The YEC theory of nested hierarchies.

[wattsr1]

Hi All


I think we are all happy to agree that nested hierarchies do exist within living organisms in nature, given that the creationist, Linnaeus, discovered them.

We naturalists can provide explanations and practical demonstrations as to how nested hierarchies arise in nature. This explanation is called a theory. In this case the general theory is called “common descent with modification” - and it involves reproduction, genetics, traits, altering traits, etc.

We can gather evidence from nature that such hierarchies do exist, at all levels in living and extinct organisms.

Thus we argue that our theory explains what we observe in nature.



Question: can a YEC do likewise with respect to the nested hierarchy and the YEC framework? That is, can YECs provide explanations and practical demonstrations such that a YEC theory of nested hierarchies can be established, so that when we observe a nested hierarchy in nature, YECs can say “Aha, our YEC theory explains this”?

That is, what is the YEC theory of nested hierarchies?


Surely there is one given that ToE is kaput, falling out of favor as thousands of scientists world wide abandon it, given that YEC/ID has alternative theories waiting in the wing to replace it, theories that should be taught in schools etc?




Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

Well, to start with AnswersinGenesis (AiG) claims that nested hierarchies aren’t evidence for evolution:

To the contrary, as pointed out by Gish, the classification of things according to nested hierarchy was first performed, in recent pre-Darwinian times, by Linnaeus, a creationist, so it can hardly be considered a prediction of evolutionary theory.



Source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/eldredge.asp)

Yup. Since the concept precedes Darwin it cannot possibly be “considered a prediction of evolutionary theory.” :ahem:

From there they go on to proclaim it’s possible that God “might want to use the same design ideas over and over.”

[wattsr1]

Well, to start with AnswersinGenesis (AiG) claims that nested hierarchies aren’t evidence for evolution:

To the contrary, as pointed out by Gish, the classification of things according to nested hierarchy was first performed, in recent pre-Darwinian times, by Linnaeus, a creationist, so it can hardly be considered a prediction of evolutionary theory.



Source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/eldredge.asp)

Yup. Since the concept precedes Darwin it cannot possibly be “considered a prediction of evolutionary theory.” :ahem:

Indeed. Linnaeus observed the hierarchy. Common descent with modification explains the mechanism behind how/why he could observe it. So it begs the question, how does creation science explain the mechanism behind how/why he could observe it?


From there they go on to proclaim it’s possible that God “might want to use the same design ideas over and over.”God might have wanted to. But how do they know that he did?

It's like arguing:-

1) I observed rain today.

2) Any naturalistic theory explaining why it rained today is wrong, because God might have wanted to make it rain.


Indeed. But how can we possibly know that? However, we do have mechanistic reasons for knowing why nature made it rain today.



Regards, Roland

PS I guess it makes for an easy YEC exam:-

Ques: "What is the creation mechanism behind nested hierarchies in nature?".
Ans: "God might have done it."
Ques: "What evidence do you have for your answer?"
Ans: "It exists."

[geochron]

I doubt you will get an answer from a YEC. Putting on a devil's advocate hat, here are a few ideas for them...

Human beings are very good at imposing classification systems on things. The nested hierarchies and the choice of properties one focuses on have a mutual dependence; for instance, it's not seen as a problem for nested hierarchies that "things with wings" appear in widely separated groups. Rather, we decide that "having wings" is a lower level property because that preserves the hierarchy. Human beings tend to focus on the properties that allow an explanatory system.

So, do you think it is possible to have as many separate species as there are, forming ecosystems but originating either utterly at random or by design, bring to it human ingenuity in selecting classifying properties, and not be able to select a subset of properties that make them form a nested hierarchy?

Consider a very large number of planets, each of which is populated with (however many species there are on the Earth) species but with properties randomly distributed. The only ones that sustain life over significant time are those where the species can organise themselves into ecosystems. What fraction of those that do survive would be capable of being classified into a nested hierarchy? (I freely admit i have not defined what I mean by a "property" very closely.)

You might think of that as a general assertion - that it will be possible to find some properties that allow a nested hierarchy to be applied in most sufficiently complex systems (ie there is no need for a special explanation).

