The Origin of Novelty

My point is that when taxonomists are looking for a sequence (beaks getting smaller, beaks getting larger, whatever they have in mind) its easy for them to find such a sequence because of the numbers of extinct species. This does not mean they are right, just because they are able to place a few fossil skeletons in an order of their preconceived growth of a feature. Those fossils would have to have a clear and dated sequence to have any meaning. Otherwise they may just be placing a mole between a reptile and a mammal and making HUGE conclusions about the evolving of hearing and the mammal jaw. (its funny really) This too is really funny. I guess two cars have a common ancestor because they have wheels and an engine. especially when you compare them with jetskis, yes surely then the two sedans have a more recent common ancestor. Tell that to the manufacturer, that you have perfect proof that cars are evolved because some designs are similar.An intelligent designer would obviously overlap design the more similar the function (intelligent mammals that stand upright and use their hands extensively, and have long life-spans). Its the most correct conclusion to assume more similar DNA the more similar the function, anything else would be illogical.A believer in ID expects to see animals designed in groupings and then with some recent nested hierarchies since the baramin was created. Its EXACTLY what we would look for. Someone dares to do the math. Yes 100 mutations would fit, 50 mutations would not. I heard its more like between 10 and 30 mutations that are actually detected through less biased testing, have you got any proof for 100 mutations per generation? Normally the 100 mutations figure is gained through evolutionist circular reasoning, the chimp has 120 million differences, and they diverged about 600000 generations ago, which means 1.2 million generations of the two species. 120 million divided by 1.2 million is 100 mutations per generation. But that is circular reasoning, there are more accurate ways of getting to actual current mutation rates without evolutionary assumptions.ID explains the differences, 120 million differences were created like that, with a few mutations since. I am happy with radiometric dating, not for accurate dates, but relative dates. If anyone wants to create an accurate sequence they should date the sequence, otherwise they just playing silly fantasy games by placing fossils in an order of features. Anyone can put modern skeletons in an order of enlarged features. This does not prove evoltuion in any manner.

You evolutionists confuse the two topics. You point to the source of life all the time, instead of seeing if current biology is a reflection of baramins, or a long-term evolution from a common ancestor. You avoid the real empirical debate, by reverting to the "creation is stupid" argument. And then freely want to include creationism in your common ancestor argument when it suits you. Either we are discussing evolution , or origins. In this thread the discussion is evolution, not origins. A nested hierarchy from recent baramins is exactly what you would expect from recent baramins. Groups of baramins designed similarly because of their similar functions is exactly what you would expect from an ID. Can you see that, even though you do not agree? Birds are designed for speed flight, not power flight. The feathers, the bones, the eggs, the lungs, all help with this. If you start playing with the whole balance, you get a problem. Each category (mammals/reptiles/birds) has a well balanced set of features.This is only logical from an ID view.

Not at all, this is a science forum. Any so-called evidence will be looked at and accepted if true. A few fossils placed in an order showing increasing enhanced features means nothing.

If ID is true, it would show groups of organisms with similar design (cars are designed in ranges), and then nested hierarchies showing recent evolution from recent baramins. Both these are observed. Evoltuionists misunderstand the similar designs as further long-term nested hierarchies. When I say there has been evolution from recent baramins, I'm referring to those types of nested hierarchies seen by evolutionists as occurring in the last 100 000 years. Differences in racegroups, differences between dogs and wolves, between lions and tigers, between cats and wildcats, between crocodiles and dwarf crocodiles. These small differences represent slight changes from a recent baramins.The type of differences seen between chimps and humans are much larger (120 million base pairs). These are primarily design differences, with very few mutations. Humans and chimps are definitely different baramins. Wolves and dogs are definitely the same baramin. If there is more than 0.5 % difference in base pairs, you can be pretty certain its a different baramin. That's the theory, I've seen nothing to contradict this theory.

Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Humans and other apes do. Orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. LTR divergence within ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. Overall ERV sequence divergence falls into a nested hierarchy. Again, designed things do not fall into a nested hierarchy. So why is the observed fact of a nested hierarchy evidence of creationism when creationism does not predict a nested hierarchy, and even furthermore when evolution does predict a nested hierarchy? Why should evidence for creationism look identical to evidence for evolution, and unlike evidence that is consistent with design?Even more, we observe the mechanisms of evolution producing nested hierarchies. We use these observations to infer when mutations occurred in a lineage and the selective pressures that specific sequences are under. Ask a designer why he does not force his designs into a nested hierarchy. So if humans fall into a nested hierarchy with other apes then we belong to the same baramin? What about all mammals, or all vertebrates? We find nested hierarchies there as well. Yes, 100 mutations in a population that produces millions of mutations per generation. Do the math. Let's go 50 mutations per individual per generation in a very small population of just 100,000. That's 5 million mutations in a single generation meaning that only 0.002% of the mutations need to be kept according to your math. How? Where has anyone observed this supposed designer producing a single mutation? How does ID explain the nested hierarchy between what you call baramins? How does ID explain Ka/Ks ratios in genes when comparing genomes between baramins?You don't have an explanation. You have an empty assertion.

