Because that’s what you do. The vipers are a case in point.
That’s true for Anatidae, but it isn’t true for Canidae or Felidae. There is no linkage between Panthera and Felis, direct or indirect. I don’t believe there’s any linkage between Canis and other genera of canids. So there’s an example of misapplying your supposed criteria.
That isn’t a justification. It’s just an assumption.
That says nothing about initial compatibility between separately created types.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Like I said, no justification.
When I say “show me a case”, I mean an actual example of real creationist research, i.e. a research paper, preferably one published in a peer-reviewed journal. I will accept a creationist journal as peer-reviewed for this purpose, even though that wouldn’t be true.
And yet you accept almost everything the YECs say about baraminology. Why?
Those have been tested but have not failed.
You will have to quote the bit you think supports your claim, since it’s paywalled. I’m anticipating a serious misunderstanding, since jawless fish are known from the Cambrian.
This too is paywalled, and I again suspect that any support for your claim is based on your misundersanding of the source. I also wonder if you have actually read either of your supposed sources.
But you’re comparing one species to many species. Pit vipers live in lots of environments, but any single species lives in only one. So why isn’t each species of pit viper a basic type by the same criterion that makes the Fea viper a basic type? This is a fine example of your inconsistency of criteria.
That doesn’t seem to be a response.
There are no hybridization experiments spanning Felidae. And “similar morphological appearances” is so vague as to be useless. Why are lions, cheetahs, and lynxes similar but civets are considered not sufficiently similar? You have no objective criteria.
Plenty of transitionals there.
Nobody says plants are derived from fish or insects derived from plants. That was nonsensical.
Exceedingly abundant transitional forms.
Mammals didn’t evolve from birds, so there would be no transitional forms expected. On the other hand, there are abundant transitional forms connecting mammals to more primitive synapsids and other amniotes, and abundant transitional forms connecting birds to more primitive archosaurs and other amniotes. If this is the best you’re capable of, and I think it is, you should stop digging and admit your incompetence.
When have creationists done any research on these subjects? Yet real scientists work in all these fields without coming up with evidence favoring creationism.
But it doesn’t. Nothing you have said or quoted is a prediction of nested hierarchy.
Note: “sometimes”. And how do we recognize these fairly rare situations? Because given all the data available they don’t get in the way of determining the actual phylogeny.
Doesn’t have to be universal. So far you have pretty much stuck to vertebrates.
Note that this is the base of the tree of life, which you haven’t so much as mentioned before. This would be evidence that various prokaryote groups are basic types, if anything. We haven’t even got to eukaryotes here, much less animals or vertebrates. Useless. No, your hypothesis requires a star tree uniting various groups of basic types, with no structure at all higher than those groups, and very little reason to expect such groups to exist at all.
Please provide an actual citation.
I’m afraid it can’t. Note that these convergent genes do not disguise the actual phylogenetic pattern. We know that whales are artiodactyls while bats are laurasiatherians. The data are clear on that.
That’s too vague to be useful. I ask again: why should there be a real, discoverable nested hierarchy of groups of basic types?
How? Can you provide a real example that isn’t entirely arbitrary?
Beg to differ. Experiments involve natural processes. Experiments just set up conditions under which certain sorts of processes are more likely to be observed.
Is there a logical reason why God would interfere with evolution?
Here’s a link to Remine’s article so that anyone interested can confirm that Remine did not write ‘species’ in those paragraphs (or anything that could reduce to ‘species’) - including in that last instance which @Meerkat_SK5 has left unmarked - but ‘monobaramin’:
Using reproductive viability as a criterion; the horses, mules, asses, zebras, and onagers are united into a monobaramin. Lions and tigers are placed into a monobaramin; as are cattle, buffalo, yaks and bison. Mallards and pintail ducks are united into their own monobaramin; as are placental dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, and foxes united into their own. One of the first tasks for Discontinuity Systematics should be the documentation of all such monobaramins.
