Macroevolution:

[DogmaHunter]

and yet this is what we found in a designed objects like vehicles.

No, it's not what we find in manufactured productlines, at all.

why not? they appearing according to time scale abd get more complex. this is a nested hierarchy.

It seems you have no idea what a nested hierarchy is.
It sure would explain a lot.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, my!

That would be one doosey of a response!

Banned? not suspended first?

Go directly to JAIL, do not pass GO?

I think you get suspended two or three times first -- then banned.

Unless you post something REALLY unchristian.

Technically, everything I say is unChristian...

 

[xianghua]

No, it's not what we find in manufactured productlines, at all.

and we do find such hierarchy in nature? can you give an example?

It seems you have no idea what a nested hierarchy is.

we will see about that. but first lets see if we find such an hierarchy in nature.

 

[xianghua]

But they do not reproduce themselves; they have neither reproductive systems nor hereditary material, therefore they cannot evolve. That is the whole point; that is why your analogy fails.

but i asking what if they able to do this? in this case you will claim that they evolved from eahc other or not?

 

[Astrophile]

but i asking what if they able to do this? in this case you will claim that they evolved from each other or not?

If we could produce a manufactured object with hereditary material that was able to reproduce itself, it would, of course, still be designed. However, it would be designed with the ability to evolve.

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK, then do I understand correctly that "evolution" only applies to change within a species? Does it not have to start with something before there can be a species in any category?

Evolution is changes in populations of organisms over time. Species is just a label we apply to organisms to categorize them. Living organisms do not actually neatly fit into the categories we make for them, so evolution is never defined by species, genus, etc boundaries. It wouldn't make sense to even define it that way, because evolution isn't limited in how much change can occur, as long as enough generations have passed.

Evolution as a process only acts on existing life. It has nothing to do with the origin of said life. One could consider the first living organism that ever existed to be the first species if they so desire, though the need for the category would be questionable when only one form of life existed.

Abiogenesis is the leading theory on the origin of life itself. It covers molecules to first living cell. Evolution covers the first living cell onward. To be very blunt, the first cell could have magically popped into existence, and that would have absolutely no relevance or impact on evolution as a process.

Horse evolution seems to come up quite often but the chart I was referred to seems to show it starting with Eohippus and ending with Equus caballus is that in error?

Time-wise, no. However, an unfortunate mistake people often make due to these charts is assuming that these fossil organisms are definitive ancestors of modern organisms. Unless we have DNA for the purpose of comparison, this is actually impossible to determine. What fossils are mostly good for is the demonstration of concept, as well as the history of evolutionary developments (such as when the first mammals began to appear on Earth).

Does that mean it started with Eohippus and ended with Equus caballus and there was no evolution before and has been none since?

Not in the slightest, evolution is a continuous process (though, various factors can influence how fast it is, which is why some populations of organisms seem to have changed very little compared to others). In fact, the conditions needed to halt it are currently impossible to produce, since it demands eliminating mutations and changes in the environment entirely.

Furthermore, the evolution of all mammals, vertebrates, and even all eukaryotic organisms has ties with the evolution of the horse prior to the existence of Eohippus. The reason Eohippus is often the "starting point" of charts about horse evolution is due to the abundance of intermediate fossils between Eohippus and modern horses.

 

[Loudmouth]

and we do find such hierarchy in nature? can you give an example?

Shared derived features are shared by the branches coming from a node. Designed things, like cars, buildings, and paintings, do not follow this pattern. For example, a designer could mix features from mammals and birds to make a new category of life. Such a group of creatures would violate a nested hierarchy and falsify evolution, but there is nothing stopping a designer from creating these violations of a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see this pattern of shared derived features is if these species groups evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Kylie]

and we do find such hierarchy in nature? can you give an example?



we will see about that. but first lets see if we find such an hierarchy in nature.

Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? I Googled "Nested Hierarchies" and this was literally the first result.

Nested hierarchies

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? I Googled "Nested Hierarchies" and this was literally the first result.

