I was reading this article after it was posted on Facebook on the Answers to Answers in Genesis page, and found it so well written and addresses so many of the issue brought up here, I thought I would share.
I thought it did a particularly good job of explaining nested hierarchy. Despite knowing basically what it was, I always had a little difficulty with it.
I was perhaps most impressed with how the article brought out how predictive the idea of common descent was to earlier scientists.
It is a good explanation, and does a good job of stressing specific points that often come up in conversations on these forums. For me, this is one of the most important parts:
We often hear creationists claim that we are citing similarity as evidence for evolution. That isn’t the case. The nested hierarchy is one of the foundations of the theory and can’t be understood without first understanding what a nested hierarchy is.
IMHO, the one thing the article is missing is an illustration. Visualization is often an important part of learning a concept.
The characteristics on that tree are transmitted up the branches through common descent. This is what produces the nested hierarchy.
Another way to approach the concept is through dichotomous keys.
This is an exercise we went through as part of my zoology class decades ago at university. It really helped me to lock in the concept, even if dichotomous keys are not a 100% faithful representation of phylogenetics.
Aw come on, that is simplistic to the nth degree.
Hinged jaw?
From the first section of a gill?
Who are you trying to kidd!
You are comparong similarities and ignoring diffrences
Richard
We are discussing the distribution of physical characteristics among species and how the fall into a nested hierarchy as predicted by the theory of evolution. Do you disagree with these findings about the tree-like distribution of characteristics?
I am jjsut saying that you are pickiing and choosing what to compare. Those illustrations were so simplistic as to be ludicrous.
The epidermis is more than euither hair or not. You can’t just grow hair where there used to be scales, it don’t work like that. The epidermal covering is directly relted to teh heat exchange systems. Scels or hairs are only the outer part, You know this.
As far as I can tell nested hierachy depends promarily on the DNA sequencing. You have yet to confirm or understand how a selection of DNA or RNA actually maes a bone, in the right shape, in the right place. To claim that a snake is a distant cousinn because it has a backbone would seem to be stretching a point.
Richard.
That’s how science education often works, by starting with the simple and moving to the complex.
If you want to talk about the evolution of specific features you could start a new thread and discuss it. This thread is about the distribution of characteristics.
The nested hierarchies were determined by physical characteristics for 200 years before DNA was discovered. It started with Linnaeus in the 1700’s.
This thread is also not about embryonic development. If you want to discuss that topic you should start a new thread. I think we should respect @jpm 's thread and try to stay on topic.
That’s not the point, as I stated in an earlier post. We are not claiming that species share a common ancestor because of similarities. It’s the nested hierarchy that evidences shared ancestry.
This thread is about bolstering ToE. Anything goes.
You pick your playing field, i will pick mine.
And if you want to discuss (claim) that you are leaving science and entering the world of philosophy.
Look, there is no need to persue this, we both know what is going on here. I am just adding a little salt to your bland explanations.
Taxanomic progression may have been touted in the 17th centruy but it was also argued to death.
If you are ging to “play” in the macro world you have to accept all the factors involved. Simplistic explanations only show either naivity or an attempt at blindsiding.
Richard
Then start a thread on jaw evolution and I will happily participate. I’m just trying to keep discussions organized and focused.
Sure, we can discuss the philosophy of education if you want. That seems to be on topic.
Do you think there is a better way of teaching the concept of nested hierarchies? What suggestions do you have?
That you offer both sides of the argument.
Richard
LOL
No hierarchy at all.
Always it is portrayed as a done deal.
Richard
As long as they are arguments and not denial of facts. The nested hierarchy is an observable fact of nature as recognized by biologists since before the theory of evolution. Linnaeus predated Darwin by 100 years.
Do you want to argue that common descent and vertical inheritance would not produce a nested hierarchy? If so, I would certainly like to hear why that is.
Is there some other process you think would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy? If so, what evidence should we be presenting for this process?
Been there, heard that.
IOW you have no idea what you would look for if you weren’t looking for Nested hierarchy.
You can’t give an opposing view because you do not think one exists.
And your previous spats with me prove that you have no idea what I am driving at.
Richard
If you don’t think the nested hierarchy exists, please present your case.
I think it is a fact that the Earth is a globe even though I know of the existence of Flat Earthers. For me, denying the existence of the nested hierarchies ranks up there with Flat Earthers. If you think I am wrong, then please explain why the nested hierarchy is not a fact.
I have, many times but
“I am not using the scientific methid”
“I am not understanding it right”
“I am making things up”
“I am insuting scientists”
etc. etc.
You are entrenched in your view and unserstanding, and nothing I do or say will change it.
Richard
You never have. All I have seen from you is just flat denial.
Why do you think there isn’t a nested hierarchy? Explain it.
Then explain what I am missing. What am I getting wrong? What led you to conclude that there isn’t a nested hierarchy?
There is already random elements, i am not sure that the prove anything either wya.
I guess the main opposition is based on the “designer” viewpoint, which is definately non scientific, so the only resort is to try nd disprove the Nested view. That becomes problematic if you re limited to scientific methods and data.
IOW Nested Hierachy and ToE are the scientiffic view. To argue against is to claim that there are things science cannt account for, such as complexity or rirreducibilty, neother of which are accepted within science…
Banging your head against a brick wall becomes the only analogy left.
But thanks for the non sarcastic answer.
Richard
You seem to be confusing facts and explanations. They aren’t the same thing.
Going back to the Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth debate, there are facts that are not disputed by either side. For example, the movement of the Sun through the sky and the distribution of sunlight across the Earth at any one point of time are not debated (usually). The Flat Earthers try to come up with explanations for these observations, as do Globe Earthers. The explanations are separate from the observations.
The nested hierarchy is an observation. Even staunchly YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis admit that life does fall into a nested hierarchy:
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
