Of Pandas, Wolves, Birds and People

Helena, a great point. Those wolves are some of the strongest evidence we have of the obvious, self-evident truth of Intelligent Design. I too have read "Of Pandas and People", and I can strongly recommend it to any family who wishes to immunize their children against the godless doctrines of darwininan evolution.

Evolutionary biologists have so much to learn from ID - it is just tragic that they keep themselves locked inside their ivory towers. For example, the whole taxonomy of life is based on an evolutionist assumption.

Surely it is much more reasonable to group things into kinds, much as is described in the Bible? If we take this argument further I suggest we group bats with birds (as they share the same characteristic), and whales and dolphins would be more properly kinds of fish. I personally believe by studying scripture which has been shown to be inerrant we can confirm the intelligent designer's preferred taxonomy.

HaEris wrote:
"For example, the whole taxonomy of life is based on an evolutionist assumption"

I wondered about this myself, and posed the question elsewhere on this site (or was it over at UD?) a couple of weeks ago. I was told (I forget by whom) that the taxonomic structure predates Darwin and as such is not built on a Darwinist model.

I do think, however, that in the coming years it's likely that much of our classification system might be due for some revision now that we have access to the "source code" for these organisms. But I don't have a problem, in general, with how animals are classified as long as it's not strictly a product of a Darwinist paradigm. To whatever extent that it is, I suspect it will end up getting revised.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Here is a little history gentlemen:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html

enjoy!

I agree: The "modern" taxonomy is just evolution by the back-door. It has to be rejected because the central theme of this taxonomy is genetic similarities to other life-forms. The evolutionists want us to look at the "tree of life" as if it were a family tree. They want us all to assume that every living being is distantly related.

What rubbish - is this the best the "experts" can come up with? I call for a common-sense approach to taxonomy:

I propose a new taxonomy, or rather a heirarchy which seeks to explain the dominion of the intelligent designer. At the very bottom of the heirarchy will be the microbes, plants and simple organisms. All the way at the top will be the intelligent designer, or possibly some kind of supreme being. Just below us will be all the domesticated creatures, which represent more refined versions of naturally occuring kinds.

I think we also need to start from established facts, and not as the evolutionists do with their wild conjecture: For example, we know that Noah was able to resuce two of every kind of land-animal that existed at the time and that all these kinds of animals produced the species we have today. This strongly suggests that evolutionary biologists have made an error by using "species" as the most common node on the tree of life:

More properly we should be trying to determine exactly what these kinds are. Wouldnt that be better than the environmental hysteria we currently face? Eco-types complain that some "species" are going extinct, however we will probably soon discover that most species are just examples of "kinds", and therefore are not endangered at all!

I do think, however, that in the coming years it's likely that much of our classification system might be due for some revision now that we have access to the "source code" for these organisms. But I don't have a problem, in general, with how animals are classified as long as it's not strictly a product of a Darwinist paradigm. To whatever extent that it is, I suspect it will end up getting revised.

It's true that the idea of a taxonomy predates darwin's junk-science, however this taxonomy has been revised on an almost daily basis by the priesthood of evolutionary biology who's sole aim is to defend orthodox origins science. The taxonomy has become riddeled with 200 years of corrupt, bad-science.

"Those wolves are some of the strongest evidence we have of the obvious, self-evident truth of Intelligent Design."
"Surely it is much more reasonable to group things into kinds, much as is described in the Bible? If we take this argument further I suggest we group bats with birds (as they share the same characteristic), and whales and dolphins would be more properly kinds of fish."
Thats what most people would do I think. But based on these considerations I guess we can make some predictions. With more available genetic data we will discover that similar function (obvious characteristic) goes with similar DNA codes. So we will see that bats are much more similar (not only in function but also in some DNA sense) to birds than to elephants for example. And we will find the same pattern for fish and whales and also for these crazy wolves. I am always absolutly stunned by the fact that the materialists find a way to convince themself othervise.
That are pretty testable predictions. But of course ID is not testable :-) because we all know it is not science.

All I am trying to do is propose an alternative to the orthodoxy that passes the common-sense test.

"If we take this argument further I suggest we group bats with birds (as they share the same characteristic), and whales and dolphins would be more properly kinds of fish."

And give me a good reason why not? The traditional taxonomy is built around the assumption of evolution as it's central concept. If you believe in evolution then genetic symmetry is your holy-grail. If on the other hand you decide to open your eyes to the overwhelming evidence for ID, one must pause to consider that the designer might be able to make bird-like creatures from both avian and mamalian type DNA.

