+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Junk Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-88.html)
+--- Thread: Article Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies (/thread-19964.html)
Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - C C - Mar 13, 2026
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/creationists-dont-understand-nested-hierarchies/
EXCERPT: The problem with both of these concepts – kind and macroevolution – is that they suffer from a fatal demarcation problem. There are lots of demarcation problems in science, anytime we are trying to categorize a messy continuum of nature. What’s a planet, or species, or continent? The difference is, the YEC argument is contingent on there being a sharp demarcation – evolution can proceed to this amount, but no further. Evolution can account for this degree of change, but no further. The problem is, they never state any reason, based on any valid principles, as to why. They simply assert that kinds are inviolate.
But at the core of their claims is a complete misunderstanding of what evolutionary science actually claims. Ironically, when they say that dogs can only evolve into more dogs, and never into cats – they are correct. Evolutionary scientists agree with this statement, especially if you take a cladistic approach to taxonomy. By definition a clade is one species and all of its descendants. This is why it is cladistically correct to say that people are fish. Once the eukaryotic clade evolved, everything that descends from it are still eukaryotes. So humans are eukaryotes, and animals, vertebrates, fish, lobe-finned fish, reptiles, mammals, and primates. It is correct, for example, to say that all descendants of fish are still fish, but you have to count humans as fish. What you cannot ever do is go back up the cladistic tree. You cannot undo evolution. You also cannot make a lateral move to another unrelated clade. So an animal cannot evolve into a plant.
The YEC misunderstanding of this concept renders all of their arguments as to why evolutionary scientists are wrong into strawman arguments. No one ever said a dog can evolve into a cat – in fact scientists say this is impossible. It is not part of evolutionary thinking.
What creationist do is grossly underestimate how much change can occur within a clade, because they are stuck on the concept of “kinds”. Functionally what is a kind? It’s one of those things that you vaguely sense. You know it when you see it. Everyone knows what dinosaurs look like – they have a dinosaurish vibe. This is why they falsely argue that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. Actually, it is more correct to simply say that birds are dinosaurs – they are a subclade within the dinosaur clade. Birds are also reptiles, because dinosaurs are a subclade within reptiles, which are a subclade within fish, etc. It’s nested hierarchies all the way down. But birds look like a different kind than dinosaurs, so this violates their vague sense of what a kind is. They then mock this idea by analogizing it to a dog evolving into a cat – this this is a false analogy. Dogs and cats are different subclades of mammals, and you cannot evolve from one clade into another, only into subclades within your existing clade.
Stephen J. Gould also discussed this idea and zoomed in on an important concept that is highly misunderstood. Over evolutionary time we expect that disparity (not diversity, the amount of differences, but disparity, the degree of difference) decreases. This seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense once you fully internalize the concept of nested hierarchies. Multicellular life achieved maximal morphological disparity soon after the Cambrian explosion, and from that point forward we only see variations of the various body plan themes. Over evolutionary time the nested hierarchy structure of the tree of life means that we see variations on progressively constrained themes. Evolution is constrained by its history, so the more evolutionary history a lineage has, the more constrained its future evolution. If we look at the entire history of evolution, we see this increasing constraint play out as decreasing disparity. At most disparity can stay the same, but extinction is like a ratchet slowly decreasing disparity... (MORE - missing details)
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Syne - Mar 13, 2026
(Yesterday 07:56 PM)C C Wrote: Ironically, when they say that dogs can only evolve into more dogs, and never into cats – they are correct.Strawman, as that's not a literal claim, it's a simple example. It can also be expressed within a proposed clade, but this author isn't interested in addressing a steelman argument.
Quote:So humans are eukaryotes, and animals, vertebrates, fish, lobe-finned fish, reptiles, mammals, and primates. It is correct, for example, to say that all descendants of fish are still fish, but you have to count humans as fish.You lost the argument right there. Making that claim completely undermines all categorization... and would seem to be evading the punctuated nature of evolution. Any intellectually honest person would know that the "dogs can't evolve into cats" strawman can be steelmanned as "reptiles can't evolve into humans."
Quote:The YEC misunderstanding of this concept renders all of their arguments as to why evolutionary scientists are wrong into strawman arguments. No one ever said a dog can evolve into a cat – in fact scientists say this is impossible. It is not part of evolutionary thinking.No, you're the one arguing the strawman.
Quote:Birds are also reptiles, because dinosaurs are a subclade within reptiles, which are a subclade within fish, etc.There you go again, undermining all categorization. If "birds are also reptiles" we would not have separate categories for the two... or we'd still find transitional forms today. See how hard this author is working to blur the lines? Right over the punctuated gaps in transitional forms that can only be surmised.
Quote:It’s nested hierarchies all the way down. But birds look like a different kind than dinosaurs, so this violates their vague sense of what a kind is. They then mock this idea by analogizing it to a dog evolving into a cat – this this is a false analogy. Dogs and cats are different subclades of mammals, and you cannot evolve from one clade into another, only into subclades within your existing clade.Wow. So this author has the presence of mind to acknowledge it's only an analogy, but then argue against it like it's not just an analogy. You can only strawman the "valid principles, as to why" as a "false analogy" because you refuse to accept it is an analogy.
What an intellectually bereft argument.
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Magical Realist - Mar 13, 2026
One of the persistent fallacies that I find Creationists repeatedly make is this notion that evolution is something that happens immediately and in utero--hence the common objections that "dogs can't evolve into cats"etc. As if one species could give birth to an entirely different species. That ofcourse is not how evolution works. It happens thru slight mutations in a species' offspring which over millions of years get naturally selected for better survival. And over that period a new species emerges from that genetic lineage. The accumulation of this process is simply macroevolution, which Creationists say doesn't happen even though they admit microevolution does.
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Syne - Mar 13, 2026
Another strawman. 9_9
Which Christians, where, have claimed "evolution is something that happens immediately and in utero"?
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Magical Realist - Mar 13, 2026
(Yesterday 09:38 PM)Syne Wrote: Another strawman. 9_9
Which Christians, where, have claimed "evolution is something that happens immediately and in utero"?
Creationists argue that all the time. "A fish doesn't give birth to a frog." "A cow doesn't give birth to a horse." It's a strawman because evolutionary theory never claimed such. And it's their own ignorance that makes them make this mistake. Here's just one example I found on Quora:
"Humans give birth to humans and monkeys give birth to monkeys. Why is this simple concept so hard for evolutionists to understand?"
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Syne - Mar 13, 2026
So cherry-picking the lowest hanging fruit? We can find defenders of evolution making bad arguments too. Does that also mean they are representational of all believers in evolution? Again, that would be a strawman. Like arguing against Ernst Haeckel's argument that a human embryo develops through all it's evolutionary stages, including a fish with gills.
But as an analogy, it points to the punctuated gaps in evolution, where one known species suddenly becomes another, that cannot be accounted for by actual evidence, only hypothesized transitional forms.
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Magical Realist - Mar 13, 2026
Quote:Does that also mean they are representational of all believers in evolution?
Yep..it's a creationist argument used by creationists all the time. If you had ever encountered any creationists you'd know that. But you haven't.
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Syne - Mar 13, 2026
(Yesterday 10:19 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:Quote:Does that also mean they are representational of all believers in evolution?
Yep..it's a creationist argument used by creationists all the time. If you had ever encountered any creationists you'd know that. But you haven't.
Learn to read.
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Magical Realist - Mar 13, 2026
Can't make an counterargument already? lol That was fast. Don't let the door..
RE: Creationists don’t understand nested hierarchies - Syne - Mar 13, 2026
Apparently, nothing you can manage to comprehend. 9_9