Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Automobiles and nested hierarchies
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 1:36PM #1
57
Posts: 28,191
The claim that only natural forming things can be classified into nested hierarchies is a bogus claim. 
Automobiles are not natural, but rather Intelligently Designed  and can easily fit into a nested hierarchies. 

What the evos say:
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below. ref

Automobiles  share suites of similar characteristics.  All modern Automobiles have horns....but they all don't sound the same. 
All modern automobiles have wheels...but their all not the same size. 

A Chevy and a Ford are made in different plants by different manufactures.  Despite that they share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits don't increases with relatedness.
 
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 2:00PM #2
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

LOL, all you are is a parrot. You are not capable of understanding or learning any science.


Nested hierarchies prohibit lateral transfer.  ALL designers will adopt novelty where ever they can find it. Nested hierarchies can only use what is at hand, just as evolution predicts and requires.


Your source has tricked you into thinking it was real science.  ROTFLMAO


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 2:14PM #3
57
Posts: 28,191

Your video is also bogus. 


As demonstrated the automobile fits perfectly....and it is designed.  Even the shape of cars in the beginning looking like carriages and then through design slowly changing into what our modern cars look like. 


Along the way novel traits were introduced than added upon.  For example headlights use to be lanterns. 


Yes, cars can easily fit into nested hierarchies. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 2:34PM #4
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Apr 23, 2011 -- 2:14PM, 57 wrote:

Your video is also bogus. 


You only wish it were so.


As demonstrated the automobile fits perfectly....and it is designed.


It does not fit a strict nested hierarchy as evolution requires.  You have flunked your science lesson. 


Even the shape of cars in the beginning looking like carriages and then through design slowly changing into what our modern cars look like.


And you really think that is a nested hierarchy? You can lead a horse to knowledge but you can't make them learn a thing, can you.


Along the way novel traits were introduced than added upon.  For example headlights use to be lanterns. 


And the designers borrowed novel designs from anywhere which is a violation of a nested hierarchy.  Everyone knows the headlight was adopted from a very non-transportation source, the household lightbulb.  


Yes, cars can easily fit into nested hierarchies.


No they can't.  You are now displaying your stubborn science ignorance. It's back to science class for you.  LOL

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 3:13PM #5
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

It's easy for an automobile designer to borrow novelty from anywhere; boats for example and design an amphicar or borrow from airplanes and add wings for a flying car.  This is what desigers do, borrow from anywhere any novelty they like. And the best designers borrow from the widest industries. Because everyone knows good design is to be shared.  All this is prohibited by a natural nested hierarchy.


Are you learning anything yet?  


You can hoot and holler all you want but it won't make you right and it won't change the fact of just how devastating for creationism the predicted - and now observed even within the genome -pattern of lifes nested hirerarchies. The only mechanism that can produce a nested hierarchy pattern is the natural process of common descent. Creationist can't explain it without making up stuff just as you have tried. You're snookered by the facts, brother.


Have you learned enough yet? Do you need more?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 4:47PM #6
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,334

There are one so blind as those who will not see.  %& refuses to open his eyes and see that his entire statement is wrong.  As long as he refuses to see he cannot learn and discussion is futile.  Al that remains is to provide refutation for those lurkers who might otherwise be lead into error by his willful ignorance

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 4:59PM #7
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Lets try to teach this creationist about nested hierarchy and exactly what it means one more time. 


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 7:46PM #8
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

57: The claim that only natural forming things can be classified  into nested hierarchies is a bogus claim.  Automobiles are not natural,  but rather Intelligently Designed  and can easily fit into a nested  hierarchies. 

What the evos say:
Evolution  predicts that  living things will be related to one another in what  scientists refer  to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes.  Groups of related  organisms share suites of similar characteristics and  the number of  shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed  what we  observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these   relationships can be illustrated as shown below.


If an actual nested hierarchy of automobiles exists, then the YEC team should have no trouble sorting the following cars into their respective nested boxes.  For the car in the center of this nested hierarchy, start with a 1952 Volkswagen Beetle.  The rest of the list is: 1995 Ford Mustang, 1999 Nissan Altima, 1987 Chevy Nova, 2001 Subaru Forester, 1977 Ford Mustang, 1980 Chevy Citation, 2000 Toyota Corolla, 1995 McLaren F1,  1999 BMW 600, 2000 Chevy/Geo Prism, 2002 VW Beetle,1998 Saturn S Coupe, SSC Ultimate Aero, 1999 Ford Mustang, 2005 Chrysler 300C, 1997 Dodge Viper,  1989 Chevy Cavalier.


Include the reasoning behind the placement of each car into its respective level.


Let's see if the YEC claim stands up to actual use.


Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 9:20PM #9
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Apr 23, 2011 -- 4:59PM, rsielin wrote:


Lets try to teach this creationist about nested hierarchy and exactly what it means one more time. 


 





Again, nested hierarchy isn't evidence for or against common descent:


It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan.  Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution.  Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern.  He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory.  To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution.  (Hunter, 108.)


 


Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern.  Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern.  Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution.  (ReMine, 444.)


In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed.  There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process.  If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology[4] and not evolution.  How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity.  (Denton 1986, 136-137.)


Using non-evidence to support a crumbling theory is not only desperate but also deluded.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2011 - 10:32PM #10
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Apr 23, 2011 -- 9:20PM, faith713 wrote:

Again, nested hierarchy isn't evidence for or against common descent:


It most certainly is evidence for common descent.  It is predicted, required and any violation of the nested hierarchy would certainly disprove all of evolution science


It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. 


This is opinion, not evidence based science


Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. 


Proof of common descent certainly does confirm a key prediciton of evoultion.  You do not need to embrace it but it is now irrefutable fact.


Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern.  He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory.


Darwin most certianly did predict a nested hierarchy.  Go back and review is nested hierarchy sketches.  Of course he did not have the benefit of modern science since the development of genetics, and genome sequencing. Only variation and natural selection can only produce a nested hierarchy pattern. Design does not.


To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution.  (Hunter, 108.)


The nested hierarchy is required by common descent.  Any other pattern would refute evolution.  Can't get more implied than that, now can you. 


Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. 


You pray not to be so but it most certainly does. 


Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern.  Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution.  (ReMine, 444.)


Common descent requires a nested hierarchy.  Evolution requires common descent.  Thus a nested hierarchy which has been predicted, is required and the evidence confirms it.  Creationist cannot explain the observed and confirmed nested hierarchies, thus they must discredit its importance. The fact is it is devestating to creationism, and you cannot sweep it under the rug.


In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed.  There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process.  If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology[4] and not evolution.  How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity.  (Denton 1986, 136-137.)


Denton makes his statement 15 year prior to genome sequencing.  Genome sequencing data has removed all doubt.  Evoultion for all practical purposes has been proved.  The evicence is irrefutable.


Using non-evidence to support a crumbling theory is not only desperate but also deluded.


I believe it is you my dear who is without evidence.  Evolution is based on evidence and the genome sequencing data is the death knell for creationism. 

Hunter, 108; ReMine, 444; Denton 1986, 136-137 - and of course you continue to use non science sources for your misinformation.  Non science sources are summarily dismissed as irrelevant for any serious science discussion.  This is a serious science discussion.  Your references are irrelevant.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook