Understanding Evolution

[DerelictJunction]

So, the descendant of birds are birds, therefore the first life form was a bird?

Explain what your thought process was whereby you drew the silly conclusion that the first lifeform was a bird.

Ah! So something other than birds produce birds? Address the issue.

yes, an almost-a-bird-that-is-almost-no-longer-a-theropod-dinosaur was what produced the first bird.

I don't have to make atheistic Darwinist creationist faith based guesses and suppositions look stupid, they are very capable of doing that on their own.

So, because you believe that the theory of evolution is based on guesses and suppositions, you are now concentrating your efforts on making the idea of creation of the universe by a God look stupid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can accept that there is design in lifeforms. Designed by mutation and natural selection.
There is design in the Solar System, galaxies and universe....designed by gravity and ripples in the universe from the big bang.

What evidence do you have that the molecular machines of the simple cell are "designed" by mutation and natural selection?

Perhaps the confusion lies in the word "design". Much like "creation", "design" implies a designer of some intelligence.

Do you know why?

Instead of "design" we could used the phrase "ordered complexity" or maybe "functional complexity". Either one of those would not imply a "designer" or "creator".

Why not?

 

[DerelictJunction]

And you will always produce your children so the first human was your child.

The first life form was a human?

No. You really aren't very good at this reading thing, are you?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, the descendant of birds are birds, therefore the first life form was a bird?

The common ancestor of birds was a bird. No one has claimed that the universal common ancestor was a bird. You seem to be really confused.

I don't have to make atheistic Darwinist creationist faith based guesses and suppositions look stupid, they are very capable of doing that on their own.

And yet you can't even point to a single faith based guess or supposition.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence do you have that the molecular machines of the simple cell are "designed" by mutation and natural selection?

The twin nested hierarchies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Illusion is something that appears to be something it is not. The molecular machines are what they appear to be; joints, gears, propellers, turnstiles, brakes, and clutches which form motors, walking "legs", pulleys, tweezers, vehicles, assembly lines, transportation networks, intelligent error-checking systems, and much more.

Comparing them to something designed does not make them designed.

 

[justlookinla]

They were still finches. But no longer the same species, they wouldn't interbreed with each other anymore. You do realize the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is less than 5%, right? And we only share ancestry with them, we didn't evolve from them. We know the size of the human genome, and how many mutations roughly we experience per generation. You can look them up, and do some very rough math to approximate how many generations it takes to make a full 1% change to our genome, and go from there.

Yes, the human/chimp genome shares many of the same building blocks, no doubt about that. But that doesn't lend credibility to creation of the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life forms we observe today by the vehicle of mutation.

 

[Loudmouth]

But we haven't observed mutations producing new life forms, have we?

We observe new life forms with mutations all of the time. Go to the nursery at your local hospital. All of those children are new life forms, and every one of them has mutations not found in either parent.

The finch's beak is an example of this. But they were still finches.

Then why do you have a problem with humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor since we are both still primates?

Is it microevolution if I can label two different species with the same name? Is that the extent of your requirement for microevolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, the human/chimp genome shares many of the same building blocks, no doubt about that. But that doesn't lend credibility to creation of the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life forms we observe today by the vehicle of mutation.

It does lend credibility when those similarities fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[justlookinla]

The common ancestor of birds was a bird. No one has claimed that the universal common ancestor was a bird. You seem to be really confused.

Our common ancestor was an alleged single life form of long long ago. Of course this wasn't a bird, was it?

And yet you can't even point to a single faith based guess or supposition.

The atheistic Darwinist creationist viewpoint that all of life is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago is based on guesses and suppositions.

 

[Davian]

Illusion is something that appears to be something it is not.

This is not grammatically accurate. The 'illusion' happens in your head, not at the thing in question. There may be aspects to the object that facilitate your brain's perception of the illusion.

Try this:
Dragon Illusion | Mighty Optical Illusions

Print it out, assemble it, and look at it with one eye covered. The dragon's head will appear to bend and follow you, when in reality it is static (the illusion can be also be seen from the video camera's monocular viewpoint).

