The Origin of Novelty

You could also think up thousands of reasons why a creator could just as easily produce species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. A bird with mammary glands or a bat with flow through lungs are well within the reach of an all knowing and all powerful designer, wouldn't you say?There is simply no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if creationism is true. None. Human designers are not limited to nested hierarchies, nor do we find any benefit in limiting ourselves to a nested hierarchy. So why would this supposed designer be more limited than we are? Why do you believe that God created life so that it looks like evolution occurred when it didn't? Why would God be limited to a nested hierarchy?

I am only just beginning to realize that a lot of you are arguing from the illogical fallacy of mutual exclusivity.ie you possibly think that because evolution has a good and fitting explanation for something observed in the genome, then ID cannot also have a good and fitting explanation. Well at the moment both ID and evolution have well-fitting responses to whatever is seen in the genome. I'm not pretending otherwise. Its evolutionists that claim the empirical advantage, therefore you must show it, or stop claiming any advantage any more. This genetic similarity between similar organisms (eg human/ape) fits the concept of long term nested hierarchy and also fits the view that they are designed similarly, but not exactly the same. I find it amusing that the shrew that they picture in wikipedia also looks like a mole. So it resembles a mole, has hearing like some modern moles, but really is a so-called "transitional fossil" between reptiles and mammals.If you could show me a half reptile, half Morganucodon fossil, you would garner some interest from me. Until then its just a mole fossil from 4000 years ago in my eyes.

ID does not have a good fitting explanation for a nested hierarchy. It never has. No human designer forces their designs to fall into a nested hierarchy. When humans design new species they regularly violate the nested hierarchy because there is no reason to follow one from a design standpoint. None. We have shown it. It is the nested hierarchy, the very pattern of shared features that we would expect to see if evolution is true, and the very pattern that is inexplicable in an ID model. Let me put it this way. How would the genomes of humans and other apes be different if they really did all evolve from a common ancestor? Can you describe what these differences would be?

That's a strawman argument. Remember he's an intelligent designer. this means that he would place the best combinations of features together. It doesn't make sense to mix and match features that do not combine well. Ho hum, I already said that its logical to make designs in groupings , like cars are designed in ranges (the 4x4 range etc). So this is a strawman argument. this thread is getting repetitive. Go ahead and decide what you think an intelligent designer would do and then argue why reality is not like that. You can have a nice discussion with yourself, just don't involve me because I've already refuted that strawman argument.

The genomes suit both theories. Both theories would expect similarities among big groups of organisms (eg hominoids) , and also short-term nested hierarchies from a recent common ancestor. I am not saying these groupings contradict the long-term nested hierarchy concept of evolutionists, but these groupings certainly fit in with intelligent design as well.I see these large groupings like hominoids as various baramins with a similar design known for dexterity and intelligence.

He was mocking the thought of a creator, he was therefore taking the argument that his view on origins is more logical than my view on origins. It would be hypocritical of him to regard origins as an essential part of my process without seeing origins as an essential part of his process.He brought up origins, not me. I prefer to compare reality with the two theories of evolutionary processes, is there recent evolution from existing baramins or long term evolution from a common ancestor.

How does a nested hierarchy fit an ID model? You still have not explained this. Why would ID expect separate designs to fall into a nested hierarchy? You still have not explained this.

Well like I keep saying, I agree with you. Its exactly what evolution would expect, I don't deny this. But don't use the illogical argument of mutual exclusivity because its exactly what ID would expect too.Humans? We experienced rapid adaptation from about three main family groupings about 4500 years ago.Do you mean Lucy , lol
Or Neanderthals - they are just humans, nothing more, nothing less.

Why would the best combinations fall into a nested hierarchy?Why wouldn't mammary glands combine well with feathers? Why wouldn't three middle ear bones combine with flow through lungs? Why wouldn't an all powerful creator be able to create a functional species with cusped cheek teeth and calcified eggs?You are making assertions with ZERO facts to back them. Humans are able to combine them, and they work just fine. Humans are able to create a fish species with exact copies of jellyfish genes, as one example. Are you saying God is less capable than humans? I can do you one better. I cand SHOW you what intelligent designers do. They do NOT force their designs to fall into a nested hierarchy. This is an OBSERVATION of how designers operate.

So why would a designer be limited to the pattern of shared and derived features that evolution would produce? Why does ID look exactly like evolution when it doesn't have to?

There has been short term speciation from baramins during the last 6500 years. These species would evolve according to nested hierarchies.The long-term hierarchies supposedly observed are misinterpretations of designed groupings, which retain similar features, and similar DNA sequences.

Feathers have many advantages, mainly related to flying. Birds are flying specialists, and so any lightness advantage is very important to their survival, and additional features that involve metabolism , blood and oxygen supply not used for flying can damage their fitness. Mammary glands are a luxury for those organisms that have the ability to process large amounts of excess oxygen and food. Mammals are less vulnerable on a daily basis to external factors such as food supply, oxygen supply, temperature fluctuations.

How are they being misinterpreted? If they do not fall into nested hierarchies, then show us some obvious, large scale violations of the nested hierarchy.Why don't we see intermediates between mammals and birds, and why do we see intermediates between mammals and reptiles?Cars also have similar design features. They do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Humans move DNA from one species to another to design new species, and they clearly violate a nested hierarchy. Nothing about intelligent design requires a nested hierarchy of shared features, and you have not shown us why a nested hierarchy is required.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This is absolute nonsense.Skeletal populations allow us to trace racial traits far into the past.Once again you're just making things up.

So why can't the designer create a species that has feathers and mammary glands? Since when? They live in the same exact climates and environments that birds do.