The inner ear is a reverse piano

[dysert]

Oh. So your "response" to actual evidence in inane shtick. Good luck with that.

Typical non reply.

 

[USincognito]

Typical non reply.

Can you actually address the content of my link or just spout vacuous rhetoric?

 

[dysert]

Can you actually address the content of my link or just spout vacuous rhetoric?

I presume you're talking about the "Jaws to ears" link. I skimmed it. Unfortunately, there are a couple of reasons I can't comment on it. One is, my attention span is too short to try to digest the (boring) content what with all the unfamiliar terms. The other is, I don't know how much of what's said is actual fact versus speculation.

Sadly, that leaves me with vacuous rhetoric and the apparently unanswerable question of how thousands of generations of fruitflies produce only fruitflies yet eventually non-fruitflies magically appear on the "tree of life". I guess I'll just have to live in ignorance for that one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not really. I'm still trying to figure out(*) how you guys can say that, for example, when fruitflies mate for thousands of generations you still end up with fruitflies. Yet you can somehow take this leap of faith and say that *eventually* they evolve into something other than fruitflies.

You may have missed all the previous times this has been explained, but what happens is that when a population of some species, e.g. fruit flies, evolves sufficiently to be distinctly or significantly different enough from the original species to merit identification in its own right (reproductive incompatibility is the clearest indication), it will be called a new species. As should be obvious, this new species is always a subspecies of the original.

If this process continues over extended (i.e. geological) timescales, the resulting populations may become unrecognisably different from the original species and from each other, although they will generally retain some characteristic basic features of the original parent species.

 

[Jimmy D]

Semantics?

Yes semantics. Using the word "evolution" to describe the development of the wheel over time and "Design development" to describe the biological process of descent with modification.

Don't pretend otherwise, it's not very becoming.

Design development as a principle is evident wherever there is design.
If biological forms are designed and created over a period of time then it might be expected that we would see a development over that time, perhaps using many of the same components, perhaps using some ideas from other places in different designs.
Nothing about words here simply interpretation of the evidence as it appears.

You have yet to demonstrate a "designer", "creator" or evidence of this design.

It seems to me to be an ad-hoc rationalization for the unavoidable evidence that we see in the fossil record.... life developing and diversifying over time.

The problem is that if life evolved without the aid of this mysterious designer you want to include it would fit into a well defined nested hierarchy. In your situation.... "perhaps using some ideas from other places in different designs" we would likely see violations of that hierarchy, or no nested hierarchy at all, as we do with manufactured objects.

So show us how nested hierachies show this evidence you claim to be interpreting.

 

[Jimmy D]

Either that or a whole heap of mindless mutation that has magically evolved the appearance of design.
Certainly change over time, including a great many new inventions appearing suddenly in the fossil record in a manner and time frame that the favorite mrchanism is incompetent to produce, is evident.

So does the fossil record show exactly when and how these mysterious interventions occured?

You mention the mammalian ear, for example, can you explain the development of that through this "design development" process?

 

[dysert]

You may have missed all the previous times this has been explained, but what happens is that when a population of some species, e.g. fruit flies, evolves sufficiently to be distinctly or significantly different enough from the original species to merit identification in its own right (reproductive incompatibility is the clearest indication), it will be called a new species. As should be obvious, this new species is always a subspecies of the original.

If this process continues over extended (i.e. geological) timescales, the resulting populations may become unrecognisably different from the original species and from each other, although they will generally retain some characteristic basic features of the original parent species.

Thank you for the very good and concise explanation. Are there any creatures where it's documented that this has happened (i.e., where it has actually been observed)? Thanks.

 

[pitabread]

Neverthless the incredible design evident is evidence for a designer.

And now we have the companion to the argument from incredulity, the "awe and wonder" argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is obviously no Darwinian explanation sufficient to this astonishingly elegant system.

And this was determined, how exactly?

If it's so "obvious", then obviously you should have no problem supporting it with evidence.
Good luck to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Neverthless the incredible design evident is evidence for a designer.

Why and how?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really. I'm still trying to figure out(*) how you guys can say that, for example, when fruitflies mate for thousands of generations you still end up with fruitflies. Yet you can somehow take this leap of faith and say that *eventually* they evolve into something other than fruitflies.

Or without the strawman: in sub-species of fruitflies, which would still be fruitflies.

*Ok, so I'm not trying to figure it out so much as point out what seems to me to be an inconsistency in the logic. (But I realize I'm not the expert at logic that you guys are.)

