Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If Evolution is false...

SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:44:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.

1. Evolutionary relationships are tree-like, not ladder like; they do not classify "higher" and "lower" organisms.

2. Fish are not an evolutionary classification because they are a paraphyletic group.

3. There are fewer known species of flatworms than vertebrates.

4. The only reason to expect one monophyletic group to be more diverse than another is if one is a subgroup of the other. This isn't a particularly novel result, and would be expected even with subjective groupings (e.g. there are fewer gardening tools than tools at Home Depot since the group of tools includes both the subgroup of gardening tools and other subgroups of tools which are not gardening tools - for example, power tools).
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:48:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:44:00 AM, Enji wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.

1. Evolutionary relationships are tree-like, not ladder like; they do not classify "higher" and "lower" organisms.

Hence why I used quotation marks.

2. Fish are not an evolutionary classification because they are a paraphyletic group.

Your point being?

3. There are fewer known species of flatworms than vertebrates.

I specified variation, not speciation.

4. The only reason to expect one monophyletic group to be more diverse than another is if one is a subgroup of the other.

That's kinda my point.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.

Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:54:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:48:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:44:00 AM, Enji wrote:
4. The only reason to expect one monophyletic group to be more diverse than another is if one is a subgroup of the other.
That's kinda my point.
No, it's distinctly counter to your point.

Firstly, in none of your examples is one group a subgroup of the others. In your first example, fish are the monophyletic group vertebrata excluding tetrapods, while mammals are tetrapods. In your second example, Bilateria is the smallest monophyletic group including both vertebrates and flatworms; the most recent common ancestor of flatworms is not a common ancestor of vertebrates and the most recent common ancestor of vertebrates is not a common ancestor of flatworms. Finally, in your third example, bacteria are Prokaryotes whereas animals are Eukaryotes - which are sister groups. Since none is a subgroup of the other, the variety expectation does not hold.

Secondly, your point is that observed variety would be expected if evolution were true, but not if it were false. However, since the variety expectation is only true given that one evolutionary group is a subgroup of the other (e.g. there is greater variety amongst vertebrates than mammals), the same observation would be expected with subjective groups given that evolution were false (like with the tools example). Another example: Igneous rocks are a subgroup of rocks - there is a greater variety of rocks than there is a variety of Igneous rocks.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:00:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent,

Well, of course it does, since the classifications are created from a premise of common descent. So the question is, can you state the question without any evolutionary terms like "higher" or "lower". Can you see a pattern without presuming a pattern, in other words. You might find that you end up with "why are there more species of tiny animals than big ones", which is a lot less interesting, but perhaps more to the point (I don't know)
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.

For example. Is an iPod touch latest generation categorized under iPods or is it closer to the new iPhone because it has similar screens, chips and os.

What about technology? Are iPhones and Samsung galaxies produced in the last few years more closely related because they both contain closely related ARM processors, both support LTE, and 802.11ac wireless, whereas both of their predecessor devices do not?

No, you can't make them fit a nested hierarchies based on physical traits without ignoring all of the massive number of ways it doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy, which somewhat defeats the purpose.

Life can be arranged like that, which is why it's taken 250 years for creationists to be unable to find any sort of violation, and the difference is down to intelligent design led things being intelligently designed: designers are not limited by descent with modification, and are thus free to put whatever feature they want wherever they want which is what leads to hierarchy violations.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 3:09:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.

For example. Is an iPod touch latest generation categorized under iPods or is it closer to the new iPhone because it has similar screens, chips and os.

What about technology? Are iPhones and Samsung galaxies produced in the last few years more closely related because they both contain closely related ARM processors, both support LTE, and 802.11ac wireless, whereas both of their predecessor devices do not?

IPhones and Samsung would be still be classified as different since Samsung is android. Two seperate groups sharing common functionality with each other but not with their predecessors also occurs in evolution; it is called convergent evolution.

No, you can't make them fit a nested hierarchies based on physical traits without ignoring all of the massive number of ways it doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy, which somewhat defeats the purpose.

Can you give me an example of something that is intelligently designed that can't be put into a nested hierarchy?


Life can be arranged like that, which is why it's taken 250 years for creationists to be unable to find any sort of violation, and the difference is down to intelligent design led things being intelligently designed: designers are not limited by descent with modification, and are thus free to put whatever feature they want wherever they want which is what leads to hierarchy violations.

The reason no 'violation' has been found is because:
1. when something is found that goes against what evolution predicted, they simply change their understanding of evolution to become consistent with it. For example: the cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium.
2. there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record, so no matter what we find, scientists can always just assume there is something in between the gaps that connect the species.

designers are not limited by descent with modification, but descent with modification is what we see in intelligently designed things today. Most new technologies are just older technologies that were modified to make better, which makes technology slowly 'evolve' over time.

Do you really think a hypothetical intelligent designer of all life on earth was not "free to put whatever feature they want wherever they want" when he created the platypus?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 3:36:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 3:09:40 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.

For example. Is an iPod touch latest generation categorized under iPods or is it closer to the new iPhone because it has similar screens, chips and os.

What about technology? Are iPhones and Samsung galaxies produced in the last few years more closely related because they both contain closely related ARM processors, both support LTE, and 802.11ac wireless, whereas both of their predecessor devices do not?

IPhones and Samsung would be still be classified as different since Samsung is android.

Of course they would be classified as closely related in one way, by one measure, and more distantly related in another way because you are forced to ignore things that are definitely the same across branches by one measure.

Two seperate groups sharing common functionality with each other but not with their predecessors also occurs in evolution; it is called convergent evolution.

And if, say, a bat wing and bird wing were as similar as two identical chipsets used in two completely different types of phones; or if the two chipsets were superficially similar but had stark and fundamental similarities not to the other device, but to a predecesser device you may have a point; but they aren't.

You see, you have to misrepresent and distort the similarity of life; and misrepresent and distort the differences in designed things to draw this comparison.

No, you can't make them fit a nested hierarchies based on physical traits without ignoring all of the massive number of ways it doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy, which somewhat defeats the purpose.

Can you give me an example of something that is intelligently designed that can't be put into a nested hierarchy?

Cars: Airbags, Diesel motors, chips, Carbon Fibre, Composite Materials, ABS, starter-motors, etc; all appear on multiple distinct lines and are key traits that have to be ignored to put it into a nested hierarchy.

Planes: Same reason.

Books: You can have fiction; non-fiction. But then you have a collection of fiction and non-fiction books translated into french; do you classify these as book->fiction->French and book->non-fiction->french or as book->french->non-fiction and book->french->fiction?

Those are two examples where you get two different hierarchies looking at things in different ways.

There is no way it is possible to look at the trait of a bat; and classify it closer to flying fish, flies and birds because they both have completely dissimilar appendages that allow flight.

Bat wings are physically more similar to mammal arms than anything else; if they had bird wings with bird wing features; then it would be a violation.


Life can be arranged like that, which is why it's taken 250 years for creationists to be unable to find any sort of violation, and the difference is down to intelligent design led things being intelligently designed: designers are not limited by descent with modification, and are thus free to put whatever feature they want wherever they want which is what leads to hierarchy violations.

The reason no 'violation' has been found is because:
1. when something is found that goes against what evolution predicted, they simply change their understanding of evolution to become consistent with it. For example: the cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium.

The cambrian explosion never violated the nested hierarchy; either physiologically, or chronologically. The only issue with the cambrian explosion, and it's really not a big issue, has never been what was produced; but how fast.

2. there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record, so no matter what we find, scientists can always just assume there is something in between the gaps that connect the species.

There are not actually as many gaps as you may think; and all the places where there were gaps and are no longer gaps all universally show exactly those incremental features. Note: These "gaps" and what fills them also concur chronologically.

designers are not limited by descent with modification, but descent with modification is what we see in intelligently designed things today. Most new technologies are just older technologies that were modified to make better, which makes technology slowly 'evolve' over time.

To a very, limited and marginal extent. When designers comes up with an improvement; computer chips, airbags, ABS, etc; they tend to put them on ALL relevant new products independent of ancestry.

You don't see ford only putting new technology into their 2010 Ford Focus. They go into everything. That isn't how life appears, not by a long shot and, indeed that alone should make you really think about how insane the proposition of design actually is; and something that is screamed by the nested hierarchy.

Do you really think a hypothetical intelligent designer of all life on earth was not "free to put whatever feature they want wherever they want" when he created the platypus?

No, he wasn't.

Otherwise it would include structural features that were the same as other non-related species; but he didn't.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 4:17:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.


cell phones are the product of many designers fulfilling many different objectives. The 'clean' tree of life suggests a single designer with more focused objective(s).

Do you seriously mean to suggest that life could not have been designed simply because there is such a orderly spectrum of features? Again - you may have a case if you want to argue that evolution is the less strained model (for the tree, that is), but to argue that the structure of the menagerie of life could not be consistent with design seems perfectly absurd to me.

And just to be clear - I'm acknowledging the inference that can be drawn from the extant and fossil record, that of some kind of progressive emergence of life. But my problem is that no sane mechanism for this emergence to occur spontaneously exists. The Darwinian mechanism of random mutations driving this is just nonsensical. And, as I've mentioned, systems generally have to be deployed. There's an irreducible complexity to the deployment of a system (i.e. a lot of things have to happen relatively simultaneously, before the first parts decay), so having an ecosystem emerge gradually over millions of years would actually be an incredible technical challenge. A creator deploying the system in a relatively short period of time is actually far more technically feasible.

And I like to point out how many evolutionists understand this time problem very well, when you switch to the subject of climate change. Let's get to mars before we crash our earth system, says Elon Musk. Apparently we can't just sit back and wait for a few hundred million years to sort things out, can we? Nothing actually works like evolution is alleged to, that's the problem with the hypothesis.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 4:17:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.


cell phones are the product of many designers fulfilling many different objectives. The 'clean' tree of life suggests a single designer with more focused objective(s).

Do you seriously mean to suggest that life could not have been designed simply because there is such a orderly spectrum of features? Again - you may have a case if you want to argue that evolution is the less strained model (for the tree, that is), but to argue that the structure of the menagerie of life could not be consistent with design seems perfectly absurd to me.

It isn't consistent with any cogent, rational, reasonable, or plausible designer for the very reasons I've stated.

You should know this, because you're prime motivating factor is that at the most gross, superficial level that life looks designed ignoring all the massive and overwhelmingly broad facets of life where it really doesn't.

And just to be clear - I'm acknowledging the inference that can be drawn from the extant and fossil record, that of some kind of progressive emergence of life. But my problem is that no sane mechanism for this emergence to occur spontaneously exists. The Darwinian mechanism of random mutations driving this is just nonsensical. And, as I've mentioned, systems generally have to be deployed. There's an irreducible complexity to the deployment of a system (i.e. a lot of things have to happen relatively simultaneously, before the first parts decay), so having an ecosystem emerge gradually over millions of years would actually be an incredible technical challenge. A creator deploying the system in a relatively short period of time is actually far more technically feasible.

However, all the evidence points to life all being related, the earth and life gradually evolving through significant periods of geological time, with all life appearing being not very different from the stuff that came before; with NONE of the patterns we find in designed things. We also have processes and understanding of the way information can change in an evolutionary system to be able to explain and describe that.

You literally have to ignore all of the evidence in it's entirety and look at the world in these simplistic, cretinous terms for design to even begin to be a plausible or rational explanation. You have to assert things that aren't true; like irreducible complexity, and behave and pretend as if the world and the nature of reality is different from what it is.

I've described at length what these difficulties are; yet you seem to refuse to hold a conversation at any level more detailed than "life is complex".

And I like to point out how many evolutionists understand this time problem very well, when you switch to the subject of climate change. Let's get to mars before we crash our earth system, says Elon Musk. Apparently we can't just sit back and wait for a few hundred million years to sort things out, can we? Nothing actually works like evolution is alleged to, that's the problem with the hypothesis.

This doesn't even make sense as an argument.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 4:46:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 4:29:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:17:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.


cell phones are the product of many designers fulfilling many different objectives. The 'clean' tree of life suggests a single designer with more focused objective(s).

Do you seriously mean to suggest that life could not have been designed simply because there is such a orderly spectrum of features? Again - you may have a case if you want to argue that evolution is the less strained model (for the tree, that is), but to argue that the structure of the menagerie of life could not be consistent with design seems perfectly absurd to me.

It isn't consistent with any cogent, rational, reasonable, or plausible designer for the very reasons I've stated.

You should know this, because you're prime motivating factor is that at the most gross, superficial level that life looks designed ignoring all the massive and overwhelmingly broad facets of life where it really doesn't.


Yeah, I keep stumbling over the fact that life works, and works so extraordinarily well. An autonomous system that chugs along, by your reckoning, for a billion years or so. But that would be poor design if someone were to design that.

