|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 8/29/2007 2:29:49 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
The mistake you are making is that you assume that eye color is determined by a single trait. This is not the case. Eye color is determined by more than one trait. If you examine these traits and how they are inherited by children from thier parents, you will find... you've guessed it... a nested hierarchy.
Do you have any evidence that it will form a nested hierarchy? My example shows a violation of nested hierarchies. Even if eye color is controlled by different genes, the fact that two people further related from one another can have a trait that's more similar than two more closely related people is a violation of this nested hierarchy.
While it is true more than one gene does control eye color, the OCA2 gene is the primary gene that controls eye color. One person may have it and he may have a brother that doesn't; yet he may have a cousin that does have this gene. This is a violation of the nested hierarchy.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/eye-color-explained
quote:
Heres a tip: Don't oversimplify.
Here is a tip, don't over complicate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 8/31/2007 4:27:27 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 487
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
The mistake you are making is that you assume that eye color is determined by a single trait. This is not the case. Eye color is determined by more than one trait. If you examine these traits and how they are inherited by children from thier parents, you will find... you've guessed it... a nested hierarchy.
Do you have any evidence that it will form a nested hierarchy?
There are two ways a trait ends up where it is. It is either a mutation, or it is inherited.
If it is a mutation, it is new. If it is inherited it is not.
From this we can deduce that when traits are used to build a tree, it will form a nested hierarchy.
quote:
My example shows a violation of nested hierarchies. Even if eye color is controlled by different genes, the fact that two people further related from one another can have a trait that's more similar than two more closely related people is a violation of this nested hierarchy.
Let me explain it better then, so that you can understand it.
Eye color is the result of many traits. The eye color is the end result of many traits. Eye color itself, is not a trait. If you look at eye color as a trait, you will find that it does not fit a nested hierarchy. (Which is what you have discovered.)
Heres an example that might help you understand what I am getting at.
Lets look at an arm with three segments: segment A,B and C. The total length of the arm is the sum of the three segments length.
Lets assume that a single gene controls the length of A, another single genes controls the length of B and another single gene controls the length of C.
If you build a tree using the gene for A, you will get a nested hierarchy. If you build a tree using B you will get a nested hierarchy. If you do the same for C, you will also get a nested hierarchy.
Now, lets look at the length of the arm. The length if the arm is not based on a single gene. This means that you can get an arm with length 100cm where A=10cm, B=20cm and C=70cm.
You can get another where A=50cm, B=5cm and C=45cm.
They are both 100cm in length, but they are a result of different genes.
Eye color is the same. You can get two sets of brown eyes based on different genes.
This is why eye color by itself can break the nested hierarchy, but the genes themselves cannot.
quote:
While it is true more than one gene does control eye color, the OCA2 gene is the primary gene that controls eye color. One person may have it and he may have a brother that doesn't; yet he may have a cousin that does have this gene. This is a violation of the nested hierarchy.
The gene is present in all cases, they are only expressed differently. The gene may have mutations though.
The thing is if you build a tree by looking at the OTHER genes that determine how the main one is expressed, you will get a nested hierarchy.
If you build a tree using the mutations in the main gene itself, you will also get a nested hierarchy.
Before you can claim that the nested hierarchy is being broken here, you actually have to show that it has been broken.
quote:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/eye-color-explained
Interesting.
quote:
quote:
Heres a tip: Don't oversimplify.
Here is a tip, don't over complicate.
I agree that you should not over complicate. But you should not confuse 'complicating' with including available evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 8/31/2007 5:54:52 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
There are two ways a trait ends up where it is. It is either a mutation, or it is inherited.
If it is a mutation, it is new. If it is inherited it is not.
From this we can deduce that when traits are used to build a tree, it will form a nested hierarchy.
How? What I gave is a clear cut violation of a nested hierarchy. Yes, traits can be either inherited and inherited traits can be changed via mutation. My point is that it's entirely possible for people who have a further relationship from one another to have a trait in common that people of closer relationships don't have (a violation of the nested hierarchy). Nothing you said contradicts what I said.
quote:
Eye color is the result of many traits.
Eye color is one trait. It is the result of more than one gene.
quote:
The eye color is the end result of many traits.
The eye color is the end result of a few genes. One gene in particular has a bigger influence on eye color than other genes.
quote:
Eye color itself, is not a trait.
Yes it is.
quote:
If you build a tree using the gene for A, you will get a nested hierarchy. If you build a tree using B you will get a nested hierarchy. If you do the same for C, you will also get a nested hierarchy.
