Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Excellent article! Everyone should read this.....
"Fish. They seem so innocent and harmless. But secretly, they're subverting scientific law and order."

"That's according to a group of scientists nicknamed *cladists for their support of a scientific classification system of species based on clades."
* https://www.conservationmagazine.org/2009/11/science-vs-instinct/

"A clade is a fancy term for all of and only the modern species descended via evolution from a specific common ancestor."

OK so here we have "cladists" who support the "scientific classification system of species based on clades"....so who invented the the classification system? Not evolutionists surely???? Is that a red flag?

What other gems can we glean...?

"This is where fish get into trouble. A lot of trouble. Trouble the size of an elephant, a whale, and an emperor penguin all put together.

That's because all life evolved out of the water. Reptiles, mammals, birds - even dinosaurs - all came from something that we would say looked pretty much like a fish. And there's so much more diversity among what we call "fish" in every day conversation that they spread far around the outskirts of these subgroups.

Here's a simplified depiction of the problem at hand:

Petter Bøckman/Wikimedia Commons/Tech Insider

I know which makes more sense to me....

Who said that all vertebrates must be related?

As you can see, there's no way to draw a clade that will encompass everything we call a fish without snagging a mouse or a manatee along the way.

So for the cladists, either there is no such thing as fish - or we're fish too."

I have heard that we are related to bananas as well....how amazing. Am I eating a relative with my breakfast cereal?

"Of course, the cladists' approach to species is useful for asking certain questions. When evolution has literally built everything you are thinking about, classifying all those things based on how evolution works makes a lot of sense.

But it's hard not to find the proclaimed death of the idea of a fish a little absurd."

I couldn't agree more......absurd is a good description IMO. What a brilliant finish.

Thanks for the link.

I know you like to believe your understanding of science is omniscient, but it is really the opposite of that. Very amusing to watch the smug fly in your posts while recognizing you haven't got a clue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly!

But do you believe all descendants of fish are....fish?

What you call "fish", are modern animals and are descendants from ancestral "fish", yes.
Both humans and fish are in turn descendants from vertebrate eukaryotes that lived in the sea.

And both are still vertebrate eukaryotes. Which means it doesn't violate the law of monophy, as you yourself have acknowledged by saying "Exactly!".

You do if you believe in Common Descent.

Fish and humans share ancestors, yes.

A vertebrate eukaryote ancestor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Excellent article! Everyone should read this.....
"Fish. They seem so innocent and harmless. But secretly, they're subverting scientific law and order."

"That's according to a group of scientists nicknamed *cladists for their support of a scientific classification system of species based on clades."
* https://www.conservationmagazine.org/2009/11/science-vs-instinct/

"A clade is a fancy term for all of and only the modern species descended via evolution from a specific common ancestor."

OK so here we have "cladists" who support the "scientific classification system of species based on clades"....so who invented the the classification system? Not evolutionists surely???? Is that a red flag?

Cladistic classification systems aren't invented by anyone. They are instead dictated by genetic data.
They are the result of categorizing phylogenies, based on DATA, not on mere opinion.

What other gems can we glean...?
...
I know which makes more sense to me....

Because you look at this from the angle of subjective opinion, not from the angle of actual data.

Who said that all vertebrates must be related?

Not a who, but a what. And that what is phylogenetics.

I have heard that we are related to bananas as well....how amazing.

Yes. Banana's, along with all other plants, are eukaryotes - just like we and the rest of the animals are.

Am I eating a relative with my breakfast cereal?

Breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, desert,... : yes.

Extremely distant relatives, though. So distant that colloquial use of the word doesn't warrant its use, but technically: sure.

"Of course, the cladists' approach to species is useful for asking certain questions. When evolution has literally built everything you are thinking about, classifying all those things based on how evolution works makes a lot of sense.

But it's hard not to find the proclaimed death of the idea of a fish a little absurd."

I couldn't agree more......absurd is a good description IMO. What a brilliant finish.

Thanks for the link.