You remind me of this guy I heard being interviewed on the radio. He had smoked for 30 years or something (I forget the details), had tried everything, and finally let somebody hypnotize him. The next day he decided to quit cigarettes and never smoked again. But he swore up and down to the interviewer that it had nothing to do with being hypnotized, that was just a coincidence. He just decided the next day he didn't want to smoke any more.

Sure. Ok.


However, all the evidence points to life all being related,

Yes, all products of the same designer. lol, you're just not able and/or willing to let that thought register, are you?

the earth and life gradually evolving through significant periods of geological time,

There's plenty of evidence of great age (which some dispute), but 'gradual'? No, that's an inference. It could very well be 'punctuated equilibriums', right? And it might also be that smooth and tiny creatures sink further in the mud than big ones.

...with NONE of the patterns we find in designed things.

What? Yeah, you're SO extreme, I periodically ask myself why I'm talking to you.

...We also have processes and understanding of the way information can change in an evolutionary system to be able to explain and describe that.


Just a lie, or you have no idea what you're saying.

You literally have to ignore all of the evidence in it's entirety

lol. Yeah, baby, you literally like would never exaggerate in a hundred million million years, know what I mean?

You have to assert things that aren't true; like irreducible complexity,

That's about like saying prime numbers don't exist, Ram. One can argue about what is IC and what isn't, but you only say something like this when you refuse to learn a concept.


This doesn't even make sense as an argument.

Not to you, anyway, apparently!
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 5:17:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 4:29:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:17:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.


cell phones are the product of many designers fulfilling many different objectives. The 'clean' tree of life suggests a single designer with more focused objective(s).

Do you seriously mean to suggest that life could not have been designed simply because there is such a orderly spectrum of features? Again - you may have a case if you want to argue that evolution is the less strained model (for the tree, that is), but to argue that the structure of the menagerie of life could not be consistent with design seems perfectly absurd to me.

It isn't consistent with any cogent, rational, reasonable, or plausible designer for the very reasons I've stated.

You should know this, because you're prime motivating factor is that at the most gross, superficial level that life looks designed ignoring all the massive and overwhelmingly broad facets of life where it really doesn't.


And just to be clear - I'm acknowledging the inference that can be drawn from the extant and fossil record, that of some kind of progressive emergence of life. But my problem is that no sane mechanism for this emergence to occur spontaneously exists. The Darwinian mechanism of random mutations driving this is just nonsensical. And, as I've mentioned, systems generally have to be deployed. There's an irreducible complexity to the deployment of a system (i.e. a lot of things have to happen relatively simultaneously, before the first parts decay), so having an ecosystem emerge gradually over millions of years would actually be an incredible technical challenge. A creator deploying the system in a relatively short period of time is actually far more technically feasible.

However, all the evidence points to life all being related, the earth and life gradually evolving through significant periods of geological time, with all life appearing being not very different from the stuff that came before; with NONE of the patterns we find in designed things. We also have processes and understanding of the way information can change in an evolutionary system to be able to explain and describe that.

You literally have to ignore all of the evidence in it's entirety and look at the world in these simplistic, cretinous terms for design to even begin to be a plausible or rational explanation. You have to assert things that aren't true; like irreducible complexity, and behave and pretend as if the world and the nature of reality is different from what it is.

I've described at length what these difficulties are; yet you seem to refuse to hold a conversation at any level more detailed than "life is complex".

And I like to point out how many evolutionists understand this time problem very well, when you switch to the subject of climate change. Let's get to mars before we crash our earth system, says Elon Musk. Apparently we can't just sit back and wait for a few hundred million years to sort things out, can we? Nothing actually works like evolution is alleged to, that's the problem with the hypothesis.

This doesn't even make sense as an argument.

There's no evidence of "gradualism" the fossil record isn't a protracted record of fossils with some intriguing gaps, it's a record of gaps with some intriguing fossils.

Nothing out there supports the claim that all life today gradually arose from a common ancestor. Yes there is often an increase in mechanical sophistication between earlier fossils and later, but that is actually consistent with a step function, abrupt changes. With abrupt changes we'd not expected to see continuity in fossils and we actually don't see continuity. Furthermore a step function is irreconcilable with natural selection, so some other mechanism must be sought.

You're seeing a nice smooth continuous function (complexity = f(time)) where in fact there is just a square wave! Abrupt, large changes applied periodically over aeons, the Cambrian explosion epitomizes this yet you refuse to see it for what it is. Take a look at the staircase function from Mathword:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com...

If the Y axis were morphological or genetic sophistication and the x axis were time, then this function is far closer to what's observed in the fossil record yet Darwinists positively insist (its a fact!) its more like this functions

http://bit-player.org...

This function implies that for any value of x there's a specific value of y, and that moving x by a tiny degree will give a corresponding small change in y.

So Darwinists insist reality is the continuous graph when observation is actually depicted by the staircase graph.

Changes are sudden, dramatic, we see no gradual transitionals because there never were any, why fight the obvious??

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 5:20:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 4:46:36 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:17:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 8:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 4:29:25 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:16:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:19:10 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:37:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:46:51 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.


Let's take a look at things that things that we know are intelligently designed and see if we see similar patterns. With intelligently designed videos, we have high quality netflix videos and lower quality youtube videos. Between the two, the lower quality youtube videos have more diversity. So the pattern of diversity of lifeforms is consistent with the diversity of some intelligently designed things.

Nothing that is intelligently designed fits into a nested hierarchy; which is primarily the detailed pattern the OP is describing in a round about way.

You can fit anything into a nested hierarchy if you categorize by the right criteria.

Nope, categorization by features invariably end up causing major violations with designed things, never with life.

We can classify all phones that can also browse the web as smart phones. We can further categorize smart phones by operating system and have the sub categories android phones and iphones. And both androids and iphones can be even further categorized by model. I just created a nested hierarchy for intelligently designed things without any problem.

If by "without any problem" you mean having to ignore a vast number of inconsistencies, and the fact that your categorization is highly subjective.


cell phones are the product of many designers fulfilling many different objectives. The 'clean' tree of life suggests a single designer with more focused objective(s).

Do you seriously mean to suggest that life could not have been designed simply because there is such a orderly spectrum of features? Again - you may have a case if you want to argue that evolution is the less strained model (for the tree, that is), but to argue that the structure of the menagerie of life could not be consistent with design seems perfectly absurd to me.

It isn't consistent with any cogent, rational, reasonable, or plausible designer for the very reasons I've stated.

