Denying all evidence

[Mallon]

He avoided the issue just like he usually does. Neither God's Word nor scientific fact will change this persons mind. His mind is set on error and on error it will stay.

With respect, you're the one avoiding the implications of the nested hierarchy of life.

Concerning the early Christians: Darwinian evolution was not an option. Are we to assume that the Holy Spirit misled the Jews (B.C.) and the Christian world (A.D.) with a false notion about His created world ...until Darwin came along to clarify things for the erring saints of the Lord?

Personally, I don't think God is to blame if people misinterpret the Bible as a science textbook. Do you? Do you think God misled pre-Copernican Jews and Christians for allowing them to believe in geocentrism?

 

[shernren]

Concerning the early Christians: Darwinian evolution was not an option. Are we to assume that the Holy Spirit misled the Jews (B.C.) and the Christian world (A.D.) with a false notion about His created world ...until Darwin came along to clarify things for the erring saints of the Lord?

What wickedness.

Hey, hey, don't say such nasty things about your creationist buddies!

If your suggesting that an 8 inch curve per mile is important to society, please explain how a book of Morals and Spiritual Truths would make it relevant. By telling every person that they are standing on the high point of a curved surface?
Just how is that going to help God's message?
What are your priorities?

You guys might want to have a group hug and figure out just what it is you all believe about the Bible before you come back and continue burning us heretics at the stake.

 

[Hawkins]

the Flat Earth

By who's interpretation that leads to your conclusion that the Bible actually is talking about a flat earth?

Since it is impossible for ancient humans and modern humans to reach a consensus about the shape of the earth, what do you expect the Bible to describe it?

 

[Greg1234]

You need to find a discrepancy first, whales swimming using fish physiology, fins or scales, or breathing underwater using fish gills, that would be a discrepancy, mammals using adapted mammal physiology to swim is not.

A whale shares the features of a fish and is a completely aquatic animal. That it has mammalian features which serves to draw out Darwinian speculation does not change the fact that a hippo cannot turn into a whale. That a leg cannot turn into a flipper.

Meet Aerocar.

Its nice. But rejected as a "transitional form" on the same basis as the purported biological transitions.

you haven't been able to construct a nested hierarchy of cars so I don't know why you would want to talk about constructing a nested hierarchy of sea planes.

I don't think you realize how small of a nest you are in when in a range of vehicles you are pointing out discrepancies in cars. A sea plane, is in fact a vehicle.

You can't, the sea plane borrowed technology from both airplanes and boats.

Which is besides the point. The ea plane exhibits the clear characteristics of a boat and a plane. But is intelligently designed. Its not about tracing the sea plane back to boats or to planes. The same for biological systems.

But I can ask that question about whales, clearly you cannot group whales and salmon, or you would not have snipped that question out, you can group all the whales and their fossil ancestors in a nested hierarchy that goes all the way back to land animals.

I dont have to trace anything back to anything. I dont have to trace whales to fish, fish to bacteria, humans to chimpanzees or aerocars to cars. It is your bare assertion to claim one came from and by the other by grouping them, not mine. Proposed fossil ancestors of whales is Darwinism. Thats not the issue. It is the fact that a sea plane shares the characteristics of a boat and an airplane, but was intelligently designed. We see the same sharing of features within whales and as depicted in non biological systems, is just design. Its not about finding a car that looks like a boat, an amphibious car-boat, a boat, a flying boat. But the fact that a car, cannot turn into an airplane.

There isn't a fish or single piece of fish physiology in the whole nested hierarchy. Your discrepancies are just wishful thinking.

Start with the fin. For the floatplane, start with the wings.

You can't group airplanes or ships in nested hierarchies so their mixing and matching technologies makes no difference. The issue is your claim that sonar means you can group whales and bats together. Not if whales use whale physiology to produce their sonar and bats use a completely different technique based on their own physiology.

It doesn't matter what the physiology can accommodate. It is the fact that they both utilize echolocation, which is a nest of its own.

So sonar and radar in aircraft and ships can't be arranged into a single nested hierarchy and neither can sonar in bats and whales.

Which was to address you assertions on discrepancies in the utilization of these location systems. Finding differences in whale and bat employment methods is as indicative of common ancestry as finding discrepancies in ship and airplane location methods.

But sonar in whales a can be arranged into a nested hierarchy, so does sonar in bats. But the the two hierarchies do not join up until much further back in mammal history

Which is besides the point. They both utilize echolocation and would belong in that nest. Remember, any trait that overlaps breaks the hierarchy.

If your attempt to connect bat and whale echolocation breaks down, then don't use it.

I don't tell you what to use when you attack the common ancestry of cars and I expect the same in return. The fact is you are using every single trait. So down to eye color will be used in organisms. If I can find two organisms with a fovea centralis, then this would cut across the hierarchy. Seeing that not all organisms even have eyes.

As you say if you have intelligent designers individually designing each system you get load of mix and match, not just using the same physics common to the rest of the universe, but the same techniques to exploit that physics and often the same parts and whole subsystems in wildly differing machines and vehicles. No nested hierarchy can be drawn up.

As with the consideration of every single feature in biological systems.

However while evolution exploits the same physics, techniques subsystems and parts cannot be shared across different organisms unless they inherited them from a common ancestor. Everything has to be developed from scratch, which is why superficial examples are just that superficial, why the physiology used belongs firmly in the evolutionary nested hierarchy.

A sea plane didnt inherit its undercarriage from a boat. It was designed. Further, it is not up to you to deem what is and is not superficial. Nests are nests. And if every single feature is taken into consideration for vehicles, to draw up nests, then the same will be done for biological systems. Down to eye color. This is just comparative anatomy. If your assertions of humans coming from ape like creatures is rejected, what makes you think that comparing a whale and hippo will yield less contention.

Does the human forked tongue resemble human tongues in any other way, have they taken on other reptile cellular and physiological features? Do they use their tongues to smell like snakes? Is it controlled by same genes the snakes use to control the division of their tongues? Do they have any other reptilian features, vertical pupils, venom?

