Evolution: Science or Dogma?

[Perfection]

So, how many times do I have to answer the same question the same way before you get tired of thinking up new ways to ask it?

Your failure to understand the question is not my problem. Also, why do you "have to answer" that question when there are many many other questions that you don't answer?

If two organisms have a large convergence of structures, it makes more sense to use the same template and suppress or express different traits from that template than use traits from vastly different templates.

It's not only the presence of homologies that I am asking you about but the fact that homologous structures sort themselves into a branching phylogeny. Why do certain related animals show a divergence of different structures that do the same thing, such as different legless reptilies? Why can the differences/similairities in structure be sorted into clades? Why aren't there structures that don't fit into the branching phylogeny that evolution predicts? And why does this branching phylogeny of homology correspond to the branching phylogenies of development, genetics, biochemistry, as well as the fossil record?

Edit: Oh and what the hell is a kind?

 

[yoshi]

@Blasphemous: "Yes, I know, the similarity is obvious to me as well, but there are logical reasons for people to feel that chimps are dissimilar to us. Also remember, humanity is very arrogant, we think that just because we don't understand what chimps say to eachother they're inferior to us. I would say the inferior ones are we, who cannot understand our cousins' language (and chimps HAVE been taught to understand human languages, or sign language at least)."

But the people we're talking about see only the dissimilarities.
A human looks at a chimp and says, 'I can do stuff you can't do' and the chimp replies 'who gives a $hit?' That about sums it up: there is no standard so the chimp has nothing to worry about. He has his niche and you do not so your abilities serve no purpose. If you wipe him out, it still means nothing. You have yet to prove you are truly better than he.

Those who are unable to see the similarities in chimps are equally blind to reality outside the bubble (i.e. cannot see beyond certain set values): the primate form is the way it is because that form allows it to function more efficiently given the environment; the moment the environment changes, so will the primate; if not, it may die. It is not universally better. It has just adapted.


Evolution: Science or Dogma?

Here is my response:

Evolution refers to process of adaptation to change.

Reality consists of change (a static reality is impossible, contradictory).

Dogma determines reality (this implies a static vision).

Science is reflective of reality (i.e. the observation of reality).

If reality is a changing thing, it cannot be determined as that would require a static reality.

Reality can only be observed.

Therefore, evolution is not dogma but science.

(The fact that dogma occasionally accepts scientific observations and redefines reality still leaves you with the same result.)

I could probably come up with an even better response but…I’m too lazy.

 

[Gothmog]

Well said Perfection.

I would also add that FL2 has a tendancy to see things as 'obvious'. Things often 'just make sense' to him, in a way that only happens with the help of hindsight. He 'just knows' what a kind is.

If he could simply point out some of these obvious things that we should expect to discover in the future, and they were verified. He would quickly become famous and well respected.

These things were not obvious or it wouldn't have taken the scientific method to ferret them out.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Your failure to understand the question is not my problem. Also, why do you "have to answer" that question when there are many many other questions that you don't answer?

Your failure to accept the answer is not my problem. I 'have to answer' it because you keep asking it, and God forbid I should fail to answer, or you'll think you've 'got me' or something.

It's not only the presence of homologies that I am asking you about but the fact that homologous structures sort themselves into a branching phylogeny. Why do certain related animals show a divergence of different structures that do the same thing, such as different legless reptilies? Why can the differences/similairities in structure be sorted into clades?

Because evolutionism is an explanation of those observations, not a theory that predicted them. Also: "If two organisms have a large convergence of structures, it makes more sense to use the same template and suppress or express different traits from that template than use traits from vastly different templates."

Why aren't there structures that don't fit into the branching phylogeny that evolution predicts?

Because evolutionism is an explanation of those observations, not a theory that predicted them.

And why does this branching phylogeny of homology correspond to the branching phylogenies of development, genetics, biochemistry,

Because development and biochemistry are functions of genetics, and genetics are the same for all living things on earth (all use DNA or RNA for their reproduction), and there are only four base pairs to code for all of the functions of life, so there have to be similarities between similar organisms because they have to code for similar proteins to be similar. In other words: "If two organisms have a large convergence of structures, it makes more sense to use the same template and suppress or express different traits from that template than use traits from vastly different templates." (That makes FOUR times now I've answered this question. Are you done asking it yet?)

as well as the fossil record?

