Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 1:57 AM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
4243
...
59NextFF
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 601 of 871 (692205)
03-01-2013 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by PaulK
02-28-2013 2:15 AM


But if you would like to agree with me that the conserved elements aren't evidence either way then we will have made progress.

Conserved elements over millions of years favors the ID view.

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.

Taq has been repetitive that an ID designer wouldn't design in groupings, Its obvious and observed that is what intelligent designers actually do. Others are saying there are exceptions like the penguin, bat, etc that do not conform to groupings and this somehow contradicts ID. Its obvious and observed that intelligent designers actually do make crossover products between their groupings as well as designing in groupings.

Other than these two strawman arguments that are ironically opposite to eachother, have you got any evidence against ID?

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.

Boring strawman argument. Repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread. No clear example of any "nested tree" has been given which in any manner that contradicts the ID position. So your repetitive "nested tree" example is based on the louder more numerous kids shouting down the others in the nursery playground, unfortunately you have supplied no studies on intelligent designers that show that they do not design products in groupings. You have showed no examples of particular nested trees. (someone mentioned the reptilian mole - except the mole isn't even reptilian).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2013 2:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2013 1:04 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 602 of 871 (692206)
03-01-2013 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by Taq
02-28-2013 12:35 PM


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.

Could you kindly explain further what you mean by groups within groups. The Berkeley description of nested hierarchies did not seem to be describing it that way. Please give examples of the patterns you are referring to in order to clarify your meaning.

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.

Your stats still make no sense. There is no logic in looking at an entire population's mutations when trying to explain the retaining of mutations over 600 000 generations.

We have never observed a designer copying a genome and changing the sequence. Not once

I know, but abiogenesis has never been observed either. this thread is not about comparing theories on origins, its about how novel features came about. Can you prove the nested groupings reflect evolution rather than ID?

You could start with the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka/Ks_ratio
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".

This argument is based on evolutionary circular reasoning. Differences between genes are assumed to be mutations, and ratios are determined according to those assumptions. ID is not considered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Taq, posted 02-28-2013 12:35 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2013 3:33 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 603 of 871 (692207)
03-01-2013 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 580 by Taq
02-27-2013 5:51 PM


So why would a designer be limited to the pattern of shared and derived features that evolution would produce? Why does ID look exactly like evolution when it doesn't have to?

Is this an argument from nagging? Bombard with numerous repetitive questions, and hope he goes away? What you see is EXACTLY what a designer is observed to do. Make groupings, and make exceptions to the groupings as well. Just the fact that you guys are split between those who think its logical that there should be clear groupings and those that think its logical that there should only be unmatching organisms reveals that both are logical projections of what a designer would do, and vehicle manufacturing bears these same patterns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Taq, posted 02-27-2013 5:51 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 11:25 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 604 of 871 (692210)
03-01-2013 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 588 by bluegenes
02-28-2013 10:24 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
Artificial gene amplification reveals an abundance of promiscuous resistance determinants in Escherichia coli.

The very place they chose to artificially amplify genes, is the very place that nature already has multiple gene copies in most organisms (areas of disease resistance/antibodies/toxin resistance). So it was no arbitrary position that they chose to amplify, they were copying nature's ability to amplify disease/toxin resistance through multiple copies. Now that I look at the study, it could merely be a reflection on nature's preference for multiple copies when under selective pressure. Just because nature SELECTS multiple gene copies for amplification under pressure, does not mean that nature PRODUCES multiple gene copies under pressure.

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/2/525.full
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?

I like this study, probably the first to support your position, providing the original population was devoid of duplications, which appears to be the case. I am cautious and will reserve my judgment as I look into this more, but thanks for the study. As you say neofunctionalization or changed genes is a possibility ( I hope you know how extremely rare this is, I have only ever heard of two cases, both being doubtful) and so even if not observed, it is theoretically possible that a duplicate coding gene can then gain a new function.

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.