Its not about the discrepancies, but the similarities. Not all organisms have a forked tongue. A snake's forked tongue is not like a human's forked tongue, but they are both forked tongues and belong in the forked tongue category. Remember, there should be zero shared traits.

If you can't show how bat echolocation connected directly to whales than you don't have a case.

Echolocation is echolocation. I don't believe in common ancestry in the first place, there should be no reason why I should connect it. The fact that they do not connect is not against the fact that they are intelligently designed.

I am pretty sure if you knew your diesel engines you would find they don't fit a nested hierarchy because manufacturers will use techniques systems and even parts developed and licensed by other manufacturers.

Which was not contested. Of course a diesel engine is going to cut across the hierarchy. But if you classify herbivorous digestive systems, carnivorous digestive systems and omnivorous digestive systems it will cut across the hierarchy. There are a whole host of nests which are omnivorous. Classification based on an omnivore cuts across the hierarchy.

As for digestive systems, I know of no cows with a cloaca, rabbits with a gizzard, or horses with ruminant multiple stomachs.

But the digestive system is herbivorous. Discrepancies notwithstanding. Discrepancies are a plus.

Well we do share genetics with them. I sense your exasperation. What you need to show is two organisms sharing common features, not shared by a common ancestor, not developed after they diverged from their common ancestor. The platypus fits perfectly, crocoducks don't but they are imaginary.

Mammals are not reptiles. But of course you can always escape into the "transition" card. Humans are not snakes, but since there is always the "mammals came from reptiles" postulation in reserve, there is that route of exit. Humans are not fish, but you can always escape into common ancestry to explore "your inner fsh". On that note, the aerocar fits perfectly, given that cars can turn into airplanes.

You don't need to put an eagles wings on a house fly, there are enough birds insects and bats whose wingspans overlap.

And thats another nest. Why are you giving me material?

So if they were simple assembled by designers, the way a model aircraft builder might use the spoiler from a car, then if insect wings are more efficient for smaller size bodies, why not give them to the hummingbird?

So now the fact that a bird does not contain the information for an insect is a evidence for Darwinism. So what should be done now is to look for where a bird randomly developed the information for an insect and that would also be evidence for the ability of random mutations to generate completely new information. Its like a catch 22.

They all fly but the nested hierarchies do not overlap.

Depends on which nests you draw up.

You have just shown you cannot construct a nested hierarchy for human designed flight, whereas in the natural world, flight sticks to the nested hierarchies within bird insects and bats.

No I have shown you that flight ranging across multiple nests is in fact as much of a characteristic of design as it is for the proposed decent from bacteria.

So pigeon and hummingbirds have developed different flying techniques while keeping the same basic avian skeletal structure and feathers for their wings, while bats have a different skeletal structure and fur.

It is the exhibition of different flight mechanics within avian creatures which is an occurence not isolated to with in those with bird like features but those without as well.

You have just demonstrated the nested hierarchy.

Depends on how you draw up the nest. There is in fact a nest within which the wing and mechanics of the bat belongs to that of certain other birds from which the hummingbird is expelled. In which the ability to hover and the aspect ratio of said bird does not belong.

Of course as you seem to be touching on you can't construct a nested hierarchy for aircraft wings.

Pertaining to wing structure and function, the nest for both biological and non biological can be made.

No. much too vague. We have looked in some detail at bat and whale echolocation and it doesn't break the nested hierarchies.

They both use echolocation. It doesn't matter how deep you go.

Unlike diesel engines where the same engine can go in very different models breaking the nested hierarchy of models and marks

As with the herbivorous digestive system. And if there were the exact same digestive system in all organisms, this would be reported as "clear evidence or common ancestry". Erv insertions were being used in this way. Its either one or the other. It depends on how the Darwinist decides to dance.

 

[Assyrian]

I waited a few days to see if you would reply to the rest of my post. But apparently you can't justify your unscriptural claim "The only 'calamity' that God brought into the world was the judgement He placed upon the wicked at those times of judgement mentioned in the Old Testament." As I pointed out, this was rebuked by God in the OT when Jobs friends preached it at him. In spite of its condemnation in the OT, this smug judgementalism lived on in New testament times, it was a theology the disciples shared with the Pharisees ("You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" John 9:34). Just as God rejected it in Job, it was rejected by Jesus when the disciples expressed it. Again it mightn’t have been so bad quietly stepping away from a theology you got so badly wrong and changing the subject, if you didn’t at the same time keep condemning us as: having our minds set on error, heresy, such a heresy, clinging to error.

So you ignore most of my post and just reply to a couple of lines on the safer subject of Gen 1:2.

Are you joking? Since when is something 'without form' (Hebrew-tohu) and 'void' (Hebrew-wabohu) disorderly?

The earth merely had not been formed yet and it lay as it were like clay yet to be fashioned. Is clay disorderly? By whose definition?

'void' merely means 'empty'.

Do NOT try and convince other Christians that an orderly God created a diosorderly universe. If on the other hand, God had made a universe, world a popping, snapping, exploding, fomenting, unstable, fluctuating, world then you would have a case. But the fact is, He did not.

By way of illustration: Hersheys chocolate bars are stamped with the Hershey name on each candy bar. But is that chocolate that is formed and fashioned by machines 'disorderly' before they are shaped and stamped? Come on! Chocolate in packages waiting to be processed and put on the market is no more unstable or disorderly than is granite rock before it is turned into tombstones.

Why would I be joking when this is one of the most common interpretation of the passage? Looking at the commentaries I have with my bible software, it is described as:

Disorder, disordered, disorderly or without order in:
Barnes, Calvin's commentary, Clarke, Geneva bible notes, Henry, and Poole,
Confused or a confusion:
Barnes, Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Henry, JBF, Poole and Wesley.
And chaos or chaotic:
Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Henry, JBF, K&D and Wesley.
The only commentary on the passage that didn't mention disorder was Schofield who thought it described the result of cataclysm and catastrophe.

