Tomkins latest shenanigans - vitellogenin

[46AND2]

dp

 

[Hieronymus]

How many times must it be shown to you that this is a bad analogy?

Just once, i'm still waiting.

Why are bird wings never found on bats, like different engines are found in different models?

Why are only convertibles convertible?
Why does a boat have a propeller and a car by the same designer and manufacturer does not?
The still share many parts though, and both usually run on the same kind of fuel, using oxigen to combust.
"Yes, but you didn't mention boats before."
Allright, but does that matter?
No.
Let's say "vehicles" then, like you say "animals".
And let's say "humanity" as the designer and manufacturer, like it is IRL.

Why are shark tails different from dolphin tails, instead of like chassis shared between different vehicles?

There are many kinds of chassis, also there are monocoques.
Motorbikes have a frame, many designs are used.

Evolution explains this.

It doesn't explain big differences.

A common designer does not.

Of course it does.
Just like humanity uses several ways to solve the similar problems.
If only humanity was as talented as dead unconscious things....

 

[lifepsyop]

No one thinks they evolved from cynodonts.

So what? What's stopping those evolutionists from placing birds closer to cynodonts/therapsids if they find animal groups with bird/mammal traits. (Evolutionists even played with this idea within the last few decades.)

You still haven't offered any explanation.

Again, finding a fossil with derived bird and mammal features would be viewed as a clear violation of the nested hierarchy.

If you don't accept my answers, then don't ask the questions.

You haven't even remotely backed your claim up. You just threw out another vague statement with no explanation.

 

[46AND2]

Just once, i'm still waiting.
Why are only convertibles convertible?
Why does a boat have a propeller and a car by the same designer and manufacturer does not?

What do these examples have to do with my "wings" example? A bird and a bat both have wings. A convertible and a T-top are apples to oranges. A propeller and not-propeller are apples to oranges.

The still share many parts though, and both usually run on the same kind of fuel, using oxigen to combust.

Bat and bird wings don't even share the same parts, and don't function the same, either.

"Yes, but you didn't mention boats before."
Allright, but does that matter?
No.
Let's say "vehicles" then, like you say "animals".
And let's say "humanity" as the designer and manufacturer, like it is IRL.
There are many kinds of chassis, also there are monocoques.
Motorbikes have a frame, many designs are used.

Yes, many different designs by many different designers. Not sure how this helps you.

It doesn't explain big differences.

Like what?

Of course it does.

So far, you have utterly failed to show how.

Just like humanity uses several ways to solve the similar problems.
If only humanity was as talented as dead unconscious things....

Again, MANY designers. You sure you aren't polytheistic?

 

[lifepsyop]

How many times must it be shown to you that this is a bad analogy?

I've never heard this argument explained sufficiently by evolutionists. It's usually a bizarre tour of convoluted logic and metaphysical assertions.

Why are bird wings never found on bats, like identical engines are found in different models?

The obvious answer here is because birds aren't bats. Putting bird wings on bats would require drastically altering their entire physiology, locomotion, and behavior, to the point where they obviously wouldn't be classified as bats. It's like asking: "Why don't we ever find a Lamborghini that's really a pick-up truck?" It's a nonsensical question. What is your point with this?

And we do find identical, or at least highly similar, structures all over the kingdom of life. And when we do, you simply claim those are similar because of shared ancestry. You're just cherry-picking out known differences after the fact and demanding to know why they're different.

Why are shark tails different from dolphin tails, instead of like chassis shared between different vehicles?

If shark and dolphin tails are completely equal and interchangeable with regards to fitness, then what is the barrier preventing a dolphin from "evolving" a shark-like tail? If instead the tails are particularly well-matched to the fitness of their hosts, then why would a designer mix them up?

Evolution explains this. A common designer does not.

Wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

What do these examples have to do with my "wings" example? A bird and a bat both have wings. A convertible and a T-top are apples to oranges. A propeller and not-propeller are apples to oranges.

Come on, make a little effort to understand before you decide to disagree.
(but i guess we should all do that)

Wings for flight then.
Let's forget about hydrofoils.

Humanity has designed and manufactured jets, propeller-planes, delta wings, flying wings (fussilage = wing) all to be able to fly, yet in very different packages.
They all use (a) wing(s).

Yes, many different designs by many different designers. Not sure how this helps you.

Really?
You admit it's designed and manufactured though, right?

Well,
THAT"S THE WHOLE POINT !!

 

[Hieronymus]

Humanity is singular by the way.

 

[lifepsyop]

Actually, there isn't. Cars don't tend to act like evolved creatures. If you tried to use objective phylogenetic traits to fit cars into a nested heirarchy, you'd end up with a huge mess, because cars don't behave similarly, even from the same designer.