Nested hierarchies

He already knows what he wants to believe, thank you very much, so why does he need to research it? After all, it is a damned dangerous exercise, and he might end up hearing something he would prefer not to hear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and we do find such hierarchy in nature?

Yes.

can you give an example?

Hair is a mammalian trait. It evolved early in the mammalian branch.
So you'll only find it in mammals. Even "hairless" mammals, will still have the remnants of hair "sockets" (or whatever the correct word in english is) under their skin. Like when you get goosebumbs.

You won't find any of this in non-mammals.
Just like you won't find non-mammals with inner earbones or mammals with feathers.

In an evolutionary process, there is no horizontal transfer of such traits.
But there is in human manufactured productlines....

Take Opel cars for example....
There's the different extant models/"species": Corsa, Astra, Insigna, Mocca, Meriva,...
A few years ago, the Insigna received a new GPS/entertainment system. Completely different from the previous model in the previous generation.
The other models still had the old system.

Then, the new system also showed up in the Corsa.
This breaks the nested hierarchy.

we will see about that. but first lets see if we find such an hierarchy in nature.

You're welcome.

Somehow though, I fully expect you to completely ignore or misrepresent everything I just said, after which you will come back with the same ignorant questions, which have just been answered.

 

[xianghua]

If we could produce a manufactured object with hereditary material that was able to reproduce itself, it would, of course, still be designed. However, it would be designed with the ability to evolve.

so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?

 

[quatona]

so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?

I find your habit of answering to posts with "So....?", and then inserting something that neither has been said nor implied nor does in any way follow from what has been said, highly annoying.

 

[lesliedellow]

so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?

Methinks we have been here before.

 

[xianghua]

Shared derived features are shared by the branches coming from a node. Designed things, like cars, buildings, and paintings, do not follow this pattern. For example, a designer could mix features from mammals and birds to make a new category of life. Such a group of creatures would violate a nested hierarchy and falsify evolution, but there is nothing stopping a designer from creating these violations of a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see this pattern of shared derived features is if these species groups evolved from a common ancestor.

nice try. but we can find the same in vehicles, as you can see here. but it doesnt prove any common descent.

 

[xianghua]

Yes.

You won't find any of this in non-mammals.
Just like you won't find non-mammals with inner earbones or mammals with feathers.

thanks. so basically you are saying that we cant find for instance a case with a gene that is shared between 2 species but doenst shared between some species between them? (from pgylogenetic perspective). for instance: if we will find a gene that is shared between a cow and human but we dont find it in chimp and gorila- then evolution is false?

another problem is that we can find cases with hierarchy also in man-made objects:

 

[quatona]

It´s like pushing a self-replicating rope.

 

[Loudmouth]

another problem is that we can find cases with hierarchy also in man-made objects:

We also find major violations of your hierarchy, such as cars with wings, cars with turbine engines like those found in a jet fighter, and a space shuttle with a parachute like those found on drag cars. Designs are spread throughout your hierarchy that easily violate that hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

nice try. but we can find the same in vehicles, as you can see here. but it doesnt prove any common descent.

Your pictures aren't loading on my screen, but it is rather easy to show that there are numerous violations of a nested hierarchy for cars. For example, you can find the same tire on a Chevy car and a Ford car, but two different tires on the same model of Ford car. You can find the same engine in a specific Toyota car and Toyota pickup, but two different engines in two cars from the same Toyota car model. There are massive numbers of violations in a nested hierarchy of cars.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your pictures aren't loading on my screen, but it is rather easy to show that there are numerous violations of a nested hierarchy for cars. For example, you can find the same tire on a Chevy car and a Ford car, but two different tires on the same model of Ford car. You can find the same engine in a specific Toyota car and Toyota pickup, but two different engines in two cars from the same Toyota car model. There are massive numbers of violations in a nested hierarchy of cars.

Isn't that called "intelligent design"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't that called "intelligent design"?

Precisely. We can observe that intelligent design does not produce nested hierarchies because no designer is limited to a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect life to fall into a nested hierarchy is if life evolved.