Yet it's possible for someone to have gene A, have a brother that does not have gene A, and have a cousin that does have gene A. This is a violation of the nested hierarchy because two people more closely related will have a gene (and in turn, a trait, or at least a determining factor for a trait) that's less similar than two people with a more distant relationship. According to universal evolution, those people could branch into completely different species yet two species that are more closely related won't have a particular gene that two species with a further relationship will have.
quote:
Eye color is the same. You can get two sets of brown eyes based on different genes.
You can get two people with a distant relationship having brown eyes and both of those people may have brothers who do not have brown eyes, again, a violation of the nested hierarchy.
quote:
This is why eye color by itself can break the nested hierarchy, but the genes themselves cannot.
Again, the genes can break the nested hierarchy. Both eye color and genes can break the nested hierarchy. It's possible for someone to have the OCA2 gene, have a brother who did not inherit that gene, yet have a cousin that inherited that same exact gene. A violation of the nested hierarchy on the genetic scale.
quote:
Before you can claim that the nested hierarchy is being broken here, you actually have to show that it has been broken.
I already have shown this.
quote:
The thing is if you build a tree by looking at the OTHER genes that determine how the main one is expressed, you will get a nested hierarchy.
Life doesn't try to build any trees here. You will not get a nested hierarchy, you will get violations. As I have already demonstrated, it's possible for people with more distant relationships to have genes and phenotypes in common that people with closer relationships do not have in common. These are violations of a nested hierarchy.
quote:
I agree that you should not over complicate. But you should not confuse 'complicating' with including available evidence.
I am including available evidence and available evidence shows that genetics does not predict a nested hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/3/2007 9:56:15 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 487
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yet it's possible for someone to have gene A, have a brother that does not have gene A, and have a cousin that does have gene A. This is a violation of the nested hierarchy because two people more closely related will have a gene (and in turn, a trait, or at least a determining factor for a trait) that's less similar than two people with a more distant relationship. According to universal evolution, those people could branch into completely different species yet two species that are more closely related won't have a particular gene that two species with a further relationship will have.
This is the root of your misunderstanding: You don't even know what a nested hierarchy IS.
You sketch the following scenario: B1 and B2 are brothers. C1 is a cousin of both. B1 has gene G1. B2 does not. C1 has gene G1.
You think that this is a violation of the nested hierarchy while it is not. This would be a violation ONLY if neither of the parents of B1 and B2 have the gene G1.
The ToE predicts that you will never find this, and it has never been found.
Perhaps you should try to understand what a nested hierarchy actually IS before you comment on the topic?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/3/2007 11:16:07 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
This is the root of your misunderstanding: You don't even know what a nested hierarchy IS.
There is no misunderstanding, I know what a nested hierarchy is.
quote:
You sketch the following scenario: B1 and B2 are brothers. C1 is a cousin of both. B1 has gene G1. B2 does not. C1 has gene G1.
You think that this is a violation of the nested hierarchy while it is not. This would be a violation ONLY if neither of the parents of B1 and B2 have the gene G1.
In the case of a nested hierarchy, organisms are classified by their characteristics. We can't trace back the genomes of every organism all the way to its speculated universal common ancestor. So what is done is they take a bunch of organism and they try to classify them into a nested hierarchy by their characteristics. They claim that two organisms who have a further relationship with one another should have no traits in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share. So this is how they would try to classify the organisms. The way it is organized is like this
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
According to their arbitrary nested hierarchy, organisms within the same species should have certain traits in common that organisms of different species should not. Organisms of the same genius should have traits in common that organisms of a different genius should not. The reason for this is supposedly because the organisms of the same species are more closely related than organisms of a different species. Organisms of the same genius are supposedly more closely related than organisms of a different genius. This is how they attempt to categorize this nested hierarchy. What I'm pointing out here is that there are many problems with this.
A: (as I have already implicitly pointed out) The paradox of self reference. The nested hierarchy is trying to prove itself consistent by referring to itself. That is to say, if there are any violations in one nested hierarchy people can always re - categorize the organisms to fit some other conceivable nested hierarchy. They can create new branches (ie: new classes, phylums, kingdoms, Domains or create a new branch higher than kingdom and lower than Domain or just create a new branch higher than Domain), claim that certain features diverged earlier in the tree (ie: if there is a bat with feathers they can claim they received those feathers earlier in the tree), move the organisms around (re - classify them), etc... The nested hierarchy is just an arbitrary way of categorizing organisms. In the case of bats, horses, and cows, they found a violation in the previous arbitrary hierarchy. So what do they do? They arbitrarily re - classify the organisms to fit some other conceivable nested hierarchy.
quote:
"We need to look at fossils from a new point of view, because there must have been a common ancestor of bats, horses and dogs," Okada says.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025575.600-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
Plus, people get to arbitrarily choose which characteristics to include in the classification system and which ones to exclude.