No you wouldn't end up with a huge mess. Simply arrange the hierarchy based on the level commonality of structures. There may be some problematic sub-groups where more subjective interpretations must be invoked but this happens with Evolution also. For example, birds aren't even placed within the major group of dinosaurs with certainty. Your own experts ponder whether bird similarity to theropods may be the result of convergence. (and not shared ancestry)

What appear to be very minor changes can be extreme shifts beneath the hood, and one model of car can be drastically different from others.

So what? Just weight those minor changes less than the major features when constructing a nested hierarchy.

The same way evolutionists will interpret, say, conflicting bone morphology as the product of independent convergences in order to preserve a favored phylogeny. They will assign much less weight/significance to such traits.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is when they come from the same designer and factory, like cars.

Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. Life does.

For the thousandth time, it is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution, not simply shared features. A designer creating separate species/kinds could mix and match from other kinds, producing chimeras all over the place. A species could contain an exact copy of a gene from birds, an exact copy of a gene from mammals, and an exact copy of a gene from reptiles. There is absolutely no reason to expect a nested hierarchy with a designer creating separate kinds.

The only pattern that evolution can produce is a nested hierarchy. What do we observe? A nested hierarchy. Creationism does not predict this pattern. Evolution does.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you wouldn't end up with a huge mess. Simply arrange the hierarchy based on the level commonality of structures.

You get violations all over the place. You can find a Chevy and Ford with the same tires. You can find two Ford Focus' with different engines, and two Ford models with the same engine. You can find a Ford and a Chevy with the same stereo, but two Fords of the same model with different radios. It's all over the place. Cars do no fall into a nested hierarchy. They have a mish mash of parts that are shared willy nilly across makers and models, just as we would expect from a design process.

There may be some problematic sub-groups where more subjective interpretations must be invoked but this happens with Evolution also. For example, birds aren't even placed within the major group of dinosaurs with certainty. Your own experts ponder whether bird similarity to theropods may be the result of convergence. (and not shared ancestry)

The vast, vast majority of experts put birds in the theropod group with a relative handful of stubborn curmudgeons unwilling to change their mind with all of the evidence.

The same way evolutionists will interpret, say, conflicting bone morphology as the product of independent convergences in order to preserve a favored phylogeny. They will assign much less weight/significance to such traits.

Show me a bird with three middle ear bones.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why are only convertibles convertible?

What does that have to do with anything?

Why does a boat have a propeller and a car by the same designer and manufacturer does not?

Why don't you try to put cars into a nested hierarchy and see how it goes.

By the way, you can find cars with propellers, cars with turbine engines, planes with propellers, boats with propellers, boats with turbine engines, boats with piston engines, and planes with piston engines. How in the world does this form a nested hierarchy? The answer is that it doesn't.

The still share many parts though, and both usually run on the same kind of fuel, using oxigen to combust.
"Yes, but you didn't mention boats before."
Allright, but does that matter?
No.
Let's say "vehicles" then, like you say "animals".
And let's say "humanity" as the designer and manufacturer, like it is IRL.
There are many kinds of chassis, also there are monocoques.
Motorbikes have a frame, many designs are used.It doesn't explain big differences. Of course it does.
Just like humanity uses several ways to solve the similar problems.
If only humanity was as talented as dead unconscious things....

You still haven't shown how vehicles fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[lasthero]

Simply arrange the hierarchy based on the level commonality of structures.

Do it, then.

I've lost count of the times I've heard creationists tell me that created things (usually cars, for some reason) fit into a nested hiearchy, but I've never - NEVER - seen a creationist actually MAKE said hiearchy and show that it can be done.

Just take something simple, like iPods or something, and show how it fits into a nested hiearchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do it, then.

I've lost count of the times I've heard creationists tell me that created things (usually cars, for some reason) fit into a nested hiearchy, but I've never - NEVER - seen a creationist actually MAKE said hiearchy and show that it can be done.

Just take something simple, like iPods or something, and show how it fits into a nested hiearchy.

Actually, a deck of standard playing cards are a good set of objects to start with if any creationists want to give that a shot. There are only a few features which makes it a bit easier to tackle.

 

[Hieronymus]

Do it, then.

I've lost count of the times I've heard creationists tell me that created things (usually cars, for some reason) fit into a nested hiearchy, but I've never - NEVER - seen a creationist actually MAKE said hiearchy and show that it can be done.

Just take something simple, like iPods or something, and show how it fits into a nested hiearchy.

So maybe the assumption of a nested hierarchy is just conjecture.

 

[Papias]

lasthero wrote:

Do it, then.

I've lost count of the times I've heard creationists tell me that created things (usually cars, for some reason) fit into a nested hiearchy, but I've never - NEVER - seen a creationist actually MAKE said hiearchy and show that it can be done.

Just take something simple, like iPods or something, and show how it fits into a nested hiearchy.
​

So maybe the assumption of a nested hierarchy is just conjecture.

Sure it's 'just conjecture' - for designed items. But evolved items automatically make a nested hierarchy. The fact that millions of species of life on earth make a nested hierarchy is a stunning confirmation of evolution, while the inability to put things like cars into a nested hierarchy shows their design.

Yes, lathero, I have too. a little while back Juvi claimed he could make a nested hierarchy of cars.

It went like this:
Juvi: a nested hierarchy is no big deal. I could make a nested hierarchy of cars.

me: OK, do it.

Juvi- evasion, for pages of posts.

then finally:
Juvi: I said I *could*, not that I *would*. I'm not going to do so.

*sigh*

 

[The Cadet]

If shark and dolphin tails are completely equal and interchangeable with regards to fitness, then what is the barrier preventing a dolphin from "evolving" a shark-like tail? If instead the tails are particularly well-matched to the fitness of their hosts, then why would a designer mix them up?

The barrier has to do with the structure of the body. It would require a major change in the dolphin's anatomy for the tail to wave top-to-bottom rather than side-to-side.

No you wouldn't end up with a huge mess. Simply arrange the hierarchy based on the level commonality of structures.

Then do it. I already linked to a powerpoint document with an extremely simplified example, or you could pick essentially any number of cars at random and just go to town. You think it works? Do it!

 

[lifepsyop]

Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. Life does.

Nonsense. Practically all designed objects will tend to fall into nested hierarchies, and more consistently so if produced by the same designer.

For the thousandth time, it is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution, not simply shared features. A designer creating separate species/kinds could mix and match from other kinds, producing chimeras all over the place.

"Mix and matched" traits, as you describe them, do not necessarily violate a nested hierarchy. Instead the nested hierarchy may be adjusted to accommodate them.

Example: If evolutionists decide that Birds did not descend from Theropods, this will not suddenly make their Theropod traits a chimeric violation. Evolutionists will simply assume that those similarities are the result of convergence, and modify their nested hierarchy accordingly.

A species could contain an exact copy of a gene from birds, an exact copy of a gene from mammals, and an exact copy of a gene from reptiles.

There is no obvious reason a designer would design in this peculiar way. We do find a great deal of genetic similarity between those three groups corresponding to their similar physiology and function.

There is absolutely no reason to expect a nested hierarchy with a designer creating separate kinds.

There is every reason to expect a nested hierarchy. That's how designs usually work.

The only pattern that evolution can produce is a nested hierarchy. What do we observe? A nested hierarchy. Creationism does not predict this pattern. Evolution does.

Nice try, but a nested hierarchy can manifest in countless different arrangements. Evolution does not specifically predict any of them. And again, you're wrong. Intelligent designs virtually always fall into nested hierarchies.

Additionally, intelligent designs almost always produce distinct groupings separated by pronounced gaps. Just like we see with the distinct typological nature of life.

Evolution predicts extremely fine gradations between all living things. There is no evidence of this gradation in either extant lifeforms or the fossil record. Evolutionists once expected to discover this gradation. It is a major failed prediction.

 

[lifepsyop]

The barrier has to do with the structure of the body. It would require a major change in the dolphin's anatomy for the tail to wave top-to-bottom rather than side-to-side.

Exactly, so a dolphin's tale corresponds with dolphin anatomy. It's illogical to assume a dolphin should have a tail at odds with its body plan.

Then do it. I already linked to a powerpoint document with an extremely simplified example, or you could pick essentially any number of cars at random and just go to town. You think it works? Do it!

I notice you skipped over my point on the subjective nature of the hierarchy with regards to Birds and Theropods, that directly refutes your critique on intelligent designed hierarchies. No comment?

 

[The Cadet]

Exactly, so a dolphin's tale corresponds with dolphin anatomy. It's illogical to assume a dolphin should have a tail at odds with its body plan.

Except that here's the thing: there's no reason why a designed dolphin couldn't have a radically different tail anatomy.

I notice you skipped over my point on the subjective nature of the hierarchy with regards to Birds and Theropods, that directly refutes your critique on intelligent designed hierarchies. No comment?

It's nonsense. Please form a clear mathematically valid nested heirarchy with automobiles.

 

[lifepsyop]

Except that here's the thing: there's no reason why a designed dolphin couldn't have a radically different tail anatomy.

There's no reason an "evolved" dolphin cannot evolve radically different tail anatomy.

It's nonsense.

Provide reasoning. That's how a discussion works.