Unicorns and the ToE

[ericmurphy]

Taxonomic groups are defined by common traits. To take your example further, dolphins, fish, penguins, great diving beetles, daphnia and water-snakes all swim, but only someone of extreme obtuseness would suggest that this indicates that they can be considered to belong in some way to the same taxonomic group.

For crying out loud, Dave, bacteria swim. Do you think bacteria are more closely related to dolphins than, say, dogs are?

Again, it depends on your classification criteria. If behavior is your criteria, then yes, bacteria are more closely related to dolphins because they both swim in water. Think out of the Darwin Box, Eric.

No, Dave, it doesn't depend on your selection criteria. All it depends on is that you group all characteristics together. Bacteria don't group with any eukaryotes, let alone with dolphins, because they don't have nucleated cells, which dolphins, and all other eukaryotes, have.

Your criterion 'organisms that swim' is arbitrary, because it's essentially the only criterion you can use that will group dolphins with bacteria. We know dolphins group more naturally with dogs than with bacteria because there is an entire constellation of traits dolphins share with dogs that neither dogs nor dolphins share with bacteria.

In other words, I don't have any criteria I need to group dolphins with dogs and not bacteria. They group themselves, without any input from me, or decisions about which criteria are important and which aren't. This is the part you are refusing to get.

You could get this, Dave, if only you allowed yourself to. It's sad that you will not allow yourself to think outside of your creationist box.

[Pappy Jack]

The Ultimate Intelligence is the one great exception to the rule that intelligence requires higher intelligence to create it. Now before you say "Bah ... you're contradicting yourself" ... think for a minute. The truth is ... there are really only two choices ...

1) Either the Universe is caused by a single, self-existent Uncaused Cause, or
2) The Universe is Self-Caused

Choice (1) is something we cannot comprehend, but Choice (2) is contradicted by everything we know. So Choice (1) is better since it doesn't require us to deny everything we know. It simply requires us to acknowledge that there is something we don't understand yet.

Think about it for an hour, Dave, if that's what it takes. (1) is just as much "contradicted by everything we know" as (2) is. How is an "uncaused cause" any less a contradiction of everything we know that a "self-caused" universe (which is just as easily described as an "uncaused" universe as God is described as a "self-caused" deity)?

This is logic a grade schooler could demolish, Dave. It's sad to see someone who's obviously not a complete idiot raising such clearly idiotic arguments.

And in the meantime, how are you doing with your little project to rearrange the consensus phylogenetic tree into a different, but equally-supportable, phylogenetic tree?

Beat me to it, Eric (and far more succinctly and cogently, may I say). The thing is, Dave's creo blinkers mean that he just ain't gonna get it.

[Tears On My Dong]

Dave is an enormous brick wall, surrounded by dozens of people banging their heads on him.

[VoxRat]

Dave is an enormous brick wall, surrounded by dozens of people banging their heads on him.

Very true.

But I like to think, or hope, that watching Dave illustrate virtually every fallacy in the book so starkly, and watching others dissect them more and more efficiently, will teach us to recognize the same fallacies when subtler minds fall into (or deploy, as the case may be) the same fallacies.

[ericmurphy]

Dave, it's pointless. You went from "nested hierarchies are better explained by creationism" to "nested hierarchies are just as well explained by creationism" to "you know what? Nested hierarchies are completely arbitrary, they don't even exist".

It's pathetic. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

You skipped a step. He also said, "Creationism cannot explain nested hierarchies." That came between "Nested hierarchies are just as well explained by creationism," and "You know what? Nested hierarchies are completely arbitrary, they don't even exist".

[ericmurphy]

Think about it for an hour, Dave, if that's what it takes. (1) is just as much "contradicted by everything we know" as (2) is. How is an "uncaused cause" any less a contradiction of everything we know that a "self-caused" universe (which is just as easily described as an "uncaused" universe as God is described as a "self-caused" deity)?

This is logic a grade schooler could demolish, Dave. It's sad to see someone who's obviously not a complete idiot raising such clearly idiotic arguments.

And in the meantime, how are you doing with your little project to rearrange the consensus phylogenetic tree into a different, but equally-supportable, phylogenetic tree?

Beat me to it, Eric (and far more succinctly and cogently, may I say). The thing is, Dave's creo blinkers mean that he just ain't gonna get it.

And since we're speculating wildly here anyway, I'm going to conjecture that the universe neither caused itself nor is uncaused. I'm going to conjecture that the little snippet of universe we can actually observe, this little bubble 150 billion light-years wide, is only an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger universe beyond that has always existed. Some feature of, or event in, that larger universe caused the universe we can see to start expanding. While the universe we inhabit had a definite beginning in time, that larger, true universe it is embedded in has always existed. Which kind of leaves god out of the picture, doesn't it?