Ok so you have thought about the possibility that the high copy numbers could have already been in nature. Have you got any evidence that they were not there already?

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?

No , those with a higher number delete down. Those with ten, delete down to 7 if there is no positive selection. Those with 5 , delete down to 3. My model does not have duplications, it has deletions, and not too many either. the same logic applies to humans.

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.

Yes, I did find out. Its the Middle East. I have yet to see your arguments against haplotypes reflecting diversity, and against the Middle East having the greatest diversity. My evidence is that through mitochrondial haplotype studies, the Middle East has the greatest diversity.

Its only under evolutionary assumptions that the number of mutations in a population relates to how old that population is. Haplogroup diversity makes more sense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012916/

Such studies typically try to make inferences about population history based on the age of haplogroups (estimated from the number of mutations that have accumulated among mtDNA lineages belonging to the haplogroup) and their geographic distribution. However, making demographic inferences about populations (such as population size changes, population divergence times, migration/admixture events, etc.) from phylogeographic studies is problematic because different phylogenies can arise under the same demographic history, and vice versa (Nielsen and Beaumont 2009). Some studies equate ages of haplogroups with ages of populations, even though a haplogroup that arose a long time ago may have been introduced into a population only recently. Moreover, the method commonly employed to estimate the age of mtDNA haplogroups, namely, the ρ statistic, has been shown to often give misleading results for simulated data (Cox 2008).

The paper I thought you'd read before disagreeing with its conclusions.
I can't give you more detail than the research team.

I did read it, just couldn't remember all the details. Honestly, if they don't say how similar the genes are then its not supporting evidence for evolution. The one with two genes seem far fitter, it seems that the fish with one gene is the one struggling with new and imperfect adaptations. ie the SAS gene has adapted some antifreeze ability to cope with the lack of the antifreeze gene. Anyway its not conclusive in any manner.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2013 10:24 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2013 5:28 AM mindspawn has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 605 of 871 (692221)
03-01-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 5:46 PM


...off by 10, but very important point...

Humans?
1) We experienced rapid adaptation from about three main family groupings about 4500 years ago.

2) Do you mean Lucy , lol
Or Neanderthals - they are just humans, nothing more, nothing less.

1) From Science and the Bible, both, we have evidence of three Racial Stocks emerging from Africa at exactly the same time that all other humanoids were becoming extinct. This is an important set of correspondences, that both religion and science agree on the basics:

A All other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years ago

B Modern Homo sapiens appeared 40,000 years ago in three flavors some call Hamites, Japhethians, and Shemians, while science referred to them as Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongolians.

C Modern studies of race by geneticists support that these early initial three racial stocks differentiated into seven genetically identifiable groups living today.

D Genetic evidence indicates that the original three racial stocks that lead to the seven kinds of people alive today are all related to just on man, presumably a Noah, who lived 40,000 years ago.

This is a lot of evidence in support of ancient reports that tell the same story.

2) Yes, Paleontology refers to the 22 humanoid creatures that they list as the 22 now extinct humans in our ascent to modern man as humans.
They were.
They were just not as evolved as we are today, but they walked upright, had their thumbs like our own, and every cell in their body had 23 Chromosomes, including one pair that was actually two sets fused together.

The ancient writings that report the "flood" out-of-Africa, occurring 40 thousand years ago, itemized and enumerated descriptions of the 22 humans which went extinct. In that listing many points are in line with our own discoveries and knowledge about those previous 22 links in our ascent.

Your argument is an excellent example of how ID and YECs ought better align their arguments for Scripture with the Scientific Facts rather than fudge by 10 the time lines as you attempt to so do here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by mindspawn, posted 02-27-2013 5:46 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Eli, posted 03-01-2013 10:31 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 628 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 2:11 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 606 of 871 (692225)
03-01-2013 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 546 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 7:23 AM


...right about the wrong things...

