Replies

But they have a common ancestor. Explain why both fossils and DNA form the same nested hierarchy, using the same reasoning we use in courtrooms to demonstrate parentage.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
http://www.tolweb.org/Animals/2374
http://www.tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459
http://www.tolweb.org/Deuterostomia/2466
http://www.tolweb.org/Chordata/2499
http://www.tolweb.org/Craniata/14826
http://www.tolweb.org/Vertebrata/14829
http://www.tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
http://www.tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990

As I said before, I am well aware that the standard ASBE (All species by evolution) classification system does arrange everything descending from the first original living cell. But as you know, all classification systems have a dogmatic assumptions or theology of how things are to be classified in that system. And as I said before, my classification system if you want to call it that, has incompatible assumptions with the ASBE classification system. There are times when available data will fit at least to some degree to multiple contradicting classification systems, and the fact that it fits one isn'r proof that it's the correct one. But depending on how well the raw full data fits a certain classification system, one can get an idea of how likely it is the correct one. Was there a particular point you wanted to make with all the above links? Oh, and I realize that the ASBE classification system runs on assumptions which the ASBE system declares wrong. But then my system declares wrong the assumptions that ASBE runs on as well - they are just both classification systems and neither proves the correctness of the data fitted to them. That's why scientists try different systems and see which fits best! No one classification system trumps another - but they should both be trumped by the data. So what's the harm in me trying another, and see how that one looks? A classification system is much like a sorting system in a library. They well could sort books by size then color then thickness. But finding what you want wouldn't be very easy - but none the less it's a classification and sorting system. It just happens that dewy decimal system works much better!

You quite plainly state that the hawk and the pig have a common ancestor. What's your best evidence of that? You see, in my practiced area of science (electronic, mechanical, and software engineering) I really don't have to use much faith. I guess I'm spoiled. If someone says that a resistor or a transistor behaves a certain way and I doubt them, I can (and will) go test it myself. So, what is your best evidence for common ancestor between the pig and the hawk, without me having to place a lot of unfounded faith in people I've never met about things I've never seen?

None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent, so what is your competing hypothesis?

Could you elaborate on what are a couple of major proponents of intelligent design are, show that they don't deny common descent, and what you mean by "common descent?"

Do you mean absolute exclusive common descent (ASBE)?

I would be interested in reading about a definitely major proponent of intelligent design who clearly says that all life came from one single original life form.

As to my "competing hypothesis" as you put it, I'm talking about a different classification system. If my explanations so far and my rough draft on my about page don't explain what I'm trying to say then you may have to wait for me to expand upon my idea (not that it's unique or particularly mine) before understanding it. But maybe this will help: As I said, I grew up on a farm. I watched many generations of livestock happen. I've seen very similar looking offspring to wildly varied offspring and even some critically deformed offspring. But I've never seen a horse give birth to a swine. So I well know that not all natural (if any) reproduction causes exact 100% perfect clones 100% of the time.

Then I look in the Bible, and it says that God created different kinds of animals, and that they each reproduce their own kind. Then I'm like "Well what do you know, that lines up with what I've observed."

So I'm working on a classification system which is oriented toward the Biblical idea (and my personal observations) to see how (and if) it works!

That's the way science is supposed to work. If a phenomenon is observed and the cause cannot be observed, then hypothesis and models are tried to see if they produce the same outcome as is observed. So just because there's already one or more classification systems does not mean that there is any reason I shouldn't try to come up with another.

Does that help any, considering that my efforts are at such an early stage?

Thanks,

-Jesse

But as you know, all classification systems have a dogmatic assumptions or theology of how things are to be classified in that system.

AI don't know any such thing. That is like saying the shape of the earth is based on dogmatic assumptions.

Now, please present a competing hypothesis that predicts where to look for things like Tiktaalik and why you should look in certain places and not others, or I will have to look elsewhere for a discussion. Not all "interpretations" are equivalent.

So I'm working on a classification system which is oriented toward the Biblical idea (and my personal observations) to see how (and if) it works

If it predicts new intermediate fossil finds and where to look for them as well as mainstream science, you will have something. Otherwise it's stamp collecting.