the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

False. Science is about knowledge. It is not knowledge to claim some dingo thingie in a tree became king of the seas.

A dingo thingies in the trees did not become king of the seas.

A mammal in the seas evolved to became mighty in the seas.

 

[pitabread]

False. Science is about knowledge. It is not knowledge to claim some dingo thingie in a tree became king of the seas.

You can believe whatever you want. But again, you're not the decider of what is or isn't science.

 

[dad]

It's not a fairy tale that some land based animals find themselves in a position that they do well spending some of their time at sea.

So what? I suggested whales and dolphins may have once been both land and sea animals. What has that got to do with the magic dingo in a tree fable?

And no, it is not a fantasy that ancestors have variation. This is a known fact.

Creation is about vatiation. That does not mean that dolphins had to have descended from some dingo dog lion you happened to find a fossil of.

If an animal and its relatives spend much of their day at sea

?? Can you explain why you claim this animals spent most of it's time at sea??

, and some of these are more seaworthy than others, why wouldn't they be more likely to survive?

? What makes this animals seaworthy..aside from your fable needing it to be?

 

[dad]

A dingo thingies in the trees did not become king of the seas.

A mammal in the seas evolved to became mighty in the seas.

So the dingo thingie lost it's tail and grew fins for no particular reason? Then it became might in the seas!!?

Behold the theory.

 

[dad]

You can believe whatever you want. But again, you're not the decider of what is or isn't science.

Yeah right. Let us not forget science is all about making godless stuff up whole of cloth. They made up that fable about where the moon came from. After being exposed as another joke, they cook up another whopper.

"
"Our model starts with a collision that forms a synestia," Lock said. "The Moon forms inside the vaporized Earth at temperatures of four to six thousand degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of tens of atmospheres."

An advantage of the new model, Lock said, is that there are multiple ways to form a suitable synestia -- it doesn't have to rely on a collision with the right sized object happening in exactly the right way.

Once the Earth-synestia formed, chunks of molten rock injected into orbit during the impact formed the seed for the Moon. Vaporized silicate rock condensed at the surface of the synestia and rained onto the proto-Moon, while the Earth-synestia itself gradually shrank. Eventually, the Moon would have emerged from the clouds of the synestia trailing its own atmosphere of rock vapor. "

The moon formed inside a vaporized Earth synestia

That is science. That is religion. It is decided.

 

[Snappy1]

Hey does dad still make YouTube videos?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So the dingo thingie lost it's tail and grew fins for no particular reason? Then it became might in the seas!!?

Behold the theory.

Dolphins had a reason to become dolphins. It's called survival of the fittest.

 

[xianghua]

You forgot to clarify that it must be THE SAME trait. With the SAME underlying mechanics, genetics, etc.

not realy. here is the original talkorigin claim: "Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not". so they clearly talk about morphological traits.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So what? I suggested whales and dolphins may have once been both land and sea animals. What has that got to do with the magic dingo in a tree fable?

Creation is about vatiation. That does not mean that dolphins had to have descended from some dingo dog lion you happened to find a fossil of.

?? Can you explain why you claim this animals spent most of it's time at sea??

? What makes this animals seaworthy..aside from your fable needing it to be?

Remember that the magic dingo in the tree is your invention, not mine. I said nothing about it.

I am taking about mammals that spent time at sea, similar to the way otters live today.

I make no claim for the animal in your picture.

 

[xianghua]

If only the created kinds were on the ark, and the species happened after the flood, that will work.

But that will not work in this nature, as I think the adapting and evolving would take too long.

but i showed that even one of the largest animal family on earth can "evolve" in about 2000 years. more then that: even if we assume that about 10,000 lagre species were on the ark (mouse size and above) it will give us about 10 sq feet for every creature. and most creatures are much smaller then a tiger.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You base what is likely on two misconceptions.

-That there was no creation, so we need to look in the fossil record for a sequence of evolved life.

- That the fossil record represents a good cross section of life on the planet in the early record.

Why do you make up things and pretend they are my basis?

I have explained my basis of understanding origins. I base it on the scientific method. That method has shown strong evidence for evolution.

If the evidence had shown instantaneous creation in 4004 BC is true, I would believe that.

