Constantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain

Brad, we were told off by the admin, so here's the offshoot concerning baramins and the evolving food chain which fits the evidence and removes the ToE.All the transitionals from the fossils are simply evidence that the food chain has evolved to be kept. Rather than mutation answering for improvements into niches, positions are assigned to baramins via supernatural design and creation, ex nihilo for all of time.However, we do see species die off, and we know that they weren't fit enough. It might look like they evolved, but what if evolution is infact based on the food chain? We see that the chain is needed for the circle of life. So if an important species dies off - the 'transitionals" would infact be the designer making improvements on the previous model. This would show an active creator, keen to the task. It would mean that the food chain evolves, but mutations via natural fantasy, would not be the case.Homo ergaster to homo sapien? No, but rather, the necessary entities in their assigned parameters untill God creates man ex nihilo as his intended and seperate spirit being of the earth.So species would be all creations. Some left to adapt within baramin standardization parameter possibilities. But then, the big changes would be a new design. We didn't evolve, we are all baramins. It just depends on how much God leaves the baramin to adapt, and when it dies out, there is the design via the new baramin!So the food chain would be that which evolves!!!!! Oh the irony! That all the evidence leads the scientists to evolving organisms but not an evolving YET fundamental and constant necessity and system called the food chain.Standard baramins would be left to adapt untill death. This means no rules, but that you think niche bahaviour is possible. But really bahaviour = assigned niche. Thus we see evolution, we really do, but not of animals via natural means, but evolution of the food chain, which would show the same evidence.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-12-2005 03:19 PM

Mike, you are beginning to sound like Brad! Of course I am the faith and Belief guy...so I know nothing about what you just said.Lets go with three brief questions which I beg you to answer for the Evo Panel.
1) What is the point that you wish to discuss and/or prove?
(One paragraph max answer)
2) Knowing the kindly Evos at EvC..do you really expect them to slap their heads and say "Aha! That Wiz has just blown the doors off of my thinking!"
3) For the benefit of the newbies and the lurkers...do you honestly think that anyone can understand you?Suggested Topic Heading: Did God design the Food Chain?4) Even if they CAN make themselves follow your logic...do you think that they WANT to?
Suggestion from the scientifically illiterate Phatboy:
Make a topic that they will want to understand. Don't upset their applecart. I.D. Creationists need not be martyrs in the science dome.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-13-2005 01:35 AM

Hey Phat, this should go in ID no question. There's no problems with it. I think many will understand what I mean. That evolution of species is indistinguishable from evolution of the food chain. The evidence favours both. But Phatboy good buddy, does it matter? I think their job and hobby is to refute this kind of topic. I enjoy it, they enjoy it, why not let us get on with it? I think they will give it some thought as I did, then refute it or try. If you open the topic I'll clarify anything you don't understand. I'm razor sharp today as well. OK Mikey...I'll remember what you said. Off to I.D. with you then.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-13-2005 06:00 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thanks. I desire refutations from Hambre, lil miss Shraffy, Crashfrog, and clever Dan.

Dear Mike,You use 'The food chain' as if it were some monolithic ideal set in stone. In fact many of the food webs we see in nature are very complex and dynamic. Why should adding such a variable factor make your hypothesis more reasonable.Apart from the bits about the food chain you just seem to be saying that all transitional fossils can be explained by 'goddidit', which is as successful a scientific explanation as it has ever been.If the food chain really were a constant then wouldn't we expect to see all the same levels appear at once. Shouldn't God have produced Primary consumers, Secondary consumers, tertiary consumers and degraders all at the same time? Or what happened to all the secondary and tertiary consumers of the stromatolites? Did he decide at some point that all of his unicellular 1ary/2ary/3ary consumers should suddenly be multicellular? Why? What possible reason would there be for such a procedure? Why not just poof everything into existence in 6 days but looking like there had been a series of evolving food chains?How much flexibility are you allowing for all of these roles? Would the baramin previous to the current position of wolves have to have been wolf like or could it have been something like a big cat? How big a jump is ok? Could you replace an algae with seaweed in one jump? how about going from a rabbit to a cow? Why have so many different food chains? If the food chain is the important thing why not just have enough species for one food chain and replace them as they die out? Or why not simply keep replacing them without changing them at all, why let the original food chain change in the first place?If god is simply replacing levels in the food chain as they become vacant then why do we see variations in the number of species over time?You just seem to repeating the old totally empty argument that God just made all of the transitional fossils so it looked as if evolution happened and tacking on some supposed rationale involving the food chain.TTFN,WK

Great. If you could ask him why I had to see a chiropractor for my back, get a root canal for my teeth, and buy glasses because my eyes are such crap, I'd appreciate it.

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

Because of the degenerating world. In the beginning it was good, but not now.Probably poorly designed human chairs for your back(sitting at the internet) and bad food for your teeth, not recommended by bible God. Don't eat any animals and sugar or have ANY sexual activity for fifteen years sayeth omni-mike. That means no more Eliza dvds, or you'll go blind.