Now I am not arguing that all these commentators agree with me so I must be right, though I find their exegesis more convincing than your chocolate argument. It is more that I am surprised a Baptist senior pastor would be so unfamiliar with this. Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Incidentally in Isaiah 34:11 the AV translates tohu as confusion:But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. So does the ESV and NRSV, the NIV translates it chaos. Tohu is also translated confusion in the AV in Isaiah 24:10 The city of confusion is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in. So does the WEB, while it is translated chaos in the CEV Good News, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV and the Message.

Besides that....my theistic evolutionist counterpart....do you actually take that verse you quoted literally? Yes/no? Don't avoid the question.

If you take that verse literally then why not the rest of the chapter?

Speaking of avoiding questions, before we wander off on digressions about how I interpret Genesis, why don't you go back and answer the rest of the post?

 

[shernren]

Also, Papias was right (see end of post ).

 

[Papias]

C4 wrote:

Speaking of 'nested hierarchies'; do you mean something like this;

So, C4, do you agree that those groups form nested hierarchies within each kind, and that this nested hierarchy has resulted because of common descent within a kind?

Papias

 

[Sophophile]

Greg, you have now completely flip-flopped. You were originally arguing that "vehicles are independently designed and still form a nested hierarchy"
Now you appear to agree that vehicles do not form a nested hierarchy -- due to "discrepancies" -- and proceed to argue that neither do living things. Therefore, your overall discussion on this thread appears to lack integrity.

So thats the plan. To find one argument which is not compliant, and use it to stain every argument ever presented without actually having to provide a refutation. I'll try to remember to dot all i's.

Yes, Greg, that is exactly the plan. If we are humbly and earnestly seeking the truth, then we must not tolerate, espouse or propagate errors. Do not blame me for pointing out your errors. They are your errors, and your argument is stained because of your own actions.

Also, this is not a case of you failing to "dot all i's". You adamantly defended your original, blatant error for post after post, in spite of the error being explained to you numerous times. Do not now try to brush aside your carelessness with the truth as a minor side-point. It goes to the heart of the matter, which is: How can we trust your judgement on the important subject of Biblical origins, when your carelessness with the truth has been so amply demonstrated?

It is science. But one can do science without Darwinism. It is Creationism of Darwinism. Chance or design. Not Creationism or science.

Yes, one can do science without "Darwinism". The nested hierarchy of life was discovered before Darwin ever proposed his theory.

But it is most emphatically not Creationism vs Darwinism. It is Biblical Creationism vs Darwinism vs Hindu creationism vs Australian aboriginal mythology vs Raelianism vs Lysenkoism vs Lamarckism etc. etc. How do we determine which of these comes closest to the truth about how God created? Simple: We look at the evidence that God created.

Bat echolocation and oilbird echolocation use completely different physiological mechanisms --

They both utilize echolocation, it doesnt matter if it is physiologically different, it doesn't matter if they use high of low frequency, their larynx or a picnic basket, it is the echolocation feature, which is not shared by all organisms.

Exactly the same reasoning applies to flight, which also uses different mechanisms between bats and birds.

Again there are similarities and discrepancies. A bat is a aerial creature and a bird is also aerial. Pointing out that one is left hand drive and the other is right, does not negate the fact that they both share common traits.

This exchange shows very clearly, Greg, that you are not "getting it" in spite of repeated explanations.

A nested hierarchy is not derived from finding a couple of features in common between separate organisms or vehicles (like echolocation or flight).

A nested hierarchy is derived from the pattern of similarities and differences using as many observable features as possible. So your comment that "it doesnt matter if it is physiologically different" is completely false, because it implies we can simply disregard observable evidence. We cannot just disregard evidence if we wish to determine what is true.

And when we take into account all the evidence, including the physiological mechanisms of echolocation and flight in bats, whales and birds, we see that they form a nested hierarchy -- bats and whales are grouped within the mammals, and the mammals and birds are grouped within the tetrapods.

The pattern of similarities and differences in echolocation shows conclusively that it did not derive from the tetrapod ancestor of bats, whales and birds; instead it evolved separately in each of these lineages after they diverged from their ancestor.

The pattern of similarities and differences in flight shows conclusively that it did not derive from the tetrapod ancestor of bats and birds; instead it evolved separately in each of these lineages after they diverged from their ancestor.

Its just that simple.

Cheers
S.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, Greg, that is exactly the plan. If we are humbly and earnestly seeking the truth, then we must not tolerate, espouse or propagate errors. Do not blame me for pointing out your errors. They are your errors, and your argument is stained because of your own actions.

Also, this is not a case of you failing to "dot all i's". You adamantly defended your original, blatant error for post after post, in spite of the error being explained to you numerous times. Do not now try to brush aside your carelessness with the truth as a minor side-point. It goes to the heart of the matter, which is: How can we trust your judgement on the important subject of Biblical origins, when your carelessness with the truth has been so amply demonstrated?



Yes, one can do science without "Darwinism". The nested hierarchy of life was discovered before Darwin ever proposed his theory.

But it is most emphatically not Creationism vs Darwinism. It is Biblical Creationism vs Darwinism vs Hindu creationism vs Australian aboriginal mythology vs Raelianism vs Lysenkoism vs Lamarckism etc. etc.

First and foremost it is chance vs design. Thats why intelligent design has been dubbed a subset of creationism.

How do we determine which of these comes closest to the truth about how God created? Simple: We look at the evidence that God created.

And what does the evidence tell us? You act like we are opposing science due to the bible. Because two weeks ago, random mutations created a heart, or a lung, yesterday a polar bear grew fins. When this is not the case. When tests done in controlled conditions show the exact opposite.

Darwin just went ahead and gambled that he was correct, without any testing. First came the hypothesis, and then the science, which is standard procedure. Now that the results are in, you just ignore it. And this is what makes Darwinism unique. Because you have allowed theological implications to get in the way of science. The very thing you accuse us of. The last thing an atheist wants to do is show a Christian that he was right, in anything whatsoever. And thats what Darwinism runs on. Horses get faster and faster, but they are not continuing to get quicker which will then have us wondering how fast they will be, and what changes will accommodate their speed, in a million years. They've hit a limit. And thats just one example. Darwin didnt know about that. He didnt know about the complex mechanisms behind adaptation. I doubt he even knew about DNA. Have you ever gotten into a serious debate with an atheist? You'll see what i'm talking about. I don't think you guys realize as yet, what you're doing.

