On the dangers of arguing via quote (YEC-style)

[DogmaHunter]

if i understand you right- its not the same, since any stone is functional in this case in any step. this isnt true for an half of a biological system.

There's no such thing as "half a biological system". That too, has been explained to you many times.

There's no such thing as crockoducks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's never 'half' of a biological system. There's a less refined version of it.

And even "less refined", isn't actually accurate. It's only in hindsight that we call it such.

Is the wing of a pinguin a "less refined" version of a wing?
How about the wing of an ostrich?

After all, neither of them can fly.

The answer off course is "no". The wing of a pinguin is the wing of a pinguin and it has its use and function for the pinguin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes; it's also sometimes the case that the principles underlying a theory are algorithmic, so that if the necessary criteria are satisfied, the results are inevitable; for example, that heritable variation and natural selection will result in evolution. In such cases, the core of the theory is factual and the uncertainties concern the ways the various mechanisms involved play out in the natural world.

Indeed. And this is why Genetic Algoritms, wich simply model the various core mechanisms involved in the process, actually work. Because the process works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah. Same as the differences between a Windows operating system and a Linux operating system.

Absolutely not.
Linux and windows do not share a codebase. Not a single letter of code.
The opposite is true for different species. The closer related, the more "code" is shared.

You share more dna with your sister then with your neighbour.
Humans share more DNA with chimps then with gorilla's.
Humans share more DNA with gorilla's then with old world monkeys.
Humans share more DNA with old world monkeys then with felines.
Humans share more DNA with felines then with salamanders.
Humans share more DNA with salamanders then with pine trees.
Etc.

It's called a nested hierarchy. Exactly the expected output if diversity of species is the result of evolution.

Minimal differences really, if you look at it like that

If you really think Linux and windows have "minimal differences", I can only inform you that you are painfully mistaken.

But evolution of either to the other is still just as impossible.

yes, computer software isn't subject to the process of biological evolution.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yeah. Same as the differences between a Windows operating system and a Linux operating system. Minimal differences really, if you look at it like that. But evolution of either to the other is still just as impossible.

Priceless. That's like saying the Latin alphabet and Chinese characters have only minimal differences.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Priceless. That's like saying the Latin alphabet and Chinese characters have only minimal differences.

Well, aren't you clever? The same as a man's hand is different to a mole’s foot and a bat’s wing. But you knew that already, I'm sure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, aren't you clever? The same as a man's hand is different to a mole’s foot and a bat’s wing. But you knew that already, I'm sure.

Actually....

Every bone is accounted for. They are the same bones.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Actually....

View attachment 240852



Every bone is accounted for. They are the same bones.

I could account for every icon also, but don't have the time. Either way, it shows the flaws in your analogy.

Windows.

Linux.

Clearly, according to bone evolution logic, these screenshots show that Linux evolved from Windows by time, chance and random processes.

 

[Brightmoon]

Those are the same bones down to the genetic level . Computer systems don’t make a good analogy. If you want to argue by analogy the analogy has to work!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I could account for every icon also, but don't have the time. Either way, it shows the flaws in your analogy.
View attachment 240857
Windows.
View attachment 240856Linux.

Clearly, according to bone evolution logic, these screenshots show that Linux evolved from Windows by time, chance and random processes.

I'd really like to believe you're joking, but I have a feeling you're serious. And if you are serious then...... Wow. Clueless would be an understatement.

Just a hint - the graphical interface is not the "bones" of the operating system. The "bones" is the underlying code. And that is entirely different.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, aren't you clever? The same as a man's hand is different to a mole’s foot and a bat’s wing. But you knew that already, I'm sure.

You know pretty much nothing about skeletal structures, writing systems or computer operating systems, do you? And before you complain:

1. I'm not an expert anatomist, but I know enough to recognise that you know nothing.
2. I am a linguist by training, so I know rather a lot about writing systems.
3. I work in IT security so I know rather a lot about operating systems.

You are a poster child for Dunning-Kruger.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I could account for every icon also, but don't have the time. Either way, it shows the flaws in your analogy.
View attachment 240857
Windows.
View attachment 240856Linux.

Clearly, according to bone evolution logic, these screenshots show that Linux evolved from Windows by time, chance and random processes.