Now, Dave will immediately protest that I don't have any evidence for this larger universe in which our observable part of that universe is embedded. This is true, so far anyway. Which means I have exactly the same amount of evidence as Dave has for his creator God, which involves a lot more logical contradictions, as well as contradictions of everything we know, than my unobservable universe, which doesn't seem to imply any logical contradictions or contradictions of anything we know at all.

Can anyone think of one?

[ericmurphy]

Now—since this thread is supposedly about nested hierarchies, can you show me an alternative phylogeny to this one, Dave:



—that isn't contradicted by simple observation, Dave? Can you do it? Or are you starting to see why doing so is impossible?

Also, just so I know you have some idea what's going on here, can you give me an example of a homology that's listed on this chart? I'm just curious to know if you know what the word means.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Taxonomic groups are defined by common traits. To take your example further, dolphins, fish, penguins, great diving beetles, daphnia and water-snakes all swim, but only someone of extreme obtuseness would suggest that this indicates that they can be considered to belong in some way to the same taxonomic group.

For crying out loud, Dave, bacteria swim. Do you think bacteria are more closely related to dolphins than, say, dogs are?

As far as I can tell, Eric, Hawkins doesn't think any two kinds of animals are 'related' to each other at all. Therefore, in the twilight realm of irrationality that RAFH likes to call 'Daveyworld', any categorization is as good as any other.

In the real consensual world of shared experience that sane people laughingly call 'reality', the discovery of an objective nested heirarchy for all living creatures is one of the reasons why evolution has proven to be such a useful tool in biology. Before it, all of our classifications were just as arbitrary as Hawkins' birds<==>bats, fish<==>dolphins silliness.

This, of course, is contrary to Hawkins' belief in special creation, so it will be rejected out of hand. Not because it is not supported by all available evidence, but because it makes him feel uncomfortable about his vaunted position as "God's Representative on Planet Earth".

[Serafina Pekkala]

Hiya!

Davids list doesnt seem to be complete. The universe could be caused by multiple beings, it could have no cause at all, or the cause might not be personal. There are lots more possibilities.

Sari

[ericmurphy]

As far as I can tell, Eric, Hawkins doesn't think any two kinds of animals are 'related' to each other at all. Therefore, in the twilight realm of irrationality that RAFH likes to call 'Daveyworld', any categorization is as good as any other.

Undoubtedly true. But here's the thing, Dave. You said, or implied, we should group organisms in a way that is most beneficial to humanity. Okay, let's do that. Let's say we take a cue from Davology (as distinct from biology), and group organisms according to their modes of locomotion. Well, humans are obligate bipeds, and as far as I know (counterexamples, please), the only other obligate bipeds are birds (you could, I suppose, include bats, but if you've ever seen bats try to move in any way other than by flying, you'd hesitate).

Since birds are obligate bipeds like humans, but primates, murids, etc. are not, it makes sense to test drugs on birds first to make sure they're safe for humans, right, Dave?

[improvius]

Now—since this thread is supposedly about nested hierarchies, can you show me an alternative phylogeny to this one, Dave:



—that isn't contradicted by simple observation, Dave? Can you do it? Or are you starting to see why doing so is impossible?

Also, just so I know you have some idea what's going on here, can you give me an example of a homology that's listed on this chart? I'm just curious to know if you know what the word means.

Also, Dave, please place centaurs on the chart.

[Febble]

Pappy Jack, my friend, not only do they recognize that these are real machines, they want to implement these machines in artificial situations! Please wake up, take off your Darwin glasses, and start paying attention to what's really going on in science. It's exciting stuff.

Look out, Dave, you're heading right for it! For god's sake, turn the wheel, dammit! Hit the breaks or something! Holy SHIT! You just

Crash!!!


—ran right into it.

Infinite regress.

You say complexity requires greater complexity, and intelligence requires greater intelligence. Oops.

Who designed and built God, Dave? What makes God unique? How come God doesn't require a designer?

Lovely post, eric, but I think you are on to a loser here. Infinite regress isn't necessarily a problem, I don't think. A lot of perfectly rational people posit that the world (by which I include all possible universes) has neither a beginning nor an end, or that our own universe will approach infinite size and zero density.

To posit that the world was designed by an infinite series of ever more intelligent beings seems not inherently irrational to me. I think the irrationality is more mundane - it is the assumption that a less intelligent system can't result in a more intelligent one. One of the reasons it's a bad assumption is that it begs the question of what intelligence is and how it it could be quantified or ranked.

