Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,215 Year: 5,472/9,624 Month: 497/323 Week: 137/204 Day: 7/4 Hour: 1/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009

Message 1075 of 1273 (547687)
02-21-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by Smooth Operator
02-21-2010 5:11 PM

Re: Numbers
SO writes to Percy:
It seems you are the one not understanding my argument. I never said that distant species should reproduce if CD is true. I simply said that they have never been seen to reproduce. So why should we BELIEVE that they once could? Based on what evidence? I haven't seen any.
Distinct species have never reproduced. That has never been part of the Theory of Evolution.
Common descent with modification does not imply that, once diverged, distinct species could reunite into one. Once diverged, they can never reunite. Never ever.
Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.
SO continues:
He claims that CD is consistent with the idea that those animals long ago could reproduce and that they lost that ability over time as they became more distant. So? The fact that they can't reproduce is also consistent with the idea that they NEVER could reproduce in the first place!
That is not the claim of Common Descent. If you back far enough, the ancestors of bears were very different and back even further, they weren't even mammals. And the alligator's ancestors weren't alligators either. If you go back far enough in your time machine, eventually you find some primitive animal whose descendants began to slowly divide into isolated reproductive groups, and eventually one of the paths down these isolated branches led eventually to bears and, among the many others paths of divergence, one of them led eventually to alligators. This primitive animal is the common ancestor, but it is not a bear and it is not an alligator. When this primitive animal was alive, there were no such things as bears and alligators.
Now, despite your claim that reproductive inability is also consistent with a past that never occurred, it has no value to the argument of CD, which has never been falsified to date, after 150 years of increasingly more accurate scientific investigation. Every single verified study has supported nested hierarchy with it's evidence.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-21-2010 5:11 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-21-2010 6:55 PM xongsmith has replied

Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009

Message 1083 of 1273 (547735)
02-22-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1077 by Smooth Operator
02-21-2010 6:55 PM

Common Descent
My brother has already nuked you to death on this, but I feel I should answer your questions as a matter of courtesy.
Distinct species have never reproduced. That has never been part of the Theory of Evolution.
Even when they were one species a long time ago?
The common ancestor was a completely different species. You are in error when you use the word "they" as in "they were one species". At that time in the past, the "they" did not exist at all.
Why not? have you ever heard of convergent evolution?
You are making another error. Convergent evolution NEVER means genetic compatibility for producing viable offspring. The genes, being very different, will not allow it. You are being duped into thinking that because they look similar & occupy similar niches in their ecologies, that the species difference magically vanishes. But RAZD even shows you pictures....
Great story! Now all you need to do is show me the evidence! Now, you didn't just make that story up in your head right as we speak, now did you? You do have the evidence, right?
Yeah. It's called "Reading this forum completely along with it's references."
quote:Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.
Because it would ruin the theory of common descent, you idiot.
Again, I suggest you read this forum in it's entirety.
Neither has CD any value to the theory that everything was created in it's present state 3 minutes ago. And this awesome theory has also never been falsified.
Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, irrelevant and a childish squeaky toy that should never be used in an argument, even by such luminaries as Straggler himself.
Unlike the nested hierarchy of all life.
You must be new here. Please observe the following links I already shown few days ago.
Look, dude, you can find anything on the internet - you can even find people who believe the sun goes around the earth (oops - off topic).
Your little paragraphs you quoted only show that the current picture of the situation has been getting better & better. Things change and scientists accept new findings that change things. The underlying concept remains intact. You are accusing a car built to be able to change direction of travel of actually changing direction of travel!!
Oh the nerve of it to change direction of travel!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-21-2010 6:55 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2010 7:56 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 1091 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-25-2010 12:32 AM xongsmith has replied

Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009

Message 1114 of 1273 (548401)
02-27-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1091 by Smooth Operator
02-25-2010 12:32 AM

Re: Common Descent
SO writes:
My question is, why can convergent evolution not make 2 different species genetically similar? What is stopping evolution from doing so?
Pretty much the same thing that is stopping all of the air molecules in your room from suddenly all being in one half of the room.
What about the beefalo, then?
Well, lest I get into a True Scotsman retreat, I'll just say I was wrong.
Perhaps I would point out that in these cases, it was by Intelligent Design via Homo Sapiens.
SO brings up
inside we find:
It is now believed that Pax 6, even before the origin of eyes, had an unknown function in eyeless organisms, and was subsequently recruited for its role as an eye organizer.
I would strenuously object to the words "recruited for its role", but rather something closer to "given the role".
My reading of the site leads me to believe that they dont have the "Tree of Life" properly defined in their heads, especially since their own words regarding Pax 6 would seem to imply common ancestry.
Continuing from the site:
Mayr tries to explain away this extreme genetic convergent similarity by appealing to hidden potentials of the genotype. Does this sound compatible with the kind of blind, unguided, and even random processes inherent in neo-Darwinian evolution? No. This sounds like a goal-directed process intelligent design.
No - this just means that that particular sort of result is heavily favored when it randomly comes up.
The first is that the development of homologous structures can be governed by different genes and can follow different developmental pathways. The second discovery, conversely, is that sometimes the same gene plays a role in producing different adult structures. Both of these discoveries seem to contradict neo-Darwinian expectations.
No, no, no. You cant have your cake and not have your cake. All the research shows is that there are ZILLIONS of ways biology evolves. Fascinating.
Just because they haven't gone back far enough in the "Bush" of life doesn't mean they've falsified it.
BTW Bush Of Life is probably a better way to describe it rather than insisting on only 2 branchings at a time.
The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.
Yeah - it's way more complex than the untrained peanut gallery observers can imagine. There lots of systems that have "except when it doesn't" clauses that - upon careful educated scrutiny - turn out to be reasonable conclusions based the data to date.
No surprises here.
What I see in this site is an unbelievable amount of smugness on the authors. You can almost see them rubbing their hands and nodding to each other with grins "Oh - we got them now!" LOL
They haven't made a point at all.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1091 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-25-2010 12:32 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1126 by Smooth Operator, posted 03-02-2010 5:01 PM xongsmith 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