Fractal-inspired Tree of Life

Fractals or not the tree shown in the links is still based on classification systems based on judgements of connecting creatures based on traits!
Placental's and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minior traits of reproductive systems.
A tree of life needs to be a real tree and not just some concept of connecting very unlike biological entities.

Robert Byers said: Placental's and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minor traits of reproductive systems.

Marsupials and placental mammals are placed close together based on physical traits; at least, closer to each other than either are to egg-laying monotremes. But if you're suggesting that the anatomical traits of marsupials doesn't justify distinguishing them from placental mammals at all, you're wrong. You're also forgetting the genetic evidence which groups marsupials together and placental mammals together (and both in a clade distinct from monotremes, again).

So if you think we can just mix up all the mammals willy-nilly without any kind of nested hierarchy based on common descent and subsequent evolutionary branching, you're comically wrong.

Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minor traits of reproductive systems.

So according to Robert, bats should be classified with birds and whales should be classified with fish. After all, nothing as trivial as mode of reproduction should be used to judge relationships.

See the thing is that if your classification is based on phylogenetic relationships, it makes sense. It tells you something important about the organisms. It explains the genetic similarities as well as the anatomical similarities. If you refuse to accept that organisms are related, then your classification becomes arbitrary and it tells you nothing about the organisms, only about your own biases.

Keep it up Robert, your are a shining example of the how reality denial affects judgement in all areas. (Yea i made that error on porpoise).

Man DS,

That's what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

ogremk5 said: Man DS, That's what I was going to say. Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

It's time for Byers to show that his ideas work.

His medications should all be tested on marsupial "mice," not those supposedly more closely related placental mice.

What difference could it make? It's probably fair to say that Byers doesn't know, and never will.

Glen Daivdson

ogremk5 said: Man DS, That's what I was going to say. Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

Kevin B said:

ogremk5 said: Man DS, That's what I was going to say. Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

They should be grouped with other carnivores that laugh, like Kookaburras. :) Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

... and squid. Don't forget squid.

Man, this whole thread should go to the BW, but I'll be kind and request that (a) Byers not post in it again, on pain of permanent banishment, and (b) others not feed his fantasies.

Thanks!

All I get is a black screen of death - no tree. :(

Windows XP strikes again.

Paul Burnett said: All I get is a black screen of death - no tree. :( Windows XP strikes again.

Kevin B said: Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

How about I do the unexpected and actually make a comment about fractal trees?

Fractals are fun but phylogenies are not really fractal. For example, one simple model of speciation and extinction is a Birth-Death process. This has particles (species) that have a constant probability Bdt, of spltting in the next (very) small interval dt of time. And it has a constant probability Ddt of going extinct in the next very small interval dt of time. Work on models for inferring phylogenies makes more and more use of these Birth-Death models.

But they aren't really fractal. For example, they do not keep on splitting infinitely, and the ratios of lengths of branches do not follow the rules you would see in a fractal.

So fractal diagrams give mesmerizing graphics, but they don't really look like even simple models of speciating lineages.

There are some good sources on the web of estimates of trees from real data. Two are www.timetree.org and treebase.org. Take a look, and see whether those trees are fractal.

These are all just pretty pictures designed to make you're materialistic beliefs seem more real. It doesn't matter how much government money is used to create great graphics the diagrams are still based upon atheistically motivated assumptions that can't be tested empirically.

Impressive pieces of graphic art however . . . kind of reminds me of the "Illuminated - On the Origin of Species" work that was discussed here several months ago.

your not you're

Fittest meme, unless you can provide specifics to support your "atheistically motivated assumptions that can’t be tested empirically" claim, so that readers can evaluate your claim against reality, anything else you post here will go to the BW.

Every graphically illustrated link between two species that is indicated to be older than man is by definition not empirically observable. These graphic representations are provided to support a theory that claims all life descended through a natural, unguided process from one common ancestor. This is in direct contradiction to God's stated act of creation and thus atheistic.

I don't know why you can't just own up to the fact that you believe what you do because you want to.

"Not directly observable" and "not empirically observable" are not synonyms. Equating them is mistaken.

Here's why I don't "own up to the fact that you believe what you do because you want to": That claim is false.

Please describe how you can empirically observe an event that happened before any observer existed.

Empirical - Relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory (1st definition Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). Are you trying to redefine words again like you do with species, fact, theory, etc.?

Please describe how you can empirically observe an event that happened before any observer existed.

Richard B. Hoppe said: "... we observe fossils, ... "

Richard:

You are admitting that the species linking lines on the chart are inferences. An inference is a mental construct established from facts or premises (other inferences). A thought by definition is not empirically observable.

The act of convicting a murder suspect without an eye-witness is indeed also acting upon an inference.

