How many mutations to get Y from X?

[pitabread]

There is no justification for why an unlimited common creator would use a nested hierarchy when creating diverse species.

It has been repeated many times that it's not simply the fact of similarity between life that is evidence, it's the pattern of similarity.

I don't think creationists realize that by appealing to a "common creator" they're implying that said creator is constrained in the exact same way evolution is.

 

[tas8831]

I don't think creationists realize that by appealing to a "common creator" they're implying that said creator is constrained in the exact same way evolution is.

Yes - by using mutations and selection. Funny how that works out for them.

 

[tas8831]

For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...

Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

 

[renniks]

Yes - by using mutations and selection. Funny how that works out for them.

Why would the creator of everything be constrained by anything?

 

[pitabread]

Why would the creator of everything be constrained by anything?

That's what the "common designer" refrain implies.

 

[renniks]

That's what the "common designer" refrain implies.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[pitabread]

That doesn't make any sense.

That's why I said creationists don't understand the implications of the "common designer" refrain.

It's always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.

 

[renniks]

That's why I said creationists don't understand the implications of the "common designer" refrain.

Ok, then, it must be a big secret. More likely your reasoning is skewed.

 

[pitabread]

Ok, then, it must be a big secret. More likely your reasoning is skewed.

The "common designer" refrain is always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.

This is simply about understanding the context for the evidence that shows common ancestry.

A creator wouldn't necessarily be bound that, so what creationists need to do is show evidence that wouldn't work in the context of common descent. Blatant chimeric organisms would be one such piece of evidence (like these genetically engineered glow-in-the-dark rabbits made with jellyfish DNA). Yet such things don't exist in nature.

 

[renniks]

The "common designer" refrain is always in the context of evidence which support evolutionary common ancestry by way of genetic inheritance. Claiming a "common designer" in the same context is applying the same constraints re: genetic inheritance to said creator.

This is simply about understanding the context for the evidence that shows common ancestry.

A creator wouldn't necessarily be bound that, so what creationists need to do is show evidence that wouldn't work in the context of common descent. Blatant chimeric organisms would be one such piece of evidence (like these genetically engineered glow-in-the-dark rabbits made with jellyfish DNA). Yet such things don't exist in nature.

Oh that old nonsense. It didn't make any sense the first time I heard it either.
Common design just means that a designer would be likely to use some of the same features in different species.
How you get that the designer is subject to his design? Like I said, skewed reasoning, and a tiny view of the Creator.

 

[pitabread]

Common design just means that a designer would be likely to use some of the same features in different species.

Possibly. But there is no reason to assume they would do so in a manner constrained by hereditary descent.

How you get that the designer is subject to his design? Like I said, skewed reasoning, and a tiny view of the Creator.

Because we're talking about patterns of similarities in the context of hereditary descent. So by saying "common designer!" you're implying the designer is constrained in the same manner.

If you want to claim otherwise, you need to demonstrate patterns in biology that aren't bound by hereditary descent (or otherwise known HGT mechanisms). IOW, something that can't be otherwise explained by known mechanisms.

 

[renniks]

Because we're talking about patterns of similarities in the context of hereditary descent. So by saying "common designer!" you're implying the designer is constrained in the same manner.

Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.

 

[pitabread]

Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.

It's not just similarities. It's patterns of similarities predicated on hereditary descent.

This is why I said that creationists don't realize the implications of this when they reply, "common designer!" They don't know what those patterns indicate.

 

[renniks]

It's not just similarities. It's patterns of similarities predicated on hereditary descent.

This is why I said that creationists don't realize the implications of this when they reply, "common designer!" They don't know what those patterns indicate.

The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.

 

[pitabread]

The so called patterns are a mess of branches with no sure connections.

In terms of phylogenies, we're talking about patterns that are well within statistical significance (broadly speaking). It's not nearly the "mess" you make it out to be.

If a designer was truly creating things and mixing and matching genetic bits and bobs with no constraints, then we wouldn't expect to find any real phylogenetic convergence.

Yet, we do.

 

[renniks]

a designer was truly creating things and mixing and matching genetic bits and bobs with no constraints, then we wouldn't expect to find any real phylogenetic convergence.

Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?
Now you're just making stuff up.
No constraints doesn't automatically equal no commonalities.

 

[pitabread]

Who said anything about randomly matching genetic bits?
Now you're just making stuff up.

I'm just saying what a designer could do if they wanted to, free of constraints based on hereditary genetics.

No constraints doesn't automatically equal no commonalities.

Like I always say, if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution. There's really no way around that.

 

[renniks]

Like I always say, if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution. There's really no way around that.

That's like saying that because my house looks designed it must have built itself.

 

[pitabread]

That's like saying that because my house looks designed it must have built itself.

That's nothing like saying that.

When I talk about life having the appearance of evolution (e.g. common ancestry), I'm referring to the observed evolutionary mechanisms that change populations over time coupled with the patterns of biodiversity that suggests common ancestry.

As I said, there's no actual way around that. The patterns are what they are.

Either a designer decided to make things appear like they evolved... or they actually evolved.

 

[renniks]

That's nothing like saying that.

When I talk about life having the appearance of evolution (e.g. common ancestry), I'm referring to the observed evolutionary mechanisms that change populations over time coupled with the patterns of biodiversity that suggests common ancestry.

As I said, there's no actual way around that. The patterns are what they are.

Either a designer decided to make things appear like they evolved... or they actually evolved.

Populations change because of built in mechanisms, not because of some non existent selection process.