Which is why I keep asking Dave for an operational definition of intelligence.

[Martin B]

There is no truly objective nested hierarchy for Martin's items or for organisms. It is all somewhat arbitrary. More on this later.

Is that so? When you say that special creation is a better explanation for nested hierarchies, then what is it that special creation explains if not an object that exists independently of our ability to perceive it?

What you're saying is that special creation is a great way of explaining the patterns that emerge in arbitrary classification schemes. Once again, I fail to see how this tells us anything.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have special creation as an explanation of nested hierarchies whilst simultaneously denying that they have any objective existence in Nature. Either you argue that the hierarchy does not exist, or you accept that it exists and propose an explanation for it. (EDIT: You're allowed agnosticism as well, but I thought that was obvious).

This is a complete reversal of your earlier stated position in this thread that the hierarchies are real and exist independently of our ability to perceive them.

I said that nested hierarchies are somewhat arbitrary. Think with me for a minute. Why could we not classify organisms like dolphins and whales with fish because both swim underwater? Why could we not group bats with birds because both fly? There is nothing that I am aware of that forces us to group organisms in an particular way. Obviously, Linnaeus chose a certain way, but we could have adopted any scheme we fancy which serves our purpose. What are we trying to accomplish with our classification efforts in the first place? Yours obviously is to try to show common ancestry of all organisms. But my purpose is simply to facilitate study of the organisms for the benefit of humanity.

You're pointing out something that is trivially correct: whether artificially created or not, we can choose whatever classification scheme we wish. The question is: are there groupings that exist independently of our ability to create them?

As for your assertion that I am reversing my position, this is incorrect. I am not.

Well, perhaps you don't realise it, but you are either changing it or expressing two mutually contradictory opinions. You can't simultaneously hold that nested hierarchies are some sort of evidence against evolution whilst claiming that they're arbitrary. There must be something that exists indepedently of our ability to perceive or create it (i.e. is objective) in order for it to count as evidence of anything.

I say (and genetics professor researcher, non-creationist, never-was-one Michael Denton agrees with me) that it is artificial objects that generally lend themselves to organization in nested hierarchies, not natural phenomena. And it doesn't matter how you organize your hierarchy. You can group them all by behavior if you like, or by morphology (per Linnaeus) or any number of other schemes. The important point in the evolution/creation debate is that ...

But I don't care about Michael Denton's opinion. He's not even a systematist, so why would his opinion on this issue matter? If you're going to resort to argument from authority, at least cite relevant authorities on the subject. Denton's status as a "non-creationist" doesn't impress me.

As a rule, I don't cite authorities, I don't quote either creationist or evolutionist "authorities" to make my point. (I cited John von Neumann earlier as illustrative, not to make an argument). You'll notice that nobody else here does. It's not a valid form of argument. It is, however, an effective way of diverting attacks on ones own position to an "authority" so that you don't have to come up with your own arguments to defend them.

You clearly have your own ideas about this matter, so express them yourself. Articulate pointed arguments rather than pointing out another person's opinion. Your argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not on whether you perceive someone else to agree with you. If we sit here and battle it out by totting up the opinions expressed by other people, it ceases to be a dialogue between individuals and becomes a vapid fantasy where no understanding is gained.

No matter what scheme you use, they all fall into a nested hierarchy, not any sort of continuous sequence.

If you're concerned about continuity, then you're not talking about nested hierarchies at all. You can have continuity irrespective of whether or not we can define nested groups [Hint: the groups that exist aren't just the ones we've given names to]. You're talking about our ability to form (apparently) discrete groupings (clusters) of things. The fact that we can make groups that are discrete individuals has nothing to do with whether or not there exists continuities between groups. There's nothing about a nested hierarchy that implies discontinuity -- certainly not of the kind that creationists are postulating. You can create nested groupings irrespective of continuity among them.

Individual organisms can be given names and recognised as discrete units (Dave, Martin, etc.). Even if we have offspring who are identical to us, we can be recognised as individuals. Any group, whether descended from another organism or specially created might be recognised as a discrete group.

Let's do a little interactive experiment. First, we'll start with the Tetrapoda. Modern tetrapods are characterised as follows: jawed vertebrates with four limbs bearing digits (fingers and toes), lacking internal gills (salamanders and tadpoles may have external gills), a distinct neck, a pelvic girdle firmly attached to the vertebral column, and lacking fin webs made of dermal bone (lepidotrichia). The challenge is now for Dave to define "Fish" (Pisces) given what is known about tetrapods, and prove that they are distinct from tetrapods.

