Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Split Rock]

Sadly though if we let the theory interpret the data we go amiss....there is zero evidence for a common ancestor...just because one thing follows another does not necessitate that the latter came FROM the former (that is an invalid derivation)

Are you really claiming that the evidence for common descent is solely based on "one thing follows another?" What about the twin nested hierarchy?

 

[stevevw]

There are are 75 genera with a total of 4,000 species of fruit flies. You do realize this, don' t you?

Yes I realize that but aren't they still all flies. Isn't this just showing a lot of variety within the fly shaped creatures. They all still have fly shapes with fly wings and fly antenna and fly eyes.

Also, our common ancestor with bears was a mammal. Bears are a mammal. We are a mammal. All that time, and all those species are still mammals, and yet it is evolution. Do you understand why that is?

Yes but how does that prove evolution. If there is a common design then certain parts are going to be the same with many things.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes I realize that but aren't they still all flies. Isn't this just showing a lot of variety within the fly shaped creatures. They all still have fly shapes with fly wings and fly antenna and fly eyes.

So... Aren't humans still apes?

The problem with this argument is that you're unwilling to clarify what you mean. Yes, they're all still flies. So what? Is there a "fly" kind? How does that compare to the "cat" kind? Or the "Dog" kind? Or the "bacteria" kind? There's a reason why scientists use different words to define different groupings - the amount of diversity present within flies far outweighs the amount of diversity present in, say, the primates. You're claiming that no significant evolution took place on account of the fact that the flies did not somehow evolve out of the order Diptera. Would you equally claim that no significant evolution took place when humans evolved within the phyla "Primate"?

 

[The Cadet]

Yes but how does that prove evolution. If there is a common design then certain parts are going to be the same with many things.

So... why would this designer then proceed to design essentially the same mechanism in multiple different ways? After all, the wings of a fly and the wings of an eagle are analogous, but under the surface they are completely different. However, they serve essentially the same purpose. Same thing with shark fins and whale flippers. These are not common design, this is like one person having a pair of flippers and the other having a hovercraft.

Maybe the common designer got bored and decided to design essentially the same thing a lot of different ways. Or, alternatively, the common designer has no issue with time, but has a really shoddy memory, so every time he makes something new, he uses it on a few creatures, then forgets it and has to design it from scratch. Or maybe the designer just "works in mysterious ways". Can you make any testable, falsifiable prediction about how your designer designs? I don't think so.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of what evidence we find, "There was a designer" will always work as an explanation. This is not a feature. What this means is that we have absolutely no mechanism for determining whether something was designed or not. This is why intelligent design is not science, and why it cannot be considered a legitimate alternative to the evolutionary model. The very best that ID proponents can do is poke holes in the theory of evolution without offering any sort of replacement.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes I realize that but aren't they still all flies. Isn't this just showing a lot of variety within the fly shaped creatures. They all still have fly shapes with fly wings and fly antenna and fly eyes.

So, you agree with me that they are all Flies and not just fruit flies?

All primates are mammals with especially by advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres. Therefore, do you agree they are all varieties on the same kind?

 

[sfs]

You're claiming that no significant evolution took place on account of the fact that the flies did not somehow evolve out of the order Diptera. Would you equally claim that no significant evolution took place when humans evolved within the phyla "Primate"?

Within the order primate, you mean.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I realize that but aren't they still all flies.

Aren't humans, chimps, and baboons all still primates?

Aren't humans, bears, and echidnas all still mammals?

Aren't humans, birds, and fish all still vertebrates?

Aren't humans, trees, and amoeba all still eukaryotes?

If evolution is true, then they should still be flies BECAUSE THAT IS HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. Why is this so hard to understand? You don't detach yourself from branch you are on and re-attach at the trunk of the tree of life. YOU STAY ON THAT BRANCH.

Isn't this just showing a lot of variety within the fly shaped creatures.

Yes, just as . . .

humans, chimps, and baboons show a lot of variety within primates.

humans, bears, and echidnas show a lot of variety within mammals.

humans, birds, and fish show a lot of variety within vertebrates.

humans, trees, and amoeba show a lot of variety within eukaryotes.

THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION DOES. Evolution increase the diversity and variety of a branch through time.

They all still have fly shapes with fly wings and fly antenna and fly eyes.

Humans, chimps, and baboons still have primate shapes.

Humans, bears, and echidnas still have mammal shapes.

Humans, birds, and fish still have vertebrate shapes.

Humans, trees, and amoeba still have eukaryote shapes.

THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION DOES. It is DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION. As time moves on, you get modifications of the shape that preceded it.

If there is a common design then certain parts are going to be the same with many things.

The difference is there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy as there is with evolution. Since we observe a nested hierarchy, it is evidence for common ancestry, not common design.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What about multiverses as well. They are promoted to address the finely tuned universe for life. By having millions and millions of parallel universes/worlds it then makes our finely tuned one seem not so special. We just happened to end up in the right one. So scientists can appeal to far fetched ideas to explain our reality but we cant include God because thats to unreal.

