|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined:
|
The part I quoted was about two things: systems being stuck and not crossing over and elements being good enough instead of optimal.
My question was about these two things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: Example of "cross over" is flight. Many different groups within totally different locations in the hierarchy have a flight system. Flight isn't a physical characteristic. If you look at the different adaptations for flight you will see that those adaptations stay within a tree-like structure. For example: Those are two different limbs, and they stay within each of their branches of the tree of life. You don't see any birds with a bat-like wing, and you don't see any bats with a bird-like wing. You don't see any bats with flow through lungs, and you don't see any birds with tidal lungs. You don't see any birds with hair, and you don't see any bats with feathers. There are no cross-overs of flight adaptations.
But the bigger question I was asking about was the explanation for the supposed sub-optimality by evolution. How exactly does evolution explain this so exquisitely? Because evolution only has to be better than the competitors. This wouldn't be the case if life was separately created by an all knowing and all powerful deity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Of course we don't see bats with bird-like wings. Bats have denser mammal bones. They have wings well suited and adapted to their physique. If you expected anything else from design, you have some serious misunderstandings about biology and physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: Of course we don't see bats with bird-like wings. Bats have denser mammal bones. Why would denser bones prevent bats from having a bird-like wing?
They have wings well suited and adapted to their physique. Why wouldn't a bird-like wing be well suited to the bat physique? Why couldn't bats have feathers? Why couldn't bats have flow through lungs? Why couldn't birds have teats to feed their young? Why can't bats lay eggs with calcified shells?
If you expected anything else from design, you have some serious misunderstandings about biology and physics.
No, it isn't I who has the misunderstanding. Humans regularly design organisms that violate a nested hierarchy, and they are perfectly fine. Humans regularly replace mouse genes with human genes in research settings, as one example. Human designs like cars, bicycles, and planes don't fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why life should fall into a nested hierarchy if species/kinds were separately created.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Yes, better than competitors is sufficient. But at what level of optimality would that be? Any level that we observe, you could say that is better than enough of the competitors. This does not really add anything of significance to test common ancestry of all life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Replacing genes is not designing organisms at all. That is making alterations to existing organisms at most.
You do understand that hollow bones are easier to lift than denser bones, do you? Of course bats could have feathers and lay eggs. But then we would call them birds, not bats. You are making up hypothetical situations that are not there, and therefor totally irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
and you are a troll.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: Replacing genes is not designing organisms at all. Yes, it is.
You do understand that hollow bones are easier to lift than denser bones, do you? Then why do bats have denser bones? Why didn't the designer give them lighter bones?
Of course bats could have feathers and lay eggs. But then we would call them birds, not bats. No, we wouldn't. They would still have other mammal features like three middle ear bones, cusped cheek teeth, etc. They would have a mixture of mammal and bird features. So why don't we see any? Why don't we see the billions of possible combinations of features that would violate a nested hierarchy? Why do we only see one pattern out of billions that evolution would produce?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: But at what level of optimality would that be? Why can't humans have the eyesight of a hawk and the smelling ability of dogs? These aren't even optimal, and yet humans don't have them. Why? Why does 90% of our genome accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?
This does not really add anything of significance to test common ancestry of all life. I suspect that you would reject any and all evidence, no matter how significant it is. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes? What pattern of similarities or differences in genomes would you accept as evidence for shared ancestry? Is there any evidence you would accept?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Similarities and differences are a given, in the genotype as well as in the phenotype. You seem to think that close similarity can only mean common ancestry. This is false for sure. Many things can look very similar without having any common origin. But you deny such basic facts and reality, rather sticking to your flawed logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Bats can fly perfectly fine. So what is your problem? Ligher bones solves a problem that does not exist. Good luck with your flawed backwards logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Hahaha, you must think you are so smart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Arguing that a god could have done something differently is in no way evidence that a god could not have done it the way it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Speaking of flawed logic, have you found your god, yet?
Still can't present any evidence for your god while you are unsuccessfully trying to counter evolution's mountain of clear and superior evidence. Not an envious task. What do think you are going to replace evolution with? More hidden majik? Like your hidden (non-existent) god?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
So this seems to be your line of reasoning:
If universal common ancestry were true, then it would have produced some nested hierarchy. So any nested hierarchy that we find, must be a result of common ancestry. Because if it came from design, it could have been designed in different ways. No wonder you think the nested hierarchy is so great, while it really isn't. Your reasoning is totally flawed. Don't expect me to stoop down to your level of "brilliance" and accept your false theories.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024