The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[xianghua]

But your made up animal/car/transformers don't actually exist. And even if intelligently designed animals for driving around in existed, that would not demonstrate that all animals were intelligently designed.

so a car that is able to reproduce is evidence for design then?

 

[Speedwell]

so a car that is able to reproduce is evidence for design then?

Only if it shows evidence of human manufacture. Otherwise you can't tell--it might be designed, it might not.

 

[Shemjaza]

so a car that is able to reproduce is evidence for design then?

Like I said, all an intelligently designed life form would demonstrate is that some life forms were designed. But your made up bio-cars don't even exist.

You argument is so poor, that it's sad. You postulate made up evidence that, even if it did exist, would be insufficient to falsify evolution.

Finding a pile of dirt put there by a guy with a shovel isn't evidence that a guy with a shovel created every pile or hill.

 

[Shemjaza]

It does make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you defined:
A therefore B == True
and
B therefore A == True

This means that it is impossible for
B therefore NOT A == True

This is just illogical. It means that A is the same as NOT A. It's nonsense, in the absolutely literal sense.

 

[stevevw]

Richard Dawkins once said evolution gives the appearence of design. That appearence goes right down to the molecular level. So in some ways Dawkins is acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. He and others just attribute that ability to create something that looks designed to a naturalistic process but can never explain how that happens. Over time as we have discovered how complex life is they have had to credit evolution (natural selection) with more and more creative power and yet cannot explain how this can happen which really requires faith to believe. That is why Dawkins is always praising natural selections ability to just about create anything.

 

[Shemjaza]

Richard Dawkins once said evolution gives the appearence of design. That appearence goes right down to the molecular level. So in some ways Dawkins is acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. He and others just attribute that ability to create something that looks designed to a naturalistic process but can never explain how that happens. Over time as we have discovered how complex life is they have had to credit evolution (natural selection) with more and more creative power and yet cannot explain how this can happen which really requires faith to believe. That is why Dawkins is always praising natural selections ability to just about create anything.

You haven't pointed out the need for design. Mutations are random, the appearance of design is just that happenstance will create advantage. The scale of populations of organisms allows for chaos to produce advantage then natural selection is exactly that, no choices, designers or plans necessary.

It's same as faces in tree bark or shapes in clouds.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... in some ways Dawkins is acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. He and others just attribute that ability to create something that looks designed to a naturalistic process but can never explain how that happens. Over time as we have discovered how complex life is they have had to credit evolution (natural selection) with more and more creative power and yet cannot explain how this can happen which really requires faith to believe.

We know how it happens (heritable variation with selection) - we've used the same basic principle to generate designs better than we could design, e.g. NASA's evolved antennae, using evolutionary algorithms to:

"...automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed"
​

I've posted this several times before, so this is for those with 'poor memories' or who haven't seen it before.

​

 

[Larniavc]

here is a transitional form:

but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

You’ve been shown that cars are not biological.

I find it baffling you down understand that cars are not alive.

Smh

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't make sense because you defined:
A therefore B == True
and
B therefore A == True

This means that it is impossible for
B therefore NOT A == True

This is just illogical. It means that A is the same as NOT A. It's nonsense, in the absolutely literal sense.

No. I did not say that at all.

I said A "has" B,
not A "therefore" B.

Backward, I said:
B1 shown as A1.
This is not a "therefore" relationship either.

What I said is a nature of identity, not a process.

More:
animal_1 "has" genetics_1
If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.

So animal_1 becomes animal_1a but animal_1a doesn't exist? That's gibberish of the highest order. You surpass even your best efforts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No. I did not say that at all.

I said A "has" B,
not A "therefore" B.

Backward, I said:
B1 shown as A1.
This is not a "therefore" relationship either.

What I said is a nature of identity, not a process.

More:
animal_1 "has" genetics_1
If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't pointed out the need for design. Mutations are random, the appearance of design is just that happenstance will create advantage. The scale of populations of organisms allows for chaos to produce advantage then natural selection is exactly that, no choices, designers or plans necessary.

It's same as faces in tree bark or shapes in clouds.

Faces in clouds is a simplification of what happens with design. Seeing a face in a cloud does not show detail of the features and just the outline. But seeing a machine for example or finding computer software definitely shows design. There are systems within systems, specified information and complexity within life that is beyond evolution to account for.