I agree it's absurd. But it's extremely likely that I agree with that for very different reasons then you do. And I'll add that the author of that article think it's absurd for much the same reasons that I think it is, and not at all for the reasons you think it is.

And that reason is that the basis for defining what is meant by "fish" is very different from the basis used by the cladists.

See, the colloquial use of the word "fish" IS NOT BASED on its genetic make-up and how this relates them to other vertebrates.

The colloquial use of the word is also not really consistent. I'll drop a hint. Before learning that whales and dolphins are mammals, people call them fish too.

And EVEN after learning about it, you can still use to the word "fish" to mean just about everything that has fins to swim instead of limbs to walk and which lives in the water while also including whales and dolphins in that group.

The point here, is that "fish" is not a clade. And the fact that it's not a clade, is not a matter of mere opinion or belief. It's a matter of phylogenetic data.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Which means it doesn't violate the law of monophy.....

Of course, it does!
Where are your fins? (I don't have any.)
Show us how you breathe water. (I can't.)

Take your blinders off, dude.

Interesting that you said, "All descendants of eukaryotes are eukaryotes." Just a little misleading...
Why did you skip prokaryotes? Then you'd need to explain how prokaryotes evolved, requiring more usage of phrases like "could have been"s, more than likely"s, and "probably did"s.

No wonder Gerd Müller and others have complained of the explanatory deficits concerning the Modern Synthesis.

Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine

‘The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Philosophical and Historical Dimensions’ Workshop Report – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”

So many evolutionists, so much dissention.

@Deeje , just imagine you & I going to a door out in service, but we each have different views of how Jehovah established the Kingdom. So I show the householder a Scripture highlighting one aspect, but then you contradict me and say, "No, no, it was this way" using another Scripture! The householder would say to himself, "These people don't know! They're probably both wrong!"

Lol
Thank goodness that doesn't happen! We all "speak in agreement" --1 Corinthians 1:10.

Maybe we'll get to work together in the New System, witnessing to the resurrected ones! That will be awesome!

**(Off topic, sorry.)**

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, it does!

It does not and I just showed you how it does not. They are both descendents from eukaryote vertebrae

Where are your fins? (I don't have any.)

They evolved into limbs.

Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia

[/quote]
Show us how you breathe water. (I can't.)[/quote]

Lungs evolved pretty quickly. Gilles of ancient fishy ancestors evolved into a range of features in later tetrapods. A development that you can still somewhat observe in embryology.

None of these things however, break the law of monophy.

Once again, the common ancestor of salmon and humans, was an eukaryote vertebrate. A chordate.
Both humans and salmon still belong to that clade. We never outgrew our eukaryote chordate ancestry and we never will.

If you think we changed clades, I challenge you to name the clade that we "left".

Take your blinders off, dude.

Not wearing any. I think the better option would be for you to put your glasses on...

Interesting that you said, "All descendants of eukaryotes are eukaryotes." Just a little misleading...
Why did you skip prokaryotes?

I didn't skip anything. I just named a random example.
And what I said is correct: all descendants of eukaryotes are eukaryotes. Eukaryotes evolved into an insane wide range of subspecies. All of them still eukaryotes.

What was misleading about my statement?

Then you'd need to explain how prokaryotes evolved, requiring more usage of phrases like "could have been"s, more than likely"s, and "probably did"s.

Yeah, you boys made clear already how you detest the intellectual honesty of scientific jargon.

So many evolutionists, so much dissention.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2]


uhu, uhu....

@Deeje , just imagine you & I going to a door out in service, but we each have different views of how Jehovah established the Kingdom. So I show the householder a Scripture highlighting one aspect, but then you contradict me and say, "No, no, it was this way" using another Scripture! The householder would say to himself, "These people don't know! They're probably both wrong!"

LOL!!!!!

So you are like, not aware of the thousands of different christian denominations?




Hilarious!
As you can see from the polls and statistics on the wiki page, there is wide consensus in the scientific community and even higher in any and all fields related to biology. This consensus is on a single "version" of the theory of evolution. That version being, the actual version. Not whatever strawmen you argue against today.

Lol
Thank goodness that doesn't happen! We all "speak in agreement" --1 Corinthians 1:10.

Wow. Serious case of head-in-sand.

Maybe we'll get to work together in the New System, witnessing to the resurrected ones! That will be awesome!

**(Off topic, sorry.)**

The contents might be off topic, but the utter failure of making a proper analogy is very telling. The denialism too.

 

[Deeje]

Cladistic classification systems aren't invented by anyone. They are instead dictated by genetic data.
They are the result of categorizing phylogenies, based on DATA, not on mere opinion.

Phylogenies?

"Phylogeny diagrams
Phylogeny may be represented by a tree diagram called phylogenetic tree (also called evolutionary tree). The diagram depicts the relationships among organisms or the relatedness between taxa. It is created based on molecular phylogeny studies and on morphological data. By comparing organisms based on commonalities and incongruences, their evolutionary relationship could be established and represented in a tree diagram.
A phylogenetic tree may be rooted or unrooted. A rooted phylogenetic tree implicates a common ancestor where closely-related taxa descended from. An unrooted phylogenetic tree, in contrast, does not show a common ancestor but it hypothesizes on the degree of evolutionary relatedness between taxa. The tree diagram is essential as it aids in understanding biodiversity, evolutions, genetics, and ecology of the various groups of organisms. By simply looking at the positioning and the length of the ‘branches’, one could easily infer how one group may be evolutionary related to another. Those that are joined together implicate evolutionary relatedness. The internal nodes signify hypothetical common ancestor."

Phylogeny Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

So here we have, a phylogenetic tree......not based on established facts, but a very high degree of inference and implication in the way these organisms "may be" related....and with "hypothetical common ancestors" no less.

We see the lines on the tree as branches with assumed positions of these 'related' bacteria, archaea and eucarya....but what about the trunk of this tree? What is at the intersection?.....and where does that first line lead from or to?
It must be a mystery....or aren't we supposed to ask?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course, it does!
Where are your fins? (I don't have any.)
Show us how you breathe water. (I can't.)

Take your blinders off, dude.

Interesting that you said, "All descendants of eukaryotes are eukaryotes." Just a little misleading...
Why did you skip prokaryotes? Then you'd need to explain how prokaryotes evolved, requiring more usage of phrases like "could have been"s, more than likely"s, and "probably did"s.

No wonder Gerd Müller and others have complained of the explanatory deficits concerning the Modern Synthesis.

Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine

‘The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Philosophical and Historical Dimensions’ Workshop Report – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”

So many evolutionists, so much dissention.

@Deeje , just imagine you & I going to a door out in service, but we each have different views of how Jehovah established the Kingdom. So I show the householder a Scripture highlighting one aspect, but then you contradict me and say, "No, no, it was this way" using another Scripture! The householder would say to himself, "These people don't know! They're probably both wrong!"

Lol
Thank goodness that doesn't happen! We all "speak in agreement" --1 Corinthians 1:10.

Maybe we'll get to work together in the New System, witnessing to the resurrected ones! That will be awesome!

**(Off topic, sorry.)**

Dissension over the details of evolution and not rejection of evolution as you are trying to imply with your misleading use of the arguments. Did you even read those articles?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Phylogenies?

"Phylogeny diagrams
Phylogeny may be represented by a tree diagram called phylogenetic tree (also called evolutionary tree). The diagram depicts the relationships among organisms or the relatedness between taxa. It is created based on molecular phylogeny studies and on morphological data. By comparing organisms based on commonalities and incongruences, their evolutionary relationship could be established and represented in a tree diagram.
A phylogenetic tree may be rooted or unrooted. A rooted phylogenetic tree implicates a common ancestor where closely-related taxa descended from. An unrooted phylogenetic tree, in contrast, does not show a common ancestor but it hypothesizes on the degree of evolutionary relatedness between taxa. The tree diagram is essential as it aids in understanding biodiversity, evolutions, genetics, and ecology of the various groups of organisms. By simply looking at the positioning and the length of the ‘branches’, one could easily infer how one group may be evolutionary related to another. Those that are joined together implicate evolutionary relatedness. The internal nodes signify hypothetical common ancestor."

