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.
Evolution predicts that life should fall into a nested hierarchy, and it does. Why is this not evidence in support of the theory?
No, as a whole it does not. It does not exist.
Denying the obvious is an extremely poor tactic in a debate.
Just trying to help you out here.
Denying the obvious is an extremely poor tactic in a debate.
Just trying to help you out here.
Didn't you just do the same thing in the post about Noah?
Perhaps you can help yourself first.
Nope, you made a mistake there too.
Amazing how creationists can allow their erroneous view to ruin everything that they touch.
Mammals do not nest within these traits. So those traits are removed from the nested hierarchy diagram. The problematic data is deleted. This shows how arbitrary the chosen nested traits are, it's main purpose being to sell the idea of common descent.
.
No, as a whole it does not. It does not exist.
Yet turtles lack these openings.
So the nested hierarchy breaks down within the Diapsid group. Yet evolutionists just claim that turtles "lost the trait" at some point in the mystical evolutionary past.
This serves as a clear example of how the nested hierarchy fails, but is still "saved" with ad-hoc rescue devices.
When evolutionists assert there is a "nested hierarchy of common descent" it is only a mantra. Most of them have probably fallen for the illusion themselves.
The placement of turtles is indeed uncertain. Some molecular studies support putting them in with the diapsids. The matter is hardly settled. Turtles, like whales before them, have so many derived features with no surviving predecessor groups that it is difficult to classify them. Whales were not classified properly with the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) until recently, and that was do to new molecular and fossil data. I predict that the same will occur for turtles. When my prediction comes through, you will drop the turtle example and scamper off to dig up another, even less well known exception. Meanwhile, your unpainted corner of the room will get smaller and smaller...
Once again you harp on the exceptions, rather than the preponderence of the data.
Isn't the whole point of evolution changing anyway? Why does everyone expect there to always be a fossilized animal with the trait? It might be a recent development.
Although, it would humor me to no end if god created the universe for turtles
God says: "I like turtles"
There is a famous quote attributed to J.B.S. Haldane which goes, the Creator must have had An inordinate fondness for beetles," because he made hundreds of thousands of species of them.
The placement of turtles is indeed uncertain. Some molecular studies support putting them in with the diapsids. The matter is hardly settled.
Turtles, like whales before them, have so many derived features with no surviving predecessor groups that it is difficult to classify them.
Whales were not classified properly with the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) until recently, and that was do to new molecular and fossil data.
I predict that the same will occur for turtles. When my prediction comes through, you will drop the turtle example and scamper off to dig up another, even less well known exception. Meanwhile, your unpainted corner of the room will get smaller and smaller...
Once again you harp on the exceptions, rather than the preponderence of the data.
Of course. How can a fantasy story really be said to be settled? And molecular studies are just that: molecular studies. They say nothing about Common Descent, and they don't identify any common ancestors, ever. That is the illusory storytelling you insert into them.
There are no derived features or predecessor groups because Evolution didn't happen.
And? It's just more storytelling. If they weren't classified as one thing they'd be classified as something else. The evo illusion proceeds in spite of data.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most reptiles lay eggs too. In fact, the ones that the platypus lay are leatherly reptilian eggs, not hard-shelled bird eggs. The platypus is a good example of an intermediary between reptiles and mammals and support for the transition that occurred between the groups.
If its a made-up story, like the infamous creationist "water canopy theory," or "hydraulic sorting" to explain the fossil record, then it can be settled easily. You make up the "theory," and then you're done. "Creation scientists" never test their "theories" since if they do and then have to dismiss them, they just have to make a new one up that sounds good to people like you. In science, we actually have to deal with the evidence, and if new evidence demands it, we change our theories.Of course. How can a fantasy story really be said to be settled? And molecular studies are just that: molecular studies. They say nothing about Common Descent, and they don't identify any common ancestors, ever. That is the illusory storytelling you insert into them.
I was trying to explain why there are these issues with classifying turtles... I don't care if you accept it or not. The last sentence is just meaningless bluster and rhetoric.There are no derived features or predecessor groups because Evolution didn't happen. You're just hallucinating darwinian mysticism.
Enough data has finally come together for whale evolution that we can now say how to classify whales. All based on what you continue to claim has no meaning for evolution... data. How does that fit in with your little pet "evo storytelling illusion mysticism" paradigm? Don't bother to answer, we both know it does not.And? It's just more storytelling. If they weren't classified as one thing they'd be classified as something else. The evo illusion proceeds in spite of data.
With new data we can continue to change and tweak our theories to fit reality better. If certain features of whale evolution evolved a little earlier than we thought, so be it. We change the theory. Fantasies like creationism don't change with new data. Science does. Evolution does. Once again, we see your little pet paradigm fail.Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution
Here's a report of the fossil jaw of a fully aquatic "proto-whale" dated at 49 MYA, throwing a big wrench in the little whale transition timeline.
Does it matter? Of course not. Evolution dunnit. Even if we find whales popping up in the Cretaceous, it will just be something Evolution did, a "convergent aquatic adaptation of an earlier lineage".
A few years ago the evolution of semi-aquatic mammalians got pushed back 100 million years with the discovery of Castorocauda
Same thing happened with the advanced tetrapod tracks popping up 20 MYA before Tiktaalik.
Yes, changing our theories to match reality is a unique concept for a creationist like yourself to understand. I get it. Tell us about how the "dogma" of evolution changes with the "flavor of the week." While you're add it, you can explain how a dogma can change as often as you say it does and still be dogma.It's not like any of your evolution stories matter. They will probably all be chucked in another decade and you'll be cranking out new ones. Evolution is a science-fiction industry.
I have plenty of patience. I am still waiting for you to explain why your revisionistic paradigm of history has a creationist creating a nested hierarchy system with the specific goal of supporting common descent. BTW, when do you think I will be getting an answer to that question... anytime soon???Patience.
Which one of these are not possible, btw? Any??Loss, Reversions, and Homoplasies are invoked frequently to save the illusion of phylogeny. They just aren't advertised as much.
Trying to hedge your bet, now? Only genetic descent produces nested hierarchies, and you know it. That is why you are trying so very hard to claim that life doesn't fall into one.Besides, the fact that modern animals can nest within certain traits says nothing about Evolution in the first place.
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?