Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • we'll just have to weaponize our autism

Topic: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies (Read 20487 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Lizzie writes
Quote
Well, let me ask you a test question:

Why is the fact that features like mammary glands and bilateral symmetry, and countless other anatomical features are exquisitely nested evidence for evolutionary theory?

If you can answer that, perhaps I will revise my impression that you do not understand evolutionary theory.
A poorly worded question but I think she thinks that "exquisite nesting" of "countless anatomical features" constitutes evidence for the ToE.

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #1
I answered as follows ...
Quote
What you need to prove Darwin's theory is evidence which is exclusive to his theory.  IIRC from studying Michael Denton a long time ago ... Nested hierarchies are not this sort of evidence as they would be expected under either paradigm - Design or NoDesign.
More...Quick Edit

However, before answering, I should have looked at this thread from 2008 ... where I wrote
Quote
The only thing I disagree with you on WRT nested hierarchies is a point of which Michael Denton--no friend of creationism and a competent geneticist--made me aware: that in our human experience, nested hierarchies speak of artificial, intelligently designed objects.
I will have to review Denton's exact words to see where I got this.

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2
Also interesting was the caution given by Martin Brazeau ...
Quote
I agree that there are actual applications for evolutionary theory. I even pointed one out (but I don't have the exact ref off hand). As far as I can tell, the examples provided by Dlx2 are also legitimate. We can use evolutionary theory for practical scientific purposes, yes.

My concern is as follows:

I'm cautioning that simple applications of systematics are not the work of evolutionary theory, nor are they even dependent upon or helped by a prior belief in evolution. My concern here is that people are going to argue against Dave (or any other creationist, it doesn't have to be Dave) using hopeless arguments in a case where, for once, Dave is actually right (at least in part). He's dead right in the Chinchilla example. Comparative biology is not, nor does it depend on evolutionary theory. What Dave is missing is the key point about pattern. And what everybody else is missing is that those patterns exist whether we believe in evolution or not. We'll all end up undercutting our position if we try to simultaneously hold that our explanations for a pattern was necessary for recovering that pattern which is also the evidence for our explanation. http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=56479#post56479

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #3
Lizzie writes
Quote
Well, let me ask you a test question:

Why is the fact that features like mammary glands and bilateral symmetry, and countless other anatomical features are exquisitely nested evidence for evolutionary theory?

If you can answer that, perhaps I will revise my impression that you do not understand evolutionary theory.
A poorly worded question but I think she thinks that "exquisite nesting" of "countless anatomical features" constitutes evidence for the ToE.
Yes, that's what she means.
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #4
Also interesting was the caution given by Martin Brazeau ...
Quote
I agree that there are actual applications for evolutionary theory. I even pointed one out (but I don't have the exact ref off hand). As far as I can tell, the examples provided by Dlx2 are also legitimate. We can use evolutionary theory for practical scientific purposes, yes.

My concern is as follows:

I'm cautioning that simple applications of systematics are not the work of evolutionary theory, nor are they even dependent upon or helped by a prior belief in evolution. My concern here is that people are going to argue against Dave (or any other creationist, it doesn't have to be Dave) using hopeless arguments in a case where, for once, Dave is actually right (at least in part). He's dead right in the Chinchilla example. Comparative biology is not, nor does it depend on evolutionary theory. What Dave is missing is the key point about pattern. And what everybody else is missing is that those patterns exist whether we believe in evolution or not. We'll all end up undercutting our position if we try to simultaneously hold that our explanations for a pattern was necessary for recovering that pattern which is also the evidence for our explanation. http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=56479#post56479
Truth is out of style

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #5
I like what Dawkins has to say on this topic ...
Quote
It isn't that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution.

Richard Dawkins

See p. 283 at this link ... https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&pg=PA282&dq=transformed+cladist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ySUbP8Nte44AO9qoCYDw#v=onepage&q=transformed%20cladist&f=false

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #6
Lizzie writes
Quote
Well, let me ask you a test question:

Why is the fact that features like mammary glands and bilateral symmetry, and countless other anatomical features are exquisitely nested evidence for evolutionary theory?

If you can answer that, perhaps I will revise my impression that you do not understand evolutionary theory.
A poorly worded question but I think she thinks that "exquisite nesting" of "countless anatomical features" constitutes evidence for the ToE.


Maybe a comma would have helped.  Try:

Quote
Why is the fact that features like mammary glands and bilateral symmetry and countless other anatomical features are exquisitely nested, evidence for evolutionary theory?

Or possibly:

Quote
Why is the exquisite nesting of features like mammary glands and bilateral symmetry and countless other anatomical features evidence for evolutionary theory?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #7
I answered as follows ...
Quote
What you need to prove Darwin's theory is evidence which is exclusive to his theory.  IIRC from studying Michael Denton a long time ago ... Nested hierarchies are not this sort of evidence as they would be expected under either paradigm - Design or NoDesign.
More...Quick Edit

However, before answering, I should have looked at this thread from 2008 ... where I wrote
Quote
The only thing I disagree with you on WRT nested hierarchies is a point of which Michael Denton--no friend of creationism and a competent geneticist--made me aware: that in our human experience, nested hierarchies speak of artificial, intelligently designed objects.
I will have to review Denton's exact words to see where I got this.