Examples of large populations have already established their design and are only tinkering with things aaround the edges. Its the smaller population that all life begins with that needs to be explained and accounted for becuase this is where the design of a feature comes from. In fact larger populations increase genetic drift and the chances of deleterous mutations which work against the increase of complexity.

Most of the genetic features of life have been preserved and this seems to have remained the same from the beginning. There are mechanisms to keep things that way they are and if anything random mutations are a threat to this already good working and finely tuned systems of complex life.

There are two main reasons for why evolution cannot account for design in life and how its complexity came about. One is adaptive evoilution cannot explain what we see in any great detail so relies on assumption that it happened and two is there are other mechanisms that point to how life came about and changes. There are non-adaptive processes and other natural processes such as in development and in co-habitations for increasing complexity. One of the criterium for a scientific theory to stand if there are no other explanation for the observations. In this case there are other explanations that are more responsible that evolution by neo-Darwinism.

 

[stevevw]

We know how it happens (heritable variation with selection) - we've used the same basic principle to generate designs better than we could design, e.g. NASA's evolved antennae, using evolutionary algorithms to:

"...automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed"
​

I've posted this several times before, so this is for those with 'poor memories' or who haven't seen it before.

​

The difference is with biological evolution there are non-beneficial mutations that need to be dealt with. The systems are already working at their best and any mutation is really a threat to undermining that system. There are other mechanisms besides adaptations that can produce the best results for how living things can change. Life can change environments rather than adapt to them, life can co-op with other life to gain what is need to fit into an environment because the other living things have the right stuff already for that environment. Plasticity allows living things to change in features without the need for adaptive evolution. There are developmental processes that allow living things to switch on pre-existing genes to help them adapt without having to blindly find the right stuff through evolution. Other influences can sidetrack adaptive evolution and dictate terms of what will happen ie epigenetics.

All these other processes are more dominant that adaptive evolution and influence how life changes. Life is not all about survival of the fittest and competition for environments. It is about whole working ecosystems where living things fit in and work with each other and their environments. If anything the example of evolving an antenna only shows how the idea of evolution was more about a calculated idea of mathematics rather than a real explanation of an organic process for how life changes that took into consideration the entire picture and influences on life.

 

[Shemjaza]

No. I did not say that at all.

I said A "has" B,
not A "therefore" B.

Backward, I said:
B1 shown as A1.
This is not a "therefore" relationship either.

What I said is a nature of identity, not a process.

More:
animal_1 "has" genetics_1
If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.

As FrumiousBandersnatch commented, you aren't making sense.

"animal_1a" is a part of one of your statements, it can't also not exist.

It seems that A is still the same as NOT A.

Faces in clouds is a simplification of what happens with design. Seeing a face in a cloud does not show detail of the features and just the outline. But seeing a machine for example or finding computer software definitely shows design. There are systems within systems, specified information and complexity within life that is beyond evolution to account for.

Examples of large populations have already established their design and are only tinkering with things aaround the edges. Its the smaller population that all life begins with that needs to be explained and accounted for becuase this is where the design of a feature comes from. In fact larger populations increase genetic drift and the chances of deleterous mutations which work against the increase of complexity.

Most of the genetic features of life have been preserved and this seems to have remained the same from the beginning. There are mechanisms to keep things that way they are and if anything random mutations are a threat to this already good working and finely tuned systems of complex life.

There are two main reasons for why evolution cannot account for design in life and how its complexity came about. One is adaptive evoilution cannot explain what we see in any great detail so relies on assumption that it happened and two is there are other mechanisms that point to how life came about and changes. There are non-adaptive processes and other natural processes such as in development and in co-habitations for increasing complexity. One of the criterium for a scientific theory to stand if there are no other explanation for the observations. In this case there are other explanations that are more responsible that evolution by neo-Darwinism.

Specified information is unmeasurable and not really defined clearly. The bald assertion that evolution can't account for it has never been backed up by ID researchers.

What other explanations? Stretching "But not evolution!" into a career might be keeping the Discovery Institute open, but it isn't actually evidence.

There is no barrier to evolution working on more complicated systems. If a mutation arises that damages some individuals ability to function in the system then it will not thrive. If the hypothetical mutation is able to spread among the population, but unbalances the system, then species will go extinct, this isn't a problem because evolution isn't a god, it's just a process which no one who researches it expects to be perfect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The difference is with biological evolution there are non-beneficial mutations that need to be dealt with. The systems are already working at their best and any mutation is really a threat to undermining that system.