This exchange shows very clearly, Greg, that you are not "getting it" in spite of repeated explanations.

A nested hierarchy is not derived from finding a couple of features in common between separate organisms or vehicles (like echolocation or flight).

A nested hierarchy is derived from the pattern of similarities and differences using as many observable features as possible. So your comment that "it doesnt matter if it is physiologically different" is completely false, because it implies we can simply disregard observable evidence. We cannot just disregard evidence if we wish to determine what is true.

And when we take into account all the evidence, including the physiological mechanisms of echolocation and flight in bats, whales and birds, we see that they form a nested hierarchy -- bats and whales are grouped within the mammals, and the mammals and birds are grouped within the tetrapods.

The pattern of similarities and differences in echolocation shows conclusively that it did not derive from the tetrapod ancestor of bats, whales and birds; instead it evolved separately in each of these lineages after they diverged from their ancestor.

The pattern of similarities and differences in flight shows conclusively that it did not derive from the tetrapod ancestor of bats and birds; instead it evolved separately in each of these lineages after they diverged from their ancestor.

Its just that simple.

Cheers
S.

I never claimed every single feature had to be considered. But I will mimic the attack on cars

 

[Assyrian]

A whale shares the features of a fish and is a completely aquatic animal.

You have just described the whale’s environment, but it lives in the environment using purely mammalian features.

That it has mammalian features which serves to draw out Darwinian speculation does not change the fact that a hippo cannot turn into a whale. That a leg cannot turn into a flipper.

Of course a hippo can’t turn into a whale. It would go completely against evolution if modern animal jumped across to another genus family or phylum. Other than that you have no evidence legs cannot change into flippers and the fossil evidence shows just such a gradual change.

Its nice. But rejected as a "transitional form" on the same basis as the purported biological transitions.

Well you claimed a car can't turn into a plane. I showed you Aerocar.

It certainly destroys any attempt at building a nested hierarchy for either cars of planes. As for transitional form, it certainly isn't. Not in the biological sense, because there are no ancient with features common to both cars and planes before the lineages divided. Instead, the designer took plane technology and bolted it to a car. On the other hand the platypus fits perfectly in the nested hierarchy because all its transitional features belong to common ancestor of reptiles, platypuses and placental mammals.

I don't think you realize how small of a nest you are in when in a range of vehicles you are pointing out discrepancies in cars. A sea plane, is in fact a vehicle.

Sorry that makes no sense.

You can't, the sea plane borrowed technology from both airplanes and boats.

Which is besides the point. The ea plane exhibits the clear characteristics of a boat and a plane. But is intelligently designed. Its not about tracing the sea plane back to boats or to planes. The same for biological systems.

Biological organisms fit into a nested hierarchy and do not borrow bits from other organisms. Seaplanes were designed mixing plane and boat technology, that is why nested hierarchies are a feature of evolution, and designed technologies can't be put in nested heirarchies.

I dont have to trace anything back to anything. I dont have to trace whales to fish, fish to bacteria, humans to chimpanzees or aerocars to cars. It is your bare assertion to claim one came from and by the other by grouping them, not mine. Proposed fossil ancestors of whales is Darwinism. Thats not the issue. It is the fact that a sea plane shares the characteristics of a boat and an airplane, but was intelligently designed. We see the same sharing of features within whales and as depicted in non biological systems, is just design. Its not about finding a car that looks like a boat, an amphibious car-boat, a boat, a flying boat. But the fact that a car, cannot turn into an airplane.

Apart from the Aerocar... No. I am not simply giving a bare assertion whales evolved from land animals. We have been looking at some of the evidence for evolution, that all the living creatures there ever lived fit into a nested hierarchy. This is a feature of descent with modification. You can only take existing features and modify them, you can't mix and match. Two different organisms may arrive at similar solutions to the same environment, streamlining, echolocation, wing configuration, but they all arrive at these optimum designs by modifying existing physiology. Whales and bats use whale and bat physiology to make use of the physics of sound reflection, they did not borrow from other designs the way human designers do. Bat and bird wing aspect ratios are the optimum for that type of flight but birds get their aspect ratios from different lengths of primary and secondary feathers. Bats do it totally differently, they don't borrow bird feathers or the structure of bird wings, instead their aspect ratios are totally bat, and depend on the lengths of their fingers.

It is not enough to point out that different animals arrive at similar solutions to similar physics in their environments, evolution predicts that. Not when the physiology used for these solutions belongs firmly with their own nested heirarchies. What you need to show if that whole features and physiologies have been borrowed, the way designers will slap a diesel engine in a series of petrol engines cars or Aerocar take aeroplane wings and a prop and puts them on a car.

This is the difference between things being designed separately and descent with modification. Descent with modification give a nested hierarchy. The only new features are one that can be formed from existing physiology. Even when you jump on trivial examples the physiology behind these examples all belong completely within the nested hierarchy. When things are separately designed, the designer is not limited to features in the previous model they mix and match, bolt a float on their aeroplane or wings on a car. No nested hierarchy is possible because each part can have a completely different source. Creationists think you can tell if things are designed, well this is the way to do it. They will mix and match using the best parts available adn it won't fit a nested hierarchy. Unless the designer is using decent with modification of course.

Anyway I'll leave it at that because this is getting way too long.

 

[Greg1234]

You have just described the whale’s environment, but it lives in the environment using purely mammalian features.

It has both mammalian and fish features. The mammalian features are specially designed for the aquatic environment. There are different kinds of aquatic systems. The whale is one.

Well you claimed a car can't turn into a plane. I showed you Aerocar.

Ah ok. Cars can turn into planes then.

As for transitional form, it certainly isn't. Not in the biological sense, because there are no ancient with features common to both cars and planes before the lineages divided.

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that it shares both car and airplane features. Modern becomes ancient. On par with the "living transitional forms".

Instead, the designer took plane technology and bolted it to a car. On the other hand the platypus fits perfectly in the nested hierarchy because all its transitional features belong to common ancestor of reptiles, platypuses and placental mammals.