I forget the definition of “monobaramin”, but I seem to recall that it means “a group of species belonging to the same created kind”. What @Meerkat_SK5 is looking for is a holobaramin. But what I’m looking for here is any justification that the hybridization criterion would be expected, in a creation model, to diagnose basic types (= holobaramins??).
These are genetically modified fish that carry an exact copy of a jellyfish gene in direct contradiction to what we would expect from evolution. Can God not do what humans can do?
You need to explain why a designer would limit himself to a nested hierarchy when design does not require a nested hierarchy.
Again, it is not just Hybridization that establishes them to be basic types. it is morphological appearances and comparative anatomy combined with a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
Nevertheless, I already acknowledged that these methods do not go far enough because lack of hybridizations does not mean they are basic types. So when there is an unsuccessful attempt, we use the ecology criteria, which leads me to address your complaints…
As I said before, this was not an issue of being inconsistent or arbitrary but an issue of clarity. I added more information to the criteria to help you see why it can and does show both vipers are basic types. Read carefully…
The ecology criteria to determine basic types involves examining where each basic type lives and how each of them interacts with their environment including other living things.
There is a survey of 5 questions where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A through E) and a title in the form of a question. (shelter,prey, predators, trophic level, habitat)
If the answer is ‘No’ or ‘TBD’ to the question of “Is there a substantial difference in Habitat?”, then we ask a follow-up question, Do they respond differently in a different habitats?. (this may require artificially planting them in different habitats for an answer)
If the answer is ‘yes’ to either question, we can automatically conclude that God constructed each basic type separately.
Now, if you still claim that this is being inconsistent or arbitrary, you are mistaken because its consistent with the hypothesis, which suggests:
The differences between a particular set of basic types that are similar in morphology and/or moleculars are due to the different design requirements that each of them will need for their environment.
The fact that the Fea viper species cannot tolerate dry environments while the Pit viper can is an example of “different design requirements” for each. The Fea viper species require dry conditions while pit vipers don’t, which would explain why there are many more species of pit vipers. This means that the Fea Viper lacks genetic variation while the Pit Viper has large genetic potential.
Again, how they interact with their environment is just as important in deciphering basic types as which environment they are in. This is why we can expect the 5 questions to reliably delimit types.
Go ahead and take a look for yourself of all the technical papers:
Because I found it to be pretty useful after all. And does not require me to accept the assumption of a young earth and global flood, at least for the most part.
I have already explained how they have failed. So it’s up to you now to explain the opposite WITHOUT referencing phylogenetics.
Just to let you know, the sources below came from secondary creationists sources and IDEA center. I figure you guys can tell me which sources are accurately being described if any:
Plants
“It is certain that the multicellular animals, like the two other multicellular kingdoms, the Fungi and Plantae are the descendants of the unicellular (or acellular) eukaryote protists. But there the certainty ceases. Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago…The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla.” (Barnes, R.S.K., P. Calow, P.J.W. Olive, and D.W. Golding. 1993. The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis. University Press, Cambridge.)
Fish
"No intermediate fossils between jawed and jawless forms have been found - early fossils of jawed fishes had jaws, teeth, scales and spines. The origins of jaws and other structures that characterized the early gnathostomes are lost in the fossil record, belonging to some group about which we known nothing. " (Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette and D.E. Facey. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell Science, MA. 528pp.; p. 157)
Amphibians
“Where information regarding transitional forms is most eagerly sought, it is least likely to be available. We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians…” - (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, 1988, p.4). [17]
“While we still do not have any really intermediate fossil forms between fishes and tetrapods (we are getting closer, with the description of Panderichthys and Elpistostege; see later) we are free to argue vociferously about the identity of the group of fishes that must be the tetrapod ancestor. (This is like the joke about the baseball player who, although he was terrible at bat, couldn’t field either.)” (Keith Stewart Thomson [Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University, USA], in “The origin of tetrapods,” American Journal of Science (1993) 293-A:58, 39)
Insects
“As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms - either living or in the fossil record . . .”
Osorio, Bacon & Whitington, American Scientist, May/June 1997, p. 244.