1) 3 million base pairs appeared in perfect order out of a pool of chemicals, even though those chemicals are not found in non-biological nature? hahahahaha you living in a fantasy world and you dare to point at creationists??

Abiogenesis involves even more faith without evidence than believing in a creator ever did.

You have a vicious circle to explain, you NEED biological life to create biological life, just that in itself points to a designer.

2) I need links again, if you insist on saying abiogenesis is more plausible than creation prove it!

I prefer to leave abiogenesis and creation out of discussions and look at current genomes and see if they are a reflection of baramins or a long term common ancestor.
I feel that's a true discussion on evolution instead of origins, but if you guys keep insisting on discussing origins, bring it on!

Your are right, that Science has no concrete evidence to support Abiogenesis,...

... but you are wrong not to agree with them on this Spontaneous Generation which was that Act-of-God where he said, "Let the earth bring forth (bacteria, i.e.; NOTE: the Hebrew word is not grass but means "first sprouts of life on Earth"), "grass," (from which condition shall evolve) the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, (all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Eli, posted 03-01-2013 10:25 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 629 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 2:20 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(1)
Message 607 of 871 (692230)
03-01-2013 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 10:08 AM


Re: ...right about the wrong things...
Note: The Hebrew word actually does mean grass and does not mean "first sprouts of life on earth."

You've told that non-truth several times. It doesn't mean bacteria.

Besides, bacteria were not the first life on earth anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 10:08 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 608 of 871 (692231)
03-01-2013 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 9:51 AM


Re: ...off by 10, but very important point...
A All other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years ago

B Modern Homo sapiens appeared 40,000 years ago in three flavors some call Hamites, Japhethians, and Shemians, while science referred to them as Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongolians.

C Modern studies of race by geneticists support that these early initial three racial stocks differentiated into seven genetically identifiable groups living today.

D Genetic evidence indicates that the original three racial stocks that lead to the seven kinds of people alive today are all related to just on man, presumably a Noah, who lived 40,000 years ago.

That is neither a claim of any academic source or found in the bible.

This is a lot of evidence in support of ancient reports that tell the same story.

2) Yes, Paleontology refers to the 22 humanoid creatures that they list as the 22 now extinct humans in our ascent to modern man as humans.
They were.
They were just not as evolved as we are today, but they walked upright, had their thumbs like our own, and every cell in their body had 23 Chromosomes, including one pair that was actually two sets fused together.

The ancient writings that report the "flood" out-of-Africa, occurring 40 thousand years ago, itemized and enumerated descriptions of the 22 humans which went extinct. In that listing many points are in line with our own discoveries and knowledge about those previous 22 links in our ascent.

Again, these are not claims of science and there is no ancient writing that reports a flood out of Africa occurring 40,000 years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 9:51 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7935
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 609 of 871 (692238)
03-01-2013 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 597 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 1:18 AM


Re: Evidence again
That's what I said, thanks for confirming my point

So you agree that ID does not predict a nested hierarchy? That seems to be what you are saying.

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.

We observe that intelligent designs do NOT fall into nested hierarchies. Cars do not fall into nested hierarchies. Computers do not fall into nested hierarchies. Airplanes do not fall into nested hierarchies.

There would be groupings and some design duplication between designs that have similar function, anything less is stupid design, not intelligent design.

That is not what we see with life, however. We do not see designs shared across similar functions. We observe that bats share more features with whales than they do with birds even though bats and birds fill a very similar function. Bats have a tidal lung system with a diaphragm just like whales, but completely unlike birds. Bats are placental and produce milk just like whales, and completely unlike birds. Bats have three middle ear bones just like whales, but unlike birds. Even the structure of the wings between bats and birds are not shared.

Nested hierarchies are stupid from an ID perspective because they prevent you from using design elements where they would make the most sense. They prevent you from mixing and matching design elements where they would be the most useful for no other reason than to make it look like life evolved.

So in essence your whole argument that design and nested features are not compatible is a strawman argument.