A more specialised (and contradictory to the above) position would be to say that the fact that nested hierarchies are visible among species is one of the features that indicate an underlying intelligence. It's very clever of naturalists to come up with an alternative explanation, but in the same way that it takes intelligence to recognise a nested hierarchy, finding a nested hierarchy suggests an underlying intelligence at work. Nested hierarchies were a problem that needed a solution in the naturalist view - that solution was found in random mutation and natural selection, but it was never a problem for creationists.

Or, a variant, God created beings (humans) who understand the world by arranging into nested hierarchies. Why would one think it a problem that needed further explanation that he put them in an environment that could be understood as a nested hierarchy.

----------------------

I like the latter arguments better, actually. It seems odd to me to suggest that there is a problem for creationists in providing an account of why living beings fall into an orderly system. Isn't that what they imply when they talk about intelligent design?

[oxmixmudd]

I doubt you will get an answer from a YEC. Putting on a devil's advocate hat, here are a few ideas for them...

Human beings are very good at imposing classification systems on things. The nested hierarchies and the choice of properties one focuses on have a mutual dependence; for instance, it's not seen as a problem for nested hierarchies that "things with wings" appear in widely separated groups. Rather, we decide that "having wings" is a lower level property because that preserves the hierarchy. Human beings tend to focus on the properties that allow an explanatory system.

So, do you think it is possible to have as many separate species as there are, forming ecosystems but originating either utterly at random or by design, bring to it human ingenuity in selecting classifying properties, and not be able to select a subset of properties that make them form a nested hierarchy?

Consider a very large number of planets, each of which is populated with (however many species there are on the Earth) species but with properties randomly distributed. The only ones that sustain life over significant time are those where the species can organise themselves into ecosystems. What fraction of those that do survive would be capable of being classified into a nested hierarchy? (I freely admit i have not defined what I mean by a "property" very closely.)

You might think of that as a general assertion - that it will be possible to find some properties that allow a nested hierarchy to be applied in most sufficiently complex systems (ie there is no need for a special explanation).

A more specialised (and contradictory to the above) position would be to say that the fact that nested hierarchies are visible among species is one of the features that indicate an underlying intelligence. It's very clever of naturalists to come up with an alternative explanation, but in the same way that it takes intelligence to recognise a nested hierarchy, finding a nested hierarchy suggests an underlying intelligence at work. Nested hierarchies were a problem that needed a solution in the naturalist view - that solution was found in random mutation and natural selection, but it was never a problem for creationists.

Or, a variant, God created beings (humans) who understand the world by arranging into nested hierarchies. Why would one think it a problem that needed further explanation that he put them in an environment that could be understood as a nested hierarchy.

----------------------

I like the latter arguments better, actually. It seems odd to me to suggest that there is a problem for creationists in providing an account of why living beings fall into an orderly system. Isn't that what they imply when they talk about intelligent design?


I think your latter point is basically correct. From a YEC perspective, any existing design or purposed relationship between things is to be expected, a why really isn't needed. God made it that way IS the explanation because they don't think life had a natural origin over time. They think God made each life form basically 'as is' 6000 years ago, with some subsequent variation happening over time per mechanisms similar to what ToE proposes (but not powerful enough to account for all of life's variety*).

It is true, however, that a LACK of nested hierarchies would be evidence against the ToE, as that is what ToE predicts would be the result of the history of life it proposes.

Jim

*I don't even think YEC's need the mechanisms to be too weak to have accounted for lifes variety over deep time, except they want to prove evolution impossible even in an OE paradigm.

[ericmurphy]

The problem is that a lack of nested hierarchies would not falsify an inference of special or separate creation, but it would falsify an inference of common descent.

If hypothesis x can accommodate both observation a and observation !a, then neither a nor !a is evidence for x.

[Cyrus Johnson]

The problem is that a lack of nested hierarchies would not falsify an inference of special or separate creation, but it would falsify an inference of common descent.

If hypothesis x can accommodate both observation a and observation !a, then neither a nor !a is evidence for x.

Common descent not only predicts a naturally nested hierarchy, it predicts a congruent doubly nested one, resting both on the anatomical morphology and molecular morphology. A prediction which has been confirmed.