[Febble]

Now—since this thread is supposedly about nested hierarchies, can you show me an alternative phylogeny to this one, Dave:



—that isn't contradicted by simple observation, Dave? Can you do it? Or are you starting to see why doing so is impossible?

Also, just so I know you have some idea what's going on here, can you give me an example of a homology that's listed on this chart? I'm just curious to know if you know what the word means.

Also, Dave, please place centaurs on the chart.

Yup.

[Serafina Pekkala]

Hiya. Could somebody please explain why David wont post definitions of important terms?I know that much of the argument time with him is based on not understanding his unusual vocabulary. Wouldnt providing definitions help? Especially since he keeps complaining that people arent addressing what he says?

Sari

[Gavinicus]

This is logic a grade schooler could demolish, Dave. It's sad to see someone who's obviously not a complete idiot raising such clearly idiotic arguments.

With apologies to Dr. Weinberg, smart people tend to say smart things and idiotic people tend to say idiotic things, but for a smart person to say idiotic things--that takes religion.

Dave is clearly not an idiot, but his commitment to believe impossible things no matter what contradictory evidence is presented forces him to make idiotic claims (that often directly contradict his prior idiotic claims).

I've learned a lot from these discussions about radiographic dating techniques, varves, research on transitional forms and lots more. But I've actually observed the damage that magical thinking does to the intellect. These train wrecks are fun, but they also have made me committed to supporting good old critical thinking skills.

[ck1]

As far as I can tell, Eric, Hawkins doesn't think any two kinds of animals are 'related' to each other at all. Therefore, in the twilight realm of irrationality that RAFH likes to call 'Daveyworld', any categorization is as good as any other.

Undoubtedly true. But here's the thing, Dave. You said, or implied, we should group organisms in a way that is most beneficial to humanity. Okay, let's do that. Let's say we take a cue from Davology (as distinct from biology), and group organisms according to their modes of locomotion. Well, humans are obligate bipeds, and as far as I know (counterexamples, please), the only other obligate bipeds are birds (you could, I suppose, include bats, but if you've ever seen bats try to move in any way other than by flying, you'd hesitate).

Since birds are obligate bipeds like humans, but primates, murids, etc. are not, it makes sense to test drugs on birds first to make sure they're safe for humans, right, Dave?

Off-topic but I can't help noting genetic studies have identified a gene for bipedalism in humans by study of a family of "handwalkers":
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-H...gs-40294.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

[Faid]

"WHO then designed this "Higher Intelligence" ?
Who designed those designers ? and then who designed their designers ad infinitum ?

No one. The Ultimate Intelligence is the one great exception to the rule that intelligence requires higher intelligence to create it.

Aaah yes. God is the OneTrue Scotsman.

Now before you say "Bah ... you're contradicting yourself" ... think for a minute. The truth is ... there are really only two choices ...

1) Either the Universe is caused by a single, self-existent Uncaused Cause, or
2) The Universe is Self-Caused

Choice (1) is something we cannot comprehend, but Choice (2) is contradicted by everything we know.

And what is tha, again? I seem to have missed it. So far, you have argued that intelligence needs intelligence. Nothing more. What is this "everything we know"?

So Choice (1) is better since it doesn't require us to deny everything we know. It simply requires us to acknowledge that there is something we don't understand yet.

But dave, the universe is not intelligent. Therefore, according to you, it does NOT require intelligence. Isn't it easier to say that the universe has no cause, than to postulate that it was created by an all-powerful, unseen entity, that has no cause?

Why does the first option "contradict everything we know", while the second option is merely "something we cannot comprehend yet"? Why do you make that distinction?

...I know why, of course; I just want to see if you have the guts to admit it.

[VoxRat]

Hiya. Could somebody please explain why David wont post definitions of important terms?I know that much of the argument time with him is based on not understanding his unusual vocabulary. Wouldnt providing definitions help? Especially since he keeps complaining that people arent addressing what he says?

Sari

Yes, I can explain that.

A major tool in the creationist's arsenal is what I have dubbed the argumentum ad nebulam. This is actually a chef's salad of fallacies and evasions including strawman arguments, goalpost-moving, point-missing, subject-changing, and - perhaps most prominently - equivocation.

The argumentum ad nebulam involves generating a lot of nebulous (because they're ill-defined to the point of meaninglessness) questions, and then accusing your adversary of not understanding, etc., PLUS responding to sensible questions with nebulous answers, that could mean anything or nothing, then when one's adversary tries to nail that fog to the wall, claiming that one already thoroughly answered the question.

