Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's like finding a wine glass in the sand on a beach and saying the glass was formed by random lighting strikes and that even though we've never found another one, the sheer number of grains of sand in the world leaves a very large potential for naturally formed wine glasses.

No, it's not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Very sorry if you think I am being "slick" here. I have only asked for two very specific things Sir.

And when you got them, you pretended you didn't see them. We all get it.

If universal common descent is true and can be proven by the fossils then in order to do so I need to see an example of a "finely" graduated chain (ie...no huge leaps between links) leading between any two differing major forms.

Your fellow YE creationist gave you a large number of them, and you pretended you never saw it. He admitted that it was "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." No point in denying it.

Not a leap from fish no legs to one with full legs and claim their related because they have many other very similar features.

I'm not trying to be slick

You're not the first to try that dodge.

I am only saying if the fossils prove universal common descent happened

The real demonstration came about when genetics showed that DNA relationships between major groups would give the same family tree as the one discovered by Linnaeus, who didn't even know about evolution. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

If Stephen Gould's P.E. theory is your argument and evolution happened on too fast of a scale to produce fossil evidence then please stop telling me the fossils present evidence.

Your fellow YE creationist showed you that they present "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Since you're denying it, I'll put it up again for you:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

You don't get your cake and eat it too. Either gradual evolution happened and the fossils prove it, or P.E. is true and the fossils don't. Pick one and stick with it.

There are instances of both. Gould, for example, cites ammonites, forams, and horses as cases of gradual evolution.

First I just want to say that your not "going back" to quote your examples kind of feels like maybe your not being honest with me.

Your denial of something posted just a few posts above feels to everyone else like maybe you're not being honest.

(Barbarian ask for a definition of information as it applies to populations, and an explanation of how to calculate it)

(declines to say)

This is why people are thinking you're dishonest. Be honest now; you don't really know what "information" means, and you can't even calculate how much any organism has, can you?

Honestly you and I both know that no one can say with absolute certainty where the information found in DNA comes from.

Of course we can. It comes from mutations. We can even measure how much information it adds to a population. Or rather, I can. You have no clue, do you? "Information" just sounded kind of technical and sciencey, and you thought you'd toss it in to impress us.

Bad idea.

It has not been observed forming in the laboratory or any where else.

Wrong again. Would you like me to show you the numbers?

Evolutionists would likely theorize it can be built up over long periods of time by random mutations and natural selection.

Every new mutation increases information in a population.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That what "series" are. As you see, Wise provided you with numerous examples.

Actually no he did not.

You denied it before. I just posted it again. You can't get away from it.

For starters this article was written over 24 years ago.

Actually, we knew about it a long time before that. And yes, we have more of them, now.

He has since then gone on to write articles for Creationist websites like Answers In Genesis and Creation Institute.

Of course. He's an honest creationist. He admits the evidence shows evolution, but he says he prefers his understanding of scripture instead. Neither AIG nor the ICR are honest creationists. Would you like some examples?

I actually contacted AiG about him and they said they were aware of the article you cited and that in it Wise never presents examples of finely graduated chains that I asked for

No point in denying it. Here it is, a third time:

Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

You might as well admit it and try to come to terms with it. Dr. Wise did. As I said, he's an honest creationist. You should be like him.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Okay so if common descent were true then why can't someone present me with at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms?

An ignorant question, BradB, because there are many "finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms". Evolution of the horse. Evolution of the wale. Evolution on Homo Sapiens, etc. etc.

People ignorant about fossils tend to demand ever more "finely graduated chains" but fossilization is rare and we have not discovered them all. Rationally, there will be gaps between fossils.
See An Index to Creationist Claims
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent is still valid.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Or why cant someone present me with an "observed" example of new gene increasing type of information being added to the DNA code of any "multi-celled" organism in a way that was beneficial to that organism?

An ignorant question, BradB, because you can easily find such examples, e.g. the evolution of blood clotting which is definitely beneficial!
See An Index to Creationist Claims
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent is still valid.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Also if you attempt to, please note I said multi celled not single celled and I said observed not assumed.

An almost ignorant demand for observed evolution in multi-cell organisms when their generations are generally long enough, etc. that we usually do not observe evolution. There are well known examples of such observations.
Peppered moth evolution is the observed evolution in multi-cell organisms of genetic changes which benefited the moths.
We Just Observed A New Species Evolving Right In Front Of Us

An Index to Creationist Claims
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[RealityCheck01]

Also please don't give me any examples of chains with huge leaps like from one link to another like a dinosaur suddenly in one step growing a huge sail, or a fish in one link suddenly having fully developed legs...etc.

This is not the real world, BradB.
Every animal that has ever existed has not become a fossil . Thus there will be leaps.
There is no "dinosaur suddenly in one step growing a huge sail". There is no "fish in one link suddenly having fully developed legs". If I am wrong, cite your scientific evidence.

