the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

A house cat is not basically a lion.

Just saying.

both are kind of a cat and looks like a cat. just saying.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The fossil record won't help on that. Probably most animals and man in the former nature could not leave fossils. The creatures that could probably represent less than 5% of life on earth.

So, trying to connect modern animals to some fossil in the fossil record, as if the ancestor should be represented there....is impossible.

It is like trying to put a 500 piece puzzle together using only 220 pieces. You may think you put a skeleton picture together pretty good, but then you find out it was actually a 5000 piece puzzle that you were trying to put together with 220 pieces.

The only issue is what forces and laws (nature) used to exist at the time of the fossil record. The answer is that you do not know. Science does not know. You have merely assumed and believed that nature had to have been the same as now. Now, yes, we would maybe see fossils being left in this nature, from a broad spectrum of life on earth.

But in the case of the horse family, we have extremely good evidence. See Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

So based on this evidence, is it reasonable to conclude that the zebra evolved from something close to Eohippus?

 

[doubtingmerle]

both are kind of a cat and looks like a cat. just saying.

Yes the lion and house cat are in the same family.

But a domestic cat is not basically a lion.

Just saying.

 

[dad]

sure. this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.

So are you saying you think that all that speciating resulting in the millions of species we have today happened in 4500 years normally in this present world nature?

 

[doubtingmerle]

yes it does:

View attachment 220439

No it doesn't.

See Nested Hierarchy: Evidence for Evolution

 

[dad]

You're free to write whatever creationist fan fiction you like. I'll stick with the real world, thanks.

You have no idea what was real in Noah's day. Thanks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So are you saying you think that all that speciating resulting in the millions of species we have today happened in 4500 years normally in this present world nature?

Ah, this should be good. He refuses to answer when I ask him what he thinks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have no idea what was real in Noah's day. Thanks.

I know giant floating wood arks weren't real.

 

[dad]

But in the case of the horse family, we have extremely good evidence. See Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

So based on this evidence, is it reasonable to conclude that the zebra evolved from something close to Eohippus?

Possibly. If the nature change was 70 million (imaginary wrongly dated science years)
ago, (about 4400 actual real years) then the fossils in your link are all from this nature.

 

[dad]

I know giant floating wood arks weren't real.

Me too. No need for them now.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Possibly. If the nature change was 70 million (imaginary wrongly dated science years)
ago, (about 4400 actual real years) then the fossils in your link are all from this nature.

I didn't ask you if all fossils in the horse series came from this nature. I ask if you think they all evolved from something close to Eohippus.

See Horse Evolution

 

[doubtingmerle]

Me too. No need for them now.

Good.

I wasn't planning to build any arks. It turns out a wood boat that big wouldn't be seaworthy.

 

[dad]

I didn't ask you if all fossils in the horse series came from this nature. I ask if you think they all evolved from something close to Eohippus.

See Horse Evolution

I don't know. If so, big deal. If not...fine. Since the horse was one of the first horse like fossils we have after the flood, it may have been one of several things.

I don't think we could say that even after the present nature started, that all creatures could fossilize. How would we know if it took some time for some kinds of animals to be able to fossilize even in this nature?

If there used to be, for example (?) many bacteria/bugs/small animals/ etc etc that used to specialize in rapid disposal of certain animals n the former nature, naturally, we would not expect remains to be found. Now if the nature changed, there still would have been these creatures that disposed of remains. However, in this new nature, for various reasons, most or all of these may have died off. So we may have started to get more and more fossils!


Just because there was only one of the horse like fossils early on in the fossil record need NOT mean that they were the only horse like animals alive, just that they were the only ones that could leave remains at the time!

So science really is a lot of speculation and beliefs.

 

[dad]

Good.

I wasn't planning to build any arks. It turns out a wood boat that big wouldn't be seaworthy.

They had metal since Eden you know. The ark could have been reinforced. If I say I have a yacht made of oak, does that mean that is all it is made of?

 

[doubtingmerle]

They had metal since Eden you know. The ark could have been reinforced. If I say I have a yacht made of oak, does that mean that is all it is made of?

Ah, Noah used metal bracing, and metal pumps to get all the water out?

What did he do for ventilation? I can't imagine being down there if an elephant toots.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't know. If so, big deal. If not...fine. Since the horse was one of the first horse like fossils we have after the flood, it may have been one of several things.

I don't think we could say that even after the present nature started, that all creatures could fossilize. How would we know if it took some time for some kinds of animals to be able to fossilize even in this nature?

If there used to be, for example (?) many bacteria/bugs/small animals/ etc etc that used to specialize in rapid disposal of certain animals n the former nature, naturally, we would not expect remains to be found. Now if the nature changed, there still would have been these creatures that disposed of remains. However, in this new nature, for various reasons, most or all of these may have died off. So we may have started to get more and more fossils!


Just because there was only one of the horse like fossils early on in the fossil record need NOT mean that they were the only horse like animals alive, just that they were the only ones that could leave remains at the time!

Sounds like a lot of speculation and beliefs to me.

So science really is a lot of speculation and beliefs.

Uh, no speak for yourself.

 

[pitabread]

actually many phylogenetic trees were base on a single or at least few proteins\genes.

Yes. The underlying dataset consists of a DNA sequence for those genes.

so we dont realy need to check every part in a car to build a tree.

But even if you're basing it on only a few parts, you still need to first construct a dataset based on those parts. And then apply a phylogenetic algorithm to that data. So far you haven't demonstrated you've constructed such a dataset, nor utilized an algorithm to construct a tree.

No dataset and no algorithm = no phylogenetic tree.

 

[pitabread]

if you want to call variation evolution fine.

I'm not the one deciding this. I'm merely using the standard definition you'll find in a biology textbook.

Arguing about the definition is quite frankly a completely pointless endeavor because a definition isn't going to change just because you've decided you don't like it.

 

[pitabread]

You have no idea what was real in Noah's day. Thanks.

I also have no idea what is real in the magical land of Oz. Point?

 

[dad]

Ah, Noah used metal bracing, and metal pumps to get all the water out?

God designed it, no worries.

What did he do for ventilation?

It had windows.