The available evidence clearly shows life evolved.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One can try to dismiss the record of creation and early times for no reason at all, if one wants.

What is asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I guess made up fantasy can eventually lead wherever you like.

Indeed.
Like when it leads to claims about "different state past", invented out of thin air with as only purpose a desperate attempt at upholding the fantasy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

not realy. here is the original talkorigin claim: "Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not". so they clearly talk about morphological traits.

Congratz.

you managed to even misunderstand your very own claims.

 

[xianghua]

wow....do you not understand. the problem is for creationist and cdesign proponents to explain why your idea of god would create dolphins giving the illusion of them being evolved from land animals, by having meaningless scent genes that would only have been useful in their past if they lived on land.

but this is the problem- they actually work just fine in some whales for instance:

How does a bowhead whale smell? Quite well, actually

so those smell receptors are actually work even in a marine creature, and thus arent leftovers of a land animal.

Again, the kidney has a purpose because it has to be that way due to evolutionary past, explain why like with the scent genes would your god use something that hints at evolution why not make a single kidney that doesn't have to go through previous evolutionary stages? It's wasteful.

by this logic we can argue that human evolved from a duck since human embryo has a duck-like hand. but it doesnt make any sense. we can argue that this shark evolved from a land animal since it can walk on land:

The Shark That Can Walk on Land

the eye is simple, a partial eye works better then none, a eye that can't move is still useful, a eye that can move a ittle has more beneficial and so on. goes back to the old, "What good is half a eye." well it's better then a quarter of a eye.

sure. but even the simplest light detector need at least several parts, so it can evolve stepwise. like my motion system example.

 

[xianghua]

-_- do you seriously not know that there are single celled eukaryotes with flagella? Do you not see the connection between how flagella move and the motion of actin filaments in muscle? Do you even know what I am referencing?

there is a difference between a muscle cell and other types of cell. its not simple as you think. even if you can take some proteins from other types of cells you will need new parts. you cant just mix parts from other systems and get a new motion system. i gave a simple example like a compass. you cant make it move like a watch by adding just a single part or by mixing existing parts in the compass.

 

[xianghua]

Congratz.

you managed to even misunderstand your very own claims.

Congratz too. you cant admit even a simple fact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Congratz too. you cant admit even a simple fact.

The only fact here, is that you don't even comprehend your own statements.
My initial comment about "shared traits" stand. Your reply didn't even address it. I know you like to pretend it did. But it did not.

 

[xianghua]

This is what it says:
More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.

they also said that: "It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings".

​

You were told over and over that you need to find enough cases to be stastisically significant.

so how many cases we need to find to conclude its false?

Again you are basically sorting vehicles in order based on one variable. That is not a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies sort on multiple independent variables.

again incorrect. as i showed with trucks compare vs cars. trucks share many traits with other trucks but not with cars. so if we will make vehicles tree, trucks in general will group with other trucks rather then with cars. i realy see no problem with designer who made a groups of creatures: mammals, reptiles etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

they also said that: "It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings".

Sure, but not in the sense that you pretend it to be.

For example, sight has evolved several times independently from one another.
This is not a problem.

Now, if the exact same eye with the same underlying genetics would evolve twice independently... now that would be a problem.

But it seems an exercise in futility to try and explain this to you.

so how many cases we need to find to conclude its false?

Just one.

again incorrect. as i showed with trucks compare vs cars. trucks share many traits with other trucks but not with cars.

Not a nested hierarchy, as has been explained to you so many times already.

And also, trucks and cars aren't biological entities, so they aren't subject to biological processes. As has also been explained to you so many times already.

But by all means, continue.... repeat the same exposed falsehoods till you are blue in the face. All you are doing, is exposing just how dishonest an enterprise this creationism is.
You're doing a far better job then any of us ever could.

so if we will make vehicles tree, trucks in general will group with other trucks rather then with cars.

And it would not fall in a nested hierarchy.

i realy see no problem with designer who made a groups of creatures: mammals, reptiles etc.

And the only reason for that, is because that is what you believed already religiously.
Your particular interpreation of religious doctrine actually requires you to believe this.

Your a priori beliefs are utterly irrelevant to what is actually true.