You should know this, because you're prime motivating factor is that at the most gross, superficial level that life looks designed ignoring all the massive and overwhelmingly broad facets of life where it really doesn't.


Yeah, I keep stumbling over the fact that life works, and works so extraordinarily well. An autonomous system that chugs along, by your reckoning, for a billion years or so. But that would be poor design if someone were to design that.

You remind me of this guy I heard being interviewed on the radio. He had smoked for 30 years or something (I forget the details), had tried everything, and finally let somebody hypnotize him. The next day he decided to quit cigarettes and never smoked again. But he swore up and down to the interviewer that it had nothing to do with being hypnotized, that was just a coincidence. He just decided the next day he didn't want to smoke any more.

Sure. Ok.

What a vacuus analogy that has almost nothing in common with what we're talking about.

It's more like seeing a magician making something disappear; and you proclaiming that it bears all the hallmarks of magic; so therefore is magic.

However, all the evidence points to life all being related,

Yes, all products of the same designer. lol, you're just not able and/or willing to let that thought register, are you?

Considering that you compare the two at the most superficial level; your conclusion here is unsurprising.

No. The patterns are unexplainable by the invocation of any rational or reasonable "designer". Which is why you've only ever dismissed this evidence out of hand, rather than explain it.

the earth and life gradually evolving through significant periods of geological time,

There's plenty of evidence of great age (which some dispute), but 'gradual'? No, that's an inference. It could very well be 'punctuated equilibriums', right? And it might also be that smooth and tiny creatures sink further in the mud than big ones.

Gradual, yeah. It's why there are no Humans less than a million or so years; no apes 15 million years ago. Very few mammals resembling anything today 65million years ago. No mammals or birds 150m years ago, only lizards, and you an keep winding back and winding back and everything we see progressively winds back to more basal and basic forms. So yes, gradual.

Your objection here is like me saying that someone drove from the east to west coast at an average speed of 50mph, and you complaining that the person sped on a highway, and stopped at a traffic light, and for dinner; so therefore he didn't drive at an average of 50mph.

...with NONE of the patterns we find in designed things.

What? Yeah, you're SO extreme, I periodically ask myself why I'm talking to you.

Well, it does seem that you seem to stop talking me whenever the detail of any of these are pointed out.

...We also have processes and understanding of the way information can change in an evolutionary system to be able to explain and describe that.


Just a lie, or you have no idea what you're saying.

Actually no; I can link all the posts where it's been detailed and you have completely ignored the reply if yo wish :)

You literally have to ignore all of the evidence in it's entirety

lol. Yeah, baby, you literally like would never exaggerate in a hundred million million years, know what I mean?

I can link you to everywhere you have ignored and never once addressed all this evidence if you wish :0

You have to assert things that aren't true; like irreducible complexity,

That's about like saying prime numbers don't exist, Ram. One can argue about what is IC and what isn't, but you only say something like this when you refuse to learn a concept.

I understand the concept; and you can't show it exists. The guy who invented the concept effectively admitted he couldn't show it exists, and had to wriggle and twist so much under oath in order to avoid being caught in a lie.

This doesn't even make sense as an argument.

Not to you, anyway, apparently!

Or to anyone with a brain!
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:36:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm just here to subscribe. Carry on.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:12:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 5:20:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...
There's plenty of evidence of great age (which some dispute), but 'gradual'? No, that's an inference. It could very well be 'punctuated equilibriums', right? And it might also be that smooth and tiny creatures sink further in the mud than big ones.

Gradual, yeah. It's why there are no Humans less than a million or so years; no apes 15 million years ago. Very few mammals resembling anything today 65million years ago. No mammals or birds 150m years ago, only lizards, and you an keep winding back and winding back and everything we see progressively winds back to more basal and basic forms. So yes, gradual.

Your objection here is like me saying that someone drove from the east to west coast at an average speed of 50mph, and you complaining that the person sped on a highway, and stopped at a traffic light, and for dinner; so therefore he didn't drive at an average of 50mph.


How about - someone flew across country in a Piper Cub, and made lots of stops. So you would have a very different mechanism, but an examination of motel records would look very similar to someone who drove across country.

Honestly, Ram, I don't think this is a real world debate for you. You're not approaching this like "Something happened, and I'd really like to know what it was". So you want to argue blue sky stuff like nested trees but not deal with how fanciful it is to think that random mutations could really create an ecosystem with no external guidance. I have to think that if you really were thinking real world about the down and dirty details, you'd also want to see some demonstration of how this stuff could really work as advertised. You wouldn't buy a used car based on the same sort of evidence you base your ancestry on.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:34:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 7:12:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 5:20:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...
There's plenty of evidence of great age (which some dispute), but 'gradual'? No, that's an inference. It could very well be 'punctuated equilibriums', right? And it might also be that smooth and tiny creatures sink further in the mud than big ones.

Gradual, yeah. It's why there are no Humans less than a million or so years; no apes 15 million years ago. Very few mammals resembling anything today 65million years ago. No mammals or birds 150m years ago, only lizards, and you an keep winding back and winding back and everything we see progressively winds back to more basal and basic forms. So yes, gradual.

Your objection here is like me saying that someone drove from the east to west coast at an average speed of 50mph, and you complaining that the person sped on a highway, and stopped at a traffic light, and for dinner; so therefore he didn't drive at an average of 50mph.


How about - someone flew across country in a Piper Cub, and made lots of stops. So you would have a very different mechanism, but an examination of motel records would look very similar to someone who drove across country.

Honestly, Ram, I don't think this is a real world debate for you. You're not approaching this like "Something happened, and I'd really like to know what it was". So you want to argue blue sky stuff like nested trees but not deal with how fanciful it is to think that random mutations could really create an ecosystem with no external guidance. I have to think that if you really were thinking real world about the down and dirty details, you'd also want to see some demonstration of how this stuff could really work as advertised. You wouldn't buy a used car based on the same sort of evidence you base your ancestry on.

Given that Common Descent is independently validated separately from how that descent actually works in terms of mechanics; and we know the evolutionary processes (specifically DNA, random mutations you rant so much about) most assuredly have been at work between organisms AND can be used to explain detailed differences between extant organisms and, not least we see almost every type of mutation required to explain the differences today, accumulating in organisms we can measure the idea that it is fanciful is based primarily on denial, rather than any actual evidence.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:54:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 3:36:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

And if, say, a bat wing and bird wing were as similar as two identical chipsets used in two completely different types of phones; or if the two chipsets were superficially similar but had stark and fundamental similarities not to the other device, but to a predecesser device you may have a point; but they aren't.