A more sensible taxonomy would consider not just genetic similarity, but the intellgent designer's intent. I think just as design is evident in the specified complexity of life - we can see the designer's intent in these creatures and the scriptures he has left for us. That has to be the central principle of a real taxonomy.

Hi Helena. You suggest that
“A more sensible taxonomy would consider not just genetic similarity, but the intelligent designer's intent. I think just as design is evident in the specified complexity of life - we can see the designer's intent in these creatures and the scriptures he has left for us.”
It seems to me that you think that the evolutionist’s taxonomy is a valid taxonomy based on genetic similarity, but that this is just not the right way to do it. I cannot agree with that. The argument from analogy is not only one of the most powerful arguments in science but also a core argument of ID. With this argument I think you cannot propose that bat DNA should be more similar to elephant DNA than to bird DNA. If the evolutionary taxonomy would be valid on DNA basis the evolutionists would really have a point because that is a testable prediction of ToE and their theory then would pass this test. But does ToE really pass this test?
For decades scientists told the public that chimp and man DNA are 99 % similar. But in the end it turned out that this is not true. And what did evolutionists do? They invented methods to calculate the 99% number they needed for their theory. In spite of such methods they still have to revise their taxonomy again and again and again. Why that? The answer seems very clear to me: the facts do not go with the theory. So the whole taxonomy system is completely flawed. So when you say that
“one must pause to consider that the designer might be able to make bird-like creatures from both avian and mammalian type DNA.”
This is not quite true because avian and mammalian are flawed taxonomical concepts. So there are no mammals or avis in the sense that evolutionists define those groups. Consequently there is no such thing as mammalian or avian DNA. But perhaps I just misunderstand you.
The second point I want to make is that by saying
“we can see the designer's intent in these creatures and the scriptures he has left for us.”
You go far beyond what is ID today. ID is just about detecting design. It is not about the intend of the designer. It is not a theory that can replace evolution completely. It just falsifies evolution in Poppers sense. After this falsification is generally accepted the concept of science must be completely revised and science has to come up with a new history of life on earth. Will be a time of great discoveries in biology I think.:-)

It seems to me that you think that the evolutionist’s taxonomy is a valid taxonomy based on genetic similarity, but that this is just not the right way to do it.

Quite right! If you believe in "common descent", the absurd notion that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor then a "faimily tree" based on genetic similarity is the obvious way to do it. By arranging these life-forms in a tree, evolutionists are making a clear statement that we are all related to other forms of life, something that is clearly nonsensical.

This is not quite true because avian and mammalian are flawed taxonomical concepts. So there are no mammals or avis in the sense that evolutionists define those groups. Consequently there is no such thing as mammalian or avian DNA.

Exactly my point! Labels like "mamalian" and "avis" imply that there is some common ancestry between these creatures. A more correct taxonomy would look at the kinds of animals; so instead of avis, we might have bird-like which shoud include all the winged creatures that can fly.

This tree of life appears in almost every biology text-book and is an icon of evolution. It is an interesting academic exercise but has been proven to have absolutely no relevance at all to the origins of life. Who cares if a man and an ape have some degree of genetic similarity - what counts is the designer's intent rather than the incidental similarity.

The fact that evolutionists keep revising their taxonomy is proof enough that it is flawed. We need a taxonomy that is more resiliant, and never changes. I propose then that we base a new taxonomy on FACTS, and not mere conjecture. What could be more reasonable than starting from the undisputed facts of the Bible, as it is certainly our earliest factual evidence that can be relied upon.

I propose not a tree of life, but a heirarchy of life. This would show the intelligent designer's dominion. In this heirarchy the tasmanian wolf would be in the same region as the grey wolf because they serve the same role and therefore share the same design intent.

You go far beyond what is ID today. ID is just about detecting design. It is not about the intend of the designer. It is not a theory that can replace evolution completely. It just falsifies evolution in Poppers sense.

And why not? I believe that the design is self-evident. TroutMac's analogy still stands. If we look at human designed artefacts like a car, a watch or the C++ programming language not only is it possible to determine that design has existed, but we can also determine the intent of the design: To drive, to tell the time or to write computer programs. Why should we not say the same of life?

As with detecting design, it should be possible to see the intent of design by studying the design and scriptures which we know are true and offer an explanation. Why is that a problem?