Because evolutionism is an explanation of those observations, not a theory that predicted them.

Edit: Oh and what the hell is a kind?

A kind is exactly what I said it was. A group of creatures that share enough common traits to be visually identified with each other, but dissimilar enough to other creatures as to not be identified with them. They also have to be able to reproduce and have offspring that retain those similarities and differences.

Various strains of wheat all make seeds that, when planted, sprout wheat. Creation can be falsified if there ever naturally comes to be a strain of wheat that makes seeds that, when planted, grow into fig trees, or barley, or hemp, or tigers, or cans of franks and beans, or pretty much anything but wheat.

(Now I just know that someone is going to Epstein all over the place and go 'Ooh! Ooh!! Mr. Kotter!! What about triticale?' Triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye. That means it's not wheat, but a hybrid plant, and it's infertile unless its chromosome count is artificially polyploided with colchicine, which means it's not natural, so drop it.)

 

[CurtSibling]

I feel sorry for anyone who takes biblical genesis tales as fact.

.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I feel sorry for anyone who buries their head in the sand because something might offend their beliefs.

 

[CurtSibling]

I feel sorry for anyone who buries their head in the sand because something might offend their beliefs.

That would cover the same people whom I feel sorry for.

I gave up on fairy tales after nursery school.

PS
I thought you had me on ignore, you cad!

 

[Perfection]

Your failure to accept the answer is not my problem. I 'have to answer' it because you keep asking it, and God forbid I should fail to answer, or you'll think you've 'got me' or something.

However your answer is incomplete as is doesn't address the branched portion of it.

Because evolutionism is an explanation of those observations, not a theory that predicted them.

Also: "If two organisms have a large convergence of structures, it makes more sense to use the same template and suppress or express different traits from that template than use traits from vastly different templates."

Because evolutionism is an explanation of those observations, not a theory that predicted them.

Because development and biochemistry are functions of genetics, and genetics are the same for all living things on earth (all use DNA or RNA for their reproduction), and there are only four base pairs to code for all of the functions of life, so there have to be similarities between similar organisms because they have to code for similar proteins to be similar. In other words: "If two organisms have a large convergence of structures, it makes more sense to use the same template and suppress or express different traits from that template than use traits from vastly different templates." (That makes FOUR times now I've answered this question. Are you done asking it yet?)

Because evolutionism is an explanation of those observations, not a theory that predicted them.

Similarities don't cut it, because a correspondance of similarities could work in a non-branched system of life! For example you could have bird-reptilians reptilian-mammels mammelian-fish and fish-birds in a non-branched phylogeny. The key word is branched.

Oh, and by the way, evolution did predict the correspondance of branched phylogenies of genetics, development, and biochemistry with that of the fossil record, proving that there really is a branched phylogeny.

WHY DOES LIFE FOLLOW A BRANCHED PHYLOGENY?

A kind is exactly what I said it was.

When did you say that?

A group of creatures that share enough common traits to be visually identified with each other, but dissimilar enough to other creatures as to not be identified with them. They also have to be able to reproduce and have offspring that retain those similarities and differences.

Various strains of wheat all make seeds that, when planted, sprout wheat. Creation can be falsified if there ever naturally comes to be a strain of wheat that makes seeds that, when planted, grow into fig trees, or barley, or hemp, or tigers, or cans of franks and beans, or pretty much anything but wheat.

Good just call a clade a kind and fits entirely within evolution, you would have to accept that new clades can arise within old clades (but it doesn't make them not in the clade anymore). A clade is all species derived from a certain species, so, all cordates are a clade, all mammels are a clade, all primates are a clade. And since they all retain a similarity with their evolutionary forbearers and have differences with other clades you could call all of them a kind.

As a demonstration
Do primates share many traits with one another? Yes
Do primates have dissimilarities with other creatures? Yes
Do primates retain those similarities/differences after reproduction? Yes
Primates are a kind.

Do mammels share many traits with one another? Yes
Do mammels have dissimilarities with other creatures? Yes
Do mammels retain those similarities/differences after reproduction? Yes
Mammels are a kind.

