How to choose between creation and evolution.

[rjs330]

Phylogenetic trees are by definition trees that represent hereditary ancestry. Nobody ever said otherwise. However, that doesn't change the fact that the trees themselves are algorithmic constructs based on underlying data.

It's also worth noting that phylogenetic trees do have real-world application (such as pathogen tracking) and in at least once instance I know of have been used as evidence in a criminal trial.

So if you're attempting to blindly hand-wave them away just because you don't like what they represent, you're being about as silly as I was when I was denying the moon.

It's pretty hard to hand wave away something that admits it is based upon evolutionary construct. When the trees are based upon evolutionary belief and defined by it, it's admitting the bias.

 

[pitabread]

That's because you accept the evolutionary construct. Your understanding is clouded by your desire to believe whatever you are told.

You believe in the moon because you accept the solar system construct. Your understanding is clouded by your desire to believe whatever you are told.

See what a ridiculous proposition that is?

Despite the fact that no scientist has EVER been able to show it ever occurring. Evolution uses similarities and commonalities and make the assumption that since such things exist therefore all came from a common ancestor. Yet there is no way to show that it actually occurred. We don't observe it occurring even today. We can't test it to see if it does occur. In fact all testing that has been done has failed to show it actually occurring. All testing and observation has shown is all things remain in the same group or family and do not leave it to move to another. They have not been able to see or observe a branching that branched off into a completely different group or family. No one has been able to create it test such a thing.

Everything you just wrote is factually false. And when you write stuff like the above, you sound as silly to us as I did to you when I was denying the existence of the moon.

 

[pitabread]

It's pretty hard to hand wave away something that admits it is based upon evolutionary construct.

And yet you do just that.

When the trees are based upon evolutionary belief and defined by it, it's admitting the bias.

Again, the trees themselves are just output. A lot depends on the underlying data set and algorithmic approach used (some algorithms directly assume evolution, some do not).

I think what you're really upset about is the interpretation of the trees. But given the real-world application they have and the aforementioned acceptance of legal evidence in a criminal trial, it seems more than silly to dismiss them so casually.

 

[rjs330]

That is completely false.

What I understand, is that non-biological things aren't subject to biological processes.
And I understand that evolution, is a biological process.



Evolution isn't any more of an "accident" then water turning into ice is when it freezes.



Complexity isn't an indicator of design.
Neither is function.



Why would we, when there is an observable process that explains it?




What's illogical, is trying to point at non-biological systems, to make a point about (or rather: against) a biological process.

What is the observable process that has shown evolution from a common ancestor? Show me the process where something evolved into a separate family or group apart from what it started out as.

You may hand wave away the functionality of things as being designed, but it's not shown to be accurate.

Complexity IS an indicator of design. Show me the most complex thing you know of and tell me it wasn't designed. Biology excepted of course.

 

[pitabread]

...

 

[Speedwell]

What is the observable process that has shown evolution from a common ancestor? Show me the process where something evolved into a separate family or group apart from what it started out as.

This is kind of a side note, but you should be aware that evolution theory holds that such a thing can never happen. Once you have an ancestry, it can never change; a species can never evolve a new ancestry, so it can never become part of a different family from the one it started out as. The only way that might be possible is if so many new species arose in that family as to make it inconveniently crowded and biologists decided to split it into two families, with the original family name promoted to an order--but the ancestry would be the same.

 

[Speedwell]

Complexity IS an indicator of design. Show me the most complex thing you know of and tell me it wasn't designed. Biology excepted of course.

Some of the simplest things I know are also designed. There is no necessary correlation with complexity and the presence of intelligent design.
And as I tried to explain to you before, I can't tell you that anything wasn't designed. The presence of design is unfalsifiable. Sometimes it can be detected, but it can never be ruled out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@rjs330, I asked you in post #703; "What in your view is 'observed and tested science'?" And you haven't responded to that question.

 

[pitabread]

This is kind of a side note, but you should be aware that evolution theory holds that such a thing can never happen. Once you have an ancestry, it can never change; a species can never evolve a new ancestry, so it can never become part of a different family from the one it started out as. The only way that might be possible is if so many new species arose in that family as to make it inconveniently crowded and biologists decided to split it into two families, with the original family name promoted to an order--but the ancestry would be the same.