You see, you have to misrepresent and distort the similarity of life; and misrepresent and distort the differences in designed things to draw this comparison.

You cherry picked that one example of convergent evolution. A better examples are how the sheepshead fish has human teeth.

Also my smartphone example might not be the best since I don't have millions of dollars of funding to find the best evidence that confirm my predetermined belief like evolution has.

Cars: Airbags, Diesel motors, chips, Carbon Fibre, Composite Materials, ABS, starter-motors, etc; all appear on multiple distinct lines and are key traits that have to be ignored to put it into a nested hierarchy.


Now if you are saying that nested hierarchies must be classified by key traits, please explain to me how living organisms are classified by key traits. Mammals being classified by having fur and producing milk by females is very arbitrary.

There are not actually as many gaps as you may think; and all the places where there were gaps and are no longer gaps all universally show exactly those incremental features. Note: These "gaps" and what fills them also concur chronologically.

Actually there are more gaps than fossils.

To a very, limited and marginal extent. When designers comes up with an improvement; computer chips, airbags, ABS, etc; they tend to put them on ALL relevant new products independent of ancestry.

and the extent in which evolution uses it is also limited, as in there are supposedly distantly related species with similar features.

No, he wasn't.

Otherwise it would include structural features that were the same as other non-related species; but he didn't.

This sentence doesn't make sense; what you are referring to by non-related species? If evolution is true, all species would be related and there would be no such thing as a non-related species. If intelligent design is true, then each different species are non-related as they were each designed seperatetly, meaning there are shared features between (non-related) species.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 7:31:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:08:45 PM, SM2 wrote:
Why do we see more variation among "lower" lifeforms than "higher" ones? Fish are more diverse than mammals. Flatworms are more diverse than vertebrates. Bacteria are more diverse than animals. This fits perfectly with the idea of common descent, and that complexity increases by chance mutation and natural selection, but I don't see why an intelligent designer would diversify groups differently.

Because God......................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 8:04:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 5:54:15 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/15/2015 3:36:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

And if, say, a bat wing and bird wing were as similar as two identical chipsets used in two completely different types of phones; or if the two chipsets were superficially similar but had stark and fundamental similarities not to the other device, but to a predecesser device you may have a point; but they aren't.

You see, you have to misrepresent and distort the similarity of life; and misrepresent and distort the differences in designed things to draw this comparison.

You cherry picked that one example of convergent evolution. A better examples are how the sheepshead fish has human teeth.

As I said, distortion and misrepresentation of similarity and differences. Sheepshead fish teeth are still fish teeth; they don't have typical features of human teeth like enamel prisms, different dentine and tooth composition; and in that respect look exactly like other fish teeth with the sole exception of their overall shape.

What were you saying about Cherry Picking again?

Also my smartphone example might not be the best since I don't have millions of dollars of funding to find the best evidence that confirm my predetermined belief like evolution has.

No, you just have a computer to try and find evidence that confirms your predetermined belief.

I don't know quite why Creationists like yourself like to project their faults that science does not have and will not share. Evolution is not a predetermined conclusion, simply the one that is supported by all the evidence.

It is Creationists, who have predetermined beliefs that they will not change. I know this because all of your websites and organizations trying to support it say so.

Cars: Airbags, Diesel motors, chips, Carbon Fibre, Composite Materials, ABS, starter-motors, etc; all appear on multiple distinct lines and are key traits that have to be ignored to put it into a nested hierarchy.


Now if you are saying that nested hierarchies must be classified by key traits, please explain to me how living organisms are classified by key traits. Mammals being classified by having fur and producing milk by females is very arbitrary.

If you want to tell the difference between a Cat and a Dog, how do you do it? The only way is by looking at the distinct traits that are shared by one or other and by nothing else.

When you do that, it becomes clear that dogs and cats (and bears, and other Carnivoraforms) also have a lot of features in common.

If you can recognize that all dogs are the same because they all share a series of collective traits not shared by any non-dog; then you have to recognize that collections of species can be organized into groups with collective traits that are not shared by any other species outside that group.

You can keep recursively doing this until you group everything into a nested hierarchy of fundamental differences compiled upon successive tiers of fundamental similarity.

Indeed, the first person to work this out was a Creationist trying to find "created kinds", but couldn't.

There are not actually as many gaps as you may think; and all the places where there were gaps and are no longer gaps all universally show exactly those incremental features. Note: These "gaps" and what fills them also concur chronologically.

Actually there are more gaps than fossils.

There are transitions between fish and amphibians, amphibians and lizards, lizards and mammals, many between different forms of mammals from their basal ancestors; so many transitions between humans and other apes that new finds are very difficult to classify as to whether they are one transition or another, between basal mammals and horses, carnivores; lizards and dinosaurs, dinosaurs and birds, sharks, psirenians, cetaceans, and this is just a highly incomplete list solely for vertebrates.

Please, tell me more about how many gaps there are.

To a very, limited and marginal extent. When designers comes up with an improvement; computer chips, airbags, ABS, etc; they tend to put them on ALL relevant new products independent of ancestry.

and the extent in which evolution uses it is also limited, as in there are supposedly distantly related species with similar features.

Only if you use a completely different definition of what "similar" means to any reasonable and rational person would use that word.

No, he wasn't.

Otherwise it would include structural features that were the same as other non-related species; but he didn't.

This sentence doesn't make sense; what you are referring to by non-related species? If evolution is true, all species would be related and there would be no such thing as a non-related species. If intelligent design is true, then each different species are non-related as they were each designed seperatetly, meaning there are shared features between (non-related) species.

Non-directly related species; sorry.

And as we know all species are related to a high degree of accuracy; intelligent design cannot be true.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 1:24:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 10:34:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:12:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 5:20:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...
There's plenty of evidence of great age (which some dispute), but 'gradual'? No, that's an inference. It could very well be 'punctuated equilibriums', right? And it might also be that smooth and tiny creatures sink further in the mud than big ones.

Gradual, yeah. It's why there are no Humans less than a million or so years; no apes 15 million years ago. Very few mammals resembling anything today 65million years ago. No mammals or birds 150m years ago, only lizards, and you an keep winding back and winding back and everything we see progressively winds back to more basal and basic forms. So yes, gradual.

Your objection here is like me saying that someone drove from the east to west coast at an average speed of 50mph, and you complaining that the person sped on a highway, and stopped at a traffic light, and for dinner; so therefore he didn't drive at an average of 50mph.