[Peptide]

A more specialised (and contradictory to the above) position would be to say that the fact that nested hierarchies are visible among species is one of the features that indicate an underlying intelligence. It's very clever of naturalists to come up with an alternative explanation, but in the same way that it takes intelligence to recognise a nested hierarchy, finding a nested hierarchy suggests an underlying intelligence at work. Nested hierarchies were a problem that needed a solution in the naturalist view - that solution was found in random mutation and natural selection, but it was never a problem for creationists.

Or, a variant, God created beings (humans) who understand the world by arranging into nested hierarchies. Why would one think it a problem that needed further explanation that he put them in an environment that could be understood as a nested hierarchy.

----------------------

I like the latter arguments better, actually. It seems odd to me to suggest that there is a problem for creationists in providing an account of why living beings fall into an orderly system. Isn't that what they imply when they talk about intelligent design?


The major problem with these arguments is that nothing we design, even organisms, fall into a nested hierarchy. When humans genetically modify a species we easily and regularly violate the nested hierarchy. For example, the Glofish is a GM fish that expresses an exact copy of a fluorescent jellyfish gene. If anything, we would EXPECT a non-nested hierarchy if ID/YEC were true.

[geochron]

The major problem with these arguments is that nothing we design, even organisms, fall into a nested hierarchy. When humans genetically modify a species we easily and regularly violate the nested hierarchy. For example, the Glofish is a GM fish that expresses an exact copy of a fluorescent jellyfish gene. If anything, we would EXPECT a non-nested hierarchy if ID/YEC were true.

Interesting. So you would say that the GM fish does not occupy any place in the nested hierarchy?

Regarding designed things, I would say that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy. I suspect you would say that you will find technology in a modern Ford that is closer to that in a modern Nissan than it is to anything in older Fords. But that is my point about choosing what you pay attention to - we see the wings of a bee as very different from the wings of a bird in part because we look at them in the context of a nested hierarchy. Car technology can be treated the same way. There are no Escorts that are not Ford Escorts. A nested hierarchy can be constructed by judicious choice of properties.

Certainly you can find properties where cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Equally, I can choose properties where species do not fall into the accepted nested hierarchy. For instance - "Being able to fly" - "Living under water" We choose the properties to allow the hierarchy.

[geochron]

Common descent not only predicts a naturally nested hierarchy, it predicts a congruent doubly nested one, resting both on the anatomical morphology and molecular morphology. A prediction which has been confirmed.

But since the former is an expression of the latter, isn't it more a case of the latter being part of the underlying mechanism that explains the former.

Either way, though, I don't question the support for evolution in the nested hierarchy, I'm just not convinced it is a problem for creationists to explain it. Maybe one will come along and comment!

Of course, they have plenty other problems.

[ericmurphy]

Interesting. So you would say that the GM fish does not occupy any place in the nested hierarchy?

Yes, because the gene responsible nests with other genes exclusive to protostomes like jellyfish. Fish are deuterostomes. It's an obvious violation of nested hierarchies.


Regarding designed things, I would say that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy.
They can't be placed in an objective and consistent hierarchy. Any group of three or more objects can be placed in at least one nested hierarchy. But there are very few groups of objects where no one group is contained within two other, mutually-exclusive groups. Living organisms are one; human languages are another (and for the same reason). But I can't think of anything else that does, and I don't think you'll be able to, either.


I suspect you would say that you will find technology in a modern Ford that is closer to that in a modern Nissan than it is to anything in older Fords.
But that is my point about choosing what you pay attention to - we see the wings of a bee as very different from the wings of a bird in part because we look at them in the context of a nested hierarchy.
No, it's not just the wings. It's a whole group of other characters. All birds have feathers. No flies do. All birds have an amniote. No flies do. All birds have four limbs. No flies do. All birds have a skull. No flies do. All birds have a vertebral column. No flies do.

There are literally thousands of traits like this which group all birds together and all flies together. And that's aside from the obvious fact that bird wings are derived from entirely different structures than fly wings. About the only thing bird wings have in common with fly wings is that they both develop aerodynamic lift.


Car technology can be treated the same way. There are no Escorts that are not Ford Escorts. A nested hierarchy can be constructed by judicious choice of properties.

But you can make many different nested hierarchies with cars. You can group all four-cylinders together. All cars manufactured in a particular country together. But no matter how you order your categories, you will always end up with exceptions: cars that should group just as well (or as poorly) with one group as another.