So what? God's constantly correcting life, right? So why doesn't he get off his ass, already and start fixing some stuff?Pretty shit design for such an intelligent designer. Which explains quite a bit about the increasing level of franticness in your posts.Regardless, let's try a fun little experiment.However, we do see species die off, and we know that they weren't fit enough. It might look like they evolved, but what if evolution is infact based on the magic warts on my ass? We see that the chain is needed for the circle of life. So if an important species dies off - the 'transitionals" would infact be my magic ass warts making improvements on the previous model. This would show a raging case of ass warts, keen to the task. It would mean that the food chain evolves, but mutations via natural fantasy, would not be the case.The difference between this and the case you lay out for an intelligent designer is negligible. Saying "it's possible!" isn't enough... after all, it's also possible that my magic ass warts are responsible for all life.Without something to suggest that it probably is the case, your argument doesn't amount to more than a neat little philosophical musing.This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-13-2005 11:45 AM

It is not a shhhhit design Dan. Instead it was the fact that man is not excepted from the destructive OR productive powers where there is a mechanism of its own without any purpose. It is taking me some time to make a direct reply to Mike's words but I think I have all I need. I found Mayr seemingly conflating Kant's product production with species reproduction where Kant simply meant that IF a grassy Newton ascended our knoll here on Earth over grasses it would be BY DESIGN but that physics can abstract from that as soon as it appears, no matter that Darwin already showed a change without a necessarily ordered purpose as Mayr interpreted. The shit was that physicsts were already abstracting before we(biologists) gave them the design (the Oxford BioMath Dept wanted me to do graduate work on the supposition that we HAD this design or formality already but both Mayr and I know we do and did not so have (had) it) and it was not nasty that one need fear an evagelical anachronism as Mayr justly warns from,, but if one did-not have this broader view as Mike devolves, one, is hospitalizable for ONLY believeing in evolution where there is more than behavior done on purpose etc.Below is an orginal description of a man-made food chain. I will post directly to Mike as soon as I cobble together... when I describe how,,, baramins might be used where evos do not find this plan(Rose in Lifelines thought that Bonnerian complex development was lost on ultra-Darwinism)or other creationism. Specifically it is because genic selectionism can contain information (an evo concept) not accepted by some of the best minds in biology that it seems probable that only originally religously motivated reasons will found the expansion of predication this thought provides to standard evo nich constructors. So I am back to your first post in this thread where you ask for your glasses back etc.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2005 02:24 PM

Well, that clears that up.

quote:

---

However, we do see species die off, and we know that they weren't fit enough.

---

How do we tell the difference between poor fitness and an environmental change that is too swift for specialists to adapt to? Couldn't extinction be a function of swift environmental change instead of initial poor fitness? Could it also be a function of an emmigration of newer species that create an unbalanced ecosystem? I think the problem of extinction is more complex than you describe.

quote:

---

It might look like they evolved, but what if evolution is infact based on the food chain? We see that the chain is needed for the circle of life.

---

Not if every organism derived their energy from the sun, such as plants. A food chain is not necessary for life.

quote:

---

So if an important species dies off - the 'transitionals" would infact be the designer making improvements on the previous model.

---

Why not make all of the improvements in one fell swoop? What tests do we use to detect the difference between evolution and your design process? Why couldn't evolutionary processes produce the same end product?

quote:

---

So the food chain would be that which evolves!!!!!

---

Last I checked, it is organisms that make up the food chain. Therefore, any change to the food chain would have to involve a change in the organsisms making up the food chain. Evolution changes the organisms, and a new food chain is the RESULT of these changes, not the cause.

Oh that was just a recommendation from omni mike, I was making suggestions for you. While that was amusing, the difference is that an ass wart isn't a conscious designer. I can show you a definition of God if you want, but basically he's defined as the creator of all life, but I didn't find this definition for ass warts.

"Goddidit" is the biggest strawman, and it gets used on me verytime. Infact it's a distraction from the true fact that an evolving food chain, where God IS a necessary entity, is indistinguishable from natural evolution, where God isn't needed, because the evidence is the same.I ask, just why should I believe in evolving organisms instead of an evolving food chain? Have you an instance of no food chain? Remember, my premise is that every animal would be in place from the beginning. Exactly. It's a belief - that we either came naturally, or that all the design we see, is infact design by the designer. But why? Let's say that all the transitionals are a result of the designer modifying unsuccesful species, in order to keep the circle of life going? It's logical because then each organism will have a purpose. It's the same as the other circles in nature, circles work best, and to keep life going, God would surely have to keep the chain going, would he not? Otherwise a decrease in his intended organisms would happen, and less abundance.If many critters die then there would be a cambrian explosion of God's design.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 06:17 PM

That has to be the most obtuse thing ever!! You complain that 'Goddidit' is a strawman and then go on to state 'Goddidit' and say that there is absolutely nothing that could distinguish your 'theory' from natural evolution.That has to be the most vacuous argument I have ever seen. Becuase the evidence contradicts your evolving food chain. Why not actually address some of the specific questions I asked in my post rather than pretending that your theory is anything other than simply saying 'Goddidit' What evidence do you have for a food chain, with all the hierarchical levels we see today, for the pre-cambrian cyanobacteria which formed the Stromatolites? Would a chain consisting of nothing but bacteria be consistent with your theory?TTFN,WK