B: Making the assumption that the nested hierarchy isn't just an arbitrary way of categorizing organisms, there are violations. There are organisms with characteristics that are different enough (from one another) to resist the notion that they are the result of common ancestry yet similar enough to resist the notion that they received these similarities by chance. IE: the platypus bill and the duck bill. If the bill was too similar, it could be claimed these were the result of a common ancestor. If they weren't similar enough, it could be claimed they evolved independently. This example resists both these scenarios (they are different enough to resist common ancestry yet similar enough to resist evolutionary chance). When it comes to examples like this (also the eye of the platypus), they speculate convergent evolution, parallel evolution, evolutionary relay, or some other speculative, non observed form of evolution with no evidence that this kind of evolution ever occurs in nature (they can also attribute it to a combination of evolutionary relay and chance or just chance. Since there exists many organisms constantly changing they can speculate that it's plausible for at least one violation to exist). Protists violate the nested hierarchy (so they create a new kingdom, point A) and our mitochondria violates the nested hierarchy (hence they speculate the unsubstantiated endosymbiotic theory which involves a speculative phenomena that is never observed in nature).
C: As already pointed out, there is no reason to suspect that evolution even predicts a nested hierarchy. Based on what we know about genetics, it's entirely possible for two organisms with a more distant relationship to share genes and characteristics in common that two organisms with a closer relationship do not share.
quote:
The ToE predicts that you will never find this, and it has never been found.
Universal evolution makes no predictions. We can't trace back the genome of every organism all the way up to the speculated universal common ancestor. What you're saying is not how the nested hierarchy is classified.
quote:
Perhaps you should try to understand what a nested hierarchy actually IS before you comment on the topic?
I understand what a nested hierarchy is.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/3/2007 2:26:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/3/2007 2:48:02 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
To make this concept of how they classify this arbitrary nested hierarchy even clearer, I'm going to quote something from evowiki (for some reason the link no longer works though)
quote:
Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.
While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird (class Aves). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two seperate groups.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy
Here
Here
quote:
Oops! Did someone say something about a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the platypus
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6568
Basically (as already stated above) what they are trying to say is that two organisms with a far relationship should have no traits in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:20:31 AM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 278
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
http://www.lakesidenaturecenter.org/images/AC_Mallard_Duck%20bill.jpg
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci338m/Lectures/platybill.jpg
I like this image better
Sure. My comments in post 17 still stand. I await your answer on this subject.
quote:
It is speculated that they aren't related. This speculation is based on their characteristics. If their characteristics were different, it could just as easily be speculated that they are related.
No it couldn't. If a creature had bird and mammal characteristics, then the entire bird-reptile line of the heirachy would be disproven. But we already know that birds decended from dinosaurs, because we can see the evolution of various avian features in fossil dino's. Therefore, the entire common descent schmuck would fall apart.
quote:
You argue the similarities are only superficial and I argue the differences are only superficial.
Well, the differences are the entire internal stucture, how it grows, what it is used for... and the similarities are... well, they don't even look similar. (This is what I'm specifically waiting for an answer for. I didn't want to go back to the 'exponentional growth' posts... but too late now).
quote:
It is speculated that they are not related and it could just as easily be speculated that they are related
Stop making things up and attributing them to your opponents. Mammals have features birds don't have, birds have features mammals don't have. Anything they have in common can be attributed to common ancestory, provided they are also in the ancestors of both creatures. Mammals ancestors (as shown by the fossil record) never had feathers, bird ancestors (dino's, and other creatures shown by the fossil record) never had live birth. Therefore, they aren't related. There is no way to make them related.
quote:
There is no evidence to suggest that the first living things were much simpler, that is based on pure speculation.
No, there is no 'evidence' regarding the first living things. The theories are there to establish the probability of abiogenesis happening, not to establish if it actually happened. The concept that the first living things were simpler is based on the fact that there exist self replicators of that size, and it is vastly more probable that they would occur on early earth than it is that any fully working cell would occur.
quote:
Given enough simultaneous trials and time there is a much higher chance a nested hierarchy violation can occur (by chance) as well.
