Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 586 of 871 (692133)
02-27-2013 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 4:34 PM


Hi, Mindspawn.
mindspawn writes:
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...
It's not about easy or hard, or simple or complex: it's only about how much of the data you explain with a mechanism that hasn't been demonstrated to exist.
mindspawn writes:
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.
But, until somebody does, it remains unexplained. That's a black mark on your hypothesis.
mindspawn writes:
If that is all it says, why has it been used as an argument against creationism?
I didn't know that it had been. I only remember having contested your use of it as an argument for creationism.
mindspawn writes:
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.
I suggested several ways in which intelligent design might look different from evolution.
These were opportunities for you to use your novel hypothesis to make novel predictions.
The only one you were willing to commit to was this "mixing and matching" idea, so I went with that.
Your first response was to agree that "mixing and matching" does happen, and that we do see it.
I contested your evidence, and showed something that would be a better, clearer example.
That was when you argued that mixing and matching would not be common.
I don't know what you would predict from your hypothesis: it seems like you are more interested in coming up with excuses for why you can't clearly distinguish design from evolution.
If you don't like my examples, that's fine. I was only trying to help.
mindspawn writes:
Anyway I think you are placing too much weight on parsimony.
This is unavoidable when you fight so hard to make your hypothesis completely indistinct from mine.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by mindspawn, posted 02-27-2013 4:34 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by mindspawn, posted 02-28-2013 1:27 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 587 of 871 (692140)
02-28-2013 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 572 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 5:10 PM


quote:
I am only just beginning to realize that a lot of you are arguing from the illogical fallacy of mutual exclusivity.
I would say that being evidence for intelligent design over evolution is mutually exclusive with being evidence for evolution over intelligent design, wouldn't you ?
But if you would like to agree with me that the conserved elements aren't evidence either way then we will have made progress.
quote:
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.
Fortunately I don't make that assumption. I rely on the fact that ID does NOT have a good and fitting explanation for the evidence.
quote:
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.
Unfortunately the ID explanation does not fit that well, we've discussed, at length, the pattern of similarities forming a nested tree, which ID does not predict. We've discussed the absence of clear baramins which your view does not predict. And we could discuss other things too. So evolution really does have an empirical advantage.
quote:
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.
I think that has a lot to do with your own tendency to fantasise, and to confuse your fantasies with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by mindspawn, posted 02-27-2013 5:10 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 2:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 588 of 871 (692156)
02-28-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 546 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 7:23 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
mindspawn writes:
You make a good point here regarding amplification. This isn't a novel feature, but extra coding genes are certainly a support for the basic processes of your view. I don't like genetic manipulation as proof of natural processes, but if they replicate real processes of nature then fair enough the information can be useful. Just for my information can you supply a link, thanks.
Artificial gene amplification reveals an abundance of promiscuous resistance determinants in Escherichia coli.
And a bonus!
Adaption to warmth involving two similar but non-identical duplication events on two different cultures, and a deletion event on a third culture, plus other adaptions through point mutations.
It should have occured to you by now that as positive and neutral duplications can occur, and positive and neutral point mutations can occur, you have no argument against neofunctionalization, which is merely a combination of duplication, then further mutation. What is there in duplicated genes that stops them mutating new function in exactly the way that non-duplicated genes do?
mindspawn writes:
The fact that you freely admit that the high copy numbers could have been there already, without showing proof that they were not there in the original population, kinda makes your whole point redundant. The same logic applies to AMY1.
No. You asked me whether I had thought of the possibility that there were high copy numbers in the "original population", and I said that I had. I had thought of it both in terms of an evolutionary scenario at some point in our ancestral group, and in terms of your 6,500 year old biosphere. That's why I knew you'd have problems with the idea of a supergenome and deletions going down less than 300 generations.
mindspawn writes:
Another good point. But if there was original variety then this would explain it (say 4 DNA strands, each containing a different copy number) .
So, anyone inheriting a lower number could duplicate up to a higher number without getting sick from too much dosage. Gone is the claim of duplications always causing problems.
But now you're catching on to what your model would require. In reality, there has to be a lot of diversity in the population 6,500 years ago in order to fit what we see today. Have you tried finding anything out about Copy Number Variation in humans, and fitting the data into your model?
And have you found out in which region of the world humans have the greatest diversity yet, as I suggested you should? It isn't the Middle-East.
mindspawn writes:
I feel you need more scientific backing for your claims here:
Says the man who keeps claiming that fairies can make genes.
I have to point out that it is your claim that no evolutionary processes can increase the number of protein coding genes. It remains entirely unsupported.
mindspawn writes:
You seem to hint that an intelligent designer didn't do a good job, I would like to see how man can improve an organisms fitness in nature through artificial processes, or artificial proteins.
What I was pointing out is that there would be many ways that a designer could make an antifreeze protein that would not look like duplication. There is no need for a designer to design as if constrained to do things in the way that evolution does. Check out the history of anti-freeze in cars, and you'll see what I mean.
mindspawn writes:
You seem to hint that the antifreeze protein of our fish example is less functional because its a recent duplication that looks like other genes.
No. The original gene had developed a secondary function that was relatively inefficient. It gave some protection to the eggs, but did not produce an antifreeze for the bloodstream. But it couldn't mutate away from its primary (and very different) function. Do you understand the idea of EAC (Escape from Adaptive Conflict)?
mindspawn writes:
How dissimilar are the functions? If the functions of both genes are similar, this would account for the similarity in design.
The paper I thought you'd read before disagreeing with its conclusions.
I can't give you more detail than the research team.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by mindspawn, posted 02-27-2013 7:23 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 7:21 AM bluegenes has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 589 of 871 (692166)
02-28-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by Taq
02-27-2013 12:19 PM