Wherever you got it, it's wrong.  If Denton said it, Denton is wrong. If you made it up, you are wrong.  It's wrong.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #8
I like what Dawkins has to say on this topic ...
Quote
It isn't that any transformed cladists are themselves fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology. They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution.

Richard Dawkins

See p. 283 at this link ... https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&pg=PA282&dq=transformed+cladist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6ySUbP8Nte44AO9qoCYDw#v=onepage&q=transformed%20cladist&f=false
Do you understand what he means by that?

(Yes, this is a rhetorical question.)
Truth is out of style

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #9
Lizzie is in full "Bass" mode this morning.  Small ears, large mouth. "Dave's wrong.  No matter what!"

 She probably didn't even bother to read what Martin B wrote

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #10
 And why should she? That might disrupt her comfortable view of the world!

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #11
You're just blithering. As usual.

Again: do you understand what Dawkins meant by the sentence you quoted?
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #12
Come to think of it, do you understand what Martin B meant?

(Yes, this is another one.)
Truth is out of style

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #13
Lizzie is in full "Bass" mode this morning.  Small ears, large mouth. "Dave's wrong.  No matter what!"

 She probably didn't even bother to read what Martin B wrote

Yes, I did.  You are wrong about this. 

You are also wrong that I think you are wrong "no matter what".  Sometimes I think you are right, and I say so. But you are wrong a lot, and you are wrong about this.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #14
And why should she? That might disrupt her comfortable view of the world!

Look in the mirror, Dave!
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #15
Hint: Dave, try reading ALL Martin's post, instead of the "nuggets" you put in red.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #16
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #17
Oh look, Dave is pretending to be the smart one. Isn't it cute?
Truth is out of style

  • JonF
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #18
Any comment on this Dave?

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html

No comment for now.  Maybe later after you have grasped "Allan Savory Basics" which I just posted.
Oh shit, Dave.  Run.
From the link:
Instead, there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory's dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory's method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory's Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory's method "failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application." The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: "No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity."
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #19
And why should she? That might disrupt her comfortable view of the world!

Look in the mirror, Dave!
Truth is out of style

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #20
Reposting:

Or else the "gotcha" is real and I get tired of rubbing your nose in it. :wave:

No, it isn't real, Dave.  I mean you might think you gotchus but the fact is that we know you haven't because you reveal that you don't understand the very model you think is "fatally flawed".

It's like if one of us said: look, Dave, your goat project won't work because your theory that goat milk is healthy because it is rich in fibre is wrong! Goat milk doesn't contain fibre!  Gotcha!  You would rightly say: but that's not my theory! 

Same with us.  You say the mainstream model of evolution and the age of the earth is "fatally flawed" and so even your half-baked YEC model must be better, or at least no worse.  But you reveal constantly that you do not understand the mainstream model.  I mean, it might well be "fatally flawed" - but it doesn't have the flaws you think it has because you don't even know what it is. 

You get it wrong.


So no, I don't "get it wrong."

I do indeed understand your theory.

Based on my understanding of your theory I reasoned that mammary glands could theoretically evolve in a lineage that had trifold symmetry.

And you agreed.

QED

Well, let me ask you a test question:

Why is the fact that features like mammary glands and bilateral symmetry, and countless othe anatomical features are exquisitely nested evidence for evolutionary theory?

If you can answer that, perhaps I will revise my impression that you do not understand evolutionary theory.


What you need to prove Darwin's theory is evidence which is exclusive to his theory.  IIRC from studying Michael Denton a long time ago ... Nested hierarchies are not this sort of evidence as they would be expected under either paradigm - Design or NoDesign.

No.  Nested hierarchies are NOT the expectation "under either paradigm".  Human designs do NOT form nested hierarchies.  A human designer would NOT be restricted from transferring a mammary design to a starfish.  Evolution IS.  A human designer would NOT be restricted from transferring bird lungs to mammals. Evolution is.  Time and again we see functional solutions emerge in one lineage that are NOT then applied to another lineage - precisely the limitation evolution has.  Whereas in human designs there is NO such restriction.

Evolution is entirely constrained by what has already happened.   Human designers are not.

Therefore, if you want to argue that the nested hierarchies are the work of a designer, then that designer was operating under constraints that do not apply to humans.  Which is a very odd argument from people who claim that their putative designer is omnipotent.

In other words: the pattern and distribution of the features of living things is exactly as you would expect from evolution.  It is NOT what you would expect from a human designer, and it is certainly not what you would predict from an omnipotent designer, unless that omnipotent designer wanted to make the biological world look as though it evolved.

Which you may believe if you wish.  But it is an untestable hypothesis, and therefore not scientific[1].
Popper
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #21
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #22
Dave, two questions:

Do you understand why your first question is stupid?

Do you understand why your second question is stupid?

(Yes, these are rhetorical too.)
Truth is out of style

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #23
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #24
Mainstream Christians whose leadership have bothered to understand science, and evolution in particular, have no problem reconciling God and creation with the age of earth and universe, evolution, or indeed any accepted science, because they understand their deity to be powerful and fully able to set the universe we inhabit in motion without resorting to trickery and micro-management.

It's in fact demeaning to God to assume otherwise. But Dave's ilk aren't able to see that, and are stuck viewing God as some sort of hedge witch or wand-waving magician. It's an odd form of worship that pretends one's god is incapable of creating a rational universe.