Phylogeny Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

So here we have, a phylogenetic tree......not based on established facts, but a very high degree of inference and implication in the way these organisms "may be" related....and with "hypothetical common ancestors" no less.

We see the lines on the tree as branches with assumed positions of these 'related' bacteria, archaea and eucarya....but what about the trunk of this tree? What is at the intersection?.....and where does that first line lead from or to?
It must be a mystery....or aren't we supposed to ask?

These trees are representations of phylogenies based on evidence (you know, the facts you claim they are not based on). Your reference and the material you quote says just that. Good grief!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Dissension over the details of evolution and not rejection of evolution as you are trying to imply with your misleading use of the arguments. Did you even read those articles?

Yes, I did. Ravenously. The older ones I’ve read before. Did you? Why are there “deficits”?

I’m not trying to be misleading at all!

I never said a thing about rejecting evolution entirely. (I never have.) I reject the LUCA aspect of it, though! And any attempt to interpret evolution as occurring beyond the current Family taxa within (probably) every Phylum. Within families....don’t think there’s a problem.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yeah, you boys made clear already how you detest the intellectual honesty of scientific jargon.

“Detest”? No, actually we appreciate it, describing some event as “might have occurred”, rather than stating it as fact. That’s what you are doing.

 

[Deeje]

I asked concerning the phylogenic tree......”We see the lines on the tree as branches with assumed positions of these 'related' bacteria, archaea and eucarya....but what about the trunk of this tree? What is at the intersection?.....and where does that first line lead from or to?
It must be a mystery....or aren't we supposed to ask?”

So, does anyone have substantiated evidence for the answer to these questions....? No hypotheticals....no phantom common ancestors who can never seem to be identified.....and no inference, implications or suggestions regarding what is “believed” to have taken place. If there is no such evidence, then all we have is one “belief system” competing with another. Those are the facts. There is no high ground in this question. Just choose your platform, based on what you have chosen to believe for your own reasons. That is what is obvious to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep...couldn't agree more. Evolutionary science has become what it condemns.....a 'belief system' based on "I think this "might have" happened because it is suggested by my pet theory, and allows me to delete an Intelligent Creator confidently from any conversation".

I really don't understand why you insist on getting it wrong and misrepresenting both the theory as well as the motivation and justification for it.

And all that in defense of an iron age faith based belief.
You just have to be aware by now that what you said there, is just a lie?
Especially the nonsense about "allowin to the delete a designer". I mean, seriously?

You can see by the length of the replies how determined they are to diminish ANYTHING that will put their beloved theory into question.

The only reason the replies are lengthy, is because there is so much nonsense and falsehoods to correct.
Creationists have a gift of making 20 mistakes in a 10-word sentence, each mistake requiring 2-3 sentences to correct.

Typically, the creationist will also respond to almost none of it, except with a snarky comment or some false analogy or misrepresentation.

They are desperately trying to uphold a theory with so many holes that cannot be filled with anything but supposition.....

So far, every "hole" you brought up turned out to be a "hole" in a strawman version of the theory.
Like asking for examples of a "kind" evolving into another "kind", as if that would validate evolution while in reality it would falsify it.

but trying to pretend that evolution is a fact.....IMO, the real fact is...there are no real facts....just conjecture and assumptions backed up with faith in their own belief system.

Conjecture and assumptions wouldn't result in finding specific 350 million year old fossils by prediction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Phylogenies?