The molecular machines are what they appear to be; joints, gears, propellers, turnstiles, brakes, and clutches which form motors, walking "legs", pulleys, tweezers, vehicles, assembly lines, transportation networks, intelligent error-checking systems, and much more. These nano-"factories" are more efficient than man made ones by far. These are not illusions but factual systems that are what we see by humans in their factories and inventions. To claim they only "appear" to be designed and are an illusion of design is not logical to me.

Your opinion is noted.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrhGTR54E5k#t=168

 

[justlookinla]

It does lend credibility when those similarities fall into a nested hierarchy.

Nested hierarchy doesn't lend credibility to anything but common building blocks of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. You are assessing. Natural Selection does not assess.

If we put a group of humans and a pod of dolphins in the middle of the great plains, which group do you think will have the best chances of surviving, and why?

The fact that the organisms live is not a direction but a simple successful event that passes on the same and if the environment changes then they either live or die based on whether they have a beneficial mutation that allows them to adapt to this new environment.

What also matters is the traits that were passed to them by their ancestors. Chance events are the same for all organisms. What ultimately determines the probability of survival and reproduction are heritable traits. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nested hierarchy doesn't lend credibility to anything but common building blocks of life.

It does lend credibility to evolution since that is the exact pattern of similarities that we would expect from evolution. Designing from common building blocks does not require a nested hierarchy, and there is simply no expectation of a nested hierarchy for designed organisms.

Can you explain to us why the common creator of bats and birds could not use those common building blocks to create a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Can you?

 

[DerelictJunction]

What evidence do you have that the molecular machines of the simple cell are "designed" by mutation and natural selection?

The structure of those molecular machines depend on the structures of the proteins that they are made of. The structure of those proteins depend on the structure of the DNA for that cell. The DNA can be changed through natural events which would change the structure of those molecular machines, changing their function. Since the molecular machines likely developed within single celled organisms first, the molecular machine forms that helped the single celled organisms have a high differential reproduction rate were the machines that were preserved the most. Less efficient structures were lost.

Do you know why?

Not really following your line of thought here. However, the word "design" implies an intelligent designer because our language is built upon word meanings. It is simply an idiosyncrasy of our language. That's why "designed" is a bad adjective to use for an object for which the process of it's construction is not entirely known.

Why not?

Because "ordered complexity" can describe a crystalline structure that was not put together by anything other than natural causes. No designer necessary.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you are still terribly wrong.

I disagree.

When you invoke LOGIC as the basis for your argument, you are no longer arguing specific, context-based cases. You are now arguing a PRINCIPLE - ie, that the appearance of design infers actual design. Now, for a PRINCIPLE to hold true, it must hold true for ALL cases that fit its framework. All that needs to be done is to find ONE example that negates the general principle and the principle then ceases to be a justification for EVERY case.

You are affirming the consequent. You are claiming that all cases must hold true if appearance of design infers actual design, which is not a logical principle but a generalization that you make illogically. We can show the opposite of what you are claiming. It is true that certain appearances of design actually infer actual design and are more logically determined due to what causes the appearance of design to be present. For instance, a watch can be said to be more logical in reference of actual design due to its appearance having traits or working systems that are acknowledged as design. It is more logical to say that the watch infers actual design or that it is an illusion? If you find ONE example that negates the general principal does this mean that it is illogical or lacking logic to claim that it is more logical to infer design in the case of the watch?

 

[Dizredux]

Soooo....new life forms are created...how?

With multiple successive speciations.

What happens (for the general reader) is that at some point the population will differ enough from the parent one that we will give it a different name.

As an example, at one point feathered dinosaurs differed enough that we could call them something else, in this case birds or the taxonomic group (class)Aves. The name we give these biological groups are just what we decide to call them. Somewhat arbitrary but very useful.

Lets take the good ol Robin using Linnaean taxonomy.

All Robins are animals and all of their offspring will also be animals.

All Robins have backbones therefore all Robins are animals with backbones (Chordata) and all of their descendents will also be animals with backbones....every time.

All Robins have certain characteristic where we name them Birds (Aves) All Robin offspring will also be animals with backbones that could be termed birds.

Now certain groups of birds developed a lifestyle based on perching and as a result have certain physical characteristics for that purpose. Those birds that fit this are called Passeriformes or perching birds.

So all Robins are animals with backbones who are classified as birds and who have the physical characteristics for a lifestyle based on perching. Their offspring will also fit this descripton.

Next, all Robins fit into a groups we call thrushes. Robins are Thrushes. So Robins are animals with backbones who are classified as birds and have a lifestyle of perching and fit into a physical group known as thrushes.

Robins are a specific kind of thrush classified as Turdus migratorius.

So all Robins fit within each of these groups and all of their descendents will also even if the change over time is enough for them to be given a different name.

Now when one gets to Cladistics, it is organized somewhat differently but this I think makes my point. Populations keep speciating and and since nothing stops this from happening, the different groups continue to develop into other groups often given different names and the process goes on to produce the diversity of life we see.


This is not my field of expertise and I am describing it from an informed layman's view so if those with better training wish to correct me, please do so.


Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

You are claiming that all cases must hold true if appearance of design infers actual design, which is not a logical principle but a generalization that you make illogically.

Oh what a tangled logical web you weave
When first you practise to deceive

You have twisted yourself into such massive knots. Such things happen when you try to force facts to fit preconceived beliefs.

 

[justlookinla]

It does lend credibility to evolution since that is the exact pattern of similarities that we would expect from evolution. Designing from common building blocks does not require a nested hierarchy, and there is simply no expectation of a nested hierarchy for designed organisms.

Why not? Of course the designer can design the creation as the designer wishes.

Can you explain to us why the common creator of bats and birds could not use those common building blocks to create a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Can you?

You'll have to ask the designer. Bats and birds are very complex creations, still not fully understood in their amazing construction.

 

[justlookinla]

With multiple successive speciations.

Nothing has been observed to support that conclusion. You're seeming to wish to not address your birds will always produce birds will always produce birds stance. We're seeing the claim that life form other than birds produced birds, aren't we? Do you agree with that view? If you do, you'll have to modify your birds will be birds will be birds position.

What happens (for the general reader) is that at some point the population will differ enough from the parent one that we will give it a different name.

Birds will no longer be birds will be birds? You misspoke apparently in your original claim.

an example, at one point feathered dinosaurs differed enough that we could call them something else, in this case birds or the taxonomic group (class)Aves. The name we give these biological groups are just what we decide to call them. Somewhat arbitrary but very useful.

Feathered dinosaurs are actually birds but someone simply decided to name them something else? And the predecessors or the feathered dinosaurs were actually birds but some folks decided to call them something else. Until you get to the first alleged life form which was actually a bird, but folks just decided to call it something else?

I don't blame you for wishing to now reject such a horrendous view of life.

Lets take the good ol Robin using Linnaean taxonomy.

All Robins are animals and all of their offspring will also be animals.

Amazing information there.

All Robins have backbones therefore all Robins are animals with backbones (Chordata) and all of their descendents will also be animals with backbones....every time.

All Robins have certain characteristic where we name them Birds (Aves) All Robin offspring will also be animals with backbones that could be termed birds.

Now certain groups of birds developed a lifestyle based on perching and as a result have certain physical characteristics for that purpose. Those birds that fit this are called Passeriformes or perching birds.

So all Robins are animals with backbones who are classified as birds and who have the physical characteristics for a lifestyle based on perching. Their offspring will also fit this descripton.

Next, all Robins fit into a groups we call thrushes. Robins are Thrushes. So Robins are animals with backbones who are classified as birds and have a lifestyle of perching and fit into a physical group known as thrushes.

Robins are a specific kind of thrush classified as Turdus migratorius.

I so much want to comment on that classification but would probably get me banned. Ole Linnaeus apparently had a sense of humor....and had a vendetta against Robins.

So all Robins fit within each of these groups and all of their descendents will also even if the change over time is enough for them to be given a different name.

Now when one gets to Cladistics, it is organized somewhat differently but this I think makes my point. Populations keep speciating and and since nothing stops this from happening, the different groups continue to develop into other groups often given different names and the process goes on to produce the diversity of life we see.


This is not my field of expertise and I am describing it from an informed layman's view so if those with better training wish to correct me, please do so.


Dizredux

Birds are birds except when they aren't. So birds will always produce birds will always produce birds....except when they don't.

Mighty convenient.