Common Design and Phylogenies

[lifepsyop]

Well, it's just that you seemed to be casting aspersions on evolutionists, saying they were "on shaky ground", pushing "exaggerations and lies" when in fact they are on both sides of this issue and are debating it among themselves. Antievolutionists haven't contributed anything to the dialogue.

Those who believe in universal common ancestry need to find actual scientific arguments instead of just peddling the most popular narratives within the evolutionary community. It's not enough to just assume that you're correct.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Those who believe in universal common ancestry need to find actual scientific arguments instead of just peddling the most popular narratives within the evolutionary community. It's not enough to just assume that you're correct.

I think you must have missed the past 150 years of scientific arguments.

 

[lifepsyop]

I think you must have missed the past 150 years of scientific arguments.

It's usually the same handful of fallacies being raised again and again as "proof" of common ancestry.
Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's usually the same handful of fallacies being raised again and again as "proof" of common ancestry.
Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.

Name one fallacy. And properly speaking they are evidence of common ancestry. Proof is a mathematical term usually. Though the case could easily said to have been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

So you claimed there were fallacies, I am betting that you cannot name even one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.

Not really, but your disdain for religious followers is interesting.

 

[lifepsyop]

Not really, but your disdain for religious followers is interesting.

Not disdain. We all have cherished belief systems, especially when it comes to origins.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not disdain. We all have cherished belief systems, especially when it comes to origins.

Religious adherents can cherish whatever they like, but science progresses by questioning what came before, not training scientists "not to question or critique core assumptions." Scientific theories are not retained due to an upwelling of cherishing, but due to the preponderance of evidence.

 

[USincognito]

There are no "snap-on parts" either

A great failure of the cars as analogy is seen in the early 80s VW Golf derivatives. The Jetta was a Golf with rear doors and a trunk, the Scirocco was a Golf with a sporty hatchback and the Caddy was the Golf with a pickup bed. Such swapped parts would falsify evolution if seen in nature.

Creationists just don't seem to grasp how nested hierarchies work.

 

[lifepsyop]

Religious adherents can cherish whatever they like, but science progresses by questioning what came before, not training scientists "not to question or critique core assumptions." Scientific theories are not retained due to an upwelling of cherishing, but due to the preponderance of evidence.

True, but evolutionary narratives tend to be far removed from the realm of science.

This is easy to demonstrate. Again, take the Bird/Theropod hypothesis for example.. At the end of the day this belief rests on pure assumption that the anatomical similarities are not due to convergences, i.e. a bald assertion of homology. Fossils of this supposed Bird/Theropod relationship don't even necessarily have to be found in any kind of sensible stratigraphic order. What is scientific about it? Practically nothing. The story is just more visually palatable to the general public so evolutionists run with it and hope nobody notices.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True, but evolutionary narratives tend to be far removed from the realm of science.

This is easy to demonstrate. Again, take the Bird/Theropod hypothesis for example.. At the end of the day this belief rests on pure assumption that the anatomical similarities are not due to convergences, i.e. a bald assertion of homology. Fossils of this supposed Bird/Theropod relationship don't even necessarily have to be found in any kind of sensible stratigraphic order. What is scientific about it? Practically nothing. The story is just more visually palatable to the general public so evolutionists run with it and hope nobody notices.

Incorrect; that possibility has been formally acknowledged, and it hasn't been disregarded. It just is not considered as likely as birds evolving from dinosaurs, due to the fossil record matching up more with that which would result from birds evolving from dinosaurs than the two being a case of convergent evolution.

 

[lifepsyop]

A great failure of the cars as analogy is seen in the early 80s VW Golf derivatives. The Jetta was a Golf with rear doors and a trunk, the Scirocco was a Golf with a sporty hatchback and the Caddy was the Golf with a pickup bed. Such swapped parts would falsify evolution if seen in nature.

Creationists just don't seem to grasp how nested hierarchies work.

By your logic, the structure of animal fins could be considered "swapped parts"... In reality, evolutionists will simply characterize them as independent convergences on similar function.

So pick-up bed designs across multiple vehicle models could simply be labeled as independent convergences in order sustain the nested hierarchy in the same way.

Evolutionists just don't seem to grasp how much subjective interpretation goes into their own classification schemes.

 

[lifepsyop]

Incorrect; that possibility has been formally acknowledged, and it hasn't been disregarded. It just is not considered as likely as birds evolving from dinosaurs, due to the fossil record matching up more with that which would result from birds evolving from dinosaurs than the two being a case of convergent evolution.

Yes, a majority of evolutionists simply believe that their homology assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The story is just more visually palatable to the general public so evolutionists run with it and hope nobody notices.

Except for the evolutionists who take the other position in this ongoing scientific controversy.

 

[USincognito]

By your logic, the structure of animal fins could be considered "swapped parts"...

Sorry, but no. We don't find shark fins on whales or whale fins in manatees. They are homologus structures, not identical swapped parts.

So pick-up bed designs across multiple vehicle models could simply be labeled as independent convergences in order sustain the nested hierarchy in the same way.

You must not be familiar with the vehicles I mentioned. They don't have similar design. They literally are half of one model with an added on part. Here's a VW Golf.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Vw_golf_1_v_sst.jpg
Here's a VW Scirocco.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Scirocco_1973.jpg/420px-VW_Scirocco_1973.jpg
And here's a WV Caddy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../1280px-20041020_1303_1539-VW_Golf1-Caddy.jpg

Evolutionists just don't seem to grasp how much subjective interpretation goes into their own classification schemes.

And Creationists don't realize that magical words like "interpretation" doesn't poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.

 

[USincognito]

Yes, a majority of evolutionists simply believe that their homology assumptions are correct.

And Creationists believe that magical words like "assumptions" will poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.

They don't.

 

[lifepsyop]

Sorry, but no. We don't find shark fins on whales or whale fins in manatees. They are homologus structures, not identical swapped parts.

And neither are the vehicle parts identical. They are extensions upon their own unique model designs.

You must not be familiar with the vehicles I mentioned. They don't have similar design. They literally are half of one model with an added on part. Here's a VW Golf.

What's your point? As I said, the pick-up bed structure is analogous to a convergence.

I think your problem is you want to compare a vehicle body to an animal body, as if adding a pick-up bed to the back half of a vehicle is like swapping out an animal's entire hind quarters.. which is a weird comparison...

I'm only viewing the vehicle's body as another character trait.

 

[lifepsyop]

And Creationists believe that magical words like "assumptions" will poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.

They don't.

True, but calling your assumptions evidence doesn't magically turn those assumptions into evidence, either. No matter how many times you repeat them.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's usually the same handful of fallacies being raised again and again as "proof" of common ancestry.
Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.

Sorry lifepsyop, did you get around to showing us those fallacies?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, a majority of evolutionists simply believe that their homology assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading.

Nope, we always acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, especially in evolutionary pathways. Homology, on the other hand, is recognizing that structures, even ones with different functions, often are structurally similar (especially in bone structure), so the observation itself is literally looking at a bat wing, and recognizing it has digits structured similarly to a human hand.

 

[And-U-Say]

Yes, a majority of evolutionists simply believe that their homology assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading.

It is always amusing to see creationists deny the existence and the AMOUNT of data that goes into all the knowledge that makes hash of creationism. It would be equally ignorant to say:

"Yes, a majority of Astronomers simply believe that their heliocentric assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading."

"Yes, a majority of Historians simply believe that their Holocaust assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'history' at your local Tarot card reading."

"Yes, a majority of Chemists simply believe that their Periodic Table assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading."

Just because you haven't seen the vast amounts of data and studies that support Homology doesn't mean it doesn't exist.