Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

The part I quoted was about two things: systems being stuck and not crossing over and elements being good enough instead of optimal.My question was about these two things.

Flight isn't a physical characteristic. If you look at the different adaptations for flight you will see that those adaptations stay within a tree-like structure. For example:Those are two different limbs, and they stay within each of their branches of the tree of life. You don't see any birds with a bat-like wing, and you don't see any bats with a bird-like wing. You don't see any bats with flow through lungs, and you don't see any birds with tidal lungs. You don't see any birds with hair, and you don't see any bats with feathers. There are no cross-overs of flight adaptations. Because evolution only has to be better than the competitors. This wouldn't be the case if life was separately created by an all knowing and all powerful deity.

Of course we don't see bats with bird-like wings. Bats have denser mammal bones. They have wings well suited and adapted to their physique. If you expected anything else from design, you have some serious misunderstandings about biology and physics.

Why would denser bones prevent bats from having a bird-like wing? Why wouldn't a bird-like wing be well suited to the bat physique? Why couldn't bats have feathers? Why couldn't bats have flow through lungs? Why couldn't birds have teats to feed their young? Why can't bats lay eggs with calcified shells? No, it isn't I who has the misunderstanding. Humans regularly design organisms that violate a nested hierarchy, and they are perfectly fine. Humans regularly replace mouse genes with human genes in research settings, as one example. Human designs like cars, bicycles, and planes don't fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why life should fall into a nested hierarchy if species/kinds were separately created.

Yes, better than competitors is sufficient. But at what level of optimality would that be? Any level that we observe, you could say that is better than enough of the competitors. This does not really add anything of significance to test common ancestry of all life.

Replacing genes is not designing organisms at all. That is making alterations to existing organisms at most.You do understand that hollow bones are easier to lift than denser bones, do you?Of course bats could have feathers and lay eggs. But then we would call them birds, not bats. You are making up hypothetical situations that are not there, and therefor totally irrelevant.

and you are a troll.

Yes, it is. Then why do bats have denser bones? Why didn't the designer give them lighter bones? No, we wouldn't. They would still have other mammal features like three middle ear bones, cusped cheek teeth, etc. They would have a mixture of mammal and bird features. So why don't we see any? Why don't we see the billions of possible combinations of features that would violate a nested hierarchy? Why do we only see one pattern out of billions that evolution would produce?

quote:

---

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882

---

Why can't humans have the eyesight of a hawk and the smelling ability of dogs? These aren't even optimal, and yet humans don't have them. Why?Why does 90% of our genome accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift? I suspect that you would reject any and all evidence, no matter how significant it is.What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes?What pattern of similarities or differences in genomes would you accept as evidence for shared ancestry?Is there any evidence you would accept?

Similarities and differences are a given, in the genotype as well as in the phenotype. You seem to think that close similarity can only mean common ancestry. This is false for sure. Many things can look very similar without having any common origin. But you deny such basic facts and reality, rather sticking to your flawed logic.

Bats can fly perfectly fine. So what is your problem? Ligher bones solves a problem that does not exist. Good luck with your flawed backwards logic.

Hahaha, you must think you are so smart.

Arguing that a god could have done something differently is in no way evidence that a god could not have done it the way it is.

Speaking of flawed logic, have you found your god, yet?Still can't present any evidence for your god while you are unsuccessfully trying to counter evolution's mountain of clear and superior evidence. Not an envious task.What do think you are going to replace evolution with? More hidden majik? Like your hidden (non-existent) god?

So this seems to be your line of reasoning:If universal common ancestry were true, then it would have produced some nested hierarchy. So any nested hierarchy that we find, must be a result of common ancestry. Because if it came from design, it could have been designed in different ways.No wonder you think the nested hierarchy is so great, while it really isn't. Your reasoning is totally flawed. Don't expect me to stoop down to your level of "brilliance" and accept your false theories.