Macroevolution:

[PsychoSarah]

so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?

-_- you know very well that hypothetical things that don't exist are irrelevant to scientific theories.

 

[PsychoSarah]

View attachment 206649

nice try. but we can find the same in vehicles, as you can see here. but it doesnt prove any common descent.

-_- you have no understanding of these vehicles if you think this would be a nested hierarchy. There are more differences between a car and an airplane than just "wings". There weren't "generations" of cars that gradually had more and more airplane traits until they began to fly.

But hey, I never see you try to put just flying modes of transportation into a nested hierarchy. What's wrong, can't find enough connections between a hot air balloon and a blimp? Oh, but that would mean acknowledging that not all flying vehicles use the same method of flight.

 

[xianghua]

We also find major violations of your hierarchy, such as cars with wings, cars with turbine engines like those found in a jet fighter, and a space shuttle with a parachute like those found on drag cars. Designs are spread throughout your hierarchy that easily violate that hierarchy.

true but the argument is still valid because several reasons:

1) those cases are the result of convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution.

2) actually all those traits are also shared between all the 3 vehicles. we can find a parachute also in a jet fighter, a car and a space shuttle.

3) even if we will find hierarchy in vehicles it will not prove any common descent. so the claim that hierarchy prove common descent is false, because we know that all those vehicles cant evolve naturally.

 

[Loudmouth]

true but the argument is still valid because several reasons:

1) those cases are the result of convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution.

In the case of different vehicles, those are homologous features. In convergent evolution you see analogous features, not homologous features.

2) actually all those traits are also shared between all the 3 vehicles. we can find a parachute also in a jet fighter, a car and a space shuttle.

If we group vehicles according to which ones have a parachute we get a very different hierarchy than the one you first posted. That's the point. You don't see such things with complex eukaryotes. You get the same hierarchy if you group species by the presence of hair, amnion, three middle ear bones, feathers, backbones, etc.

3) even if we will find hierarchy in vehicles it will not prove any common descent. so the claim that hierarchy prove common descent is false, because we know that all those vehicles cant evolve naturally.

But we don't find a nested hierarchy among vehicles which is what we would expect from intelligent design. That's the whole point. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy among biological species is if they evolved from a common ancestor.

You can't convict someone of murder by saying "Well, we could have found your fingerprints at the crime scene, so you are guilty". In the same vein, you can't claim that my argument is refuted by your ability to dream up a fantasy world where vehicles fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

true but the argument is still valid because several reasons:

1) those cases are the result of convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution.

-_- convergent evolution is determined via genetics and body structure. Cars don't have genes. Unlike vehicles, you can't just shove an organ from a fish into an amphibian and expect that to work out.

Furthermore, concerning cars with jet parts, they can't exist BEFORE jets do. Transitions lose their meaning if the time frame of their existence doesn't start in between the time frame of the existences of the subjects they are supposed to be a transition for.

2) actually all those traits are also shared between all the 3 vehicles. we can find a parachute also in a jet fighter, a car and a space shuttle.

parachutes aren't a part of cars. That's like saying we can find hermit crabs and snails in the same shells, and ignoring that snails produce the shells while hermit crabs don't.

3) even if we will find hierarchy in vehicles it will not prove any common descent. so the claim that hierarchy prove common descent is false, because we know that all those vehicles cant evolve naturally.

-_- every evolution supporter on here has been telling you that vehicles DON'T fit into a hierarchy in part because they don't have common descent. Your comment suggests that an evolution supporter would claim that finding a hierarchy in vehicles would be evidence for common descent, when common descent doesn't apply to non-living items. Vehicles can't evolve because they aren't alive, they don't have genetic material, they don't reproduce.

 

[xianghua]

Your pictures aren't loading on my screen, but it is rather easy to show that there are numerous violations of a nested hierarchy for cars. For example, you can find the same tire on a Chevy car and a Ford car, but two different tires on the same model of Ford car. You can find the same engine in a specific Toyota car and Toyota pickup, but two different engines in two cars from the same Toyota car model. There are massive numbers of violations in a nested hierarchy of cars.

and by the way: here is the position of a flying car in the vehicles cladogram:

 

[PsychoSarah]

and by the way: here is the position of a flying car in the vehicles cladogram:
View attachment 206683

Cars with wings don't predate airplanes. Airplane designs weren't derived from edits of car designs. In fact, they are based on birds.

 

[Loudmouth]

and by the way: here is the position of a flying car in the vehicles cladogram:
View attachment 206683

Now show the distribution of parachutes within those clades. Follow that by showing the distribution of turbine engines. Follow that by the distribution of tire manufacturer. You will find that there are many, many violations of a nested hierarchy among your vehicles.