Now you're just making things up using words that sound good to you. A nested heirachy violation can't occur, because everything is the decendant of its ancestors. Without getting new genetic material from something other than your ancestors, a violation can't occur. Stop making yourself look stupid.
quote:
The speculated relationship of these organisms are based on their features. Whenever there is a mosaic, it could be speculated that these organisms have some sort of evolutionary relationship.
Stop making stuff up and repeating it over and over. It is dishonest.
quote:
We don't know that birds and mammals evolved separately, naturalists speculate that they evolved separately (based on their characteristics). If a mammal had bird feathers, it could be speculated that they did not evolve separately. Just like with the horse, bat, and cow violation, they can simply re - arrange the arbitrarily hierarchy to fit some other hierarchy.
Already explained above. In short: Anything they have in common can be attributed to common ancestory, provided they are also in the ancestors of both creatures. Since they're not, it can't.
quote:
quote:
"We need to look at fossils from a new point of view, because there must have been a common ancestor of bats, horses and dogs," Okada says.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025575.600-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
This wasn't a violation. It was evolutionists realising that cows diverged from the horse line before bats did, and updating the theory accordingly.
quote:
The reason they speculate that it broke away from conventional mammals so long ago is based on the features that it does have. If it has features that violate the hierarchy, they can claim that those features were present long ago and broke off long ago. It is not "predicted" that they broke away from conventional mammals long before the dinosaurs, it is speculated that they broke away so long ago based on the characteristics of these animals. If there is a violation, they can speculate that such features were around a much longer time ago.
You didn't answer my main point: there is no reson for it to have bird or dinosaurian features, except those features that already existed on the common ancestor so many millenia ago. These features, feathers and other bird characteristics, and fur and other mammalian characteristics, evolved long after the mammals broke away from the birds, as recorded by the fossils and indicated by the nested heirachy. Therefore, the common something combining two features that evolved seperately would falsify common descent.
quote:
Punctuated equilibrium is not based on common sense, it is based on unsupported speculation. It is an attempt to explain why the fossil record doesn't support gradualism (as darwin predicted it should). Basically, it speculates that organisms stay relatively stable for a long period of time and evolve in sudden large spurts leaving behind little to no evidence.
No, once again, it is based on the fact that: Less selection pressure = more mutations survive = faster evolution, END. This is called logic (common sense was a bad word to use, swap it for logic). It speculates that Less selection pressure = more mutations survive = faster evolution, END. Stop calling logic speculation!
quote:
Also, there is no reason to believe that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.
What BVZ said.
quote:
There could be brothers who look alike but one of them would have brown eyes (person A) and another would have green eyes (person B). Yet, someone else, who isn't closely related to the brothers, may have green eyes (person C) and have a brother with brown eyes (person D). The eyes of person C would be more similar to the eyes of person B than they are to person D even though person C is more closely related to person D than B. This is a violation of a nested hierarchy even though we all agree that persons A, B, C, and D do share a common ancestor (because they're all human). Since we don't observe nested hierarchies among organisms that we know share a common ancestor (because we can trace their lineages), speculating that some arbitrary nested hierarchy is predicted by evolution is evidently unsupported at best.
Eye colours aren't an example of evolution, because they only require variation. Evolution is the gradual buildup of mutations resulting in a unique feature (like features on birds). That same gradual build-up of those self same mutations won't occur again.
So, can we get back to the playpus? I still want an answer as to why you can possibly think that its bill is anything like that of a duck bill, taking these into account:quote:
General Shape: The platypus has a wide, bulky bill, which is quite thin when seen edgeways. The duck has a thin, streamlined bill, which is quite tall.
Nostrils: The platypus has two close-set nostrils right up the front of the bill. These nostrils are on the top of the bill, turned inwards at about a 45 degree angle, and slightly raised from the rest of the structure. In comparison, the duck has two nostrils on the sides of the bill, and up close to the head. These nostrils are also aligned parallel to each other.
Front end of bill: The platypus has a very wide 'scoop' at the front of its bill. The duck has a narrow point, with a small tip downwards (You'll have to see the picture to understand what I'm getting at) Note: Not all ducks have a different coloured tip on their bill.
Connection to head: The platypus has a large amount of material to 'brace' the bill on their head. The fur seems to start underneath this bracing. In comparison, the duck's feathers shrink gradually to join the point where the bill fits onto the face. The ducks bill has no bracing material.