Reptiles
“no fossil amphibian seems clearly ancestral to the lineage of fully terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, and mammals).” (Gould, Stephen Jay. 1991. Eight (or Fewer) Little Piggies. Natural History 100 (no.1, Jan.): 22-29.)
As I told you before, the universal constructor model suggests that there are functional requirements that the pattern satisfies by default. For example,
Since viruses can be manipulated to produce more than one process for more than one motive (i.e. HGT), they explain the biochemical similarities AND the phylogenetic patterns from close relatives. This means that we would expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes from those close relatives.
For instance, the ceRNA hypothesis provides an elegant explanation for the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes.
Furthermore, as Fuz Rana describes
“The structural and functional features of the preexisting ERVs (i.e., their capacity to copy themselves and move throughout genomes) are precisely what make these ERV sequences so useful. Their capacity for retrotranspositioning affords these sequences the means to disrupt the endogenization process of invading retroviruses. In other words, for the ERV sequences to operate as antiretroviral elements, they must resemble endogenized retroviruses.”
Lastly, according to sources, close relatives are considered to be the genus level and below, as suggested by Theobald and others:
"Based on shared derived characters, closely related organisms can be placed in one group (such as a genus), several genera can be grouped together into one family, several families can be grouped together into an order, etc."
“The genus (plural, genera) is the taxonomic rank between family and species. The groups of organisms in a genus share many structural similarities and are very closely related. Members of a genus are more closely related to each other than they are to other genera in the same family. The cat family, Felidae, includes lions, tigers, ocelots, domestic cats, bobcats, and lynx. However, lions and tigers belong to the genus Panthera, ocelots and domestic cats are part of the genus Felis, and lynx and bobcats are in the genus Lynx.” biological classification - Students | Britannica Kids | Homework Help
This is consistent with what we would expect from the model because basic types are generally considered at the family level. Anything below the family would be the branches of closely related organisms that show nested patterns that can be traced back to those unrelated basic types.
Because my model predicts that we can find them based on the many instances of convergent molecular evolution we find in mammals and vertebrates/invertebrates. This leads me to address your next objection…
I beg to differ. As Fuz Rana mentions and Doolittle describes:
"Evolutionary biologists recognize five different types of Molecular convergence:
Functional convergence describes the independent origin of biochemical functionality on more than one occasion.
Mechanistic convergence refers to the multiple independent emergences of biochemical processes that use the same chemical mechanisms.
Structural convergence results when two or more biomolecules independently adopt the same three dimensional structure.
Sequence convergence occurs when either proteins or regions of DNA arise separately but have identical amino acid or nucleotide sequences, respectively.
Systemic convergence is the most remarkable of all. This type of molecular convergence describes the independent systems emergence of identical biochemical"
Neither of those is a real link. So we are agreed that the hybridization criterion is useless, and your attempt to justify Felidae and Canidae using that criterion was in error. Progress. And now you refer vaguely to other criteria that I predict will turn out to be just as much in error, provided you ever manage to articulate some form of reasoning from evidence.
Why?
That’s an assumption. How would you show that it’s true?
Of course, “the pit viper” is many species that live in many environments. Comparing the habitat tolerance of one species to the multiple habitat tolerances of many species is arbitrary and silly. No one pit viper species has the full range of tolerance. So why are you treating them as a unit rather than, as with the Fea viper, separate types?
What a surprise: many species contain more genetic variation than a single species. Alert the press!
That’s not a reason. It’s just an unsupported claim. As with all your other criteria, there is no justification for this one too.
I asked for one example. Show me one. I also note that you ignored almost everything I said.
How can you tell whether it’s useful?
But you haven’t explained. You have just made the assertion. As for evidence favoring natural selection and transmutation (speciation? evolution?), just look at any issue of a dozen or more journals, notably Evolution.
Again you cite and quote things you have never read. And you continue your standard method of cut-and-paste, Gish Gallop, word blizzards, only tenuously connected to anything relevant. I note that they are all more than 20 years old, though many of them were wrong when published, and all of them are wrong based on what we know now. I would discuss them with you, but since you haven’t read any of them, what basis do we have for communication?