How about - someone flew across country in a Piper Cub, and made lots of stops. So you would have a very different mechanism, but an examination of motel records would look very similar to someone who drove across country.

Honestly, Ram, I don't think this is a real world debate for you. You're not approaching this like "Something happened, and I'd really like to know what it was". So you want to argue blue sky stuff like nested trees but not deal with how fanciful it is to think that random mutations could really create an ecosystem with no external guidance. I have to think that if you really were thinking real world about the down and dirty details, you'd also want to see some demonstration of how this stuff could really work as advertised. You wouldn't buy a used car based on the same sort of evidence you base your ancestry on.

Given that Common Descent is independently validated separately from how that descent actually works in terms of mechanics; and we know the evolutionary processes (specifically DNA, random mutations you rant so much about) most assuredly have been at work between organisms AND can be used to explain detailed differences between extant organisms and, not least we see almost every type of mutation required to explain the differences today, accumulating in organisms we can measure the idea that it is fanciful is based primarily on denial, rather than any actual evidence.

No one has watched one of today's species evolve, nor can anyone reproduce the evolution of any of today's species, so the idea that we know what exact sequence of mutations would produce, say, a horse, is pure fantasy. So if we don't know what sequence of mutations would do this, we have no idea whether we have observed that "type of mutation", so we also cannot "measure" what we don't know.

I imagine you've gotten used to having nobody actually listen to you, so you've gotten used to not being challenged when you say absurd things, and now it's become an entrenched habit with you. But you're out in left field, Ram. You're living in fantasy land on some of this stuff.

You're right on the first part - mutations DO happen. Descent with modification does happen. But the claim that these observable changes can be extrapolated to explain the whole of the ecosystem - that is hypothesis. That has NOT been observed, and has not been reproduced. It has only been shown to be consistent with the evidence in certain respects. But it remains, as of the year of our Lord 2015, what is known in the profession as a "wild assed guess"
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 1:24:54 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:34:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:12:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/15/2015 5:20:36 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...
There's plenty of evidence of great age (which some dispute), but 'gradual'? No, that's an inference. It could very well be 'punctuated equilibriums', right? And it might also be that smooth and tiny creatures sink further in the mud than big ones.

Gradual, yeah. It's why there are no Humans less than a million or so years; no apes 15 million years ago. Very few mammals resembling anything today 65million years ago. No mammals or birds 150m years ago, only lizards, and you an keep winding back and winding back and everything we see progressively winds back to more basal and basic forms. So yes, gradual.

Your objection here is like me saying that someone drove from the east to west coast at an average speed of 50mph, and you complaining that the person sped on a highway, and stopped at a traffic light, and for dinner; so therefore he didn't drive at an average of 50mph.


How about - someone flew across country in a Piper Cub, and made lots of stops. So you would have a very different mechanism, but an examination of motel records would look very similar to someone who drove across country.

Honestly, Ram, I don't think this is a real world debate for you. You're not approaching this like "Something happened, and I'd really like to know what it was". So you want to argue blue sky stuff like nested trees but not deal with how fanciful it is to think that random mutations could really create an ecosystem with no external guidance. I have to think that if you really were thinking real world about the down and dirty details, you'd also want to see some demonstration of how this stuff could really work as advertised. You wouldn't buy a used car based on the same sort of evidence you base your ancestry on.

Given that Common Descent is independently validated separately from how that descent actually works in terms of mechanics; and we know the evolutionary processes (specifically DNA, random mutations you rant so much about) most assuredly have been at work between organisms AND can be used to explain detailed differences between extant organisms and, not least we see almost every type of mutation required to explain the differences today, accumulating in organisms we can measure the idea that it is fanciful is based primarily on denial, rather than any actual evidence.

No one has watched one of today's species evolve, nor can anyone reproduce the evolution of any of today's species, so the idea that we know what exact sequence of mutations would produce, say, a horse, is pure fantasy. So if we don't know what sequence of mutations would do this, we have no idea whether we have observed that "type of mutation", so we also cannot "measure" what we don't know.

I imagine you've gotten used to having nobody actually listen to you, so you've gotten used to not being challenged when you say absurd things, and now it's become an entrenched habit with you. But you're out in left field, Ram. You're living in fantasy land on some of this stuff.

You're right on the first part - mutations DO happen. Descent with modification does happen. But the claim that these observable changes can be extrapolated to explain the whole of the ecosystem - that is hypothesis. That has NOT been observed, and has not been reproduced. It has only been shown to be consistent with the evidence in certain respects. But it remains, as of the year of our Lord 2015, what is known in the profession as a "wild assed guess"

We know a number of genes within humans that are responsible for phenotypical differences between the two; and these can be traced to specific point mutations in the protein responsible that changes it's expression within the jaw.

We know similar things about heart proteins, that a 2.5, 3 and 4 chambered heart do not differ significantly in genes, but in terms of gene expression of heart protein as the heart develops. Gene expressions that can be traced to basic mutational differences; indeed we have seen morphological changes in just that.

We can see significant morphological changes in shape, size, and have observed almost every single type of mutation you could possibly think of; to a level an extent that such mutations that mostly occur readily frequently throughout animals can be used, easily to explain 95% of the differences between any organisms on the planet.

And yes, I mean that. The only exceptions are things like the development of feathers, which are gain are genetically and chemically and developmentally similar to scales, with only minor deviations in the initial developmental features of scales that allow the keratin to spread up and out forming feathers, instead of spreading out and around forming scales.

This is not to mention ERV's, fused chromosomes, genetic markers, pseudo genes and other non-functional markers within the genome that track species based on hierarchy; combined with obvious point mutations between conserved proteins being indicative of descent rather than design unless you concede design is unfalsifiable and therefore can be ignored.

No, there is no absence of evidence here; just an overabundance of will to simply assert that none of these count, normally because of whatever ridiculous reason, or moved goalpost you chose to throw out at the time.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 3:59:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 1:31:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
... deleted for space ...


You're right on the first part - mutations DO happen. Descent with modification does happen. But the claim that these observable changes can be extrapolated to explain the whole of the ecosystem - that is hypothesis. That has NOT been observed, and has not been reproduced. It has only been shown to be consistent with the evidence in certain respects. But it remains, as of the year of our Lord 2015, what is known in the profession as a "wild assed guess"

We know a number of genes within humans that are responsible for phenotypical differences between the two; and these can be traced to specific point mutations in the protein responsible that changes it's expression within the jaw.

