XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, talk.religion.misc   
   From: a202010@lycos.com-   
      
   this is the problem;   
      
   first, it is set forth that;   
      
   disparate breeding populations can   
   manifest similar characteristics,   
      
   and then it is positted that;   
      
   a similar characteristic found   
   on disparate breeding populations,   
   demonstrates a "common ancestry"   
      
   it's not just ambiguous, it's contradictory.   
      
   first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits   
   and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.   
      
   that it is clearly shown that common traits   
   do not require common ancestry nullifies   
   any contention that common traits   
   demonstrate common ancestry.   
      
   it's that simple...   
      
   there is no single phylogenetic tree,   
      
   and common ancestry is not shown   
      
   by the 'evidence'   
      
      
   the notion of common ancestry   
   is demanded -only- by personal bias,   
      
   and therefore, it -should be- discarded.   
      
      
   the evidence can be used to describe a situation   
      
   where multiplex and disparate breeding populations   
      
   exist independantly without common physical ancestry.   
      
      
   and now, you can add in the bits about ducks and dogs...   
   which is to say that it need not be shown   
   that "today's" assortment/taxonomy is -identical-   
   to "yesterday's" assortment/taxonomy, because   
   "species" is defined in an ambiguous manner.   
      
      
      
      
   + [digression]   
   and so, now, what i posit is this;   
      
   that, if you were to gather up sperm   
   and egg samples from all sexually   
   reproducing organisms,   
      
   a huge library of samples,   
      
   and run all of the possible permutations   
   of viable offspring developement,   
      
   that you would find, not only a smaller number   
   of groups which could be considered   
   'breeding populations'   
      
   and therefore classified as 'species'   
      
   but that you would also find discontinuity   
   and a discontiguous nature to all available   
   organisms, and that, it would be, therefore,   
   possible to contend that this discontiguous   
   nature to all organisms,   
      
   has always been a factor.   
      
   meaning, you would find sets of groups,   
   and that production of ofspring was available   
   within given groups, and not available   
   between discontiguous groupings.   
      
   where =current= environment   
   and =current= breeding habits   
   are not the criterion for species,   
      
   but the ability to produce an offspring   
      
   is the sole criterion.   
      
   one wonders why no 'evolutionist' group   
   argues for the potential of a -discontiguous-   
   nature as opposed to the contention of a   
   -necessity- for a contiguous nature,   
   because no such -necessity- exists.   
      
   see, 'conflict' in the so-called "phylogentic tree"   
      
   shows that similar functionality, is found on organisms   
      
   -after- they are categorized -as- discontiguous,   
      
   and not -before-.   
      
      
   meaning, similar functionality is said to have   
      
   'arisen' in -disparate- organisms -by- 'conflicts'   
      
   in the so-called "phylogentic tree"  and that this   
      
   similar functionality is not possibly -passed on-   
      
   from any 'common ancestry,'   
      
      
   and this tends to discredit any contention that   
      
   'common ancestry' is -necessary- to account   
      
   for similar functionality.   
      
      
   what?   
      
      
   you can find similar functionality   
      
   =without= implying 'common ancestry'   
      
   and so, the so-called "phylogenetic tree"   
      
   may not be a single distinct tree at all,   
      
   but -can be- viewed as -several-   
      
   -discontiguous-  =trees=,  plural.   
      
   no one can supply me with   
      
   a -single- "phylogentic tree"   
      
   without -conflicts- and therefore,   
      
   is is valid to suggest   
      
   that no such -single- "phylogentic tree"   
   is an apt description of the reality   
      
   of all relationships of all organisms   
   on the planet heretofore called "earth"   
   + [end digression]   
      
      
      
      
   which is to say that organisms are categorized according   
   to physical characteristics, from outward display of trait   
   to molecular organization, which do not conclusively   
   describe placement within a particular breeding population,   
      
   and so, while these physical characteristics may permutate   
   over time, and therefore, the subjective assorting of organisms   
   according to such characteristics may likewise see alteration,   
   that multiplex and disparate breeding populations exist   
   independantly and without common physical ancestry   
   remains valid, and therefore even gross comparison   
   between "yesterday" and "today" doesn't bring you much   
   in the way of useful information in establishing   
   primary relatedness.   
      
      
   in other words, it's sort of a "fool's game"   
      
      
   in that one may be forced to try and solve for   
      
   5 independant variables with s single equation,   
      
   and so, you get multiple -solutions- to,   
      
      
   Ax + By + Cz + Dj + Ei  =   P   
      
      
   where A, B, C, D, E and P are constants   
      
   and x, y, z, j, and i are independant variables.   
      
      
   just making all constants 1, and yo uget   
      
      
      x  + y  + z  +  j +  i  =  1   
      
      
   and this alone has an infinite number of solutions,   
      
   and so, the "fool's game" goes like this;   
      
   you substitute and "tweak" the variables   
   to get your single "agreed upon" 'solution'   
      
   but you can carry this on ad nauseum   
      
   and never reach _THE_ solution because   
      
   no such _THE_ solution exists.   
      
      
   in other words...   
      
      
   the appearance of multiple, discontiguous   
   lines of organisms would generally be identical   
   to the consequences of multiple forms brought   
   about by an act of special creation.   
      
      
   the demand of a -singular- pathway   
   from bacterium to man ruins -evolution-   
   because of the gaping contradiction,   
      
   and that contradiction being;   
      
      
   first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits   
   and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.   
      
   that it is clearly shown that common traits   
   do not require common ancestry nullifies   
   any contention that common traits   
   demonstrate common ancestry.   
      
      
      
   and it -seems- as if the only reason   
   to maintain the "singular pathway" theory   
      
   is to contradict the prospect of special creation   
   resulting in numerous "kinds" which were never part   
   of a single breeding population.   
      
      
   so, in the long run, in maintaining a singular pathway   
   for this reason, you will do nothing but break the back   
   of the entire evolutionary schemata as opposed to   
   ruining any ideas of special Creation by design,   
      
   and it matters little if it takes 500 years for   
   "Science" to come to its senses and agree to   
   a multiple pathway theory "en masse", as   
   a multiple pathway -is- what   
   the evidence suggests,   
      
   and, of course, a multiple pathway   
   is indistinguishable from multiple kinds   
   brought forth by acts of special creation   
   by design.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)