Word salad, and another set of irrelevant quotes.
More irrelevant citations of papers you have never read. Logorrhea is not a valid form of argument.
He does mention plants (and he’s erroneous there) but never Cambrian fish. Nor are they basic types according to me. Much of what Koonin says there is wrong and/or without evidence. And since your basic types are far removed from anything Koonin is talking about, e.g. mammal families, none of that is relevant to your supposed point. Why is there a nested hierarchy connecting mammal families, and a quite well resolved one at that? What, to you, are Afrotheria, Euarchontoglires, Carnivora, Artiodactyla, and so on? Mammals, all by themselves, completely destroy your notion.
That wouldn’t have worked well in court. “No, your honor, I haven’t reviewed any of the cases I’ve cited, or the evidence, for that matter. But I’m sure you’ll be able to tell me if I’ve got any of it wrong.”
No, the ecology criterion is based on an inference from observations that suggest how members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels.
Plus, the high number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal, which would suggest that survival and reproductive capabilities were front loaded from the start.
This means that different ecological and trophic features should delineate separate organisms because they are supposed to be preprogrammed to survive and reproduce under a particular environment or several ones.
How and why? please elaborate.
Because the hybridization experiments have presumably been successful in showing a relationship between species of Pit Vipers. As I told you before, this method would disprove the hypothesis that they are separate basic types.
No, the ecology criterion is based on an inference from observations showing members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels.
Plus, the high number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal, which would suggest that survival and reproductive capabilities were preprogrammed from the start.
This means that different ecological and trophic features should delineate separate organisms because they are supposed to be preprogrammed to survive and reproduce under a particular environment or several ones.
Sure, let me clean it up.
The universal constructor model suggests that there are functional requirements that the pattern satisfies by default. For example,
Viruses can be genetically engineered to produce more than one process for more than one motive (i.e. HGT). This can explain the phylogenetic patterns from close relatives because HGT’s “are characterized by the preference of taxa to exchange genes with partners more similar to themselves”. Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry | PNAS
If this common design model is true, we would expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes from those similar but unrelated basic types.
For example, the ceRNA hypothesis provides an elegant explanation for the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes.
Again, HGT is the reason. We should find more functional pseudogenes and ERV’s between similar basic types that will indicate an unrelated.population of organisms… For example, according to this study:
“Indeed, placenta syncytial cells have originated on multiple independent occasions during mammalian evolution, being observed for example in Artiodactyla, but not in pigs or camels, in Carnivora, Rodentia, and Primata (38). Our work and other reports (reviewed in refs. 39–41) therefore lead to the proposal that several independent retroviral infections may have contributed to the emergence of a common syncytial barrier in different species and played a pivotal convergent role in placenta morphogenesis and physiology.” [Emphasis added] Syncytin-A and syncytin-B, two fusogenic placenta-specific murine envelope genes of retroviral origin conserved in Muridae | PNAS
To sum up, the ecology criteria and finding molecular convergence are the best ways in determining similar but unrelated basic types
No actually.
For instance, according to the laws of logic, the attributes of God have to work in accordance with each other in a logically consistent manner because he is who he is (i.e. the law of identity) and cannot not be who he is at the same time (i.e. law of non-contradiction).
This means that God cannot make himself cease to exist because this would conflict with him being a necessary being. God cannot make a square-circle because this would conflict with his omniscience. God cannot lie because it would conflict with his omnibenevolence. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift because it would conflict with his omni-potency.
Most importantly, God cannot create and develop a world that does not have God intimately involved in the process every step of the way because it would conflict with his “Personal’ nature.
Thus, God must be true to “all” his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self.
Yes, design does require it. The universal constructor model suggests that there are functional requirements that the pattern satisfies by default. For example,
Viruses can be genetically engineered to produce more than one process for more than one motive (i.e. HGT). This can explain the phylogenetic patterns from close relative because HGT’s “are characterized by the preference of taxa to exchange genes with partners more similar to themselves”. Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry | PNAS
If this common design model is true, we would expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes from those similar but unrelated basic types.