We know similar things about heart proteins, that a 2.5, 3 and 4 chambered heart do not differ significantly in genes, but in terms of gene expression of heart protein as the heart develops. Gene expressions that can be traced to basic mutational differences; indeed we have seen morphological changes in just that.


Again - I don't argue genetics. I don't argue selecting from pre-existing information. But unless you are arguing that the UCA was some super gene containing all the information for the ecosystem, this is not Darwinian evolution, but genetics. The interesting question, of course, is how the information for the heart came to be in the first place.

I'm not necessarily granting your premise here, you understand, just pointing out that you're not talking about evolution proper anyhow.

We can see significant morphological changes in shape, size, and have observed almost every single type of mutation you could possibly think of;

And that's the problem - "You could possibly think of". Again, what is latent or implied in the genome is not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about new information, about what could not have been guessed from the primordial mud puddle. The construction of the Eiffel Tower by mutant mud puddle, that's what the dissent is about.

...to a level an extent that such mutations that mostly occur readily frequently throughout animals can be used, easily to explain 95% of the differences between any organisms on the planet.


What I don't think you get is that a wrong model can easily be 95% correct. The Ptolemaic model of the planets easily explained far more than 95% of what was observed. But it was flat out wrong. Likewise, a hypothesis of evolution will correlate nicely with the pattern produced by a single designer. 95% correlation really means little. What your guys are doing is saying "IF A evolved from B, here's the genes that had to change". Fine and dandy, but you are terribly mistaken if you think that being able to make that hypothetical map is any proof of the map. "If John came from New Jersey, he would have taken Rt 95. John was on Rt 95". That may be valid logic and data, but it's no proof John came from New Jersey.

And yes, I mean that. The only exceptions are things like the development of feathers, which are gain are genetically and chemically and developmentally similar

Ok, perfect illustration: When you say "developmentally similar" you are assuming your conclusion. It's classic circular logic. And when you do it enough, you can lose track of your assumptions, especially when many people are making the same mistake along with you.

with only minor deviations in the initial developmental features of scales that allow the keratin to spread up and out forming feathers, instead of spreading out and around forming scales.


Which eventually results in pure story telling, like this. Come on Ram, a little honesty - you do realize there is absolutely no way to tell if this story is anywhere close to reality, don't you? It's mythology, not science.

This is not to mention ERV's, fused chromosomes, genetic markers, pseudo genes and other non-functional markers within the genome that track species based on hierarchy;

Some of this would indeed be good evidence, but unfortunately for your side, we keep finding purpose for purposeless DNA. So multiple copies of useful oddities is very different from multiple copies of noise.

And here's where an engineer's common sense can help: If a strand of microscopic DNA can code for all the features of a human being, then it's highly unlikely that any part of it is non-functional. You guys have a basic catch-22 here - you can't argue that natural selection provides the incredible optimization we see in nature while simultaneously arguing that a few oddities show that life came from a hit or miss process. If you're going to argue the 95% correlation is good enough for you, then be consistent - life is 99.9999999999999999999999% consistent with intelligent design, i.e. with optimized functionality.

combined with obvious point mutations between conserved proteins being indicative of descent rather than design unless you concede design is unfalsifiable and therefore can be ignored.


No, this is a logic flaw here: Whether we humans can determine what is correct has absolutely nothing to do with what is correct. I get that it's a problem for researchers if design is too good of a model, but to reject it on that account would be profoundly wrong. I think it's "too good" of a model simply because it's so obviously the correct one.

No, there is no absence of evidence here; just an overabundance of will to simply assert that none of these count, normally because of whatever ridiculous reason, or moved goalpost you chose to throw out at the time.

No, just a lack of understanding of the concept of the scientific method (on the part of evolutionists). I grant you have a legitimate basis for a hypothesis, but I am firm that the hypothesis remains untested in any meaningful way, and may therefore be utterly wrong.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 4:07:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 3:59:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/16/2015 1:31:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
... deleted for space ...


You're right on the first part - mutations DO happen. Descent with modification does happen. But the claim that these observable changes can be extrapolated to explain the whole of the ecosystem - that is hypothesis. That has NOT been observed, and has not been reproduced. It has only been shown to be consistent with the evidence in certain respects. But it remains, as of the year of our Lord 2015, what is known in the profession as a "wild assed guess"

We know a number of genes within humans that are responsible for phenotypical differences between the two; and these can be traced to specific point mutations in the protein responsible that changes it's expression within the jaw.

We know similar things about heart proteins, that a 2.5, 3 and 4 chambered heart do not differ significantly in genes, but in terms of gene expression of heart protein as the heart develops. Gene expressions that can be traced to basic mutational differences; indeed we have seen morphological changes in just that.


Again - I don't argue genetics. I don't argue selecting from pre-existing information. But unless you are arguing that the UCA was some super gene containing all the information for the ecosystem, this is not Darwinian evolution, but genetics. The interesting question, of course, is how the information for the heart came to be in the first place.

I'm not necessarily granting your premise here, you understand, just pointing out that you're not talking about evolution proper anyhow.

We've had this discussion before; I could start with a single 10 letter gene, and produce a million letter genome with many different genes that all do something different, and by your super weird definition, it would still be "pre-existing information"; rendering your whole concept pretty much a meaningless rhetorical attempt to simply argue evolution as impossible by using non-sensical definitions.

We can see significant morphological changes in shape, size, and have observed almost every single type of mutation you could possibly think of;

And that's the problem - "You could possibly think of". Again, what is latent or implied in the genome is not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about new information, about what could not have been guessed from the primordial mud puddle. The construction of the Eiffel Tower by mutant mud puddle, that's what the dissent is about.

That maybe what you're arguing; but that would be a straw man.

The fundamental point; is that when you think about it there really isn't that much of a difference between any two creatures, and almost none that are differences more consequential genetically or physically than the mutations, differences and changes we see every day.

...to a level an extent that such mutations that mostly occur readily frequently throughout animals can be used, easily to explain 95% of the differences between any organisms on the planet.


What I don't think you get is that a wrong model can easily be 95% correct. The Ptolemaic model of the planets easily explained far more than 95% of what was observed. But it was flat out wrong. Likewise, a hypothesis of evolution will correlate nicely with the pattern produced by a single designer. 95% correlation really means little. What your guys are doing is saying "IF A evolved from B, here's the genes that had to change". Fine and dandy, but you are terribly mistaken if you think that being able to make that hypothetical map is any proof of the map. "If John came from New Jersey, he would have taken Rt 95. John was on Rt 95". That may be valid logic and data, but it's no proof John came from New Jersey.