It shares the features of mammals reptiles and birds. Like the seaplane.

Biological organisms fit into a nested hierarchy and do not borrow bits from other organisms.

So do vehicles. But when I find an airplane which uses an anchor to stop like ships do i'll let you know.

Seaplanes were designed mixing plane and boat technology,

So was the whale, and the platypus.

We have been looking at some of the evidence for evolution,

Which shows that random mutation degrades life, that adaptation is not unlimited etc. To get from bacteria to whales is against everything we know about adaptation.

You can only take existing features and modify them, you can't mix and match.

You can call the aerocar a modified car. But it was designed. A whale is fish, with specially designed mammalian features.

Two different organisms may arrive at similar solutions to the same environment, streamlining, echolocation, wing configuration, but they all arrive at these optimum designs by modifying existing physiology.

It is impossible for a whale designed without a larynx or an external ear, to use echolocation the same way a bat does. An airplane cannot use tire brakes at 30000 feet. But the spoiler did not come from cars turning into planes.

Whales and bats use whale and bat physiology to make use of the physics of sound reflection,

Cars use car physiology when designing a spoiler. A car designed spoiler on an airplane is completely useless (and dangerous).

Bat and bird wing aspect ratios are the optimum for that type of flight but birds get their aspect ratios from different lengths of primary and secondary feathers. Bats do it totally differently, they don't borrow bird feathers or the structure of bird wings

Which is not needed, to be classified as high aspect ratio. The spoiler on the car and plane uses the same principle of pressure displacement and drag. But there are also differences including the platform and motion. Both were designed.

It is not enough to point out that different animals arrive at similar solutions to similar physics in their environments, evolution predicts that.

The car and the airplane both employ engines for motion.

Not when the physiology used for these solutions belongs firmly with their own nested heirarchies.

An airplane utilizing tire traction to fly through the air is completely impractical.

What you need to show if that whole features and physiologies have been borrowed, the way designers will slap a diesel engine in a series of petrol engines cars or Aerocar take aeroplane wings and a prop and puts them on a car.

The same way you slap a heart and lungs on a wolf, a wolf being a bacterium.

This is the difference between things being designed separately and descent with modification. Descent with modification give a nested hierarchy. The only new features are one that can be formed from existing physiology.

As with the torpedo tube on a submarine and a surface ship. Further, if you want to use the torpedo's like a submarine on a ship, you dont strap a sub to the side, but incorporate it into the physiology of the ship, which will be different in some regards.

When things are separately designed, the designer is not limited to features in the previous model they mix and match, bolt a float on their aeroplane or wings on a car.

Due to weight, you cannot put an entire ship's hull on an airplane. There are differences, as well as similarities which are inevitable to accomplish said task. Further, you don't determine how a design should be made. Or how it should have been. Two cars next to each other does not have to be extravagantly dissimilar for the observer to forsake the conclusion that one can turn into the other. We see similar designs everywhere all the time, but testing shows us that bicycles cannot turn into cars. The design of a man does not have to include extraordinarily flamboyant features, to elude Darwinist when they can just conduct tests if they ever fall into the comparative anatomy of cars.

 

[Mallon]

It has both mammalian and fish features.

That's the part you don't seem to be getting. Whales DON'T have fish features. For example, the pectoral fins of fish don't contain upper or lower arm bones (unless you're talking about lobe-finned fish, which is in itself a problem for neocreationists), but those of whales -- like all mammal forelimbs -- do. Likewise, the pelvic fins of fish don't contain upper or lower leg bones, but those of whales -- like all mammal hindlimbs -- do (when they appear as atavisms, as in the picture shernren posted earlier). Compare the whale flipper here:

to the fish fins here:

Now compare both those pictures to, say, a human forearm here:

If you're honest, you'll recognize that the whale flipper is more like a human (mammal) forelimb than a fish fish. Superficially, the whale flipper might look similar to a fish fin, but that's only because they're adapted to serve similar functions underwater. In detail, though, the whale flipper is clearly just a modified mammal forelimb. A whale does not have fish features otherwise unique to fish.

If you're really intent on finding an animal that breaks the nested hierarchy of life, find something like this:

this:

or this:

Such chimaeras completely fly in the face of evolutionary theory and could never be explained by it.

 

[shernren]

But Mallon, you forgot the posterboy of evolution-disproving creatures!

 

[Assyrian]

It has both mammalian and fish features. The mammalian features are specially designed for the aquatic environment.There are different kinds of aquatic systems. The whale is one.

What fish features? If the mammalian features were specially designed for the aquatic environment, then they would not bear any resemblance to features in other mammals. We have discussed mix and match as evidence of things being individually designed, well this is another, designers invent whole new systems individually designed and add them in. But you don't see that in whales either. Instead what you have are ordinary mammalian features that were adapted for the aquatic environment.

Ah ok. Cars can turn into planes then.
Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that it shares both car and airplane features. Modern becomes ancient. On par with the "living transitional forms".

Sorry modern does not become ancient, well not until much later. If you can't come up with a nested hierarchy of cars and planes that the aerocar fits into as a transitional form, you can't compare it to real nested hierarchies we see in nature and simply claim it is 'on par'.

Instead, the designer took plane technology and bolted it to a car. On the other hand the platypus fits perfectly in the nested hierarchy because all its transitional features belong to common ancestor of reptiles, platypuses and placental mammals.

It shares the features of mammals reptiles and birds. Like the seaplane.

Except you don't have the nested hierarchy to link them. Do you actually not see the difference? One is built by taking bits and pieces of completely different technologies never linked together before, the other fits perfectly into the nested hierarchy the links all living creature with similar features together. In one you have different planks of woods glass and nails that never met before, hammered into a shed, the other all the changes fit together like branches on tree. Twigs on one branch similar to each other, and twigs on another branch similar to each other. Take twigs from two different branches and they are not so close... but trace the branches back and they get more and more alike and from a large branch.

Biological organisms fit into a nested hierarchy and do not borrow bits from other organisms.

So do vehicles. But when I find an airplane which uses an anchor to stop like ships do i'll let you know.

