Summations Only

I think what you are saying here illustrates what Dawn is claiming about how you require (direct/scientific) evidence from creationists though you don't have any (direct/scientific} evidence yourself.The intricacies themselves are the indirect evidence Dawn is pointing to for the design of the eye. Intricacy is a quality of human design too and can be extrapolated to natural design. Intricacy, irreducible complexity, all that.Whereas on your side all you have is very very indirect evidence, the evidence of homologies that have no genetic relationship to one another. Isn't that how the eye is claimed to have evolved? -- all by a COULDA -- it coulda happened that way because there are so many different kinds of eyes scattered among the creatures, and we can arrange them in a series of functionality and complexity that could be stages of evolution from one to another, even though the stages are also scattered throughout the Linnaean chart in no evolutionary order whatsoever. But just because it seems that all the stages are there somewhere or other, therefore it coulda happened in a direct line of descent too, therefore it DID. Not exactly direct scientific evidence that the eye evolved but you accept it anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Dr. You made the claim so you need to provide evidence to support your claim.Where is your evidence?God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

See my previous post 211.He's presented the indirect evidence of the intricacy itself. It IS evidence. And as I say above you don't have any more direct scientific evidence than that. In fact your evidence is SO indirect and wildly constructed it's not even as direct as Dawn's. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence for the common genetic ancestry of all of terrestrial life is about as direct as the evidence we have for germ theory and the relativity theories. It's a consilience of evidence that all point to the same incontrovertible conclusion: that life on Earth has a shared genetic heritage, inasmuch as you share a common genetic heritage with your siblings and cousins. Yes, but both intelligent design and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms can lead to intricate systems; both intelligent design and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms can produce irreducibly complex systems. So the immediate extrapolation to intelligent design from "intricacy" must be supported by further evidence that match the predictions of a design/teleological model.And I say this as an ID proponent. It is not just homologies that lead to the conclusion of common ancestry; it is, instead, the nested hierarchical patterns of homology -- coupled with the concordance of evidence from paleontology, molecular biology, and morphology -- that lead to the conclusion of common descent. All of this is very strong evidence, and only makes sense in the light of common descent. There is no other explanation that makes sense; and the explanation we do have -- common descent -- is extremely robust in its explanatory power. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Based on what evidence? Stories in books are not known causes. They are stories in books. Do you have breaking news of how life came about by supernatural means? Why do you never demand the same evidence for your beliefs that you require for others?

No, that's the claim. You can't claim that rainbows are made by invisible unicorns, and then cite the existence of rainbows as your evidence. That's not how evidence works. Yes, I do. I have the matching nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA sequences which no creationist seems to be able to address.

I do have direct evidence. It is the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences. I keep saying this, and no creationist will address it. How can you honestly say that I don't have evidence when I have presented it several times in this thread? With human designs, you don't get a nested hierarchy. You get mixing and matching of parts in no discernible hierarchial pattern. That is the hallmark of design, a LACK of a nested hierarchy. With evolution, the only pattern it can produce is a nested hierarchy.With life, we see a nested hierarchy, the pattern of shared and derived features that evolution produces but not design.It seems that you have failed to properly extrapolate the evidence.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not all that clear that you can either though, or even why it matters. It isn't as obvious as you say that these facts prove evolution, it's still just an extrapolation you make, meaning it's INDIRECT evidence as Dawn keeps defining it, and very far from any direct scientific evidence. As long as you have nothing but inference, and this particular one is certainly better than the eye inference, it's just unproved theory and no better than the creationists have. Well, that's not true, Taq. ID points to characteristics of living things that imply a Designer, based on our knowledge of the characteristics of things we KNOW are designed by US. Incredibly coherent functioning systems designed to perform certain tasks, all working together as a unit; the intricacies Dawn keeps mentioning; and I've added the extravagances of beauty we see in some plants and particularly in birds. All these things are evidence of design.All you can do is postulate ways they COULDA come about by evolution, and although that is really all you can do, you have the effrontery to declare it all Fact. I'm not sure what you are saying here.

We can directly observe evolutionary mechanisms producing nested hierarchies. Like I said before, all you do is try to ignore the evidence just as you are doing here. We know that humans make ice. Does that mean all ice is intelligently designed? For the cytochrome c gene, the human and mouse gene differs by 10%. The human and chicken gene differs by 20%. What should the difference between the chicken and mouse gene be according to ID/creationism, and why?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I for one don't get how nested hierarchies proves anything. And certainly it is NOT direct evidence of anything, it's as indirect as all the other evidences, it's something you have to INFER evolution from, you can't KNOW evolution is the cause of this pattern, you can't prove it directly. And why it shouldn't be a feature of design is not clear at all though you declare it so adamantly. I also suspect that the pattern itself is probably not anywhere near as perfect as you claim, but I'm not in a position to know that one way or another.

Then you have to be observing MICROevolutionary mechanisms, right? Since there is no way to observe anything beyond that. And in that case all you are observing is a design feature built into the reproductive system.No, humans don't DESIGN ice.

Due to vertical inheritance and the production of genetic barriers between species, the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolutionary mechanisms can produce is a nested hierarchy. That's it.A designer, on the other hand, can mix and match features as it sees fit. A designer could just as easily make a species with a mixture of mammal and bird features as it could a mixture of mammal and reptile. Evolution can only produce fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptiles since none of the proposed ancestors of mammals were birds.Therefore, if we observe a nested hierarchy we know that it is due to evolution since there is no reason that design would produce such a pattern of shared and derived features.Moreover, we can directly observe evolutionary mechanisms producing nested hierarchies in living populations.When the evidence is consistent with natural processes, you conclude that they are from natural processes.

I have no idea and no idea why it should prove evolution.

No. We are observing macroevolutionary mechanisms which include genetic barriers. These result in the accumulation of population specific mutations which gives rise to the branching structure of groups that arise through evolution. For example:"Inbred mouse strains have been maintained for more than 100 years, and they are thought to be a mixture of four different mouse subspecies. Although genealogies have been established, female inbred mouse phylogenies remain unexplored. By a phylogenetic analysis of newly generated complete mitochondrial DNA sequence data in 16 strains, we show here that all common inbred strains descend from the same Mus musculus domesticus female wild ancestor, and suggest that they present a different mitochondrial evolutionary process than their wild relatives with a faster accumulation of replacement substitutions."
mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains - PMCThey were kept in separate labs, and the result over many generations was macroevolution, the divergence of each populations genome. That pattern of divergence formed a nested hierarchy. Evolution in action.