Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 12:08:12 EDT

--- Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Pim:
>
> You wrote:
> -----------------------------
> Look, so far I have shown how vacuous your claims
> against CD really are, mostly are based on our
> ignorance and no alternative explanation is
> provided. Evidence that strongly support CD are
> ingnored in favor of some minor puzzles, or based on
> strawmen arguments (convergence for instance).
> So what exactly IS your argument? Scientifically
> speaking that is? I am honestly trying to understand
> but so far most of your assertions seem to be best
> explained by lack of familiarity with the arguments
> or data. What am I missing?
> ----------------------------
>
> Once again, the nested hierarchy is not a prediction
> of evolution, it is a retrodiction.

It's not a bird, its an avian. I am somewhat confused
about this though. Make your case.

> To the extent
> that the pattern is real, it was known long before
> Darwin came around.

Of course...

> The evolutionist's claim that
> this pattern is a prediction of evolution is false.

Not at all, it is the logical outcome of an
evolutionary process.

> Mechanisms are freely available to the evolutionist
> to explain other patterns, such as separate
> creations and temporarily high mutation rates (which
> are routinely appealed to by evolutionists).

Of course mechanisms, which are actually observed need
to be included as well. That's self evident. However
separate creations is hardly a scientific concept.
Hypermutations are well known mechanisms as well
triggered by stressful situations. What I am trying to
explain to you is that CD is strongly supported by the
evidence. For early life, we know how bacteria are
well known to do horizontal gene transfer (via
plasmids) and we have exquisite data of the symbiotic
nature of various cell components. That evolutionary
theory has to accomodate these mechanisms as well does
not undermine the theory. The fact of common descent
is well documented and evolutionary theory so far
seems to be the only one which provides a scientific
explanation for these facts.

Science, has to accomodate these facts but to state
that evolution is able to explain any pattern is plain
wrong. Interesting strawman though but logically
incorrect.

As far as nested hierarchies are concerned, did you
read Theobalt's FAQ?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

[quote]
The only known processes that specifically generate
unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching
evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic
process in which the state of the present
generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic
changes that have occurred since the most recent
ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual
evolution from common ancestors must conform to the
mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains.
Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously
proven that branching Markovian replicating systems
produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997;
Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons,
biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to
effectively model evolutionary processes, including
complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions
of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874),
and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.[/quote]
Received on Thu Aug 4 12:09:57 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 04 2005 - 12:09:58 EDT