Do cordates share many traits with one another? Yes
Do cordates have dissimilarities with other creatures? Yes
Do cordates retain those similarities/differences after reproduction? Yes
Cordates are a kind.

Do animals share many traits with one another? Yes
Do animals have dissimilarities with other creatures? Yes
Do animals retain those similarities/differences after reproduction? Yes
Animals are a kind.

Do eukaryotes share many traits with one another? Yes
Do eukaryotes have dissimilarities with other creatures? Yes
Do eukaryotes retain those similarities/differences after reproduction? Yes
Eukaryotes are a kind.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

That would cover the same people whom I feel sorry for.

I gave up on fairy tales after nursery school.

PS
I thought you had me on ignore, you cad!

Never you sir! At least, not until you make a habit of arguing in bad faith like others have.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Primates would be a kind, but noone would mistake an orangutan for a capuchin monkey. The others aren't even that close.

 

[carlosMM]

Primates would be a kind, but noone would mistake an orangutan for a capuchin monkey. The others aren't even that close.

good man, that 'kind' virus seems really incurable in you, hu?

if primates are a kind, and animals reproduce within their own kind - can I please see you father a baby with a chimp?

 

[Perfection]

The others aren't even that close.

How do you define "close", it's clear that all those levels have an absolutly massive amount of structural similarities and are clearly different from other creatures, why can't they be a kind?

Oh and explain the branched phylogeny.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

good man, that 'kind' virus seems really incurable in you, hu?

if primates are a kind, and animals reproduce within their own kind - can I please see you father a baby with a chimp?

oO Wow. Oo

How do you DO that? I say primates aren't a kind, and you instantly ask me to produce an event of me spawning children with a chimp 'if primates are a kind'.

You are the Strawman Master. I kneel before your manifest magnificence.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

How do you define "close", it's clear that all those levels have an absolutly massive amount of structural similarities and are clearly different from other creatures, why can't they be a kind?

Do dogs birth cats? No? Then clearly mammals do not reproduce after their own kind. Do Chimps birth capuchins? No? Then clearly primates do not reproduce after their own kind.

Oh and explain the branched phylogeny.

The road sign is not the cause of the city.

 

[thestonesfan]

Do creationists disagree with the concept of natural selection?

 

[Perfection]

Do dogs birth cats? No? Then clearly mammals do not reproduce after their own kind. Do Chimps birth capuchins? No? Then clearly primates do not reproduce after their own kind.

Yet earlier you said snakes were a kind, but there are many different varities of snake that can't interbreed.

The road sign is not the cause of the city.

What the hell does that mean?

Do creationists disagree with the concept of natural selection?

Some do, some don't.

 

[embitteredpoet]

What kind of thing is a kind? I couldn't be more confused.

 

[Perfection]

What kind of thing is a kind? I couldn't be more confused.

It's word mentioned in the bible that creationists use in an inconsistant manner so to confuse evolutionists and distract from thier complete lack of evidence and inability to attack the theory directly.

(Creationists are going to yell at me, but it was worth saying)

 

[carlosMM]

It's word mentioned in the bible that creationists use in an inconsistant manner so to confuse evolutionists and distract from thier complete lack of evidence and inability to attack the theory directly.

(Creationists are going to yell at me, but it was worth saying)

Nah, it is just FL2 who will yell.
And what you said was true - despite about 25 requests to give us a workable definition of kind, nobody on this forum has come up with anything yet, unless you count the classic: 'I know it when I see it' (by FL2).


come come, FL2, you mentioned porimates as a kind, at least 'primates# fits your description of 'kind', as shown by perfection. Answer my question, don't claim (again) you never said that!


It is very interesting to observe that you, who always accuse others of changing 'evolution' whenever you make a point so as to avoid it, here totally change your definition around all the time! You ahve no proof, are blowing smoke and running away in a cirle so that we may never catch you - but everyone who watches a full circle sees through your rethorics

 

[Bozo Erectus]

if primates are a kind, and animals reproduce within their own kind - can I please see you father a baby with a chimp?

Any biologists out there please correct me if Im wrong, but Ive read that humans and chimpanzees are so closely related they could breed and produce viable offspring.