 

[Loudmouth]

parachutes aren't a part of cars. That's like saying we can find hermit crabs and snails in the same shells, and ignoring that snails produce the shells while hermit crabs don't.

 

[xianghua]

and now with convergent design:

see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sigh, furthermore, parachutes were an independent invention from both cars and planes that came after the development of both. So, both cars and planes having parachutes ruins the attempted "hierarchy".

 

[PsychoSarah]

and now with convergent design:

View attachment 206684
see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?

You are really bad at cladograms. You made it so that flying cars predate jets... and you made them extinct XD. Also, cladograms don't usually have specific traits labelled in them. Also, you have an extra line at the end that doesn't lead to any label, so it shouldn't be there, or all the other labels should be moved over and the branch farthest to the left removed.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Loudmouth]

View attachment 206686 and now with convergent design:

That's not convergent design. That is homologous design.

You lack a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sigh, furthermore, parachutes were an independent invention from both cars and planes that came after the development of both. So, both cars and planes having parachutes ruins the attempted "hierarchy".

Temporally, you are correct. However, nested hierarchies can be constructed by just looking at shared derived features without looking at when those features appeared. In the case of parachutes, they are homologous features shared by multiple terminal branches of the proposed hierarchy without being found in the neighboring branches in those clades. If we can find a car with a parachute and a plane with a parachute, then all planes and all cars should have a parachute. They don't.

 

[Astrophile]

so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?

That wasn't what I said. I said

If we could produce a manufactured object with hereditary material that was able to reproduce itself, it would, of course, still be designed. However, it would be designed with the ability to evolve.

In other words, a self-replicating car with DNA would have started from a designed and manufactured object, even if it had evolved over several generations into a different form.

One can apply the same argument to the origin of life. In principle, God could have designed and created the first single-celled organisms about 4000 million years ago, back in the Early Archean or the Hadean, and then left them to evolve into the diversity of life-forms that we have today.

 

[stevil]

What is observed is a variation within a means, A trip to Wal Mart and back as opposed to a one way trip to the moon. There are a variety of dogs but no dogs jumping to other species never to return. They can breed dogs for special effects but when put back in the wild there is a gradual return to the original. (Mean) That is what is observed. No Poodle is on a one way trip to becomming a cockroach and it is nonsense to suppose such things.

Interesting concept.

Creatures adapt to their environments. If their environments change, then over generations, so do the form of the creatures.
If you take a creature (let's say a variety of dog) and put it into a different environment, perhaps that variety of dog will develop longer necks because food is found higher up. Those dogs with longer necks are more likely to survive and have offspring, those dogs with shorter necks starve.
Over generations you find that all dogs in that environment have long necks.

Now, you put them back into the original environment.
The food in the original environment is easy to come by and the longer necks are a liability. Over many generations the dogs will evolve to have shorter necks, perhaps the same length they were originally.

Both these scenarios are evolution moving forward, there is no back tracking. Evolution does not remember historical form of the dogs, those with the longer necks have DNA code for longer necks not shorter necks. Just because they evolve to fit the original environment it doesn't mean they are reverting back to their original state. That is a misnomer.

 

[stevil]

View attachment 206686 and now with convergent design:

see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?

The thing is, you are taking a superficial look at a structure and saying that it is the same thing.
Perhaps this is a good start, and can lead to a hypothesis i.e. these wings are the same on the shuttle as they are on the car.
But then we learn that we can look inside the wings and see how they are constructed. Perhaps they are constructed very differently?

We know that the eye has developed multiple times.
How Humans And Squid Evolved To Have The Same Eyes

 

[DogmaHunter]

thanks. so basically you are saying that we cant find for instance a case with a gene that is shared between 2 species but doenst shared between some species between them?

No, that's not what I'm saying.
The ancestor of the species between them could have lost the gene somewhere between the gene evolving and the present.

What I'm saying is that you can't have a shared trait on a branch where it did not evolve in.
An population develops hair. Hair should only show up in the descendants of that population.

This is why you don't find reptiles with an inner ear bone.

And violation of such are seen all the time in designed products.
A new GPS system is developed for the Opel Insigna branch.
It should only show up in Insigna's and its descendants.
But it also shows up in Opel Corsa, Meriva and Mocca. Curiously, not in Zafira Tourer.

Not a single productline of human manufacture, falls in nested hierarchies.

another problem is that we can find cases with hierarchy also in man-made objects:

lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

View attachment 206686 and now with convergent design:

see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?

For some not-so-mysterious reason, I keep thinking about that quote concerning playing chess with pidgeons