One Question for Evo-Bashers

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

We infer design based upon comparison with things that are not designed, like stone tools vs. rocks, or like a cave vs. an excavated shelter. We have no way to make this comparison with life in general. We need both known designed life forms and known not-designed lifeforms which we can then compare and work out the indicative differences between them. Then we can apply these differences to other life forms to determine if those are designed or not.

​

---

I see your point, however, as ToE concerns itself with extrapolating information about past events that were unwitnessed, to base current assumptions, it is likewise the natural conclusion based on the present known information, to infer design even without the comparison you mention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
I see your point, however, as ToE concerns itself with extrapolating information about past events that were unwitnessed, to base current assumptions, it is likewise the natural conclusion based on the present known information, to infer design even without the comparison you mention.

---

If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Evo-guys,Apparently it is hard for evolutionists to listen to what contemporary biology has to say. As mentioned several times in different threads: DESIGN CAN BE RECOGNISED BY (GENETIC) REDUNDANCIES. I am not going into it again. If you don't want to listen I don't mind. Stick to your outdated theory but don't bore us scientists with it.Best wishes,
Peter"Random mutation & selection. Don't let me laugh."

Dear John,J: If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.Best wishes,
Peter"Random-mutation & selection? Don't let me laugh."

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.

---

No. I didn't miss it PeterB. Your position is silly. But I am sure you won't listen to reason-- which is why I never entered that debate.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: No. I didn't miss it PeterB. Your position is silly. But I am sure you won't listen to reason-- which is why I never entered that debate.PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.best wishes,
Peter"Random-mutation & selection? Don't let me laugh."

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.

---

The tree has identifiable ancestry going back 150 million years. That is hardly dropped into the forest from nowhere.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: The tree has identifiable ancestry going back 150 million years. That is hardly dropped into the forest from nowherePB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.

---

Sorry, bud. The people who study it say otherwise.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Sorry, bud. The people who study it say otherwise.PB: Now you have to provide a reference for your statement.The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis (Ken Hill, senior botanist in Sydney's Royal Botanic Gardens, in 'The wollemi pine' by J. Woodford, science writer for the Sydney Morning Herald). So, it is not present in the fossil record. In addition, I had a look at the pollen of Wollemi pine and the ancient delwynites, alleged to be the pollen of ancient Wollemia. They don't match.
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example? I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough. What kind of strategy is that?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis

---

Yeah. No kidding, PB. The tree is in a previously unknown genus. This does not mean it had no ancestors. You know... mommies and daddies? Though it looks like such may have died a long long time ago.

quote:

---

So, it is not present in the fossil record.

---

Neither is my mom, but she exists. Really, PB, you present a pretty warped version of biology.Its family is present in the fossil record.

quote:

---

I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example?

---

I bet sonnike understand why this isn't one.

quote:

---

I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough.

---

ummm... its not what I asked for.... what you have given me is your fantasy version of science.

quote:

---

What kind of strategy is that?

---

I'll talk seriously with sonnike. But you? I have seen what you write. I really couldn't care less what you think. Sorry.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Yeah. No kidding, PB. The tree is in a previously unknown genus. This does not mean it had no ancestors.PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise.J: You know... mommies and daddies? Though it looks like such may have died a long long time ago.PB: That's your interpretation. I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess). In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it is not present in the fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Neither is my mom, but she exists. Really, PB, you present a pretty warped version of biology.PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though.J: Its family is present in the fossil record.PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia.
Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different. Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I bet sonnike understand why this isn't one.PB: How does such organism look like, than?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ummm... its not what I asked for.... what you have given me is your fantasy version of science.PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest. I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that. Now, it is not what you asked for. How do we recognise the organism you asked for, than?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of strategy is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I'll talk seriously with sonnike. But you? I have seen what you write. I really couldn't care less what you think. Sorry.PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you.Best wishes,
Peter"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. A. Huxley"

Hey Peter...where you been lately?

Reading your post about the Wollemi Nobilis, I took a look around on the net and found this article taken from The New Scientist:http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/trees.htmThe pine seems like a wonderful discovery, but certainly nothing supernatural. A 'living fossil' seems to be a description used by many.

There seems to be your interpretation and the evolutionary
interpretation.Why is yours more compelling than the evolutionary explanation?