Definition of terms is anathema to the argumentum ad nebulam, and the nebulator will avoid it at all costs, since as soon as you actually define the terms, it's "game over".

[Faid]

If machine is defined as a structure made of interrelated parts that performs some kind of work, then cells do contain machines.

The problem is that Dave's definition of machines also includes the concept that machines are manufactured entities created by an intelligence. This is what is in dispute here, Dave. Natural processes can in fact give rise to the "irreducibly complex" protein machines we see in cells. No intelligence needed.

No they cannot. I would love to see you try to demonstrate this. Also, there is no definition of "machines" needed. Everyone knows what we are talking about here. Just as no definition of intelligence was needed.

Nonsense, dave.

Please state clearly, if your definition of "machines" includes the notion that they are artificially made by intelligence.

Stop trying to sneak your way out of this issue. It is not becoming for a Christian.

[Gavinicus]

On the subject of machines, and since Dave assumes we all know what that means, I surmise that he must mean the basic definition--"a device that transmits or modifies energy."

A waterfall is a machine, a dead log leaning on a rock is a machine, a comet is a machine.

Dave, what makes you think that all machines require consciousness or purpose? What makes you think we think so? What makes you think anyone with a brain thinks so?

Machines happen. Some are purposefully built, some are not.

[Coleslaw]

No one. The Ultimate Intelligence is the one great exception to the rule that intelligence requires higher intelligence to create it. Now before you say "Bah ... you're contradicting yourself" ... think for a minute. The truth is ... there are really only two choices ...

1) Either the Universe is caused by a single, self-existent Uncaused Cause, or
2) The Universe is Self-Caused

Choice (1) is something we cannot comprehend, but Choice (2) is contradicted by everything we know. So Choice (1) is better since it doesn't require us to deny everything we know. It simply requires us to acknowledge that there is something we don't understand yet.

Okay, perhaps I am an abnormally bubble-headed person (and I wouldn't rule that out), but I don't see how those 2 choices are really different.

[Febble]

Hiya. Could somebody please explain why David wont post definitions of important terms?I know that much of the argument time with him is based on not understanding his unusual vocabulary. Wouldnt providing definitions help? Especially since he keeps complaining that people arent addressing what he says?

Sari

Yes, I can explain that.

A major tool in the creationist's arsenal is what I have dubbed the argumentum ad nebulam. This is actually a chef's salad of fallacies and evasions including strawman arguments, goalpost-moving, point-missing, subject-changing, and - perhaps most prominently - equivocation.

The argumentum ad nebulam involves generating a lot of nebulous (because they're ill-defined to the point of meaninglessness) questions, and then accusing your adversary of not understanding, etc., PLUS responding to sensible questions with nebulous answers, that could mean anything or nothing, then when one's adversary tries to nail that fog to the wall, claiming that one already thoroughly answered the question.

Definition of terms is anathema to the argumentum ad nebulam, and the nebulator will avoid it at all costs, since as soon as you actually define the terms, it's "game over".

As in:

Speciation occurs, yes. But within very definite (although hard to pin down) limits.

Note that "definite" means "can be clearly defined" and "hard to pin down" means "can't be clearly defined".

[Zadok001]

Febble-- Referring to your post here ... http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthrea...021#post165021

You continue to misunderstand me. You say ...

OK, let me do this again:

* All machines that we used to know of are created by intelligence
* Now we know of some more
* Therefore these must have been created by an intelligence too.

which is like saying

* All swans that we know of are white
* We have just discovered some swans of unknown colour
* Therefore these swans must be white.

No, no, no, no. Febble, you really need to read and think carefully. Look very carefully at what I say ...

1) All machines that we know of require intelligence (like what you have, however you wish to define it) to create [far different from "all swans that we know of are white" ... notice the word 'require']
2) Thanks to the recent molecular biological revolution, we have now discovered nano-machines within cells
3) Therefore, it is a reasonable inference to propose that these nano-machines also required an intelligence to create

Do you see the key difference? It's huge. And you missed it. Febble, all our experience tells us that intelligence is REQUIRED to create working machines.

Get that word into your head ...

REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED

This means that in all our experience, working machines cannot come into existence without intelligence.

Or alternatively, that in all our experience, working machines cannot come into existence without human intelligence. Right? I mean, I haven't seen the latest Chimpanzee-constructed space shuttle. Humans build machines, we find machines in cells, therefore humans built cells.

You do see how that reasoning works, right Dave?

[Gavinicus]

Well dung beetles make wheels out of shit. Perhaps the nano-machines are made by nano-beetles.