Even though a murder conviction must pass the the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt" some suspects are indeed wrongly convicted in spite of the inferred conclusions drawn from the collected evidence.

In the case of establishing related biological phylogenies the case is no where close to "beyond a reasonable doubt." In fact much of the collected morphological and genetic evidence points respected scientist to very different conclusions regarding supposed relatedness of ancestral species. The fossil record itself requires a great deal of inference to establish morphological assumptions based upon partial skeletal remains. And the genetic evidence you suggest most also be inferential since most now agree that DNA is not stable beyond several thousand years. To suggest a speciation event at a particular period in time millions of years ago is layering inferences upon inferences.

Evolutionists like yourself somehow defend the "fact" of of such events with arguments that do nothing more than say "it's possible." In light of what scientists now know about the complexity of the genetic code that is required to create and direct even one new protein to perform a new function I would say that even suggesting that it's possible without an intelligent author is a stretch.

prongs:

I've got an experiment you can try. You'll need: a clear jar like a 1 pint canning jar, 4 or 5 different types of soil (small pea gravel, sand, peat, potting soil, ashes, lime, etc.), and some water.

First, one at a time, put about 2-3 tablespoons of each soil into your jar. it should take about 4 types of soil to fill your jar about half full. Now empirically observe the characteristics of the division lines between the chronologically established layers you have created. It is likely that the division lines between the layers are not perfectly parallel nor are they distinctly defined.

Next, pour enough water into the jar so that the soil is completely saturated and there is about an inch of water over the top layer of soil. Now, put the top on the jar and shake it thoroughly. Let the jar sit for several minutes and observe again.

Are there different layers than there were before? What type of soils are on the lower levels? What types are at the top?

Are the division lines more or less defined and parallel than those that were established with the chronological layering?

Can you think of any events in Earth's history that could have created the same sort of conditions as shaking the jar with water?

Google information on the geological features especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

As a truly open minded scientists (one who is not just trying to defend a position they strongly beleive in), I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the "Law of Steno."

Hey Fittest Meme -

I'm a fair-minded person.

I accept the theory of evolution, but only because it's supported by multiple converging strong lines of evidence from many different fields. It has nothing to do with religion or what I "want" to believe.

I'm quite willing to consider ID/creationism as an alternative.

Logically, that would only require that -

1) You provide a coherent, testable ID/creationism explanation of the diversity of earth's biosphere, which stands up to investigation and

2) You provide a reasonable, testable alternate explanation for all the evidence which seems to support evolution.

You can begin to convince me by honestly and intelligently answering the following questions -

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

You are admitting that the species linking lines on the chart are inferences. An inference is a mental construct established from facts or premises (other inferences). A thought by definition is not empirically observable.

The act of convicting a murder suspect without an eye-witness is indeed also acting upon an inference. Even though a murder conviction must pass the the test of “beyond a reasonable doubt” some suspects are indeed wrongly convicted in spite of the inferred conclusions drawn from the collected evidence.

In the case of establishing related biological phylogenies the case is no where close to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact much of the collected morphological and genetic evidence points respected scientist to very different conclusions regarding supposed relatedness of ancestral species.

And the genetic evidence you suggest most also be inferential since most now agree that DNA is not stable beyond several thousand years.

Evolutionists like yourself somehow defend the “fact” of of such events with arguments that do nothing more than say “it’s possible.” In light of what scientists now know about the complexity of the genetic code that is required to create and direct even one new protein to perform a new function I would say that even suggesting that it’s possible without an intelligent author is a stretch.

Using structural, phylogenetic, and functional analysis, we identify the specific set of historical mutations that recapitulate the evolution of GR’s hormone specificity from an MR-like ancestor.

fittest meme said: prongs: I've got an experiment you can try. You'll need: a clear jar like a 1 pint canning jar, 4 or 5 different types of soil (small pea gravel, sand, peat, potting soil, ashes, lime, etc.), and some water. First, one at a time, put about 2-3 tablespoons of each soil into your jar. it should take about 4 types of soil to fill your jar about half full. Now empirically observe the characteristics of the division lines between the chronologically established layers you have created. It is likely that the division lines between the layers are not perfectly parallel nor are they distinctly defined. Next, pour enough water into the jar so that the soil is completely saturated and there is about an inch of water over the top layer of soil. Now, put the top on the jar and shake it thoroughly. Let the jar sit for several minutes and observe again. Are there different layers than there were before? What type of soils are on the lower levels? What types are at the top? Are the division lines more or less defined and parallel than those that were established with the chronological layering? Can you think of any events in Earth's history that could have created the same sort of conditions as shaking the jar with water? Google information on the geological features especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. As a truly open minded scientists (one who is not just trying to defend a position they strongly beleive in), I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the "Law of Steno."

