The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

Not at all the same.
Given that the only known observation is that the sun comes up one side and sets at the other side, it actually makes it rational to believe it orbits the earth.

While it is never rational to believe that cloud that looks like a duck, is an actual duck.

That may have been the case thousands of year ago, but today we can determine exactly what the case is. It is that determination of find the specific information that tells us exactly what is happening or that will show how a specific combination or set of code or pattern is the only way it works that is specified info.

Complexity is not an indicator of design. Not even by a long shot.

That is why it needs to be in conjunction with specified info as well. Once again Dembski sums this up in his paper.

In simplified sum, a long string of random letters is complex without being specified (that is, without conforming to an independently given pattern that we have not simply read off the object or event in question). A short sequence of letters like "this" or "that" is specified without being sufficiently complex to outstrip the capacity of chance to explain this conformity (for example, letters drawn at random from a Scrabble bag will occasionally form a short word). Neither complexity without specificity nor specificity without complexity compels us to infer design. However, this paper is both specified (conforming to the functional requirements of grammatical English) and sufficiently complex (doing so at a level of complexity that makes it unreasonable to attribute this match to luck) to trigger a design inference on the grounds that "in all cases where we know the causal origin of . . . specified complexity, experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."[4]
William Albert Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities - PhilPapers

 

[Speedwell]

What you are asking for with this example is Shannon info which is not how design in life is determined.

Your're right. Design in life is an unfalsifiable proposition and Shannon information is all there is. All the rest is an ID fantasy spun by people who can't stand that design in life is unfalsifiable. They want to be able to prove that it's there so they can shove their particular God up our noses.

 

[Brightmoon]

The fossil record shows the step-by-step evolution of reptiles into synapsids then into mammals . All of the intermediates are there including one that has a double jaw joint. And we actually have living mammals that lay reptilian-like eggs. If you don’t know what these animals are them you have no business complaining about evolution.

 

[Brightmoon]

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity sound good . They’re nice multisyllabic words which have NO scientific meaning whatsoever- but they sound good.

 

[Brightmoon]

Intelligent design was blown out of the water at the Dover trial. It was then and it is now a way to teach God did it in American public schools instead of teaching science. Science only deals with natural phenomena. God is supernatural. Science is a tool to figure how nature works and it cannot and should not confirm or disconfirm your religious beliefs. . The fact that science does disprove some Bronze Age beliefs is incidental . It’s not Science’s fault that some beliefs were erroneous

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You did not read my original post.
Animal_1a, created by changing genetics_1 to genetics_1a, is a lab animal. It does not exist in the nature.

If it doesn't exist in nature, how is it relevant to evolution by natural selection?

We do occasionally see deformed animals in the nature. They do not last.

Exactly; selection at work. Creatures with disadvantageous mutations are less likely to contribute their genome to the next generation.

 

[juvenissun]

If it doesn't exist in nature, how is it relevant to evolution by natural selection?

Exactly; selection at work. Creatures with disadvantageous mutations are less likely to contribute their genome to the next generation.

If a creature created in the lab does not exist in nature, how could that case be used to illustrate evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If a creature created in the lab does not exist in nature, how could that case be used to illustrate evolution?

If one inserts genetic sequences into developing natural life forms, and the expected changes occur, it supports the conclusion that similar (or the same) genetic sequence changes seen in nature are the cause of the subsequent changes we see in those creatures.

 

[juvenissun]

If one inserts genetic sequences into developing natural life forms, and the expected changes occur, it supports the conclusion that similar (or the same) genetic sequence changes seen in nature are the cause of the subsequent changes we see in those creatures.

If that special life form created that way survived and thrived, then you have an argument.
Any successful case?

 

[Larniavc]

Specified information is earliy measrurable and defined.

What units of measurements are you using to measure specified complexity.

For example I would measure mass in kilograms.

What are you measuring specified complexity in?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If that special life form created that way survived and thrived, then you have an argument.
Any successful case?

There are loads of them - the fruit fly is probably the most widely used GMO (genetically modified organism) animal in research, although there are many research strains of GMO mice and rats, and there are many widely used GMO plants (e.g. crops), as well as GMO animals (e.g. AquaBounty salmon) used outside the lab. See GMOs.

 

[juvenissun]

There are loads of them - the fruit fly is probably the most widely used GMO (genetically modified organism) animal in research, although there are many research strains of GMO mice and rats, and there are many widely used GMO plants (e.g. crops), as well as GMO animals used outside the lab. See GMOs.

They do NOT survive in the nature.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They do NOT survive in the nature.

GM crops do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They do NOT survive in the nature.

Yes, they do. Not all GMOs can survive long-term in nature, because most of them are deliberately engineered not to reproduce, either to control natural populations (e.g. mosquitos), or prevent unwanted wild proliferation of the GMO that would otherwise occur; but there are plenty that can, including GMO mammals such as the goats that produce drugs or silk in their milk; and especially crop plants.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, they do. Not all GMOs can survive long-term in nature, because most of them are deliberately engineered not to reproduce, either to control natural populations (e.g. mosquitos), or prevent unwanted wild proliferation of the GMO that would otherwise occur; but there are plenty that can, including GMO mammals such as the goats that produce drugs or silk in their milk; and especially crop plants.

There is no evidence that GM animal can survive in the nature longer than 100 years. Most likely, everyone of them will die off. They will have no effect on the evolution of their species.

 

[VirOptimus]

There is no evidence that GM animal can survive in the nature longer than 100 years. Most likely, everyone of them will die off. They will have no effect on the evolution of their species.

And your evidence for this is....?

 

[juvenissun]

And your evidence for this is....?

... I never see that happen, no report either.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

... I never see that happen, no report either.

Have you looked? And by what standard do you consider Genetically Modified?

 

[VirOptimus]

... I never see that happen, no report either.

So wild speculation.

Figures.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is no evidence that GM animal can survive in the nature longer than 100 years. Most likely, everyone of them will die off. They will have no effect on the evolution of their species.

Lab GM hasn't been around 100 years, so there won't be direct evidence - but we've been modifying genetics by laborious hybridization for thousands of years, and many lab GM organisms are modified by direct genetic transfer in lieu of hybridization (i.e. it's far quicker, cheaper, and more precise) the result is that the lab GM organism has only the desired gene(s), whereas in the hybrid they're typically accompanied by a bunch of transferred genes that were not required or desired (i.e. lab GM is 'cleaner', more precise).

If the hybrids can thrive for thousands of years (and not all are domesticated), there's no reason to suppose lab GM organisms should thrive any less than the imprecisely modified hybrids - unless, of course, we explicitly include modifications - at some extra expense - to prevent them thriving in the wild, as is often done.