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.
Therefor - gods?
If yes: argument from ignorance
If no: what is your point?
Why aren't deities just as impossible?"Once you eliminate the impossible,
(matter naturally existing with no beginning)
whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
What you are assuming is if evolution no God and if God no evolution.
You are not arguing why ID would not produce nest hierarchy but that evolution did.
All labels are arbitrary.
They are labels of actual things but the labels are arbitrary.
We could call it by any other name and it would still have the same elements within that name. The same goes for evolution, gene, genome, cell ..etc.
Now on the premise that they are factual patterns,
new technologies and methods using the entire genome of living things are showing great discordance with the predicted ancestry of many many organisms that should nest with other organisms. Either you are unaware of this or you dismiss it.
Like I said above, you must either be unaware of the discordance of predicted histories or dismissing them. I don't know which.
Except due to LGT, HGT and other factors the facts are not coming up as predicted and the tree itself questioned.
I don't have the time nor the desire.
Living things are a different category which has a long history. Transportation a mere couple of hundreds of years.
Yes, some have felt that since they reject any possibility of God that Aliens could be the designer. However, that doesn't really change the issue, the issue is the design. To identify the Designer other factors must be determined and only become important to those show a desire to know who is behind the design. Regardless, of who the designer is, your claim was that a "designer" whoever that might be would not design in such a way as producing nested hierarchies. Just making the assertion that it is not something ID would do is not really a valid argument.No. God isn't even part of this discussion. I'm talking about evolution and your claims of design. Let's say your claimed designers are aliens instead of gods, if that makes it easier for you.
Yes, I read them they seem to be just arguments begging the question but I am trying to respond to them anyway.I'm explaining both at the same time.
Do you even read the posts you reply to?
I explained to you to that there is a clear cost in designing product lines in such a way that all the products of the set fall into a nested hierarchy.
It not efficient.
It's costly.
It leads to bad designs.
We see exquisite optimum functionality and efficiency in the molecular make up of living things. We don't see non-efficient systems of bad design but the exact opposite. We see molecular motors that run as fast as 100,000 rpm. What we observe in these complex systems is not inefficiency and bad design but optimal design in which have no equal in the human designed systems we can devise.Not a single example in the world can be found of a product line that is designed in this way. Why would you expect it?
Organization in this nested hierarchy is based on interpretation, which many times must be revised. It is being difficult with new technologies to provide congruence in nested groups and the tree of life is being considered at this time unrecognizable to what it was once thought. The fact that organisms can be placed in one group and later put into another or those who don't have a specific group it falls into is an objective verifiable fact too.I can only repeat myself: nested hierachies are not a "label" nore are they arbitrary.
Rather, they are objective verifiable fact.
An objective verifiable fact that changes and is revised to accommodate problems in where to place organisms is as well.Semantics? Really?
Again: nested hierarchies, the tree like pattern of living things, is objective fact
What we are finding are problems with the family trees. They are not falling into predicted groups that they should be when Scientists are using new technologies.Yes, so... semantics.
Right, we could call the family tree of life "a chair" and it would still have all the properties of a family tree... right.....
Like I said before you are dismissing or ignoring the problems arising in the nested hierarchy organizational system.For gooness sake...
You really do seem to be unaware of the problems facing scientists today with new methodologies that are finding more and more widespread discordance in phylogeny. Are you keeping up with new findings?That's not a premise. It's rather concluded from various independent studies of genetics, anatomy etc.
Show me an example of inexplicable violation of the nested hierarchies of life on this planet.
FYI: if you have such an example, you can singlehandedly turn biology upside down. Good luck.
Histories is the nested hierarchy. What are you talking about?I'm not talking about histories.
I'm talking about nested hierarchies of extant life.
Again, you seem to be unaware of problematic discordance, that with convergent evolution, Horizontal transfer and other factors creating havoc on the nested hierarchy.The mechanisms like HGT are known and not a problem.
HGT is not going to transfer the hair of mammals to reptiles.
We don't need reptiles with hair or mammals with feathers or some other organism to share ERV's to provide evidence that these problems of discordance are real and changing the look of the tree of life.Find me reptile with hair.
A mammal with feathers.
Any creature other then primates with which humans share more ERV's then with primates.
Go for it.
I presented a depiction of such example provided not by a creationist or ID proponent but a very distinguished Professor in Biology to show that he at least felt it was a good representation for the NH. IF you disagree, take it up with him.Translation: "I can't do it and just made that claim to pretend as if I have a point".
You made a wild claimed, that human made products fall into a nested hierarchy. I assumed you could support that statement.
I guess you can't.Which doesn't matter at all. If extant cars show a nested hierarchy, then it should be quite easy to show it.
Take it up with the professor.But Loudmouth has already refuted your nonsense about that.
All it takes is pointing at 2 cars from different lines holding the same mp3-player, while another car which is the same model as one of the previous 2 has a completely different entertainment system.
Due to the fact that you don't have any evidence now any more than before.I can't be bothered with the rest of your post. I'm short on time and I don't expect it to hold anything that you haven't said before and which wasn't allready addressed multiple times.
I'll read it later on if I get more time, but yea....
Same old, same old...
Yes, some have felt that since they reject any possibility of God that Aliens could be the designer. However, that doesn't really change the issue, the issue is the design.
To identify the Designer other factors must be determined and only become important to those show a desire to know who is behind the design. Regardless, of who the designer is, your claim was that a "designer" whoever that might be would not design in such a way as producing nested hierarchies.
Just making the assertion that it is not something ID would do is not really a valid argument.
The problem you are referring to here is a serious problem for evolution alone. If something is too costly the organism will not fare well and lack of efficiency is wasteful and more than likely would have no improvement to function and thus be selected for.
Bad design is subjective
If there is a bad design, it would seem it would be weeded out rather than be selected for.
Complexity to arise would mean multiple tries that leave unuseful parts that would be fatal for an organism. Your argument against design really is more potent against evolution.
Organization in this nested hierarchy is based on interpretation
[The fact that organisms can be placed in one group and later put into another or those who don't have a specific group it falls into is an objective verifiable fact too.
I've been banned for a week and apparently this thread took off in the meanwhile. Would anyone care to point me to any particularly relevant counterarguments I missed over the last 21 pages, either with a post number or a quote?
What we are finding are problems with the family trees. They are not falling into predicted groups that they should be when Scientists are using new technologies.
Like I said before you are dismissing or ignoring the problems arising in the nested hierarchy organizational system.
Histories is the nested hierarchy. What are you talking about?
Again, you seem to be unaware of problematic discordance, that with convergent evolution, Horizontal transfer and other factors creating havoc on the nested hierarchy.
We don't need reptiles with hair or mammals with feathers or some other organism to share ERV's to provide evidence that these problems of discordance are real and changing the look of the tree of life.
I presented a depiction of such example provided not by a creationist or ID proponent but a very distinguished Professor in Biology to show that he at least felt it was a good representation for the NH. IF you disagree, take it up with him.
Take it up with the professor.
Due to the fact that you don't have any evidence now any more than before.
I've been banned for a week and apparently this thread took off in the meanwhile. Would anyone care to point me to any particularly relevant counterarguments I missed over the last 21 pages, either with a post number or a quote?
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?