They are laid out in CHRONOLOGICAL order.

No, I am not crazy, you may have misunderstood me, and thought I was saying large parts of the different genomes had exact sequences, I was saying no such thing. I was basing my statement that exact sequences have been preserved over millions of years on the following comments:http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html
"The sequences are remarkably similar across species, especially at certain positions. For example, EVERY ONE has a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80. Clearly, evolution selects against any change at these positions."You see That! see it? EXACT sequences are contained within REMARKABLY SIMILAR sequences between COMPLETELY DIFFERENT species for over 300 million years according to evolution. ID makes a lot more sense. Boring! Ive refuted this argument so many times in this thread. My answer is obviously ignored every time, but it logically stands anyway. A logical intelligent designer would repeat designs when there are similar design requirements. This points towards ID, the alternative is a stupid designer that refuses to repeat good designs when there are similar needs. I don't believe in Stupid Design (SD), I believe in Intelligent Design (ID), therefore repeat designs conform to the ID view, even if it also conforms to the evolving view.
The fact that there is some interchangeability between slightly similar designs, similarly points to both theories.Any evidence for the one, is not evidence against the other, there is no mutual exclusivity in this debate, currently the evidence favors both views, they are two good competing theories that fit all current evidence. (Except for a few embarassments like human mutation rates over 6 million years being too slow, exact sequences being maintained for 300 million years without mutating at all etc).Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You would be surprised how few have chronological dates attached to the fossils. I would like to see one of these dated sequences. Even so, it doesn't mean much. To lay them out is no proof, its just a mental projection based on assumptions.

Then why aren't the sequences for cytochrome c identical in both humans and yeast when they are performing the same function? Why isn't the design repeated when you claim it should be? Why do the differences between cytochrome c sequences in different species fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution? What evidence, if observed, would not favor creationism/ID?

Then surprise me. No, it isn't. The emergence of modern features over time is exactly what we should see if evolution is true, and that is exactly what we observe. How does ID explain this? How does ID explain hominid transitionals?

... by posting your opinions on abiogenesis at great length, in reply to a post by bluegenes which never mentioned the subject.

Whereas you are looking for evidence of the gradual development of a new organ, how about the same thing, as over time an organ like the appendix can be seen to disappear from non-use.This is the reverse of exercise of a new initially very limited organ developing and maturing into something complex now.

Just the fact that if there is a God, both a single creation and a multiple creation are just as easy and simple and just as unproven, makes the two views now equally parsimonious (except for the novel additional coding gene issue which gives barminology the edge on parsimony. Anyway I think you are placing too much weight on parsimony. Sorry, yes I seem to have some of the details wrong. Well I'm not claiming to know a lot about this field, I'm sure that given enough time, one of us could think up some reasons why birds have only bird features, and bats have only mammalian features.
I personally believe God made varieties in categories, and yet also made crossover types that could fill gaps when originals left gaps behind. ie if birds became extinct, bats could fill those ecological gaps well, as could dolphins/seals in the sea if sharks etc became extinct. So you had reptile/fish/mammal/bird flyers, reptile/mammal/bird/fish swimmers, reptile/mammal/bird/fish walkers, but generally they each had their own more dominant domain, with the ability to fill the other domains if necessary. If that is all it says, why has it been used as an argument against creationism? Your argument here is a strawman argument, but I'm sure it wont stop you , because we have both stated our cases, and yet are continuing this discussion. Its time to agree to disagree on this point of yours, it really is a strawman. An intelligent designer would make intelligent designs, where mix and match works you would see it, but there's no guarantee it would be common. You keep using your examples, but how much overlap is there between a military aircraft and a jetski? So what you are looking for as an evolutionist is the same as what I am looking for in baraminology, DNA matches well between similar organisms, and yet between diverse organisms there are only sometimes sequence matches.

I will admit that is true. From a scientific point of view it could be seen as arbitrary. I'm not understanding your point? My problem is the yardstick is not tested, it would be refreshing if someone takes creationism seriously enough to test it properly. I'm waiting for you evolutionists to get on with it, instead of side issues. More confident claims, with no links, quotes, or studies to back it up. If two genomes show 96% match, this is no proof of evolution. Especially when the mutation rates do not match up to a 6 million bp divergence between human/chimp of 120 million base pairs.

Duplicate postEdited by mindspawn, : Duplicate post