Appearance: The platypus bill appears quite lumpy, and is significantly softer than the comparison. This is because the platypus bill has hundreds of nerve endings in the bill... it is a 'touch organ', much like human fingertips. The duck bill, however, is very hard and smooth, and has no nerve endings at all..
Size: In relation to each other, the platypus is of a similar size to the duck... but the platypus bill is much larger than the ducks bill both relative to body mass and in real world size.
Skull: The platypus 'bill' is composed of soft tissues stretched over a framework - the duck bill is a solid entity.
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:33:40 AM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 278
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Basically (as already stated above) what they are trying to say is that two organisms with a far relationship should have no traits in common that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share.
No, two organisms with a far relationship should have no traits in common that the common ancestor of both creatures did not share.
A violation would involve a creature with two features that evolved seperately on seperate lines of the heirachy.
Note: The eyes example doesn't work because speciation is an example of many groups coming from a single group, whereas the eyes are an example of 2 parents (4 genes in all, each of which is a very specific shade that contributes to the whole) mixing their genes into the pool, with some genes recessive and others redundant. In short, its one of the worst analogies of the year.
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:38:38 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
A violation would involve a creature with two features that evolved seperately on seperate lines of the heirachy.
It's possible for someone to have black hair and blue eyes, have a brother that doesn't, yet have a cousin that does. First you said that no one violation should exist, so I show a clear example of a violation that you can't refute, so then you move the goal posts to two violations. As far as the lines of the hierarchy, we can't trace the genetic information all the way to the speculative, non existent common ancestor so they can't know which organisms came from which lines. They speculate the relationship purely based on characteristics and it's totally possible for organisms with a more distant relationship to share features that organisms with a closer relationship don't share.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:43:38 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Eye colours aren't an example of evolution, because they only require variation.
Eye colors are an example of (micro)evolution, everything requires variation. If you are to tell me that the things that don't vary have to be in violation, this is speculative because we never observe nested hierarchies when it comes to the level of variation that we can observe (eye color) which means that there is no reason any nested hierarchy should result from evolution (since it's entirely possible for organisms with a more distant relationship to share genes that ones with a closer relationship don't share and all those organisms can allegedly diverge into different organisms. Violations on the grand scale can be easily be explained by that, there is no reason why they can't. Again, evolution predicts nothing).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:45:46 AM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 278
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
A violation would involve a creature with two features that evolved seperately on seperate lines of the heirachy.
It's possible for someone to have black hair and blue eyes, have a brother that doesn't, yet have a cousin that does. First you said that no one violation should exist, so I show a clear example of a violation that you can't refute, so then you move the goal posts to two violations. As far as the lines of the hierarchy, we can't trace the genetic information all the way to the speculative, non existent common ancestor so they can't know which organisms came from which lines. They speculate the relationship purely based on characteristics and it's totally possible for organisms with a more distant relationship to share features that organisms with a closer relationship don't share.
No need to get nasty just because you misunderstood my meaning. By 'two features that evolved seperately on seperate lines of the heirachy' I meant the first feature being the one from one line and the second being the one from another. Green eyes and blue eyes, in your woefully inadaquete example.
But variation is not an example of evolution, and sexual reproduction isn't anagolous to speciation, so your 'example' fails miserably.
Oh, and I have never deliberately moved the goalposts, or used any other dishonest tactic. Please retract your statement.
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:48:51 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
No need to get nasty just because you misunderstood my meaning. By 'two features that evolved seperately on seperate lines of the heirachy' I meant the first feature being the one from one line and the second being the one from another.
Oh, I thought you were looking for two violations. So you just mean the violation of one feature. I already provided that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 12:50:42 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
But variation is not an example of evolution, and sexual reproduction isn't anagolous to speciation, so your 'example' fails miserably.
Again, you're still missing the point. It's entirely possible for two organisms with a further relationship to share characteristics that two organisms with a closer relationship do not share. There is nothing stopping this from occurring on a large scale.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:00:56 AM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 278
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, you're still missing the point. It's entirely possible for two organisms with a further relationship to share characteristics that two organisms with a closer relationship do not share. There is nothing stopping this from occurring on a large scale.
Once again: two organisms with a far relationship should have no traits in common that the common ancestor of both creatures did not share.
