Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Are you really claiming that the evidence for common descent is solely based on "one thing follows another?" What about the twin nested hierarchy?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you really claiming that the evidence for common descent is solely based on "one thing follows another?" What about the twin nested hierarchy?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)
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.There are are 75 genera with a total of 4,000 species of fruit flies. You do realize this, don' t you?
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.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 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 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, you agree with me that they are all Flies and not just fruit flies?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.
Within the order primate, you mean.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"?
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.
If there is a common design then certain parts are going to be the same with many things.
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).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.
Are you really claiming that the evidence for common descent is solely based on "one thing follows another?" What about the twin nested hierarchy?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
This is categorically incorrect. All true flies (including fruit flies) are members of the order Diptera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlyFruit flies are NOT all flies
Can you explain then why whales, seals and fish are all designed so differently?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.
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.
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.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"?
Tetrapods always look like tetrapods!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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?