I'm not entirely sure why you are arguing correlation, because the correlation between anything expected to be produced by intelligence design, is about 1%.

That is using the curious fact that you do not:

- explain when the designer created life.
- how he created life.
- whether he created it all at the same time
- whether he created it one after another, after one went extinct.
- why he chose the pattern that he did, when he could have chosen any.
- why he decided to put in ERV patterns consistent with design.

Evolution can do all of these things with a causal process; you can't even speculate about it in a consistent way, only hand-waving.

And yes, I mean that. The only exceptions are things like the development of feathers, which are gain are genetically and chemically and developmentally similar

Ok, perfect illustration: When you say "developmentally similar" you are assuming your conclusion. It's classic circular logic. And when you do it enough, you can lose track of your assumptions, especially when many people are making the same mistake along with you.

You really need to google what a circular argument actually is.

with only minor deviations in the initial developmental features of scales that allow the keratin to spread up and out forming feathers, instead of spreading out and around forming scales.

Which eventually results in pure story telling, like this. Come on Ram, a little honesty - you do realize there is absolutely no way to tell if this story is anywhere close to reality, don't you? It's mythology, not science.

Showing an explanation that fits the facts is "story telling", but waving away all the evidence by some magical designer with no justification or argument is compelling science?

This is not to mention ERV's, fused chromosomes, genetic markers, pseudo genes and other non-functional markers within the genome that track species based on hierarchy;

Some of this would indeed be good evidence, but unfortunately for your side, we keep finding purpose for purposeless DNA. So multiple copies of useful oddities is very different from multiple copies of noise.

No they don't.

And here's where an engineer's common sense can help: If a strand of microscopic DNA can code for all the features of a human being, then it's highly unlikely that any part of it is non-functional. You guys have a basic catch-22 here - you can't argue that natural selection provides the incredible optimization we see in nature while simultaneously arguing that a few oddities show that life came from a hit or miss process. If you're going to argue the 95% correlation is good enough for you, then be consistent - life is 99.9999999999999999999999% consistent with intelligent design, i.e. with optimized functionality.

But we know for a fact that bits of it are non-functional!

combined with obvious point mutations between conserved proteins being indicative of descent rather than design unless you concede design is unfalsifiable and therefore can be ignored.


No, this is a logic flaw here: Whether we humans can determine what is correct has absolutely nothing to do with what is correct. I get that it's a problem for researchers if design is too good of a model, but to reject it on that account would be profoundly wrong. I think it's "too good" of a model simply because it's so obviously the correct one.

Yet your model is not useful, doesn't match the evidence; and isn't a model of anything at all, yet your trying to argue it's a better one.

No, there is no absence of evidence here; just an overabundance of will to simply assert that none of these count, normally because of whatever ridiculous reason, or moved goalpost you chose to throw out at the time.

No, just a lack of understanding of the concept of the scientific method (on the part of evolutionists). I grant you have a legitimate basis for a hypothesis, but I am firm that the hypothesis remains untested in any meaningful way, and may therefore be utterly wrong.

And yet you never seem to
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:27:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 4:07:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

We've had this discussion before; I could start with a single 10 letter gene, and produce a million letter genome with many different genes that all do something different, and by your super weird definition, it would still be "pre-existing information";

We've also established that you refuse to think about what information even is.

So sure, if you could start with a "10 letter gene and produce a million letter genome with many different genes that all do something different" - if you could do this, I'd consider that you'd made a pretty good demonstration that evolution is feasible.

But what you're doing as an evolutionists is saying "Oh, look, the mega-gene has only the same letters as the deca-gene, so it must have evolved from the former". It's reasonable to infer some kind of relationship between the two, but about 999,990 steps away from demonstrating that the latter evolved from the former.

rendering your whole concept pretty much a meaningless rhetorical attempt to simply argue evolution as impossible by using non-sensical definitions.


No, by "impossible", I simply mean "not possible". You can quickly show something is possible by doing it. No rhetoric needed, just demonstration.


The fundamental point; is that when you think about it there really isn't that much of a difference between any two creatures, and almost none that are differences more consequential genetically or physically than the mutations, differences and changes we see every day.


Really? Really? When you think about it, there's not much difference between a rock and a human. They're both molecules, right? Just different combinations. Heart? Lungs? Brain? Cells, man, just a bunch of cells.

There's not that much difference between pencil graphite and a diamond. Both carbon. The exact same element. Here, I'll trade you my pencil for your diamond.

No, Ram, this kind of sums up the whole "fantasy world" charge I've been making. This is the kind of paragraph one writes after eating electric cookies at a Grateful Dead concert.

I guess it's no wonder the concept of 'information' goes so completely over your head. "Why should I pay $100 for a Core I5 chip? It's just a big sand crystal with some impurities! Big deal!"

And it's lunch time... But boy, I think Behe was right, evolution is often an argument from ignorance. What we have no clue about is often seen as simple.
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 5:00:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Further to my post #17 above, take a look at this data from he Cambrian fossil record:

The chart appears in Science 3rd September 1993

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Note how what we call the "Cambrian" is actually finely subdivided into Early then Middle and Late. The early division itself is subdivided further.

Please do take a look at this chart so you know what I'm discussing.

The Science article (by Samuel Bowring an MIT geochronologist) concludes "the period of exponential increase in diversification last only 5 to 10 million years".

This explosive growth occured during the Tommotian and then Atdabanian stages.

As the figure shows these two stages together span approx 5 to at most 10 million years.

So this is the true "explosion" from the end of the relatively unchanging Manykaian to the end of the Atdabanian period (5 million years or so) when as you can see a huge increase in diversity arose.

The numbers of new classes and orders is astonishing and is a huge step function, the degree of evolutionary innovation going from just 4 classes to 50 during that time is without doubt an explosion.

This data has been determined by professional paleontologists using radiometric techniques.

Samuel A Bowring, https://eapsweb.mit.edu...
John P Grotzinger,
Clark E Isachsen,
Andrew H KNoll, Shanne Pelechaty
Peter Kolosov.

So this is accurate data measured by experts in the subject showing the the period exhibiting the most abrupt growth in morphological diversity lasted at most 10 million years.

The rarity of genes and proteins in sequence space means that even 30 million years is not nearly enough time to give rise using Darwinism (or neo Darwinism) a realistic opportunity to generate a new gene or protein - let alone a new form of animal life!

Basically no Darwinistic method can create the observed fossil diversity in 10 million years, its not possible - unless some other factor were at work.

Harry.