The problem is that the underlying code of both have nothing whatsoever to do with eachother.

While the underlying genetics that result in those bones, are the same as well.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The problem is that the underlying code of both have nothing whatsoever to do with eachother.

While the underlying genetics that result in those bones, are the same as well.

Those are the same bones down to the genetic level . Computer systems don’t make a good analogy. If you want to argue by analogy the analogy has to work!

Information. Bones require information, and machinery to interpret that information. You demonstrate how this can come about by chance, and I'll accept that adherents to your religion have a basis for their faith. Until then, you're fighting windmills. The underlying genetics that result in bones share common code due to their common Designer.

You know pretty much nothing about skeletal structures, writing systems or computer operating systems, do you? And before you complain:

1. I'm not an expert anatomist, but I know enough to recognise that you know nothing.
2. I am a linguist by training, so I know rather a lot about writing systems.
3. I work in IT security so I know rather a lot about operating systems.

You are a poster child for Dunning-Kruger.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not really convinced of your claims. But please don't feel bad - I am a fast learner, so experts in a number of fields that I know little about do sometimes feel out of their depth when debating with me (mainly when they're wrong).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Information. Bones require information, and machinery to interpret that information. You demonstrate how this can come about by chance, and I'll accept that adherents to your religion have a basis for their faith. Until then, you're fighting windmills. The underlying genetics that result in bones share common code due to their common Designer.

1. scientific theories aren't religions.

2. the underlying genetics fall in a nested hierarchical pattern. This pattern matches the pattern of comparative anatomy. And geographic distribution. All independent lines of evidence that converge on the same answer: common ancestry. Exactly like expected if evolution is true. There is zero reason to expect such converging patterns in designed things. Heck, there is zero reason to expect such a pattern in ANY of these independent lines of evidence: not in genetics, not in morphology, not in geographic distribution of species,... This pattern shouldn't exist anywhere, if things were in fact independently created.


So all in all, this is - unsurprisingly - yet another heavy and sad case of

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

1. scientific theories aren't religions.

Unless you're accepting that the evolutionary theory has already been falsified, it's a religion. Scientific theories are falsifiable, and yet the adherents to evolutionism somehow keep believing. I admire their faith, but not the object in which it is placed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unless you're accepting that the evolutionary theory has already been falsified, it's a religion. Scientific theories are falsifiable, and yet the adherents to evolutionism somehow keep believing. I admire their faith, but not the object in which it is placed.

How was evolution falsified in your opinion?
When did that happen?
Where was this published?
Why did the entire scientific community apparantly miss the biggest news in their field since Darwin?


Anyway, you had nothing to say about point 2?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

How was evolution falsified in your opinion?

Lack of transitional forms.

When did that happen?

Last few hundred years.

Where was this published?

Evolution's a religion, so the news is not published in such a way. Instead, each new, mysterious missing-link is celebrated for a few years, before its thrown on the garbage heap and a new one is invented.

Why did the entire scientific community apparantly miss the biggest news in their field since Darwin?

Because religion is not science.

Anyway, you had nothing to say about point 2?

Common design is the reason for commonalities between organisms. Easier to explain than common descent, as you don't have a mechanism for change that can explain generation of information.

 

[Strathos]

Trying to convince a flat earther of evolution is like trying to teach a Kindergartener calculus. Try starting with the simpler stuff first.

 

[tas8831]

Unless you're accepting that the evolutionary theory has already been falsified, it's a religion.

That literally makes no sense.

Scientific theories are falsifiable, and yet the adherents to evolutionism somehow keep believing.

Is this an admission that you do not understand the difference being being able to do something and having done that something? Because you literally just equated falsifiable with falsified.

I admire their faith, but not the object in which it is placed.

Your projection is cute, but I do hope that you have not fooled yourself into thinking that you have made some kind of argument.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not really convinced of your claims. But please don't feel bad - I am a fast learner, so experts in a number of fields that I know little about do sometimes feel out of their depth when debating with me (mainly when they're wrong).

Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

There is no debate with you. You need to understand to debate, and you clearly don't. But if you really are such a fast learner, you'll stop the nonsense in 3-2-1.......