dalehusband said:

fittest meme said: prongs: I've got an experiment you can try. You'll need: a clear jar like a 1 pint canning jar, 4 or 5 different types of soil (small pea gravel, sand, peat, potting soil, ashes, lime, etc.), and some water. First, one at a time, put about 2-3 tablespoons of each soil into your jar. it should take about 4 types of soil to fill your jar about half full. Now empirically observe the characteristics of the division lines between the chronologically established layers you have created. It is likely that the division lines between the layers are not perfectly parallel nor are they distinctly defined. Next, pour enough water into the jar so that the soil is completely saturated and there is about an inch of water over the top layer of soil. Now, put the top on the jar and shake it thoroughly. Let the jar sit for several minutes and observe again. Are there different layers than there were before? What type of soils are on the lower levels? What types are at the top? Are the division lines more or less defined and parallel than those that were established with the chronological layering? Can you think of any events in Earth's history that could have created the same sort of conditions as shaking the jar with water? Google information on the geological features especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. As a truly open minded scientists (one who is not just trying to defend a position they strongly beleive in), I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the "Law of Steno."

That's very funny! Clearly, you never actually studied geology. Comparing types of soil in a jar with the makeup of rock layers around the world is simply ridiculous. The bigoted idiots are out in force here, aren't they?

Trolls are apparently an ancient group. All evidence indicates they don’t have the ability to evolve at all.

especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

I can assure fittest meme, as my own eyewitness testimony that the Toutle River Canyon was there before 1980.

Lucky for you Joe you're close enough to this evidence that you can actually view it for yourself. You're just going to have to go about 35 miles upstream from the Hwy 5 bridge to see the canyon we are discussing. Of course I think you know this.

Aren't you a professor? Do you purposefully deceive your students the same way you are trying to deceive the readers of this board?

It is amazing to me how hard you guys work to obscure the truth that most of us can see very plainly when we look at the evidence for ourselves, use our own reason, and discern who's testimony is truthful and whose is motivated by self interest. You academic "experts" in your attempt to justify your own self worth look more and more foolish all the time. Fortunately others have demonstrated that there's hope for you.

A former academian - Saul of Tarsus, who transformed his life when he discovered that much of what he had been taught were lies, recorded some wise words in a letter he once wrote to a group of truth seekers in Rome around 57AD. The following is a translation from his original greek:

"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and the sky. Through everything God made they can clearly see his invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature. Yes they knew God but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools."

Richard, I was going to mention that Joe is one of those scientists that contested the truthfulness of the tree-of-life representation you posted at the start of this thread. He in fact provided evidence of work by other scientists that contradicted many of the conclusions reached by those that authored your fractal tree.

Regarding the possibility of creating new functioning proteins (not modifying existing ones), I'm sure you've read Michael Behe's latest response to the debate here.

Rando, I wasn't aware of the Hovind experiment. I actually did do this myself. The point that both of us make is that chronology is not the only way of layering sediments, and that millions of years are not necessary to create many of the geological stratification we observe empirically. I think that is pretty self-evident by my experiment results, the results of the video you posted, and one's own reason and logic even if they didn't do the experiment.

fittest meme said: Lucky for you Joe you're close enough to this evidence that you can actually view it for yourself. You're just going to have to go about 35 miles upstream from the Hwy 5 bridge to see the canyon we are discussing. Of course I think you know this. Aren't you a professor? Do you purposefully deceive your students the same way you are trying to deceive the readers of this board?

apokryltaros said: Are you accusing Joe Felsenstein of being a liar simply because he contradicts your assertions?

For an experiment that demonstrates that one-time hydrogolic sorting (ie settling out of sediments after one only inundation) does not produce the results fittest claims, and the results it does produce do not match observations of geological stratification, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY.

How about it, FM? How do you KNOW the world isn't only a week old? And how can you prove it?

Saul of Tarsus. Wasn't he that guy who had a temporal lobe seizure on the road to Damascus?

fittest meme said: Rando, I wasn't aware of the Hovind experiment. I actually did do this myself. The point that both of us make is that chronology is not the only way of layering sediments, and that millions of years are not necessary to create many of the geological stratification we observe empirically. I think that is pretty self-evident by my experiment results, the results of the video you posted, and one's own reason and logic even if they didn't do the experiment.

... I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the "Law of Steno."

... chronology is not the only way of layering sediments, and that millions of years are not necessary to create many of the geological stratification we observe empirically. I think that is pretty self-evident by my experiment results, ...

Hey Fittest Meme -

I’m a fair-minded person.

And as a fair-minded person, now that you've thrown a few grossly unjustified accusations of dishonesty, let me state that I recognize EVASION as a sign I may be dealing with a dishonest person.