But with living organisms, there is one (and only one) grouping that respects all the different character traits. This is a unique property of objects that are related by common descent. Any branching evolutionary process like common descent inevitably leads to nested hierarchies, because all descendants of a particular common ancestor share traits that that common ancestor also had. E.g., all birds and mammals have backbones because their common ancestor also had a backbone.


Certainly you can find properties where cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Equally, I can choose properties where species do not fall into the accepted nested hierarchy. For instance - "Being able to fly" - "Living under water" We choose the properties to allow the hierarchy.

The only choice we make is to choose properties intrinsic to the organism—morphological and genetic traits—rather than extrinsic traits such as where they live. And how do we know that our choice is the correct one?

Because it's the one choice that actually leads to consistent, objective, non-arbitrary nested hierarchies.

[ericmurphy]

But since the former is an expression of the latter, isn't it more a case of the latter being part of the underlying mechanism that explains the former.

Even genes which have nothing to do with morphology sort into the same nested hierarchies. Endogenous retroviruses, ERVs, which are not expressed at all, still sort into the same nested hierarchies as morphological traits.


Either way, though, I don't question the support for evolution in the nested hierarchy, I'm just not convinced it is a problem for creationists to explain it. Maybe one will come along and comment!

Of course, they have plenty other problems.

Creationists can't explain it, other than to guess that goddiditthatway. There is no non-ad hoc explanation for nested hierarchies other than common descent with modification.

Or, if there is one, no creationist has discovered it yet.

[wattsr1]

I'm just not convinced it is a problem for creationists to explain it. You raise some good points Geochron - reguarding this, in your earlier posts. And thank you for playing for old Nick - as the Devil's Advocate.

I still wonder if they do have a problem nevertheless. On another board I am trying to get some to explain the mechanism of adaptation within a kind. It was a concept a couple of posters wrote about, so I thought it worthwhile to see if they could explain it, at the genetic level. (Having trouble gettting 1. a description of what a kind is; 2. what is meant by adaptation; 3. a description of how adaptation works anyway.)

Notwithstanding this, if adaptation within a kind does occur then surely the concepts of common descent with modification and therefore of nested hierarchy and phylogeny apply there? If so, then how is the nested hierarchy explained away when it is seen at levels above those of "adaptation within kind"?



Regards, Roland

[Cyrus Johnson]

Yes, because the gene responsible nests with other genes exclusive to protostomes like jellyfish. Fish are deuterostomes. It's an obvious violation of nested hierarchies.


They can't be placed in an objective and consistent hierarchy. Any group of three or more objects can be placed in at least one nested hierarchy. But there are very few groups of objects where no one group is contained within two other, mutually-exclusive groups. Living organisms are one; human languages are another (and for the same reason). But I can't think of anything else that does, and I don't think you'll be able to, either.


No, it's not just the wings. It's a whole group of other characters. All birds have feathers. No flies do. All birds have an amniote. No flies do. All birds have four limbs. No flies do. All birds have a skull. No flies do. All birds have a vertebral column. No flies do.

There are literally thousands of traits like this which group all birds together and all flies together. And that's aside from the obvious fact that bird wings are derived from entirely different structures than fly wings. About the only thing bird wings have in common with fly wings is that they both develop aerodynamic lift.



But you can make many different nested hierarchies with cars. You can group all four-cylinders together. All cars manufactured in a particular country together. But no matter how you order your categories, you will always end up with exceptions: cars that should group just as well (or as poorly) with one group as another.

But with living organisms, there is one (and only one) grouping that respects all the different character traits. This is a unique property of objects that are related by common descent. Any branching evolutionary process like common descent inevitably leads to nested hierarchies, because all descendants of a particular common ancestor share traits that that common ancestor also had. E.g., all birds and mammals have backbones because their common ancestor also had a backbone.



The only choice we make is to choose properties intrinsic to the organism—morphological and genetic traits—rather than extrinsic traits such as where they live. And how do we know that our choice is the correct one?

Because it's the one choice that actually leads to consistent, objective, non-arbitrary nested hierarchies.