Thats funny when you were never able to fit cars into a nested hierarchy... remember?

It is not the parts they don't share that wreck any attempt at build nested hierarchies for vehicles, it is the parts they do share, speedboats like 1957 Gold Cup winner "Miss Thriftway" powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin Spitfire engine.

So was the whale, and the platypus.

No they weren't.

Which shows that random mutation degrades life, that adaptation is not unlimited etc. To get from bacteria to whales is against everything we know about adaptation.

Wait until I get to my point try to deal with my argument there, the distinction I am pointing out between descent with modification and individual design.

You can only take existing features and modify them, you can't mix and match.

You can call the aerocar a modified car. But it was designed. A whale is fish, with specially designed mammalian features.

You can call thing anything you like if you are willing to make it all up. The issue is not whether you can hand wave and call the aerocar a modified car ignoring the fact the wings are not modified car parts, but whether you can grasp the distinction I am showing you between evolution and special design.

Two different organisms may arrive at similar solutions to the same environment, streamlining, echolocation, wing configuration, but they all arrive at these optimum designs by modifying existing physiology.

It is impossible for a whale designed without a larynx or an external ear, to use echolocation the same way a bat does. An airplane cannot use tire brakes at 30000 feet. But the spoiler did not come from cars turning into planes.

Now you are arguing echolocation isn't shared. That is good. But you could still give whales gills if you were designing them from scratch. You could streamline a whale by giving it a sharks skull design, instead of modifying mammal bones. You could give humming bird insect wings and change the aspect ration of a bat's wing by giving the bats feathers. If you were designing them from scratch. Descent with modification can arrive at similar solutions, but only modifying existing physiology.

Whales and bats use whale and bat physiology to make use of the physics of sound reflection,

Cars use car physiology when designing a spoiler. A car designed spoiler on an airplane is completely useless (and dangerous).

Which is why aerocar used aeroplane wings. And when car designers first came up with spoilers, they were adopted by other car manufacturers too. They didn't take parts already existing on the previous seasons race car and modify that into a spoiler, they copied the idea and incorporated it in their new model, spoiler break nested hierarchy.

Which is not needed, to be classified as high aspect ratio.

Wing shape in bird come from the lengths of feathers, in bats it is the length of different fingers, index finger (I think) gives the length of the wing the other fingers its width. If they share an aspect ration it is because of aerodynamic demands, but bats and birds use very different physiologies to arrive at similar solutions.

The spoiler on the car and plane uses the same principle of pressure displacement and drag. But there are also differences including the platform and motion. Both were designed.

So? You are not getting to grips with the difference between descent with modification and individual design. Unless you can get a handle on that, all you are doing is sniping in with irrelevant comments.

It is not enough to point out that different animals arrive at similar solutions to similar physics in their environments, evolution predicts that.

The car and the airplane both employ engines for motion.

What has that got to do with it?

Not when the physiology used for these solutions belongs firmly with their own nested heirarchies.

An aeroplane utilizing tire traction to fly through the air is completely impractical.

Again nothing to do with it.

What you need to show if that whole features and physiologies have been borrowed, the way designers will slap a diesel engine in a series of petrol engines cars or Aerocar take aeroplane wings and a prop and puts them on a car.

The same way you slap a heart and lungs on a wolf, a wolf being a bacterium.

In other words you can't come up with an example.

This is the difference between things being designed separately and descent with modification. Descent with modification give a nested hierarchy. The only new features are one that can be formed from existing physiology.

As with the torpedo tube on a submarine and a surface ship. Further, if you want to use the torpedo's like a submarine on a ship, you dont strap a sub to the side, but incorporate it into the physiology of the ship, which will be different in some regards.

It is still using the torpedo you borrowed form the sub. It doesn't matter there are differences between how the sub carries them and the ship does, or how it is slung under a helicopter. What matters is they were able to take the technologies designed for a completely different craft. It breaks nested hierarchy. If you are limited to modifying existing features, then you get nested hierarchies.

When things are separately designed, the designer is not limited to features in the previous model they mix and match, bolt a float on their aeroplane or wings on a car.

Due to weight, you cannot put an entire ship's hull on an airplane. There are differences, as well as similarities which are inevitable to accomplish said task. Further, you don't determine how a design should be made. Or how it should have been. Two cars next to each other does not have to be extravagantly dissimilar for the observer to forsake the conclusion that one can turn into the other.

Of course there are different design constraints, and it is the designers choice how he builds it not mine, did I suggest otherwise? That doesn't change the fact that designers can and do mix and match to find the best combinations to fit the design constraints. It is this mixing and matching that prevents designed objects fitting not a nested hierarchy, while descent with modification can only modify features already in each lineage. One gives nested hierarchies, the other a hotchpotch of mix and match that cannot be fit into a hierarchy. And because all life on earth fits beautifully into a nested hierarchy it is evidence it is the result of descent with modification, not individual design.

We see similar designs everywhere all the time, but testing shows us that bicycles cannot turn into cars. The design of a man does not have to include extraordinarily flamboyant features, to elude Darwinist when they can just conduct tests if they ever fall into the comparative anatomy of cars.

Bicycles not turning into cars is not actually evidence against evolution.

 

[Greg1234]

That's the part you don't seem to be getting. Whales DON'T have fish features.

Start with the tail. As for the features of a whale which are designed for aquatic conditions, differing from features designed for land dwelling , David Berlinski stopped at 50000, but here's a few:

• Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
• A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
• Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
• Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
• Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
• Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
• Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
• Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
• Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

For example, the pectoral fins of fish don't contain upper or lower arm bones (unless you're talking about lobe-finned fish, which is in itself a problem for neocreationists), but those of whales -- like all mammal forelimbs -- do. Likewise, the pelvic fins of fish don't contain upper or lower leg bones, but those of whales -- like all mammal hindlimbs -- do (when they appear as atavisms, as in the picture shernren posted earlier).

This was already addressed.

Compare the whale flipper here:

to the fish fins here:

And of course there are fish with the similar design structures of a whale and dolphin. For example, those of the Coelacanth order.

And the tiktaalik

Both are just fish, and similarly never had any ancestors who walked on land.