"Phylogeny diagrams
Phylogeny may be represented by a tree diagram called phylogenetic tree (also called evolutionary tree). The diagram depicts the relationships among organisms or the relatedness between taxa. It is created based on molecular phylogeny studies and on morphological data. By comparing organisms based on commonalities and incongruences, their evolutionary relationship could be established and represented in a tree diagram.
A phylogenetic tree may be rooted or unrooted. A rooted phylogenetic tree implicates a common ancestor where closely-related taxa descended from. An unrooted phylogenetic tree, in contrast, does not show a common ancestor but it hypothesizes on the degree of evolutionary relatedness between taxa. The tree diagram is essential as it aids in understanding biodiversity, evolutions, genetics, and ecology of the various groups of organisms. By simply looking at the positioning and the length of the ‘branches’, one could easily infer how one group may be evolutionary related to another. Those that are joined together implicate evolutionary relatedness. The internal nodes signify hypothetical common ancestor."

Phylogeny Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

So here we have, a phylogenetic tree......not based on established facts,

Seriously...................... did you even read the part you quoted?
Let me remind you of the third sentence:

It is created based on molecular phylogeny studies and on morphological data

For crying out loud..........................

but a very high degree of inference and implication in the way these organisms "may be" related....and with "hypothetical common ancestors" no less.

Because it's impossible to know exactly what species they were since we can't go back in time.

We see the lines on the tree as branches with assumed positions of these 'related' bacteria, archaea and eucarya....but what about the trunk of this tree? What is at the intersection?.....and where does that first line lead from or to?
It must be a mystery....or aren't we supposed to ask?

The lines on the tree are dictated by the data that the graph is representing. And the pattern that emerges from it is exactly the pattern that evolution predicts should be there. It didn't have to be like this. But it is.

Chickens didn't have to have inactive DNA to build teeth. But they do.
The pattern of erv distribution among mammals for example, didn't have to match the distribution data of shared traits in comparative anatomy / morphology, or other genetic markers, or even geographic distribution of species... But it does.


These trees are based on data. They are graphs that represent data. They aren't mere drawings.
And for common descend through evolution to have occured, only one specific pattern could have emerged on these graphs. And it's exactly the pattern that did emerge. Again: based on the data.

Conversly, such is also the very last pattern one would expect if it did NOT occur. Especially if species are "product line" where every species is specifically designed and manufactured... EVEN IF this creator made use of "common" or "generic" parts, then still it would never result in this pattern unless it was done on purpose to make it look as if it all evolved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Detest”? No, actually we appreciate it, describing some event as “might have occurred”, rather than stating it as fact. That’s what you are doing.

Every single scientific paper makes use of words like "suggests", "seems to", "maybe" etc.
And you're trying to use it as if it's an argument against it.

It's ridiculous.

That is simply being intellectually honest.
You find this in every paper in science because in science, almost never does it happen that something is 100% certain. And if it isn't 100% certain, you don't talk about it as if it is certain. Not even when it is as certain is it can be (like evolution).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I asked concerning the phylogenic tree......”We see the lines on the tree as branches with assumed positions of these 'related' bacteria, archaea and eucarya....but what about the trunk of this tree? What is at the intersection?.....and where does that first line lead from or to?
It must be a mystery....or aren't we supposed to ask?”

So, does anyone have substantiated evidence for the answer to these questions....? No hypotheticals....no phantom common ancestors who can never seem to be identified.....and no inference, implications or suggestions regarding what is “believed” to have taken place.

It represents the common ancestral population of all the species that are represented on the graph.

If the graph represents a phylogeny of felines, then the trunk represents the initial ancestral feline population.
If the graph represents great apes, then the trunk represents the initial ancestral great ape population.
If the graph represents all life, then the trunk represents the initial ancestral population of all life. Or LUCA.


[qutoe]
If there is no such evidence, then all we have is one “belief system” competing with another. Those are the facts. There is no high ground in this question. Just choose your platform, based on what you have chosen to believe for your own reasons. That is what is obvious to me.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you find it obvious that you can just "pick and choose" what you're going to believe simply because you like the one better then the other, but I prefer to be rationally justified in my beliefs so I'll follow the evidence instead.

Also, there's no "faith" involved in the tree you posted. It's a graphical representation of actual data.

 

[cladking]

Every single scientific paper makes use of words like "suggests", "seems to", "maybe" etc.
And you're trying to use it as if it's an argument against it.

It's ridiculous.

That is simply being intellectually honest.

And you see no problem with blowing "maybe" up into certainty and sufficient justification of negating every other idea whether born in the "iron age" or any other time!

Everything is a lead pipe certainty if you use "maybe" enough times.

I really don't understand why you insist on getting it wrong and misrepresenting both the theory as well as the motivation and justification for it.

Experiment is the only possible "motivation and justification" for any scientific belief. You can not elevate expertise and observation to fact even if you put a "maybe" in front of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you see no problem with blowing "maybe" up into certainty and sufficient justification of negating every other idea whether born in the "iron age" or any other time!

Let's not forget that the maybe's being talked about here, are about details.
There's no "maybe" in the generic genetic fact that species share ancestry.

Literally all evidence supports evolution and literaly no evidence points to anything else.
So yea, it's quite ok to treat it as an idea that's as certain as it will get.

Experiment is the only possible "motivation and justification" for any scientific belief

And every experiment ever concerning evolution ended up supporting it.

 

[gnostic]

LOL

 

[Deeje]

It represents the common ancestral population of all the species that are represented on the graph.

If the graph represents a phylogeny of felines, then the trunk represents the initial ancestral feline population.
If the graph represents great apes, then the trunk represents the initial ancestral great ape population.
If the graph represents all life, then the trunk represents the initial ancestral population of all life. Or LUCA.

And after all that....you failed to answer the question about where the lines intersect and where the bottom line leads to or from?

You didn’t answer because you cannot answer without speculations, suggestion and assertions about what happened in the beginning.

If science cannot ‘prove’ anything that it ‘assumes’ with data that it has ‘interpreted’ to favor it’s own ideas, then why teach it as if it can’t be called into question? If you have a “belief” that you cannot prove, the same as I do....what makes your ‘Bible’, written by scientists, more accurate than my Bible, written by the one who created all of it? There are no “maybe’s” with the Creator....he simply tells us what he did and gave us the intellectual capacity and curiosity to learn about what he made in all of it’s fascinating detail.....there is a lifetime subject for study that could last forever. I personally look forward to gaining that knowledge....but it will not be in this world.

Science, I believe, is the study of Creation.....science’s problem with the existence of the Creator, is their problem. It fascinates me that this subject is so hotly and passionately debated.....like you are defending a religion.....why does it matter to you if people don’t believe you? Why can some who claim to believe in a Creator so quickly dismiss him and his word, because science indicates that he wasn’t really needed? He then becomes less than God.....a mere originator of a process that can no more be proven than if he created all things the way the Bible says he did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And after all that....you failed to answer the question about where the lines intersect and where the bottom line leads to or from?

You didn’t answer because you cannot answer without speculations, suggestion and assertions about what happened in the beginning.

If science cannot ‘prove’ anything that it ‘assumes’ with data that it has ‘interpreted’ to favor it’s own ideas, then why teach it as if it can’t be called into question? If you have a “belief” that you cannot prove, the same as I do....what makes your ‘Bible’, written by scientists, more accurate than my Bible, written by the one who created of all of it? There are no “maybe’s” with the Creator....he simply tells us what he did and gave us the intellectual capacity and curiosity to learn about what he made in all of it’s fascinating detail.....there is a lifetime subject for study that could last forever. I personally look forward to gaining that knowledge....but it will not be in this world.

Science, I believe, is the study of Creation.....science’s problem with the existence of the Creator, is their problem. It fascinates me that this subject is so hotly and passionately debated.....like you are defending a religion.....why does it matter to you if people don’t believe you? Why can some who claim to believe in a Creator so quickly dismiss him and his word, because science indicates that he wasn’t really needed? He then becomes less than God.....a mere originator of a process that can no more be proven than if he created all things the way the Bible says he did.

It matters, because people like you keep publically making fallacious, misleading and false claims about science in order to destroy it and replace it with your personal religious views.