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.
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
Nested Hierarchies
Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchiesrather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.
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).
Ask a designer why he does not force his designs into a nested hierarchy.
Rather evolutionists should explain why they sort design groupings into nested hierarchies with no favorable evidence to prefer the nested hierarchy concept.
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.
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.
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
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.
How? Where has anyone observed this supposed designer producing a single mutation? How does ID explain the nested hierarchy between what you call baramins?
You don't have an explanation. You have an empty assertion.
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.
How does ID explain Ka/Ks ratios in genes when comparing genomes between baramins?
I know nothing of this argument, could you explain more, or give me a link please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 12:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 12:35 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 590 of 871 (692169)
02-28-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by Taq
02-27-2013 6:16 PM


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.
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.
Why don't we see intermediates between mammals and birds, and why do we see intermediates between mammals and reptiles?
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).
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.
Could you kindly post your evidence that humans have produced fitness improvements under natural conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 6:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2013 12:19 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 593 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 12:40 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 591 of 871 (692170)
02-28-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by mindspawn
02-28-2013 12:12 PM


Evidence again
Why do you deny that an ID would design in groupings? Its the most obvious way to make designs.
Incorrect. A IDer could come up with any design, with no need to have even one individual resemble another, let alone any population or species with group similarities.
This is not what the evidence shows.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by mindspawn, posted 02-28-2013 12:12 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 1:18 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 592 of 871 (692171)
02-28-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by mindspawn
02-28-2013 11:51 AM


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).
They are groups WITHIN GROUPS of similarities. We do observe this with life. We do NOT observe this with cars. Cars do NOT fall into a nested hierarchy.
Nested hierarchies are much more than just sharing similarities. It is the PATTERN of shared similarities that matters.
Rather evolutionists should explain why they sort design groupings into nested hierarchies with no favorable evidence to prefer the nested hierarchy concept.
The nested hierarchies are a fact of nature, not a product of human invention. Linnaeus was the first to notice this pattern, and he lived well before Darwin was ever born. The nested hierarchies are a fact that evolution explains, while ID can not explain why these nested hierarchies exist.
these long term hierarchies are just an evolutionary assumption without evidence,
No, the nested hierarchies are an observed fact. They are not an assumption.
And 50 mutations per generation is not enough, you need 100.
That is 50 mutations PER INDIVIDUAL per generation. If there are 100,000 individuals in a population that is 5 million mutations within the population produced in a single generation. If only 100 become fixed that is a tiny, tiny percentage of the mutations that existed.
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.
We have never observed a designer copying a genome and changing the sequence. Not once.
I know nothing of this argument, could you explain more, or give me a link please?
You could start with the wiki page:
Ka/Ks ratio - Wikipedia
Ka is the number of non-synonymous mutations which are the changes in DNA sequence that change the amino acid sequence of the translated protein. Ks is the number of synonymous mutations. If you think about the word "synonym" it will make a bit more sense. Some amino acids are coded by more than one codon which differ at the third base (i.e. third base wobble). Therefore, some of the mutations that occur at the third base do not change the amino acid sequence because some codons are "synonyms".
So what does this have to do with comparing genomes? Well, you can see how genes differ with respect to non-synonymous (Ka) and synonymous (Ks) sites. Mutations that change amino acid sequences are often deleterious, so they will be selected against. Compare this to synonymous mutations which are most often neutral and will not be selected against. Therefore, if mutations are random and evolution is true you should see a difference in the accumulation of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations as determined by a comparison of genomes. Guess what? That's exactly what we see.
So why would a designer insert neutral mutations (i.e. synonymous mutations) just to make the genomes look evolved? How does that work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by mindspawn, posted 02-28-2013 11:51 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 3:17 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 593 of 871 (692172)
02-28-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by mindspawn
02-28-2013 12:12 PM