An Index to Creationist Claims
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[RealityCheck01]

To ALL
This pretty much covers it, short and sweet.

To ALL: An irrelevant and ignorant video fantasizing about scientific evidence for God. Cherry picking of quotes in the description. The narrator states ignorance.

• Science does not say that the universe formed through "natural, unguided processes".
  We can trace back the universe to just after it formed. Any theory about its formation is speculation and includes that the universe has always been there.
• Intelligent Design is biology, not cosmology.
  Intelligence creating the universe is science fiction. God creating the universe is religion.

Then we get

• A lie that the Sun is perfectly placed for life in the Milky Way?
• Fantasies that the Sun is the perfect size and temperature for life, perfectly situated, etc.
• Perfect fantasies about the Moon.
• A seasons needed or food chain lie?
• A perfect atmospheric mixture of N and O lie (it has changed greatly).
• Close to lies about exact parameters for life to exist - some physicists think that we are in a fine-tuned universe, other think it is "coarse-tuned", a few not tuned.
• A delusion that this is like a watch.
• Delusions about DNA

 

[Strathos]

This whole argument is just so ironic.

The creationist position can basically be summed up as:

'You can't say God's designs are bad! Even if they seem to make no sense to us, He knows better. His ways are not our ways! It's foolish for us to judge Him according to our imperfect understanding. You can't tell God how to do things! He can create things any way He wants to... except by using evolution. He's not allowed to do that.'

 

[BradB]

I can play that game.

Does so..

 

[xianghua]

I can play that game.

Does so..

no series of fossils can prove evolution since we cant prove that they evolved from each other:

 

[pitabread]

no series of fossils can prove evolution since we cant prove that they evolved from each other:

Fossils demonstrate evolution by demonstrates patterns of change over time in organic populations. It's those patterns which demonstrate evolution.

Those same patterns don't exist in designed objects.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that living organisms are largely constrained by hereditary changes* whereas designed objects aren't restricted in the same manner. This was demonstrated to you when I tried constructing phylogenetic trees of vehicles like the above cars, vans, trucks, etc, and couldn't get any sort of statistically convergent trees even when using the same vehicles.

Of you course, you already know all this because we've had this discussion multiple times now. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring prior discussions.

(* And before you bring it up, there are examples of non-hereditary changes in DNA that do occur in populations; e.g. horizontal gene transfer, viral insertions, etc. However, inheritance is still a prime factor in the changes in living populations over time.)

 

[The Barbarian]

no series of fossils can prove evolution since we cant prove that they evolved from each other:

As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." The fact that existing transitionals show genetic relatedness conclusively demonstrates the fact.

 

[xianghua]

As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

good for him. i think otherhwise and proved it with designed objects.

 

[pitabread]

i think otherhwise and proved it with designed objects.

No you didn't. When actually tested, your ideas regarding designed objects and hierarchies were thoroughly debunked.

 

[xianghua]

Fossils demonstrate evolution by demonstrates patterns of change over time in organic populations. It's those patterns which demonstrate evolution.

Those same patterns don't exist in designed objects.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that living organisms are largely constrained by hereditary changes* whereas designed objects aren't restricted in the same manner. This was demonstrated to you when I tried constructing phylogenetic trees of vehicles like the above cars, vans, trucks, etc, and couldn't get any sort of statistically convergent trees even when using the same vehicles.

Of you course, you already know all this because we've had this discussion multiple times now. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring prior discussions.

(* And before you bring it up, there are examples of non-hereditary changes in DNA that do occur in populations; e.g. horizontal gene transfer, viral insertions, etc. However, inheritance is still a prime factor in the changes in living populations over time.)

so you are still think that a tipical bicycle isnt closer to another bicycle then to a car?

 

[pitabread]

so you are still think that a tipical bicycle isnt closer to another bicycle then to a car?

This question has nothing to do with what you posted which was a picture of a car, van and heavy truck. And that was the claim that I had previously tested and you were part of those conversations.

This is the other problem. When your ideas get debunked you always try to change the subject and/or start contradicting your own claims.

 

[Speedwell]

so you are still think that a tipical bicycle isnt closer to another bicycle then to a car?

How can we tell? Bicycles, tricycles and cars don't have genomes to compare. We can't try to mate them to see if they are interfertile because cars don't reproduce that way. So, there is no way to tell.

 

[xianghua]

This question has nothing to do with what you posted which was a picture of a car, van and heavy truck

but you are the one who talked about phylogenetic trees. not me.

 

[xianghua]

How can we tell? Bicycles, tricycles and cars don't have genomes to compare. We can't try to mate them to see if they are interfertile because cars don't reproduce that way. So, there is no way to tell.

we can tell base on their general similarity.