I accept the theory of evolution, but only because it’s supported by multiple converging strong lines of evidence from many different fields. It has nothing to do with religion or what I “want” to believe.

I’m quite willing to consider ID/creationism as an alternative.

Logically, that would only require that -

1) You provide a coherent, testable ID/creationism explanation of the diversity of earth’s biosphere, which stands up to investigation and

2) You provide a reasonable, testable alternate explanation for all the evidence which seems to support evolution.

You can begin to convince me by honestly and intelligently answering the following questions -

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

If fattest meme want s to argue that the world is five thousand years old he can just go over to the carbon dating thread and explain that evidence. If not he can just go a way. Everyone else has already looked at the evidence, only the willfully ignorant or dishonest continue to claim that the earth is not ancient.

DS said: If fattest meme want s to argue that the world is five thousand years old he can just go over to the carbon dating thread and explain that evidence. If not he can just go a way. Everyone else has already looked at the evidence, only the willfully ignorant or dishonest continue to claim that the earth is not ancient.

fittest meme said:

apokryltaros said: Are you accusing Joe Felsenstein of being a liar simply because he contradicts your assertions?

No, I'm calling Joe Felsenstein deceptive because he ignored the evidence I presented and led the conversation off-topic by commenting on a part of the river that was 35 miles downstream from the area he knew i was referring to.

DS said: If fattest meme wants to argue that the world is five thousand years old he can just go over to the carbon dating thread and explain that evidence.

Even nearly two centuries ago, most scientists had already discarded the idea that a single event resulted in the strata we have today. This included Christian scientists such as pioneering geologist Adam Sedgwick who in 1831 recanted his world Flood position (link here). Sedgwick and other theists had strong theological motivations to have a prior commitment for a world Flood, but even this prior commitment withered as contrary evidence continued to accumulate.

What can happen when a YEC gets real life geological experience in the field? This link here about geophysicist Glenn Morton is rather telling (and Gordon Glover himself is an ex-YEC, Glover during his younger years even dreamed of working for ICR).

fittest meme said: No, I'm calling Joe Felsenstein deceptive because he ignored the evidence I presented and led the conversation off-topic by commenting on a part of the river that was 35 miles downstream from the area he knew i was referring to.

fittest meme said: It is amazing to me how hard you guys work to obscure the truth that most of us can see very plainly when we look at the evidence for ourselves, use our own reason, and discern who's testimony is truthful and whose is motivated by self interest. You academic "experts" in your attempt to justify your own self worth look more and more foolish all the time. Fortunately others have demonstrated that there's hope for you.

I was positive Meme got his crap from a Hovind site, and low and behold I found this gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj3-XfcdAQ&feature=relmfu

Not only does Hovind mention his Experiment, but Hovind also holds up the Toutle River Canyon as one of his examples. Meme is either a Hovind fan or he is ripping his crap from a Hovind based creationist site. I'm not going to waste my time looking for the rest of his examples but rest assured they've all been debunked. Just in case he tries it here's the other half of Potholer54's videos debunking the other half of this Hovind crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA&feature=related

Rando said: I was positive Meme got his crap from a Hovind site, and low and behold I found this gem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj3-XfcdAQ&feature=relmfu Not only does Hovind mention his Experiment, but Hovind also holds up the Toutle River Canyon as one of his examples. Meme is either a Hovind fan or he is ripping his crap from a Hovind based creationist site. I'm not going to waste my time looking for the rest of his examples but rest assured they've all been debunked. Just in case he tries it here's the other half of Potholer54's videos debunking the other half of this Hovind crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA&feature=related

prongs said:

Rando said: I was positive Meme got his crap from a Hovind site, and low and behold I found this gem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj3-XfcdAQ&feature=relmfu Not only does Hovind mention his Experiment, but Hovind also holds up the Toutle River Canyon as one of his examples. Meme is either a Hovind fan or he is ripping his crap from a Hovind based creationist site. I'm not going to waste my time looking for the rest of his examples but rest assured they've all been debunked. Just in case he tries it here's the other half of Potholer54's videos debunking the other half of this Hovind crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA&feature=related

Perhaps he's Hovind's son, who now runs the 'ministry'.

I'm kind of confused...who put the Earth in a mason jar and shook it?

James said: I'm kind of confused...who put the Earth in a mason jar and shook it?

Actually that "experiment" might reveal something.

After following directions, let it settle for a bit, then pour--or better yet, siphon--out the water. Look at what's left.

Now, how much mucky, dead-animal-stinking sludge would be covering the WHOLE EARTH after an extinction level event that laid down hundreds of feet of sediment over a year of inundation, thousands of meters deep?