An analagous 'eye colour' example would be if people only had one parent (the 'parent' species, the common ancestor) and if eye colour was determined by a single gene. In that case you could say that two people with blue eyes with an ancestor with brown eyes is a violation (although it's still vaguely possible, if both people had a single mutation that changed their eye colour to blue... but this isn't possible with features, which are basically massive buildups of mutations according to evolution). Understand now?
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:07:31 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Let feature A be a duckbill and lets say it is strongly selected for by natural selection (the numbers represent generations). Later on, it keeps getting selected for until it becomes a constant in some of the generations (the other letters are some other arbitrary features that were passed on, call them what you want). In this example, A1 has two offspring, A2. A2 both move to separate locations where they have more offspring with other common ancestors.
A1 (universal common ancestor)
A2 A2
A3 C B A3
A4a C B B B B C A4c
Eventually, A4 branches off to form more organisms with ducks until they form more species. See, in this example, A4a and A4c (I added the lowercase letters to distinguish them) share a feature that closer relatives don't share. Universal evolution doesn't predict a nested hierarchy, it predicts nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:08:42 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
The website took out the spacing and ruined the diagram I was trying to depict.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:10:17 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
(although it's still vaguely possible, if both people had a single mutation that changed their eye colour to blue... but this isn't possible with features, which are basically massive buildups of mutations according to evolution).
The problem with this is that such massive buildups are speculative and are never observed in nature to form any sort of nested hierarchy. What we observe, instead (as I pointed out, based on what we know about genetics), are violations all over the place. Let me try to fix my diagram.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:24:48 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
(say B is naturally selected against and A is naturally selected for and C is neutral. So B never has offspring. A is the duckbill).
A
/******** *******\
A---------------------A
/**\-____________-/ \
A****C-_________-/------\
/*****/*\------------C------A
A****C**B----------/**\-----/*\
/*\***/*\---------- C***C-- B**A
A**C*C**B----------------------/-\
/\*******/\----------------------B-A
A A*****C*C----------------------/--\
--------------------------------------A----A
-------------------------------------/--\--/--\
____________________________B---A-A--A
________________________________/\ etc...
_______________________________A-A
Eventually A becomes a constant in both linages. Notice that organisms with a further relationship share a common feature that organisms with a closer relationship don't share. Evolution predicts nothing.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/4/2007 1:39:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:25:29 AM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 278
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let me try to fix my diagram.
Don't bother. I'm going to make my own:
Legend:A = Common ancestor
B = Common ancestor of mammals and birds
M = Mammals
D = Dinosaurs
F = Early Birds
P = Playpus
----A
----|
----B
----|--\
----M---D
----|-\----\----Birds features evolve Here on the far right. Platypus features on the far left.
----M-P----F
Since the birds features and the platypus features evolve seperately, and 'B' didn't have either bird or platypus features, a platypus cannot have a bird beak and a bird cannot have a platypus bill. In the same way, dinosaurs cannot share features with mammals that didn't exist in creature B.
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:36:10 AM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 278
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
I'll make another diagram... each letter is a feature, and I'm randomly changing features in the offshoots:
abc
--|---\
aby--azc
--|-----|---\
aby--azc--azv
--|-\-----\----\
aby-amy-azh-azv
Notice that all of the 'creatures' have an 'a', which was in the common ancestor, but the only creatures with a 'y' decend from the common ancestor which had a 'y', on the second level. A violation of the nested heirachy would be a creature such as 'azy', which has elements that evolved on seperate lines. We don't any creature that fits this pattern in the wild!
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:38:45 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
I'll make another diagram... each letter is a feature, and I'm randomly changing features in the offshoots:
abc
--|---\
aby--azc
--|-----|---\
aby--azc--azv
--|-\-----\----\
aby-amy-azh-azv
Notice that all of the 'creatures' have an 'a', which was in the common ancestor, but the only creatures with a 'y' decend from the common ancestor which had a 'y', on the second level. A violation of the nested heirachy would be a creature such as 'azy', which has elements that evolved on seperate lines. We don't any creature that fits this pattern in the wild!
Again, it's completely possible for two organisms with a further relationship to share a common feature that two organisms with a closer relationship don't share. I already showed how this is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:40:03 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Nested hierarchies are never observed on the level of evolution that we can observe (as already pointed out, they always lead to violations). There is no reason to suspect that they should be observed on some larger scale (the evidence does not suggest this).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? - 9/4/2007 1:44:39 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
That's just one possibility. Another possibility is this
abc
--|---\
aby-----azc
--|-----/|---\
aby---bzc--azv
--|-\-----\----\
aby-cmy-bzh-azv
More violations
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