Multiverses in science are hypotheses - descriptions that could potentially explain what we observe; we have no convincing evidence that they exist - and it's quite possible that we'll never have direct evidence even if they do, because in most interpretations there is no way for different universes to interact directly (although there are possible indirect ways - one hypothesis to explain the surprising weakness of the force of gravity is that it 'leaks' into the higher dimensional space (the 'bulk') where our universe and potentially others reside).

But they remain of interest to scientists because although they were first proposed to explain the appearance of fine tuning, the maths in the physics behind some popular models of how the universe works actually predicts multiverses (there's a caveat here, in as much as there are a number of different ways these physical models can be applied or interpreted, and not all predict multiverses).

This is akin to the history of black holes - first proposed in 1783, and thoroughly investigated in theoretical physics, especially after Einstein's relativity was published, but they remained theoretical until 1970, and even then were not fully accepted until the Hubble telescope detected several in the 1990's.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you really claiming that the evidence for common descent is solely based on "one thing follows another?" What about the twin nested hierarchy?

Exactly.

I have yet to find a creationist who can explain why God would be forced to put fur on an animal if that animal also had a single jaw bone. I have yet to find a creationist who can explain why God would be forced to give an animal a backwards facing retina if that animal also had a hollow tube going down its back. Again and again, we find these relationships between design units that makes zero sense if life had a common designer, but make complete sense if they evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes I realize that but aren't they still all flies. Isn't this just showing a lot of variety within the fly shaped creatures. They all still have fly shapes with fly wings and fly antenna and fly eyes.

Yes; fruit flies are a Family of flies that belong to a Section of flies known as 'True Flies', which are part of the Order 'Flies', which are part of the Class 'Insects', which are in the Phylum 'Arthropods', which are part of the 'Animal' Kingdom.

[I left out a number of intermediate levels in the hierarchy]

So yes, fruit flies are all flies, all flies are insects, all insects are arthropods, and all arthropods are animals; which means both humans and fruit flies are animals, and implies a common (if remote) ancestor.

 

[pshun2404]

Which is exactly what evolution says.

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

might does not equal IS

 

[pshun2404]

Yes; fruit flies are a Family of flies that belong to a Section of flies known as 'True Flies', which are part of the Order 'Flies', which are part of the Class 'Insects', which are in the Phylum 'Arthropods', which are part of the 'Animal' Kingdom.

[I left out a number of intermediate levels in the hierarchy]

So yes, fruit flies are all flies, all flies are insects, all insects are arthropods, and all arthropods are animals; which means both humans and fruit flies are animals, and implies a common (if remote) ancestor.

Fruit flies are NOT all flies and all flies are NOT fruit flies...your hierarchies are man made systems of classification not unlike any other man made system of classification. A great many are homological in nature and are not real science at all...they just look the same or have some similar bone structures or perhaps share a pouch (lol) but classifications change and depend on the system classifying the items. They are useful but hardly meaningful.

 

[Split Rock]

Fruit flies are NOT all flies and all flies are NOT fruit flies...your hierarchies are man made systems of classification not unlike any other man made system of classification. A great many are homological in nature and are not real science at all...they just look the same or have some similar bone structures or perhaps share a pouch (lol) but classifications change and depend on the system classifying the items. They are useful but hardly meaningful.

Way to pretend not to get the point. All fruit fly species are fruit flies. All fruit flies are flies. All flies are insects. All insects are arthopods, etc.
Yes, our classification system is man made. However, it does reflect the reality of nature... the nested hierarchy of life.

 

[pshun2404]

I have yet to find a creationist who can explain why God would be forced to give an animal a backwards facing retina if that animal also had a hollow tube going down its back. Again and again, we find these relationships between design units that makes zero sense if life had a common designer, but make complete sense if they evolved from a common ancestor.

Loudmouth...I cannot believe YOU actually said this (you are usually much brighter, even humorous at times). This is the most illogical assumption based conclusion I have ever heard from you (and I have heard a few).

First off IF there is a God He was at no time and in no way FORCED to give some animals varying characteristics since all species of animals vary in a number of ways from one another.

Secondly a common designer does not equal nor necessitate a common design (the logic just does not follow). Ever hear of being creative? Do all Lennon and McCartney songs follow the same beat or represent the same form, genre, melodies, lyrics????? Really…..It makes sense that if you are designed for your purpose and your environment you will be designed differently (even by a common designers) than some other creature that serves its purpose in its environment.

 

[Split Rock]

Fruit flies are NOT all flies

This is categorically incorrect. All true flies (including fruit flies) are members of the order Diptera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly

 

[Split Rock]

I have yet to find a creationist who can explain why God would be forced to give an animal a backwards facing retina if that animal also had a hollow tube going down its back. Again and again, we find these relationships between design units that makes zero sense if life had a common designer, but make complete sense if they evolved from a common ancestor.

Loudmouth...I cannot believe YOU actually said this (you are usually much brighter, even humorous at times). This is the most illogical assumption based conclusion I have ever heard from you (and I have heard a few).

First off IF there is a God He was at no time and in no way FORCED to give some animals varying characteristics since all species of animals vary in a number of ways from one another.

Secondly a common designer does not equal nor necessitate a common design (the logic just does not follow). Ever hear of being creative? Do all Lennon and McCartney songs follow the same beat or represent the same form, genre, melodies, lyrics????? Really…..It makes sense that if you are designed for your purpose and your environment you will be designed differently (even by a common designers) than some other creature that serves its purpose in its environment.

Can you explain then why whales, seals and fish are all designed so differently?

 

[pshun2404]

Way to pretend not to get the point. All fruit fly species are fruit flies.

That however is not what was said. If that was said I probably would have said something like DUHHH!!!! All roses are species of roses...yes its true A is A...

All fruit fly species are fruit flies. All fruit flies are flies. All flies are insects. All insects are arthopods, etc.
Yes, our classification system is man made. However, it does reflect the reality of nature... the nested hierarchy of life.

Can't you see by all you said that this in no wise indicates common descent? All pigmy humans species are pigmy humans, All pigmy's are humans. All humans are primates, all primates are mammals....and so on...all canines are canines all felines are felines....there is always places we can draw more lines...You see it all depends on ones perspective. Depending on one's lines some EBs say birds are dinosaurs (lol!)

So I would say humans are not apes, but we both are primates.Humans and apes have always been separate, one did not become the other over time.

 

[crjmurray]

I have yet to find a creationist who can explain why God would be forced to give an animal a backwards facing retina if that animal also had a hollow tube going down its back. Again and again, we find these relationships between design units that makes zero sense if life had a common designer, but make complete sense if they evolved from a common ancestor.

Loudmouth...I cannot believe YOU actually said this (you are usually much brighter, even humorous at times). This is the most illogical assumption based conclusion I have ever heard from you (and I have heard a few).

First off IF there is a God He was at no time and in no way FORCED to give some animals varying characteristics since all species of animals vary in a number of ways from one another.

Secondly a common designer does not equal nor necessitate a common design (the logic just does not follow). Ever hear of being creative? Do all Lennon and McCartney songs follow the same beat or represent the same form, genre, melodies, lyrics????? Really…..It makes sense that if you are designed for your purpose and your environment you will be designed differently (even by a common designers) than some other creature that serves its purpose in its environment.

This kind of thinking really misses the point of why we say a common designer makes no sense. Option 1) the designer designs every organism uniquely for its environment and by doing so would violate the nested hierarchy. Option 2) the designer designed everything uniquely but just so happened to make aaaallll the evidence point toward evolution. The second option would imply a deceptive designer.

 

[stevevw]

So... Aren't humans still apes?

The problem with this argument is that you're unwilling to clarify what you mean. Yes, they're all still flies. So what? Is there a "fly" kind? How does that compare to the "cat" kind? Or the "Dog" kind? Or the "bacteria" kind? There's a reason why scientists use different words to define different groupings - the amount of diversity present within flies far outweighs the amount of diversity present in, say, the primates. You're claiming that no significant evolution took place on account of the fact that the flies did not somehow evolve out of the order Diptera. Would you equally claim that no significant evolution took place when humans evolved within the phyla "Primate"?

Darwin himself originally argued that a species was really great variety within a type of creature. When you look at apes and humans they look distinctly different. There is a lot of variation within human kind and there is a lot within the ape kind. But I would say they are part of the same type or kind of animal. You can say a shark looks more like a dolphin that a human looks like an ape yet sharks and dolphins are not related.

Flies reproduce faster and have a greater capacity to share genetic info vertically and so will have a lot more access to the wide range of genetic info. Bacteria are the best at reproducing quickly and sharing genetic info through HGT. So there is a greater capacity to tap into a wider range of genetic info. So we would expect to see a greater range of variety and therefore more species.

Cats look like cats and dogs look like dogs even though there is a great amount of variety within each. But there are natural limits to how far that variation can go. Dog breeders have found this and the further you get away from the natural state the more it affects the fitness in some way. Test that have been done also show there are limits. They can produce a lot of variation with the existing genetics but they cant change those creatures into anything else but the same organism they are.

 

[[serious]]

Darwin himself originally argued that a species was really great variety within a type of creature. When you look at apes and humans they look distinctly different. There is a lot of variation within human kind and there is a lot within the ape kind. But I would say they are part of the same type or kind of animal. You can say a shark looks more like a dolphin that a human looks like an ape yet sharks and dolphins are not related.

Flies reproduce faster and have a greater capacity to share genetic info vertically and so will have a lot more access to the wide range of genetic info. Bacteria are the best at reproducing quickly and sharing genetic info through HGT. So there is a greater capacity to tap into a wider range of genetic info. So we would expect to see a greater range of variety and therefore more species.

Cats look like cats and dogs look like dogs even though there is a great amount of variety within each. But there are natural limits to how far that variation can go. Dog breeders have found this and the further you get away from the natural state the more it affects the fitness in some way. Test that have been done also show there are limits. They can produce a lot of variation with the existing genetics but they cant change those creatures into anything else but the same organism they are.

Tetrapods always look like tetrapods!
Vertebrates always look like vertebrates!

Really though, things do tend to look like what they actually are.