Common Design and Phylogenies

[Loudmouth]

This is a good example of fundamental misconceptions of evolution.

The anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs that the poster calls out as undeniable evidence of shared ancestry, is in fact contested by leading experts on bird evolution, who claim the similarities may be convergent. (arising in multiple lineages independently) and that birds arose from totally different animal groups.

You can find scientists who disagree with the consensus in every field. In order for you to have an argument, you need to show that they are right.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The scientific argument is the observation of a nested hierarchy, exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

We OBSERVE a nested hierarchy. It isn't an assumption.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

As you have already been shown, automobiles do not fall into a nested hierarchy when considering all characters.

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...

Did you already forget how badly you lost this argument last time? You had cars and pickup trucks in completely different branches of your nested hierarchy, yet I was able to show that some pickups and some cars had identical engines while cars and pickups in the same genera had different engines. Your example completely fails, and just further supports our argument that common design does not produce a nested hierarchy.

 

[USincognito]

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

That simply is not true. The front end of the Golf is used for the Caddy, Jetta and Scirocco.

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

For the nth time since you've been posting here, a completely swapped part or true chimera is not convergence. A bat wing and a bird wing are convergent. A bird wing on a bat would be a chimera and a falsification of evolution.

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...

No, my point is that cars cannot be analogues to living beings for the purpose of discussing nested hierarchies precisely because the early 80s VW vehicles have a number of models that violated the nesting with swapped parts and chimaric qualities.

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

Yeah, but you're the same guy who thinks a bird with wings and arms could just be explained away by some theorestical hexapodal ancestor or some such nonsense so... well..

 

[USincognito]

The anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs that the poster calls out as undeniable evidence of shared ancestry, is in fact contested by leading experts on bird evolution, who claim the similarities may be convergent. (arising in multiple lineages independently) and that birds arose from totally different animal groups.

Name them. Because the only mavericks I can think of are Feduccia who merely thinks that birds evolved from a more basal archosaur and John Ruben who isn't an expert on bird evolution, much less a leading one.

 

[In situ]

Is it fair for carpenters and metal workers to use templates and standard measurements for the sake of ease, while at the same time questioning why God didn't use non-standard templates and measurements?

Sure, but this is not the problem AV, so please consider this:

It has been observed that offspring inherit their unique characteristics from their parents only (this in turn creates a nested sets) and not by any other means, like their uncles or neighbors (which in such case would not create a nested set).

This observed link between parent-offspring is evidence that support the theory of evolution.

Now, the problem with your claim is this:

Parents is the only observed template I know of which creates a nested set out of living beings, i.e. no other evidence I know of suggest even remotely that an alternative explanation to evolution is needed. So the question is not that about fairness, but about observational evidence to support your claim. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that other template making processes are active, like ex nil magically poffing living beings into existence by God? I am asking because I do not accept your words for it only. You see, the problem is, unlike religious people, I don't believe in anything at face value - but I do accept evidence...

 

[joshua 1 9]

I would like a creationist who proposes that shared features are the result of common design to explain to us why common design would necessarily produced an objective phylogeny, otherwise known as a nested hierarchy.

For example, why would a common designer not be able to create a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Why would a common designer not be able to produce a species with an exact copy of a jellyfish and mouse gene?

If you accept or reject that the laws of Evolution were Created by God does not in and of itself change those laws.

 

[In situ]

If you accept or reject that the laws of Evolution were Created by God does not in and of itself change those laws.

We all know that a rose is a rose is a rose. But Loudmouth did not dispute that with the questions, LM pointed out that if shared feature is evidence for a common designer then there is an inconsistency with this reasoning because:

1. why is that wildly different species always share the same things - is the common designer unable to make something which is actually different from the rest?
2. why is that the same genes in wildly different species always look different - is the common designer unable to make something which is actually the same for all?

These two observation points to an inconsistency when claiming that "shared features" are evidence for a common designer.

How your comment actually mange to address this inconsistency issue is beyond me.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

And what is the information content of the first versus the second?

They are the same. Both sequences, although different, code for the same string of peptides. It would be like 2 sentences that use different words (synonyms) but convey the same meaning. i.e.

- The dog barked at the mailman.

- A canine vocalized toward a postal worker.

Those 2 sentences have not a single word in common, yet express almost identical meanings.

 

[The Cadet]

- The dog barked at the mailman.

- A canine vocalized toward a postal worker.

Those 2 sentences have not a single word in common, yet express almost identical meanings.

They do however, by Shannon's definition, have a different information content.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And what is the information content of the first versus the second?

There is absolutely no difference in that regard between the two sequences in terms of size or protein they code for. I wasn't trying to demonstrate an increase or decrease of information in my example, but display how redundant DNA bases are

 

[In situ]

And what is the information content of the first versus the second?

Since the answer to your question was already there ('they code exactly the same') it begs the question what you mean with "information content"?

 

[In situ]

They do however, by Shannon's definition, have a different information content.

You ignore that the peptide sequence (the "meaning" of the amino acid code) is the same .

 

[The Cadet]

You ignore that the peptide sequence (the "meaning" of the amino acid code) is the same .

The peptide sequence does have the same information content (same entropy, same number of bits); I was referring to the sentences.

 

[In situ]

There is absolutely no difference in that regard between the two sequences in terms of size or protein they code for. I wasn't trying to demonstrate an increase or decrease of information in my example, but display how redundant DNA bases are

Why talk about information at all - what biological relevance does it have for function?

 

[In situ]

The peptide sequence does have the same information content (same entropy, same number of bits); I was referring to the sentences.

What biological relevance does the information content of the nucleotide acids sequence have?

 

[In situ]

take the Bird/Theropod hypothesis for example..

In what sense are these observational evidence a hypothesis:

Do you mean biologists are wrong about the link and this is what needs to be done:

?

And just for my own clarity, is this a bird or a dinosaur:

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was hoping to get the original poster's answer.

sorry, you were asking this of someone else.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Apologies - the formatting/layout is different here compared to the other forums I participate on and I mistakenly interpreted your post as coming from the creationist you were replying to. My mistake!
Carry on!

I figured that out on my own, but by the time I edited my post, you must have already been responding.