Now compare both those pictures to, say, a human forearm here:

A car

A truck

If you're honest, you'll recognize that the whale flipper is more like a human (mammal) forelimb than a fish fish. Superficially, the whale flipper might look similar to a fish fin, but that's only because they're adapted to serve similar functions underwater. In detail, though, the whale flipper is clearly just a modified mammal forelimb. A whale does not have fish features otherwise unique to fish.

Already given. Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between a Dolphin's flippers and that of a terrestrial animal. For example, Dolphins do not have a movable elbow joint, and is fixed rigidly to the body, which is what you would expect for a mechanism designed for steering. The design and number of bones also serves to greatly increase the surface area of the fin which also differs in that of terrestrial animals.

If you're really intent on finding an animal that breaks the nested hierarchy of life, find something like this:

this:

or this:

Such chimaeras completely fly in the face of evolutionary theory and could never be explained by it.

YouTube - A Jet Comes Out of the Water

YouTube - FASTEST JET EVER

 

[Mallon]

Start with the tail.

What about the tail? Are you referring to the fact that a fish's tail is supported by a series of radiating bones, whereas that of the whale is not?

That doesn't support your point. What's more, the flukes of a whale tail are oriented horizontally, whereas the lobes of a fish tail are oriented vertically. More evidence that the tails of fish and whales are structurally very different. You're really not researching this stuff very thoroughly, are you?

As for the features of a whale which are designed for aquatic conditions, differing from features designed for land dwelling , David Berlinski stopped at 50000, but here's a few:

• Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

• 
  So... you consider an animal that lives at great ocean depths, but that must surface regularly to breathe air, an optimal design?
  
  

  [*]A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

  A tail which, as I've just shown, is clearly adapted from a terrestrial mammalian condition, rather than resembling that of a fish in any way.
  
  

  [*]Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
  [*]Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
  [*]Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
  [*]Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

  Those are all excellent adaptations for an aquatic lifestyle. None of them are unexplainable by evolution, though. None of them require poofing into existence.
  
  

  [*]Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

  ... which can be traced back evolutionarily to their position at the front of the skull using transitional fossils.
  
  
  
  
  

  [*]Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

  Again, nice, but not evidence contrary to evolution.
  
  

  [*]Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

  Interestingly, the earliest baleen whales also had teeth -- not something you would expect if baleen was specially designed.
  
  

  This was already addressed.

  You always say that, but it doesn't appear to mean anything. It seems like something you just say when you don't feel like actually dealing with an issue.
  
  

  And of course there are fish with the similar design structures of a whale and dolphin. For example, those of the Coelacanth order.
  
  

  

  
  
  And the tiktaalik
  
  

  

  
  
  Both are just fish, and similarly never had any ancestors who walked on land.

  Good on you. You recognized that some fish have arm bones like those of tetrapods. That's one of the reasons why scientists believe tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fish. There's even a good series of transitional fossils that show that evolution:
  
  
  
  
  

  Already given. Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between a Dolphin's flippers and that of a terrestrial animal. For example, Dolphins do not have a movable elbow joint, and is fixed rigidly to the body, which is what you would expect for a mechanism designed for steering. The design and number of bones also serves to greatly increase the surface area of the fin which also differs in that of terrestrial animals.

  Ummm... The stabilization of an elbow joint is neither evidence against evolution nor evidence for intelligent design. It's really not that difficult to achieve developmentally. It certainly isn't a "fundamental difference".
  
  

  YouTube - A Jet Comes Out of the Water
  
  YouTube - FASTEST JET EVER

  Planes aren't alive. You're going an excellent job demonstrating why machines cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy, though (because they're chimaeric). Too bad you still haven't explained why animals can.

 

[Greg1234]

What fish features? If the mammalian features were specially designed for the aquatic environment, then they would not bear any resemblance to features in other mammals.

If the airplane wings were designed, they would bear no resemblance to underwater creatures.

We have discussed mix and match as evidence of things being individually designed, well this is another, designers invent whole new systems individually designed and add them in. But you don't see that in whales either. Instead what you have are ordinary mammalian features that were adapted for the aquatic environment.

You have an ordinary car, adapted adapted to aquatic conditions. Commonly known as the boat.

Except you don't have the nested hierarchy to link them. Do you actually not see the difference? One is built by taking bits and pieces of completely different technologies never linked together before,

As with the human cornea on an owl.

the other fits perfectly into the nested hierarchy the links all living creature with similar features together.

Which links cars and airplanes

In one you have different planks of woods glass and nails that never met before,

hammered into a shed, the other all the changes fit together like branches on tree. Twigs on one branch similar to each other, and twigs on another branch similar to each other. Take twigs from two different branches and they are not so close... but trace the branches back and they get more and more alike and from a large branch.[/quote]
Pick particular features on the aero car and trace the aero car back and you get cars, which will eventually take you to the tire and the unicycle.

Thats funny when you were never able to fit cars into a nested hierarchy... remember?

Which is why an anchor doesnt stop an airplane right?

It is not the parts they don't share that wreck any attempt at build nested hierarchies for vehicles, it is the parts they do share, speedboats like 1957 Gold Cup winner "Miss Thriftway" powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin Spitfire engine.[

Like the omnivorous digestive system on a bear and a human

You can call thing anything you like if you are willing to make it all up. The issue is not whether you can hand wave and call the aerocar a modified car ignoring the fact the wings are not modified car parts,

A paw is not a modified flagellum.

Now you are arguing echolocation isn't shared. That is good.

Yep. It is. Read it again.

But you could still give whales gills if you were designing them from scratch.

You could still give cars tank armor, and bullet proof glass if you designed them from scratch.

You could streamline a whale by giving it a sharks skull design, instead of modifying mammal bones.

You could streamline an aerocar giving it a f16 body design instead of modifying a car's cabin.

You could give humming bird insect wings and change the aspect ration of a bat's wing by giving the bats feathers.

You could still give the f35 rotary wings instead of a hover configuration of an existing system.

If you were designing them from scratch. Descent with modification can arrive at similar solutions, but only modifying existing physiology.

