of marine invertebrates, he says. Suuuuuuuuure, that sounds correct. At least, if you – y’know – never, ever read anything at all about any of the vast variety of marine invertebrates in your entire life.
What astonishes me is the willingness to say such things in such a space. If one were preaching to a Sunday school class of five-year-olds, one could say such things with little (though some!) fear of being sharply contradicted. But one minds the audience. I think I’ll show up at the next SVP conference and announce that nobody knows much about ancient creatures, because nobody’s studied 'em much.
Do you commonly go to SVP?
I don’t, but I have been meaning to start. Subscribed to their journal for a time but found that the material is just far too technical in most cases for a piker like me. If I could find some additional excuse to be in Toronto in November, I might go this year, though I’m still trying to be careful about travel.
I’ve only been once, and that was 30 years ago. But it was fun.
I’ll invite Meerkat. He can probably teach those people a thing or two about “basic types.” Paleontologists are still using actual biology to classify things. Can you imagine?
Given that Darwin himself made an extensive study of barnacles, a marine invertebrate, I’d say that’s being extremely charitable. Monty Python-level ludicrous is probably not inaccurate.
Perhaps a skit replacing the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things, with the Society for Ignoring Things Because They Live in the Waters?