Or an inconsistency in your understanding of high school biology

 

[DogmaHunter]

Semantics? Design development as a principle is evident wherever there is design.
If biological forms are designed and created over a period of time then it might be expected that we would see a development over that time, perhaps using many of the same components, perhaps using some ideas from other places in different designs.
Nothing about words here simply interpretation of the evidence as it appears.

And what we most definatly would NOT expect to see, are nested hierarchies.

You know... like the pattern that living things fall into....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I presume you're talking about the "Jaws to ears" link. I skimmed it. Unfortunately, there are a couple of reasons I can't comment on it. One is, my attention span is too short to try to digest the (boring) content what with all the unfamiliar terms. The other is, I don't know how much of what's said is actual fact versus speculation.

Sadly, that leaves me with vacuous rhetoric and the apparently unanswerable question of how thousands of generations of fruitflies produce only fruitflies yet eventually non-fruitflies magically appear on the "tree of life". I guess I'll just have to live in ignorance for that one.

I love how you just label something "vacuous rhetoric" simply because it's science that goes over your head.

Cool.
So, the higgs boson: vacuous rhetoric
Special relativity equations: vacuous rhetoric
Quantum mechanics: vacuous rhetoric
Big bang cosmology: vacuous rhetoric
Molecular biology: vacuous rhetoric
Every other thing that I don't have any knowledge of: vacuous rhetoric

Awesome.

 

[dysert]

I love how you just label something "vacuous rhetoric" simply because it's science that goes over your head.

Cool.
So, the higgs boson: vacuous rhetoric
Special relativity equations: vacuous rhetoric
Quantum mechanics: vacuous rhetoric
Big bang cosmology: vacuous rhetoric
Molecular biology: vacuous rhetoric
Every other thing that I don't have any knowledge of: vacuous rhetoric

Awesome.

I think you misunderstand. It was I who was accused of using "vacuous rhetoric". I wasn't saying that the article was vacuous rhetoric.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you misunderstand. It was I who was accused of using "vacuous rhetoric". I wasn't saying that the article was vacuous rhetoric.

Ha, ok. Sorry. I guess I misunderstood then, my apologies.

 

[HitchSlap]

A rational and wise person should be incredulous when faced with such fairy tales.

Neverthless the incredible design evident is evidence for a designer. As for me and my house, we will aknowledge Him.

If you feel a need to surrender your autonomy and worship somebody with a blood sacrifice, then it’s no surprise to me why arguments from incredulity impress you.

Cdesign proponentsists are not qualified to comment on what science is or isn’t.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you for the very good and concise explanation. Are there any creatures where it's documented that this has happened (i.e., where it has actually been observed)? Thanks.

Speciation (the development of new species) has been observed many times, but as we've only been keeping track of these things for a hundred years or so, we obviously haven't directly observed populations going through multiple speciations over geological timescales. However, we have multiple independent lines of indirect evidence that this has happened, including anatomy, biogeography, developmental biology, molecular biology, and the fossil record. Each corroborates the others and is consistent with the expectations and predictions of modern evolutionary theory.

One seemingly common misunderstanding of speciation in these forums is the idea that one species suddenly becomes another quite different species, but it doesn't work like that. Populations of a species isolated from each other will gradually drift apart in terms of their genetics, and may gradually come to look slightly different.

If this carries on long enough, they may come to look quite different, but the point at which biologists consider them sufficiently different to be new species is fairly arbitrary - if populations can't, or prefer not to, interbreed when brought together, that's a pretty strong justification for considering them distinct species, but there are populations where the lines are blurred - such as ring species, where adjacent populations in a geographically extended chain can interbreed, but the first and last in the chain cannot. In such circumstances, where the 'species' line(s) are drawn is a matter of opinion, convenience, or utility.

Nature doesn't always provide clear boundaries to fit our abstract concepts.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

One is, my attention span is too short to try to digest the (boring) content what with all the unfamiliar terms. The other is, I don't know how much of what's said is actual fact versus speculation.

What a telling admission.

Can't be bothered to read and familiarize yourself with one article on a single topic to offer comment, but you can totally dismiss all of Evolutionary Theory. How does that make sense?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Anguspure]

And what we most definatly would NOT expect to see, are nested hierarchies.

You know... like the pattern that living things fall into....

Notwithstanding the fact that nested heirachies cannot be established consistently and differ according to the method used to build the tree displayed....why not?

Development of any invention over time could be presented as a pretty tree.

Nested heirachies are a convention of the student, they never ever appear like this in the real world.