Common Design and Phylogenies

Loudmouth · Mar 30, 2016

In situ said:
In the end they are wrong, because as a biologist you know that the concept of "information" is of limited use in biology.

Looking at it from the other direction, the usefulness of the term "information" is determined by how well the definition describes biological processes (as you describe so well in the rest of your post). Unfortunately, the last thing creationists are trying to do is accurately describe biological processes. They are instead trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion, accuracy be darned.

Loudmouth · Mar 30, 2016

So far, creationists have argued that common design would result in a nested hierarchy, but they can't explain why that is. We have even shown them how known designs, like automobiles, fail to fall into a nested hierarchy.

Any creationists willing to step up to the plate?

xianghua · Feb 14, 2017

In situ said:
In what sense are these observational evidence a hypothesis:

View attachment 171963

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

View attachment 171964

?

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

View attachment 171965

we can ask the same for this one: is this a calculator or a watch?:

calculator watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google

Loudmouth · Feb 14, 2017

xianghua said:
we can ask the same for this one: is this a calculator or a watch?:

calculator watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google

We can also find designs that are a mixture of a watch and a phone. Yet another example of why common design (i.e. Intelligent Design) does not produce a nested hierarchy.

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
we can ask the same for this one: is this a calculator or a watch?:

calculator watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google

I'm surprised you didn't use a picture of a watch on a beach.
What's next? "just look at the trees!!!"?

xianghua · Feb 15, 2017

Loudmouth said:
We can also find designs that are a mixture of a watch and a phone. Yet another example of why common design (i.e. Intelligent Design) does not produce a nested hierarchy.

so if i will find you an example of a nested hierarchy in a design objects, you will agree that nested hierarchy doesnt prove a commondescent?

Speedwell · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
so if i will find you an example of a nested hierarchy in a design objects, you will agree that nested hierarchy doesnt prove a common descent?

No, you would have to find biological features which do not fit into a nested hierarchy in order to disprove common descent. Nested hierarchies are possible (though unlikely) in human-designed objects, but the theory of evolution predicts that they will always occur in living creatures. You can't prove a scientific theory, but you can disprove it by showing that its predictions are wrong. So, rather than wasting your time looking for nested hierarchies in human designed objects, look for violations of nested hierarchies in living objects.

Loudmouth · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
so if i will find you an example of a nested hierarchy in a design objects, you will agree that nested hierarchy doesnt prove a commondescent?

You need to show that all designs fall into a need hierarchy. If designers don't have to make their designs fall into a nested hierarchy, then there is no reason why we would expect separately created species or kinds to fall into a nested hierarchy. If you can't even come up with a functional reason as to why designers would choose to use a nested hierarchy, then you really don't have a good argument.

xianghua · Feb 15, 2017

Speedwell said:
but the theory of evolution predicts that they will always occur in living creatures..

so i need to find one case where there isnt a nested hierarchy to falsified evolution? can you give a theoretical example?

xianghua · Feb 15, 2017

Loudmouth said:
You need to show that all designs fall into a need hierarchy. .

can you show me why there isnt in the real world?

Loudmouth · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
so i need to find one case where there isnt a nested hierarchy to falsified evolution?

You need to show that there isn't a statistically significant signal for a nested hierarchy among species that don't participate in a significant amount of horizontal genetic transfer.

can you give a theoretical example?

A species with feathers and mammary glands.

A mammal species with an exact copy of a jellyfish gene that doesn't exist in other mammal species.

A species with three middle ear bones and three lower jaw bones.

Loudmouth · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
can you show me why it isnt in the real world?

The reason that human designs and intelligent designs don't fall into a nested hierarchy is that there is no reason to do so. For example, if someone invents an airbag for a 4 door sedan no designer would ever say that they can only put airbags in 4 door sedans from that point forward. Instead, a designer takes that new invention and puts it in all types of vehicles.