Helena

I have no comment on this subject myself but I thought I'd point out a response to Helena:

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/overwhelming-annoyance/

Thanks for that link, Patrick. Interesting read. The author is obviously rather ignorant about this site when he writes:

"The site is intriguing though, as it provides a forum (sheltered from all commentary from evolutionists, just like UD) for young people who believe in intelligent design to voice their opinion, and when I started to read some of the entries I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry."

Well, certainly stubborn, dogmatic Darwinists have been excluded from the site recently because they merely spout their talking points and won't answer the tough questions. But it's obvious that Darwinists are not ejected because they are Darwinists. From my perspective, seems Darwinists are welcomed on the site as long as they are students and even more importantly, as long as they are willing to actually have a discussion.

I disagree with the specific conclusions in Helena's post here… more specifically, I don't claim to know what a correct taxonomy would look like. And even though I'm a Bible-believing Christian, I don't see any reason to insist on restricting that taxonomy to "kinds", whatever that would mean. The "kinds" spoken of in the Bible could end up meeting up with one of our taxonomic categories already… maybe phyla. Who knows? (I'm certainly not claiming to know that it does, but I've heard it suggested and I think it's a reasonable speculation.)

It strikes me that much of our taxonomy already does rely, however, on "what animals look like". That is, all vertebrates are grouped together. All animals with scales are grouped together, all animals with feathers, etc. That makes sense, nothing wrong with that. But to the extent that we make our taxonomic structure reflect a bogus theory, that taxonomic structure is going to be wrong and will ultimately need to be revised to SOME extent.

The author of that response made a huge leap of faith in concluding that just because there are certain, limited similarities between birds and reptiles that birds are then necessarily "related." Balderdash. That's just more Darwinist dogma based on wild presuppositions.

Sorry for the title of this, Helena. I may disagree with you in certain ways, but I'm not going to claim that you're necessarily WRONG. I don't know that much, and neither does the author of that response.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

hblavatbsky,

I know this is an old post, but the stupidity show in the original post deserves a reaction. Please, please, please before you post again, do some basic research.

While the Tasmanian wolves and true wolves look superficially similar, they are in fact completely different. Every structure that appears to be the same, on close inspection is completely different. There are major differences in the skull, jaw, teeth, inner ear, spine, hips, and internal organs. If you do a detailed study of the skeletons you would find that the Tasmanian wolf shares more in common with a kangaroo than a true wolf. The differences with true wolves and the similarities with kangaroos are especially apparent if one looks at the hips and lower spine. If you watch the few old films of the Tasmanian wolf the movements and sounds that it makes are different than how dogs and wolves move and sound.

So what does that speak of the common designer? In the northern hemisphere he makes a true wolves. But in Tasmania, he rearranges a kangaroo to make it wolf. Why didn't God put a true wolf in Tasmania? Furthermore why did God put marsupials in mostly in Australia? Why aren't there any marsupials in Africa?

The only thing self-evident is the poster's complete lack of knowledge in comparative morphology and mammals.

It’s also interesting to note that the Tasmanian wolf’s other common name is the Tasmanian tiger. Is one willing to argue the cat-like qualities of the Tasmanian tiger?

>For example, we know that Noah was able to resuce two of every kind of
>land-animal that existed at the time and that all these kinds of animals >produced the species we have today.

If we were to propose a taxonomy based on this theory, first we need to define the minimal baramins which noah loaded onto the arc, then the moden "species" which descended from these baramins. In essence, what you're proposing are many micro-evolutionary trees, each terminating on one of the pairs of animals that noah brought on.

I'd be interested to see how people would approach this. Obviously, we'd need to co-opt some evolutionary theory, as many types of modern animals would be derived from one pair of ancestors, and many of the techniques used to define the relationship of closely related theories.

Given the size of the arc, we can make estimates on the upper limit of the number of "kinds", which makes the task somewhat easier.

I'm not a YECer but this is what they would have to say in response:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/marsupials-and-placentals-a-case-of-front-loaded-pre-programmed-evolution/

Specifically:

For the benefit of the readers who do not accept universal common ancestry (and I am one of them, so is johnnyb), consider this: front loaded evolution makes it feasible to account for the possibility that all creatures today descended from only a small set of creatures in the past. It should not be too difficult then to see why this might be important if a global catastrophe happened in the past which may have wiped out 99.999% of all living creatures.

Therefore most IDers, irrespective of their position on absolute universal common ancestry, have a very postive stake in seeing front loaded evolution of Marsupials and Placentals.

But this discussion is getting off track from the topic of ID.