As given

Which is why aerocar used aeroplane wings.

And the necleotide of a fish used the same type of bases used in human

And when car designers first came up with spoilers, they were adopted by other car manufacturers too. They didn't take parts already existing on the previous seasons race car and modify that into a spoiler,

Because a car's trunk opening and closing does not mean it can turn into a spoiler.

they copied the idea and incorporated it in their new model, spoiler break nested hierarchy.

Blue eyes break nested hierarchy. Total copying of eye color.

Wing shape in bird come from the lengths of feathers, in bats it is the length of different fingers, index finger (I think) gives the length of the wing the other fingers its width.

The material used is not relevant. There are carbon fiber, aluminum, and wodden wings with shape and structure determined by respective material, with shape often determining speed and efficiency.

If they share an aspect ration it is because of aerodynamic demands, but bats and birds use very different physiologies to arrive at similar solutions.

Which is besides the fact that they are in the high aspect nest.

It is still using the torpedo you borrowed form the sub. It doesn't matter there are differences between how the sub carries them and the ship does, or how it is slung under a helicopter.

It doesnt matter what the differences are in how the blue eyes in a wolf is formed, nor the eye that carries them, the fact is the eye is blue.

What matters is they were able to take the technologies designed for a completely different craft. It breaks nested hierarchy. If you are limited to modifying existing features, then you get nested hierarchies.

As given

Of course there are different design constraints, and it is the designers choice how he builds it not mine, did I suggest otherwise? That doesn't change the fact that designers can and do mix and match to find the best combinations to fit the design constraints. It is this mixing and matching that prevents designed objects fitting not a nested hierarchy,

And there are many similarities and discrepancies in biological systems. You don't find a human with wings because it wasn't designed that way. Similarly I could just locate all the features on all organisms and show the sharing of traits.

while descent with modification can only modify features already in each lineage. One gives nested hierarchies, the other a hotchpotch of mix and match that cannot be fit into a hierarchy. And because all life on earth fits beautifully into a nested hierarchy it is evidence it is the result of descent with modification, not individual design.

As with vehicles.

Bicycles not turning into cars is not actually evidence against evolution.

All tests show that bicycles cannot turn into cars.

 

[Greg1234]

What about the tail? Are you referring to the fact that a fish's tail is supported by a series of radiating bones, whereas that of the whale is not?

That doesn't support your point. What's more, the flukes of a whale tail are oriented horizontally, whereas the lobes of a fish tail are oriented vertically. More evidence that the tails of fish and whales are structurally very different. You're really not researching this stuff very thoroughly, are you?

Fan with stand

Fan without stand

So... you consider an animal that lives at great ocean depths, but that must surface regularly to breathe air, an optimal design?

You consider an aircraft that needs a long runway an optimal design? You consider a man which has to eat constantly an optimal design, as opposed to photosynthesis? You consider an oil tanker in the pirate infested Somalian seas an optimal design, as opposed to a battle ship?

A tail which, as I've just shown, is clearly adapted from a terrestrial mammalian condition, rather than resembling that of a fish in any way.

Its just a tail. There are a number of differences. You've found one.

Those are all excellent adaptations for an aquatic lifestyle. None of them are unexplainable by evolution, though. None of them require poofing into existence.

Hmm. There you go again.

... which can be traced back evolutionarily to their position at the front of the skull using transitional fossils.

Again, nice, but not evidence contrary to evolution.

Not evidence contrary to design. Given the fact that tests show that random mutation cannot turn bacteria into men, we have the evidence.

Interestingly, the earliest baleen whales also had teeth -- not something you would expect if baleen was specially designed.

The earliest sea planes have full sized hulls and a rear prop.

Good on you. You recognized that some fish have arm bones like those of tetrapods. That's one of the reasons why scientists believe tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fish.

Darwinists are free to believe whatever they like.

There's even a good series of transitional fossils that show that evolution:

The tiktaalik is a fish, with fish characteristics, whose ancestors never walked on land, which have different flipper configuration than those of other fish and closely resembling that designed in whales. Putting to rest the hypothesis that you need to have a terrestrial ancestor to have such differences and similarities, or that you even need to be a mammal.

Ummm... The stabilization of an elbow joint is neither evidence against evolution nor evidence for intelligent design. It's really not that difficult to achieve developmentally. It certainly isn't a "fundamental difference".

It is a difference. Remember, there should be no differences.

Planes aren't alive.

Which is besides the fact that in both cases, tests show that a car will not become an airplane.

You're going an excellent job demonstrating why machines cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy, though (because they're chimaeric). Too bad you still haven't explained why animals can.

To refute the nested hierarchy, you need to find the creatures given. Until then, it seems like cars can turn into airplanes.

 

[Papias]

I see two main approaches in Greg's responses, those being the "this was already given" when it wasn't, the other being a bunch of incoherent statements.

For instance, Greg wrote:

If the airplane wings were designed, they would bear no resemblance to underwater creatures.

but airplane wings were designed. Whaa?

or winners like this one:

And the necleotide of a fish used the same type of bases used in human

I'd be surprised, except that we've seen this time and again from creationists, not just on this board but elsewhere too. Even the courts have recognized it. Last year the Institute for Creationist Research sued to be able to have an accredited creationist "biology" graduate program, and in those legal arguments, the ICR consistently filed documents of gibberish also. This got so bad that the court stated:

"It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information"

(p. 12).

Now for years I've wondered if this is intentional, and that these creationists could think and write clearly if they wanted to, or if, on the other hand, it is due to a scrambling of the brain itself, and clear thinking is no longer possible. Ironically, when I've asked this of creationists, the answer has been unintelligible gibberish, leaving me still wondering.

Papias

 

[Mallon]

I see two main approaches in Greg's responses, those being the "this was already given" when it wasn't, the other being a bunch of incoherent statements.

Indeed.

Greg, you've managed to say a lot -- and post a lot of pictures -- without actually addressing any of my points. Your analogies to man-made vehicles have just become so obscure as to not even mean anything anymore. That said, my point still stands that you haven't actually explained why life is arranged as a nested hierarchy. I'll leave it at that.