I'm the one saying the evidence fits both theories.
You say many things. The problem is that you can't back up what you say with evidence or reasoning.
Why do you deny that an ID would design in groupings?
Why do you deny that observed designs do not fall into nested hierarchies? Why do you also deny that there is no reason why a designer would be forced to fit designs into a nested hierarchy?
Nested hierarchies are not predicted by ID. They are predicted by evolution. That makes evolution the stronger theory.
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).
We also see crossovers that violate a nested hierarchy within the car group. This is what we expect from designed objects, a lack of a nested hierarchy.
For example, a crossover between mammals and birds would violate the nested hierarchy and would falsify evolution. We don't observe mammal to bird intermediates, just as the theory of evolution predicts. So how can we use ID to predict that we should not find any species with a mixture of bird and mammal features?
Could you kindly post your evidence that humans have produced fitness improvements under natural conditions.
Just look a the differences between humans and chimps. Those differences include mutations that are beneficial to chimps and humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by mindspawn, posted 02-28-2013 12:12 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 2:33 AM Taq has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 594 of 871 (692176)
02-28-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Blue Jay
02-27-2013 10:18 PM


But, until somebody does, it remains unexplained. That's a black mark on your hypothesis.
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 characteristics include numerous adaptations that enable them to survive in a wide range of environments. They live in nearly every habitat around the globe, from frigid polar regions, to turbulent seas, to dense tropical forests. Modern mammals range in stature from tiny field mice to massive whales and although various species may look drastically different, all mammals still share a unifying set of characteristics.
Mammals nurture their young, and are genetically inclined to do so::
Mutant mice that ignore their own infants, allowing them to die from neglect, provide new evidence that in mammals the very essence of mothering -- the ability to nurture the young -- has an important genetic component.
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 habits
http://www.rmc.edu/.../A1C4811B06EE4026954BF7B38CC6CA85.ashx
Few evolutionary transformations rival the complex neurobiological modifications accompanying the mammalian
transition to parenthood. Research conducted primarily in maternal rodents highlights the engagement
of multiple areas of the brain to initiate and maintain interest in resource-depleting vulnerable pups
throughout lactation. Interestingly, many modificationsmarking the transition tomotherhood result in adaptive
response options that persist well beyond the weaning of pups; specifically, adaptations such as cognitive flexibility,
emotional regulation and enhanced social attentiveness coincide with the parenthood transition and
haveemerged as defining characteristics of themost adaptivemammalian species. The paternal brain also results
in interesting modifications that, in some biparental species, mimic the effects observed in females. Taken together,
research suggests that the designation of parent is less of a categorical variable and more of a continuous
variable, with the quality of nurturing responses directed toward offspring influenced by many factors such
as predisposed sensitivity to reproductive hormones, nature and duration of exposure to offspring, number of
reproductive experiences, adequate resources, and composition of the social environment. Indeed, the transition
from an animal focused on self-preservation to one that is responsive to the needs of other animals, and the accompanying
increases in reproductive fitness, represent a significant evolutionary transition, or upgrade of sorts,
leading to a more diverse array of response options to meet the challenging demands of changing environmental
and social terrains.
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 structure of a four-chambered heart offers greater efficiency than the three- and two- chambered heart structures. A four-chambered heart separates oxgenated blood coming from the lungs from the partially deoxygenated blood returning from the body to the lungs to be re-oxygenated. The prevention of mixing of these two streams of blood ensures that tissues receive oxygen-rich blood which in turn enables sustained muscle activity and helps in maintaining constant body temperatures
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2013 10:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 2:16 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 610 by Blue Jay, posted 03-01-2013 11:16 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 595 of 871 (692179)
02-28-2013 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by mindspawn
02-28-2013 1:27 PM


Mammals nurture their young, and are genetically inclined to do so
Birds also nurture their young, such as in the case of penguins. Penguins would benefit greatly from mammary glands given that a parent has to stay with the young for months at a time while the other parent goes out for food.
You still have not explained why nested hierarchies make sense as part of ID. Not at all.
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 habits
How does fur, cusped cheek teeth, and three middle ear bones aid in nurturing young? What is it about feathers, lack of teeth, and a single middle ear bone that prevents a species from nurturing young? Why do penguins, who also nurture their young, not have mammary glands or a placenta? Why does the platypus, a mammal, lay reptillian like eggs?
he 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.
I am sure that bats would be stunned to hear this.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by mindspawn, posted 02-28-2013 1:27 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2013 2:53 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 598 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 1:35 AM Taq has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 596 of 871 (692180)
02-28-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by Taq
02-28-2013 2:16 PM


Designed to fly.
Taq writes:
mindspawn writes:
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.
I am sure that bats would be stunned to hear this.
And the Ratites* would be flabbergasted.
As for the poor confused penguin.....
*They could fly before the Fall.....then they fell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 2:16 PM Taq has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 597 of 871 (692201)
03-01-2013 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 591 by Coyote
02-28-2013 12:19 PM


Re: Evidence again
Incorrect. A IDer could come up with any design, with no need to have even one individual resemble another, let alone any population or species with group similarities..
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2013 12:19 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 11:12 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 598 of 871 (692202)
03-01-2013 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 595 by Taq
02-28-2013 2:16 PM


Birds also nurture their young, such as in the case of penguins. Penguins would benefit greatly from mammary glands given that a parent has to stay with the young for months at a time while the other parent goes out for food.
Do you honestly think that I am saying that mammals/birds/fish share no features? I never said anything dumb like that, they all have eyes too, so your shared features argument is completely a strawman argument, and not a very well thought out strawman argument.
You still have not explained why nested hierarchies make sense as part of ID. Not at all.
Yes I have, an intelligent designer would group features and DNA according to similar functions. Thus you would see specific groupings in many cases. What don't you understand??? Its a pretty simple point I am making, and explains the groupings. The exceptions are something a creative intelligent designer would do too, like the platypus, the penguin, the bat, the archaeopteryx, the mole.
How does fur, cusped cheek teeth, and three middle ear bones aid in nurturing young? What is it about feathers, lack of teeth, and a single middle ear bone that prevents a species from nurturing young? Why do penguins, who also nurture their young, not have mammary glands or a placenta? Why does the platypus, a mammal, lay reptillian like eggs?
I'm getting confused, some of you evolutionists are requiring an intelligent designer to show flexibility in design, some are requiring consistency. I feel both are logical. There are general groupings according to a "package" that works best. and there are exceptions that sometimes work well too. Remember there have been major extinction pressures as well, so combinations that did not work due to changing environments have largely died off.
I am sure that bats would be stunned to hear this.
I said birds are grouped for flight
Mammals are grouped for adaptability.
these are the general rules, with some rare exceptions.
I wasn't implying that birds are unable to adapt, or mammals are unable to fly. You are reading your own strawman argument into my words.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 2:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 11:23 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 599 of 871 (692203)
03-01-2013 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Taq
02-27-2013 12:33 PM


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?
They are not identical due to a slight fitness advantage.
The differences between cytochrome c fit into nests/grouping due to similarity of organisms. This is obvious. Similar DNA - similar organism.
What evidence, if observed, would not favor creationism/ID?
Nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 12:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 11:16 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 600 of 871 (692204)
03-01-2013 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 593 by Taq
02-28-2013 12:40 PM


We also see crossovers that violate a nested hierarchy within the car group. This is what we expect from designed objects, a lack of a nested hierarchy.
Not at all, you keep repeating this strawman argument. A designer would create groupings, and exceptions. Car designers do the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 12:40 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024