Evolution can't work that way. Mammals invented fur, but there is no way that evolution can get that invention of fur into other lineages. Only the descendants of the species with fur can have fur. This is seen by the fact that birds invented feathers as a means of thermoregulation. We see new inventions in different lineages for similar functions, something that a designer would not have to do.

xianghua · Feb 15, 2017

Loudmouth said:
The reason that human designs and intelligent designs don't fall into a nested hierarchy is that there is no reason to do so. For example, if someone invents an airbag for a 4 door sedan no designer would ever say that they can only put airbags in 4 door sedans from that point forward. Instead, a designer takes that new invention and puts it in all types of vehicles.

Evolution can't work that way. Mammals invented fur, but there is no way that evolution can get that invention of fur into other lineages.

why not? according to evolution an eye evolved at least several times convergently. i dont see any problem why a fur cant evolve at least twice according to evolution.

also: human doesnt have a fur. does it mean he doesnt share a commondescent with other mammals? i have doubt on it.

Loudmouth · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
why not? according to evolution an eye evolved at least several times convergently.

The eye in different lineages is different. You don't find the same eye in all those lineages. Those are analogous features, not homologous.

i dont see any problem why a fur cant evolve at least twice according to evolution.

Biologists do see a problem with fur evolving independently in different lineages. Due to the random nature of mutations, the same mutations will not occur in different lineages. Therefore, evolution can not produce the same adaptations in different lineages.

also: human doesnt have a fur.

Yeah, they do. Almost your entire body is covered in hair. What you may not be aware of is that the hair is very thin in many places. If you put a magnifying glass on almost any part of your body you will see hair follicles. In fact, we have about the same number of hair follicles as chimps.

Speedwell · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
so i need to find one case where there isnt a nested hierarchy to falsified evolution? can you give a theoretical example?

Right. Catch a jackalope. A jackrabbit with the phylogenic antlers of an antelope

PsychoSarah · Feb 15, 2017

xianghua said:
so if i will find you an example of a nested hierarchy in a design objects, you will agree that nested hierarchy doesnt prove a commondescent?

You act as if that is the only evidence of common descent. Also, you could create something to look like a nested hierarchy, but since evolution applies only to living things, it would be a moot point.

There's no biological reason to have a nested hierarchy if organisms are created as is, because there is no biological reason to make creatures that have any resemblance to each other or share similar DNA.

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 16, 2017

xianghua said:
so if i will find you an example of a nested hierarchy in a design objects, you will agree that nested hierarchy doesnt prove a commondescent?

No. If you can find a nested hierarchy in designed objects, that doesn't change the prediction that objects that are the result of the process of evolution, will fall into a nested hierarchy.

Having said that: go for it. Find a manufactured object that falls into a nested hierarchy. Knock yourself out.

TagliatelliMonster · Feb 16, 2017

xianghua said:
so i need to find one case where there isnt a nested hierarchy to falsified evolution? can you give a theoretical example?

Sure... Any of the following, or similar, finds would do:

- Mammals with feathers
- Amphibians with hair
- Reptiles with inner ear bones
- any non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
- ...

There's literally a bazillion trillion ways to do it, once you really get into detail.

AV1611VET · Feb 16, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
There's literally a bazillion trillion ways to do it, once you really get into detail.

How about finding a rabbit that chews its cud?

xianghua · Feb 16, 2017

"Loudmouth, post: 70863407, member: 11790"]The eye in different lineages is different. You don't find the same eye in all those lineages. Those are analogous features, not homologous."-

first: among mammals there is also variety of eyes. even when they share a commondescent. so not all eyes shared an identical features.

" Due to the random nature of mutations, the same mutations will not occur in different lineages. Therefore, evolution can not produce the same adaptations in different lineages."-

so back to my question: where is the limit? 10 shared nucleotides? 20? 100? also in a lot of case we cant get the DNA from the fossils, and scientists still claim for convergent evolution by testing morphological traits only.

" Almost your entire body is covered in hair. "-

true. i refer to the kind of fur that dogs and cats have.

Common Design and Phylogenies

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency