Common Design and Phylogenies

[AV1611VET]

Fords and Buicks do not fall into objective phylogenies. That's the whole point. Life does fall into objective phylogenies.

Why do you use the term "fall into"?

I submit that is one thing that is keeping you from understanding fully.

Scientists are adept at force fitting their philosophies into one coherent pseudohistory.

Thanks to computers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, can you tell me why God could not create a species with a mixture of DNA from several disparate species?

You mean like a duck-billed platypus?

The duck-billed platypus testifies how science will make up anything to explain away exceptions to their paradigms.

That's why I refer to it as the "No True Scotsman Principle," rather than the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what pattern of shared DNA would a REAL connection produce?

You mean like father and son?

Cocker Spaniel and Great Dane?

How would it be different from what we observe?

Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

The former can be observed; the latter has to be force fitted on paper with computers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like a duck-billed platypus?

The duck-billed platypus testifies how science will make up anything to explain away exceptions to their paradigms.

That's why I refer to it as the "No True Scotsman Principle," rather than the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

Why would you think that the duck billed platypus has DNA from various disparate species?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would you think that the duck billed platypus has DNA from various disparate species?

I don't.

I think the platypus came into existence fully formed as a stand-alone animal.

Yes, it has snap-on parts that other animals have; but that doesn't mean it evolved.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why do you use the term "fall into"?

I submit that is one thing that is keeping you from understanding fully.

Scientists are adept at force fitting their philosophies into one coherent pseudohistory.

Thanks to computers.

Linnaeus did a fine job of identifying the nested nature of all life on earth.

Without computers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Linnaeus did a fine job of identifying the nested nature of all life on earth.

Without computers.

I'm sure he did a fine job breaking ground.

Was Linnaeus 100% correct?

In fact, how many tries does it actually take before scientists are satisfied that a species is properly categorized and named?

Are some binomials changed over the course of time until they get it right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

QV please: My Snowman Challenge II

Your silly snowmen nonsense is not related to the simple facts of genetics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you use the term "fall into"?

I submit that is one thing that is keeping you from understanding fully.

Scientists are adept at force fitting their philosophies into one coherent pseudohistory.

Thanks to computers.

There is no "force fitting".
It's simply counting genetic matches and mapping out the pattern.
This is such a brainless process that it can be (and is being) done by automated processes. You feed genomes into it and the computer maps out the matches in a diagram.

That diagram happens to be a hierarchical pattern.

This pattern is objectively, factually present in living things - no matter what your beliefs are.

And such a pattern is objectively, factually NOT present in productlines like cars or whatever. Not even in productlines from a single manufacturer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean like a duck-billed platypus?

The duck-billed platypus testifies how science will make up anything to explain away exceptions to their paradigms.

That's why I refer to it as the "No True Scotsman Principle," rather than the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

There is nothing in the DNA of the platypus that violates the nested hierarchies of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your silly snowmen nonsense is not related to the simple facts of genetics.

No kidding?

It demonstrates instant creation with absolutely no ties to each other.

It shows how Genesis 1 can be literal, and how nested hierarchies at the macro level can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no "force fitting".

Only computer programming and trial-and-error ... right?

And such a pattern is objectively, factually NOT present in productlines like cars or whatever. Not even in productlines from a single manufacturer.

Catch up, chief.

I've already agreed to that and responded to it.

It's more likely a Ford will give birth to a Dodge, than it is that the life in Genesis 1 appeared via evolution.

And since, as you and others pointed out, evolution has NOTHING to do with Fords and Dodges ... well ... what's that say for the likelihood of macroevolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing in the DNA of the platypus that violates the nested hierarchies of evolution.

Only snap-on parts ... right?

The platypus is a walking billboard for ontological reduction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No kidding?

It demonstrates instant creation with absolutely no ties to each other.

It demonstrates nothing, because snowmen aren't living organisms that reproduce with variation.

As an analogy, it is too silly to even address it.

It shows how Genesis 1 can be literal, and how nested hierarchies at the macro level can take a hike.

No. Rather, it shows the absurd lengths you will go to in order to keep your little bubble intact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Only computer programming and trial-and-error ... right?

No. No trial and error. Just counting DNA sequences and mapping out objective matches.

It's more likely a Ford will give birth to a Dodge, than it is that the life in Genesis 1 appeared via evolution.

What genesis has to say is not really relevant when the facts of reality contradict it.

And since, as you and others pointed out, evolution has NOTHING to do with Fords and Dodges ... well ... what's that say for the likelihood of macroevolution?

Nothing at all, since evolution has nothing to do with fords and dodges.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Only snap-on parts ... right?

There are no "snap-on parts" either

The platypus is a walking billboard for ontological reduction.

I can only repeat myself: there is nothing in the DNA of a platypus that violates the nested hierarchy of the phylogenetic tree.

 

[Armoured]

Bumping for creationists who continue to claim that a nested hierarchy is predicted by common design.

I think the problem is the way you insist on using words with, like, more than 3 syllables.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the problem is the way you insist on using words with, like, more than 3 syllables.

Maybe he's a cruciverbalist?

 

[Armoured]

Then what pattern of shared DNA would a REAL connection produce? How would it be different from what we observe?

And there is the real question, and the one they will never, ever answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there is the real question, and the one they will never, ever answer.

Using my snowman analogy, it's like asking:

How would a snowman ... made from snow taken from the snowape ... look different from two snowcreatures made independently?

They wouldn't.