That's the point, isn't it. Once organisms diverge, they no longer share characteristics that arise afterwards. This leads to a unique nested hierarchy, based on the derived characteristics. Something like cars on trhe other may continue to share such characteristics after divergence or any number of divergences, which is why one can formulate any number of equivalent nested heirarchies for cars. Take airbags for example. The first airbags in cars for the public were in some General Motors models. But later they spread to Ford and Crysler models, and nowadays are standard issue in all models foreign and domestic. That sort of thing simply can not happen with organisms. Another point is that airbags do not arise from previously existing structures in the automobile, but are added as a totally new feature. Again, something you would not see in organisms. Now it is true that strictly speaking a nested hiearchy is not a problem for creationism in that creationism can 'predict' any grouping of characteristics. But from a design perspective, in our experience, unique hiearchies do not arise from these. They do however arise from descent and modification models.

[Peptide]

Interesting. So you would say that the GM fish does not occupy any place in the nested hierarchy?

It occupies two places, the jellyfish and vertebrate fish clades. Therefore, it is a violation of the twin nested hierarchy.


Regarding designed things, I would say that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy.

They don't. I went to a car show one time and saw a Ford Deuce Coupe with a Chevy 351 in it. Clear violation. You can also find Ford adaptations in Mercuries. You will also find that airbags show up in different clades of cars even though they were not found in earlier cars. Same for intermittent wipers.


I suspect you would say that you will find technology in a modern Ford that is closer to that in a modern Nissan than it is to anything in older Fords. But that is my point about choosing what you pay attention to - we see the wings of a bee as very different from the wings of a bird in part because we look at them in the context of a nested hierarchy.

One is made of chitinous exoskeleton. One is made of a calciferous endoskeleton. One is covered in feathers, the other is not. One is an airfoil (bird wing), the other is not. They are as different as wings get. They do not contain homologous structures.


There are no Escorts that are not Ford Escorts.

But there are Ford Escorts which have parts found in other clades but not found in earlier cars.



Equally, I can choose properties where species do not fall into the accepted nested hierarchy. For instance - "Being able to fly" - "Living under water" We choose the properties to allow the hierarchy.

The ability to fly is not a homologous structure. A humerus is a homologous structure, and the humerus is not found in the bee wing.

[rogue06]

I can't help but notice that so far no YECs have offered an explanation.

[Peptide]

But since the former is an expression of the latter, isn't it more a case of the latter being part of the underlying mechanism that explains the former.

Someone else mentioned ERV's. One could also look at cytochrome genes in the mitochondria. These genes have nothing to do with morphology yet they produce the identical nested hierarchy as morphology. In cases where genetics and morphology are independent we still observe the SAME nested hierarchy.


Either way, though, I don't question the support for evolution in the nested hierarchy, I'm just not convinced it is a problem for creationists to explain it. Maybe one will come along and comment!

Of course, they have plenty other problems.

I do appreciate your efforts in playing creationist advocate. At least this way we can lay out the arguments in a reasonable fashion.

The problem for creationists is that any conceivable pattern of homology is possible. When a "theory" predicts any possible outcome it doesn't have any predictive power. What creationists must explain is why we see a nested hierarchy in exclusion to all other possible patterns of homology.

[Von Smith]

Interesting. So you would say that the GM fish does not occupy any place in the nested hierarchy?

Regarding designed things, I would say that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy. I suspect you would say that you will find technology in a modern Ford that is closer to that in a modern Nissan than it is to anything in older Fords. But that is my point about choosing what you pay attention to - we see the wings of a bee as very different from the wings of a bird in part because we look at them in the context of a nested hierarchy. Car technology can be treated the same way. There are no Escorts that are not Ford Escorts. A nested hierarchy can be constructed by judicious choice of properties.

A character-based classification scheme would most likely classify Escorts as Mazdas. AIUI, systematists who do phylogenetic analyses have actually run control tests on data sets like books in a library, different model cars, or even random character strings, to see if they give strong phylogenetic signal; generally, they don't. IOW, no, you can't necessarily just construct a robust nested hierarchy on any data set by a judicious choice of properties.

Also, a note about Linnaeus: The Systema Naturae was not just a classification scheme for living things; it was a classification schemes for *all* three traditional "kingdoms" of nature: animal, vegetable, and mineral. The mineral scheme was found to be unworkable and abandoned before Darwin ever presented his "tree of life" argument for evolution. I imagine that if the paradigm of constructing a good nested hierarchy of non-living things were as easy as all that, it would have been done; it's an intuitively appealing setup.