We are not crediting you with these arguments, so it is not a strawman argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 1:18 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 03-01-2013 11:53 AM Taq has responded
 Message 630 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 2:28 AM Taq has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 610 of 871 (692239)
03-01-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by mindspawn
02-28-2013 1:27 PM


Hi, Mindspawn.

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.

Obviously, we're not thinking on the same wavelengths here. Let me see if I can figure out why we're not seeing eye-to-eye on this.

The way I understand it, the Designer designed a functioning biosphere by creating a whole bunch of organisms. The Designer had to make sure the biosphere was properly balanced, in order to maintain its stability over the long term. So, the Designer had to purpose-build organisms to fit all the different ecological niches.

So, when I think of Intelligent Design, I imagine the Designer sitting down in a garage with an unlimited assortment of parts, and saying, "Now I need a baramin of apex predators. What traits would an apex predator need?"

Then I see that, in one case, the Designer apparently needed to create a baramin of cursorial, terrestrial herbivores. So, the Designer took a bird's heart, a bird's brain, a bird's backbone, a bird's ear bones, a bird's legs, a bird's feathers, a bird's wings, a bird's beak, a bird's eggs, and a bird's lungs, and made an ostrich.

In another case, the Designer apparently needed to create a baramin of nocturnal, flying insectivores. So, He took a mammal's heart, a mammal's brain, a mammal's backbone, a mammal's ear bones, a mammal's legs, a mammal's hair, a mammal's arms, a mammal's teeth, a mammal's placenta, and a mammal's lungs, and made a bat.

This baffles me. I don't understand why the Designer would do this. If all those bird characteristics are specially-designed for flight performance, why didn't the Designer use any of them when purpose-building a flying baramin? And why did the Designer use all of them when purpose-building a non-flying baramin?

To me, it's like the Designer needed to build a car, so He used an airplane's wings, ailerons, retractable landing gear, pressurized cabin, rudder, propeller, yoke and flight instruments to build it, even though He already had all the necessary car parts right there in His garage.

From a design perspective, it's an extremely odd methodology. It confuses me that such a strange pattern would be so prevalent, when it makes so very little sense.

Edited by Blue Jay, : Grammar edit


-Blue Jay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by CoolBeans, posted 03-01-2013 2:37 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 631 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 3:07 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7935
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 611 of 871 (692240)
03-01-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 2:25 AM


They are not identical due to a slight fitness advantage.

Evidence please. The yeast chugged along just fine with an exact copy of human cytochrome c.

The differences between cytochrome c fit into nests/grouping due to similarity of organisms.

This is also unsupported. You need evidence to back this claim.

Similar DNA - similar organism.

That doesn't explain why we see a nested hierarchy. Cars have similarities, but they don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

Taq: What evidence, if observed, would not favor creationism/ID?

mindspawn: Nothing.

Then your arguments are pretty meaningless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 2:25 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7935
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 612 of 871 (692242)
03-01-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 1:35 AM


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 shared features should fall into a nested hierarchy if ID is true given that shared features in known human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, nor is there any design reason why they should.

Yes I have, an intelligent designer would group features and DNA according to similar functions.

But that is not what we see. Features are not grouped by similar functions. That is the whole point. Squid and fish exist in the very same environments and niches. Squid and fish both have a camera type of eye. However, the actual designs of those eyes are completely different. They are not shared. Instead, they fall into groups based on evolutionary history, NOT SIMILAR FUNCTION.

There are general groupings according to a "package" that works best.

Another empty argument. You have yet to show that feathers and three middle ear bones would not work.

I said birds are grouped for flight
Mammals are grouped for adaptability.

So why do penguins and ostriches share more features with a hummingbird than they do with terrestrial mammals?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 1:35 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7935
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 613 of 871 (692243)
03-01-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by mindspawn
03-01-2013 4:10 AM


What you see is EXACTLY what a designer is observed to do.

Since when? Show me a set of human designs that falls into a nested hierarchy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by mindspawn, posted 03-01-2013 4:10 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 614 of 871 (692244)
03-01-2013 11:31 AM


Topic Reminder
The topic is the origin of novelty in an evolutionary context. Creationist views on how novelty might come about or anything else are off-topic. I don't mind if the digression continues for a couple more pages or so, but if it needs more discussion than that maybe someone could propose a new thread, or provide a link to an appropriate existing thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 12:07 PM Admin has responded

    
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 615 of 871 (692249)
03-01-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 609 by Taq
03-01-2013 11:12 AM


Re: Evidence again
Taq writes:

Cars do not fall into nested hierarchies.

This is more a response for Mindspawn than for you Taq, but I really wanted to hit on this point for Mindspawn, because his analogy is absolutely terrible.

Mindspawn, you keep claiming that cars fall into a nested heirarchy, but this is definitely not the case. You speak of specific "types" of cars, such as the SUVs, the Trucks, the Sedans, the Off-road vehicles. Then, you proceed to mention crossover cars, where two "types" of cars are brought together. However, unlike in biological systems worldwide, when a car manufacturer is creating a crossover car, they use the optimal system designed for the purpose they would like the crossover to have. Imagine them combining the features of an SUV and an off-road vehicle. The goal is to create a crossover with the size and power of an SUV, but with the ability to go off-road close to equal of a Jeep. Would the car manufacturer begin to design an entirely new system of four wheel drive, or utilize the system that has already been proven to work? As seen in any crossover, humans or intelligent designers reuse designs that have already been proven in the field. They take the extant four-wheel drive system and install it into the new crossover. This leaves the SUVs power because the engine has not changed, but adds the four wheel capability exactly similar to that of the Off-Road vehicles. It is the same system, not a redesign.

Now, let's look at your intelligent designer. The cephalopod eye was extant long before the mammalian eye came around. Also, the design of this eye does not have the blind spot flaw that is evident in the mammalian eye. So, when this intelligent designer decided to create the human "Baramin", he or she decided, unlike a human car designer, to completely redesign the eye. Not only did he or she decide to do a redesign, but he or she chose to redesign the eye to non-optimum standards. Why, would an intelligent designer, creating a crossover (like your car analogy) redesign a system to make it worse? Your own analogy shows the issues within ID and with "Baramins".

As to the topic of novel features and functions, I believe that you have been shown substantial evidence that these mutations occur and I think you even buy into them. You simply have to cover your tracks by saying that they were already present in the genome because saying otherwise would go against your beliefs. You have been shown the Pocket Mice, the E. Coli, and the evidence for the evolution of the middle ear. Now, you must remember that we have only been focusing on evolution for a mere .0000045% of the history of the Earth and .0000056% of the time life has been present. And, in that time we have already shown that mutations occur, and we can provide evidence of this fact. However, no one has yet to discover a mechanism that stops mutation at a certain point, other than the weeding out done by selection. So, looking at the precentage of time we've been looking, plus no known stopping mechanism we can see that this data can be extrapolated, whether or not it defies your beliefs.

The last thing I want to ask of you Mindspawn is that what would you consider anti-evidence of ID? I told you that for evolution finding a barrier to further mutation would be a good example of something that would throw a wrench in evolutionary theory (although I think the entire theory could be reworked to incorporate this new fact, although with limitations). So, what would falsify ID? You are discussing an all-powerful being, is there anything that this creator could not do? If not, then who on Earth cares about it, because there is nothing we can test for. Why? Because every answer can come down to, well, the all-powerful creator wanted to make it look like a nested heirarchy or the all-powerful creator wanted humans to be limited in some way so redesigned the eye to achieve this. When your cause can do anything, you have zero predictive power.


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a persons body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 11:12 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by Taq, posted 03-01-2013 12:11 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded
 Message 632 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 5:28 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
4243
...
59NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019