The Origin of Novelty

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just hang on a moment Taq. Are we using different definitions of nested hierarchies? Maybe we are referring to two different ideas and somehow misunderstanding eachother.Nested hierarchies - Understanding Evolution According to the Berkeley description of nested hierarchies , the description of nested hierarchies is of groupings with similar characteristics, and of course you find the same characteristics in intelligent design (ie my car example). Rather evolutionists should explain why they sort design groupings into nested hierarchies with no favorable evidence to prefer the nested hierarchy concept. these long term hierarchies are just an evolutionary assumption without evidence, so your argument is based on unproven assumptions that there are long term nested hierarchies, when these could be design groupings. These mutations have to accumulate in individuals, you are not making any sense here. And 50 mutations per generation is not enough, you need 100. Hmmm you lack so much understanding of my position, I feel it would be impossible to explain it to you. Let me try once.
I am not claiming that the designer produced mutations, He produced organisms that are already different (eg 120 million base pair differences between the ape and human). Since that moment, there have been a few mutations. I know nothing of this argument, could you explain more, or give me a link please?

I'm the one saying the evidence fits both theories. You are the one saying evolution is the stronger theory, therefore you have to prove why evolution is the stronger theory. Why do you deny that an ID would design in groupings? Its the most obvious way to make designs. A designer designs in a creative manner, not bound by your rules. General groupings are observed, and some crossovers are observed. This is what happens in car design too (the Subaru - crossover family car/4x4 the 4 door Porsche - crossover family car sports car). Could you kindly post your evidence that humans have produced fitness improvements under natural conditions.

Fair enough comment , but now that I am doing more research, it seems that these grouped characteristics make a lot of sense, and very similar to what I was saying earlier, so I wasn't so far out:The Eight Main Characteristics of Mammals Mammals nurture their young, and are genetically inclined to do so:: I'm not explaining all features, but the features of a strong backbone (to carry young), mammary glands, live young (most mammals), placenta (most mammals) all assist in basic nurturing. Through nurturing, there can be learned behaviour , which adds to adaptability, parents guiding offspring into best habitshttp://www.rmc.edu/.../A1C4811B06EE4026954BF7B38CC6CA85.ashx Hair and the four chambered heart are for temperature control, which adds to adaptability in more extreme summer/winter temperature fluctuations.The Eight Main Characteristics of Mammals The four chambered heart goes together with the fetus, because a fetus requires a good oxygen supply for good survival.So essentially the defining features of a mammal go together in a well fitting whole.The same argument goes for birds, the features of birds are grouped for flight, whereas in mammals the features are grouped for adaptability. Birds have feathers, hollow bones, high metabolic rate, lay eggs. All these assist with flight. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

That's what I said, thanks for confirming my point:I said:
"A designer designs in a creative manner, not bound by your rules. General groupings are observed, and some crossovers are observed. This is what happens in car design too (the Subaru - crossover family car/4x4 the 4 door Porsche - crossover family car sports car)."Your insistence that a designer would not have any consistency is illogical and does not conform to what intelligent designers actually are observed to do. So your point about variety is accepted, your point about no groupings in intelligent design makes no sense whatsoever. There would be groupings and some design duplication between designs that have similar function, anything less is stupid design, not intelligent design. So in essence your whole argument that design and nested features are not compatible is a strawman argument.