Both false. Evolutionary algorithms make random variations in the characteristics (traits) of the virtual populations they evolve - many, if not most, of these variations will reduce the effectiveness of the design. These will be culled in the selection process, and the very few that are improvements will be used to produce the next generation. It's a very wasteful process - in a computer, processing virtual designs, it doesn't matter; in the real world, with living creatures, it's an unforgiving slaughter that produces amazing results at terrible cost.

Living organisms are only 'working at their best' when they are perfectly adapted to their environment(s). Since most environments are dynamic, this is not possible, and organisms must continually adapt and evolve to survive.

Life can change environments rather than adapt to them, life can co-op with other life to gain what is need to fit into an environment because the other living things have the right stuff already for that environment. Plasticity allows living things to change in features without the need for adaptive evolution. There are developmental processes that allow living things to switch on pre-existing genes to help them adapt without having to blindly find the right stuff through evolution. Other influences can sidetrack adaptive evolution and dictate terms of what will happen ie epigenetics.

Sure; it's well accepted that adaptation precedes evolution - those that adapt less well don't contribute so much to the next generation; hence, evolution.

It's also true that life changes environments - more often than not to it's own detriment, which means it must adapt - and if it survives, it will evolve. You probably don't remember the Oxygen Catastrophe...

It's fine to switch on the genes you need if you've got them (where do you think they came from?); if you haven't, you struggle until either you evolve them or you die out (or you don't need them any more).

Yes, epigenetics is useful for relatively short-term adaptations for one or a few generations, where evolutionary changes are too slow - but it's limited to regulation of the existing genome. And guess what? Epigenetics is a gene regulation system that has evolved to fill that adaptation gap.

Plasticity allows individuals to adapt over individual lifetimes, but only the plasticity, not the adaptive changes, is inherited - each generation must adapt afresh. It allows populations to survive until the advantageous traits are genetically fixed. Organisms that occupy a greater range of environments or have more dynamic environments show greater plasticity - why? because greater plasticity is a selective advantage in those situations - plasticity is an evolved trait.

... the example of evolving an antenna only shows how the idea of evolution was more about a calculated idea of mathematics rather than a real explanation of an organic process for how life changes that took into consideration the entire picture and influences on life.

Lol! - we took the fundamental principle from nature - we don't need all the bells and whistles in a static well-controlled virtual environment with no competition or resource limitations.

 

[juvenissun]

As FrumiousBandersnatch commented, you aren't making sense.

"animal_1a" is a part of one of your statements, it can't also not exist.

It seems that A is still the same as NOT A.

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.

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

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

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

Untrue. Mutations happen in the wild all the time. There are strange little regional variations that we have measured.

Regardless, the point was that you can extract the genetics that define a trait in an animal and insert it to the genes of another individual developing animal and get the same outcome. That demonstrates that the genes cause the change, not the other way around.

 

[juvenissun]

Untrue. Mutations happen in the wild all the time. There are strange little regional variations that we have measured.

Regardless, the point was that you can extract the genetics that define a trait in an animal and insert it to the genes of another individual developing animal and get the same outcome. That demonstrates that the genes cause the change, not the other way around.

If so, back to the OP, why don't we see transitional fossils? If what you said is true, then we should a A LOT, A WHOLE LOT transitional fossils.

Millions of years passed, how many transitional human have we found?

 

[Jimmy D]

If so, back to the OP, why don't we see transitional fossils? If what you said is true, then we should a A LOT, A WHOLE LOT transitional fossils.

Millions of years passed, how many transitional human have we found?

We do.

Have you already forgotten the transitional fossils you demanded and were provided with earlier in this thread?

I think a medical study needs to be done to find out what the link is between creationism and short term memory loss.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the same with the cars above. lets say that they were even able to reproduce.

They aren't.

you will conclude design or evolution in that case?

Who knows what any of us would conclude in that imaginary world of yours? You tell us - it's your imagination after all.

You're already imagining weird mechanical device organisms there... You might as well imagine what our fictional selves in that fictional world would form as fictional conclusions.

How such fiction would be relevant in the real world that we actually live in, isn't clear at all though.