How many mutations to get Y from X?

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
There is no justification for why an unlimited common creator would use a nested hierarchy when creating diverse species.

It has been repeated many times that it's not simply the fact of similarity between life that is evidence, it's the pattern of similarity.

I don't think creationists realize that by appealing to a "common creator" they're implying that said creator is constrained in the exact same way evolution is.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't think creationists realize that by appealing to a "common creator" they're implying that said creator is constrained in the exact same way evolution is.
Yes - by using mutations and selection. Funny how that works out for them.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...

Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That doesn't make any sense.

That's why I said creationists don't understand the implications of the "common designer" refrain.

It's always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Ok, then, it must be a big secret. More likely your reasoning is skewed.

The "common designer" refrain is always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.

This is simply about understanding the context for the evidence that shows common ancestry.

A creator wouldn't necessarily be bound that, so what creationists need to do is show evidence that wouldn't work in the context of common descent. Blatant chimeric organisms would be one such piece of evidence (like these genetically engineered glow-in-the-dark rabbits made with jellyfish DNA). Yet such things don't exist in nature.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The "common designer" refrain is always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.

This is simply about understanding the context for the evidence that shows common ancestry.

A creator wouldn't necessarily be bound that, so what creationists need to do is show evidence that wouldn't work in the context of common descent. Blatant chimeric organisms would be one such piece of evidence (like these genetically engineered glow-in-the-dark rabbits made with jellyfish DNA). Yet such things don't exist in nature.
Oh that old nonsense. It didn't make any sense the first time I heard it either.
Common design just means that a designer would be likely to use some of the same features in different species.
How you get that the designer is subject to his design? Like I said, skewed reasoning, and a tiny view of the Creator.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Common design just means that a designer would be likely to use some of the same features in different species.

Possibly. But there is no reason to assume they would do so in a manner constrained by hereditary descent.

How you get that the designer is subject to his design? Like I said, skewed reasoning, and a tiny view of the Creator.

Because we're talking about patterns of similarities in the context of hereditary descent. So by saying "common designer!" you're implying the designer is constrained in the same manner.

If you want to claim otherwise, you need to demonstrate patterns in biology that aren't bound by hereditary descent (or otherwise known HGT mechanisms). IOW, something that can't be otherwise explained by known mechanisms.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because we're talking about patterns of similarities in the context of hereditary descent. So by saying "common designer!" you're implying the designer is constrained in the same manner.
Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.

It's not just similarities. It's patterns of similarities predicated on hereditary descent.

This is why I said that creationists don't realize the implications of this when they reply, "common designer!" They don't know what those patterns indicate.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not just similarities. It's patterns of similarities predicated on hereditary descent.

This is why I said that creationists don't realize the implications of this when they reply, "common designer!" They don't know what those patterns indicate.
The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.

In terms of phylogenies, we're talking about patterns that are well within statistical significance (broadly speaking). It's not nearly the "mess" you make it out to be.

If a designer was truly creating things and mixing and matching genetic bits and bobs with no constraints, then we wouldn't expect to find any real phylogenetic convergence.

Yet, we do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
a designer was truly creating things and mixing and matching genetic bits and bobs with no constraints, then we wouldn't expect to find any real phylogenetic convergence.
Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?
Now you're just making stuff up.
No constraints doesn't automatically equal no commonalities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?
Now you're just making stuff up.

I'm just saying what a designer could do if they wanted to, free of constraints based on hereditary genetics.

No constraints doesn't automatically equal no commonalities.

Like I always say, if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution. There's really no way around that.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That's like saying that because my house looks designed it must have built itself.

That's nothing like saying that.

When I talk about life having the appearance of evolution (e.g. common ancestry), I'm referring to the observed evolutionary mechanisms that change populations over time coupled with the patterns of biodiversity that suggests common ancestry.

As I said, there's no actual way around that. The patterns are what they are.

Either a designer decided to make things appear like they evolved... or they actually evolved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's nothing like saying that.

When I talk about life having the appearance of evolution (e.g. common ancestry), I'm referring to the observed evolutionary mechanisms that change populations over time coupled with the patterns of biodiversity that suggests common ancestry.

As I said, there's no actual way around that. The patterns are what they are.

Either a designer decided to make things appear like they evolved... or they actually evolved.
Populations change because of built in mechanisms, not because of some non existent selection process.
 
Upvote 0