On top of that things like orders, families, etc, are purely artificial categories used for the ease of classification of groups of organisms. They have no true biological reality.

Which makes it doubly nonsensical when creationists ask for an example of a family evolving into another family.

 

[Brightmoon]

The only real catagories are species and clades

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the observable process that has shown evolution from a common ancestor? Show me the process where something evolved into a separate family or group apart from what it started out as.

You may hand wave away the functionality of things as being designed, but it's not shown to be accurate.

Complexity IS an indicator of design. Show me the most complex thing you know of and tell me it wasn't designed. Biology excepted of course.

"Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. Species do not evolve into a "separate family or group". F

Let me try to explain this to you. You share a common ancestor with other apes, that ancestor was also an ape, you are still an ape. No change of kind.

You share a common ancestor with other primates such as lemurs and monkeys. That ancestor was a primate. You are still a primate. No change of kind.

You share a common ancestor with cows, dogs, and tigers. That common ancestor was a mammal. You are still a mammal. No change of kind.

I could keep going further and further back here, and what is amazing is that the further back I go the less of problem you will have with accepting the fact that you are in the given group. But at no point was there an act of evolution into a separate family or group.

 

[xianghua]

The thing depicted in that picture, is not able to replicate.

A watch is a manufactured mechanical device. Not a biological organism.

Give it a rest already.

but i said that for the sake of the argument its able to replicate. so will you call it a watch under this scenario or not?

 

[xianghua]

What you are suggesting would not be a watch. It would be LIKE a watch, but it wouldn't BE a watch.

so this isnt a watch if its able to replicate itself. fine.

 

[xianghua]

Do you deny that if you go to the patent office you will find large numbers of designs for electric motors? Do you deny that companies that create electric motors design them? Have you heard of Google patent search?

but you said that we know that an electric motor is evidence for design since all electric motors that we know of were designed. so according to this if i never seen someone who make an eletric motor i cant conclude design.

 

[Speedwell]

but you said that we know that an electric motor is evidence for design since all electric motors that we know of were designed. so according to this if i never seen someone who make an eletric motor i cant conclude design.

A electric motor is not evidence of design. A manufactured electric motor is evidence of design.

So you are right. If you find an electric motor and can't tell that it is a manufactured electric motor then you can't conclude design.

 

[xianghua]

It will not be a watch by the definition of the word "watch".

so a watch with a self replicating system isnt a watch. ok.

 

[Speedwell]

so a watch with a self replicating system isnt a watch. ok.

Why do you think it matters what you call it? The name you give an object has nothing to do with whether it's designed or not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so this isnt a watch if its able to replicate itself. fine.

No, it's not a watch because it's not a man-made and man-manufactured item. A watch is, by its definition, a MAN-MADE ITEM.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

but you said that we know that an electric motor is evidence for design since all electric motors that we know of were designed. so according to this if i never seen someone who make an eletric motor i cant conclude design.

I gave you a link to electric motor patents. The patents include the design, and describe who made the design. Can you please tell me how that is not evidence of design? They are actual designs. Huge numbers of them.

This is just typical of creationists. Even if we given you the actual design, you still claim that there is no evidence of design.

Did you know that you can download electric motor design software? https://quickfield.com/glossary/electric_motor_design.htm There's even an evaluation version.

Now, please tell me where I can find web sources of designs for bacterial flagella? And where I can download software intended to design them?

Believe it or not, it is actually to find out things without seeing them happen yourself.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So because you or I can't create bacteria we can conclude it wasn't designed? That's exactly why we should conclude it was. We see everything else that has a function as designed. But the function of life has none. It's illogical.

What's illogical is your circular logic. There are plenty of things in the natural world that have functions, but which weren't designed. E.g. teeth which have functions of biting and more. E.g. leaves which photosynthesise to capture energy from the sun. That's a function. Muscles in your intestine which have the function of moving matter through your intestines. There are uncountable numbers of things that have functions that are not designed.

You can only claim that these are designed if you assume the consequence of your argument: that there is a designer of living things.

It could be said that rivers have the function of transporting excess water to the oceans (or landlocked lakes in some cases). But, no-one would claim that rivers were designed because they have a function. Or, would you?