For example, the ceRNA hypothesis provides an elegant explanation for the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes.
Excuse my butting in as I have zero interest in the baramin nonsense, but the text I quote just takes my breath away. The confidence with which Meercat states their logical deduction makes me ask why not ask the ultimate logical question.
Why did God need to make the universe at all? I agree the logic that God made a universe with consistent and unchanging properties, regularities, laws of nature and in doing so ensures God cannot interfere with those regularities as doing so would result in inconsistency and science, relying on regularities, would be to impossible. Miracles can’t happen by Meerkat’s God logic. God has no need to test anything, no need to experiment. All is known.
So why bother with a universe with humans spending so much time wondering (and explaining) the logic of it all? It makes no sense.
Apparently it’s too much trouble for you to check before posting. Do you have that much contempt for your audience?
I asked for one example of a scientific paper. You gave me a list that has no science in it. Is it that you can’t recognize science when you see it, or that you didn’t bother to look once again, or that you just don’t care?
Assuming that’s true, why should we expect that to diagnose a basic type?
It suggests no such thing. Your arguments consist in equal measure of nonsense and non sequitur.
And here, you seem to equate organisms with basic types, which I presume is just unintentional sloppiness. If you can’t write a coherent sentence, how can you expect to convince anyone of anything? Note that “a particular environment or several ones” makes the criterion meaningless.
I did elaborate, in the very statement quoted above. And you get out of one criterion by recourse to another, which you just assume is true without any attempt to find out (“presumably”). It’s impossible to exaggerate the level of incompetence displayed here.
You simply repeat previous claims, sometimes verbatim. Do you understand that just shouting the same thing over and over is not clarifying? Do you even remember that you said exactly the same thing, word for word, a little ways above in that very comment?
The problem wasn’t that it wasn’t clean. The problem was, and still is, that you make no rational connection between your premises and your conclusions. That some of your premises are false doesn’t help.
Even assuming that this means something, ERVs and pseudogenes are only a small part of the evidence for common descent. How do you explain away the bulk of the evidence that has nothing to do with ERVs and pseudogenes? Consider the nested hierarchy among DNA sequences, such as intron sequences.
Why would that indicate an unrelated population of organisms? And please don’t just repeat crap you’ve posted here a thousand times. Try very hard to think about what you’re saying.
So why can we have species that are part reptile and part mammal but not species who are part bird and part mammal?
No, it doesn’t. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Humans regularly violate a nested hierarchy when they design organisms. How many times do I need to point this out?
This means we can infer from those observations that different ecological and trophic features should delineate separate organisms because they are supposed to be preprogrammed to survive and reproduce under a particular environment or several ones.
No, it does not because how they interact with their environment is just as important in deciphering basic types as which environment, they are in.
Well, the focus here is just to show how the model can be tested not provide original research results.
I did this because you seem to have memory lapses from time to time during our discourse about what I said. There were several instances where I had to address the same objection multiple times.
How so? please elaborate.
I would explain it with a different type of convergence called “Sequence convergence”. This occurs when either proteins or regions of DNA arise separately but have identical amino acid or nucleotide sequences, respectively.
Because it represents another form of convergence called “Functional convergence”. This describes the independent origin of biochemical functionality on more than one occasion.
BTW, I meant to say basic types.
Humans are not perfect and immutable, but God is. Again, God cannot do things that are immoral while humans can. This reasoning applies to design as well.
Because it represents another form of convergence called “Functional convergence”. This describes the independent origin of biochemical functionality on more than one occasion.
To make sure humans have meaningful relationship with him where they find out more about him and know that he exists.
From Romans:
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Why is it immoral to design organisms that don’t fit into a nested hierarchy? Why would it be immoral to create a species that is part bird and part mammal but moral to create a species that is part reptile and part mammal?
Why does it represent a form of convergence? Why are PtERV1 insertions in chimps and gorillas at different places in each of their genomes?
