Nested Hierarchy Hypothesis

[Subduction Zone]

So the hips, legs, ribcage, arm and shoulder orientation would not make any sense if evolution were true? These are all features that occur in modern humans but if a reptile had these features it would falsify our current understanding of evolution correct?

Yes because we know how we evolved and we know of no reptiles that have evolved features that are similar in any way at all. We have a record of our evolution. Reptile evolution, which is also fairly well understood, has different structures. It would be the appearance of a "New Kind" with no predecessors. Exactly what creationism predicts and the exact opposite of what we observe.

 

[crjmurray]

Yes because we know how we evolved and we know of no reptiles that have evolved features that are similar in any way at all. We have a record of our evolution. Reptile evolution, which is also fairly well understood, has different structures. It would be the appearance of a "New Kind" with no predecessors. Exactly what creationism predicts and the exact opposite of what we observe.

So you agree that this would be an obvious falsification of the TOE?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you agree that this would be an obvious falsification of the TOE?

Yep.

 

[crjmurray]

Yep.

Good. Now it's the creationists turn to explain how this would not be a violation but would somehow be incorporated into the theory.

 

[Willtor]

Another loaded question? Theories are like computer programs they only do what man wants them to do. If man totally refuses to consider ID for example and living creatures are truly ID then the theory will never get to the truth.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position, but if you're supporting ID then clades are still valid. From Behe's perspective, evolution is perfectly valid except that certain features sprung into existence apart from it. Common ancestry still holds in ID.

 

[Smidlee]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position, but if you're supporting ID then clades are still valid. From Behe's perspective, evolution is perfectly valid except that certain features sprung into existence apart from it. Common ancestry still holds in ID.

Some in ID believes in universal common descent like Behe while others don't. DI isn't as hostile to those who have doubts over UCD.

 

[Willtor]

Some in ID believes in universal common descent like Behe while others don't. DI isn't as hostile to those who have doubts over UCD.

Now I'm doubly confused: Without common descent, how is ID different from OEC?

 

[bhsmte]

Now I'm doubly confused: Without common descent, how is ID different from OEC?

It isn't.

 

[[serious]]

I could have sworn I had already posted this, but I guess i didn't.

Short version:
Reptiles might not be a phylogenetic grouping, but it can still be used in the common vernacular. it's similar to the term "fish" in that regard.

 

[crjmurray]

I could have sworn I had already posted this, but I guess i didn't.

Short version:
Reptiles might not be a phylogenetic grouping, but it can still be used in the common vernacular. it's similar to the term "fish" in that regard.

Wait a second. Are you saying those things in the OP are fish?

 

[[serious]]

Wait a second. Are you saying those things in the OP are fish?

No, they are obviously plants. Look at the color! Green things are plants, and that disproves evolution.

 

[Willtor]

No, they are obviously plants. Look at the color! Green things are plants, and that disproves evolution.

QED

creationists 1
evilutionists 0