Maybe because Darwinan evolution has had 150 years of time to become established?
Like all science it's a progression.
Regards,
Paul
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Progression from a simpler creature to a more complex creature is not evidence of intelligent design though, it can be said that there's a competitive advantage gained in the higher complexity of the organism, and therefore that's why more complex organisms are the evolutionary predecessors of less complex creatures. So this a prediction that ID makes, but that doesn't prove ID because a more robust and complete theory makes the same successful prediction.
New feature.
Regards,
Paul
Proponents of ID must then accept OXBOW lakes as being the product of a designer!
What next; Fairies and leprechauns?
But how is it quantified? How could you determine that Creature A has X units of novelty, while Creature B has Y units of novelty?
And what constitutes a novel trait or form anyway? Is a sixth digit on each hand a novel trait? What about thumbs that are 1mm longer than before? 1cm longer? What's the difference between a novel trait and mere variation between individuals?
If a modern specimen has lost some trait that its fossil ancestor had, is that a novel trait?
I don't disagree that examining and comparing modern to ancient creatures is an interesting endeavor, but actually quantifying and applying the findings won't really work.
But how is it quantified? How could you determine that Creature A has X units of novelty, while Creature B has Y units of novelty?
And what constitutes a novel trait or form anyway? Is a sixth digit on each hand a novel trait? What about thumbs that are 1mm longer than before? 1cm longer? What's the difference between a novel trait and mere variation between individuals?
If a modern specimen has lost some trait that its fossil ancestor had, is that a novel trait?
I don't disagree that examining and comparing modern to ancient creatures is an interesting endeavor, but actually quantifying and applying the findings won't really work.
Oh my.. sorry not to make myself clear. i meant, what would you consider an example of a new feature? How would you know it was a new feature if you saw it? That kind of thing.
Why wont it "work"? I think its a great idea. A thorough study of comparative vertebrate anatomy would answer any questions he might have.
Of course the question is hard and I cannot answer it now. That is why we study?
By the same token by looking at a fossil skeketon at what point is it classified as a fish and not some other creature?
Kind regards,
Paul
Maybe because Darwinan evolution has had 150 years of time to become established?
Like all science it's a progression.
Regards,
Paul
This is often quite arbitrary. Is Tiktaalik roseae a fish or a tetrapod? Some are calling it a "fishapod."
Evolution predicts the existance of such fossils. Does I.D.?
So it's open to interpretation? There is no definitive answer this is a fish and this is not?
Regards,
Paul
This is often quite arbitrary. Is Tiktaalik roseae a fish or a tetrapod? Some are calling it a "fishapod."
Evolution predicts the existance of such fossils. Does I.D.?
Well, think, how do you decide what something is? You look at its features, inside and out, and make a call.
Take a fish. We'd all agree that a trout is a fish. That a salamander is an amphibian, a lizard a reptile.
You cannot tho, say "this is 100% reptile, it has no features in common with an amphibian" Because in fact, they have far more features in common than are different.
Reptile and bird, the same; they are very closely related. True, a duck is a baird, a turtle is a reptile. But... what about a creature with teeth and a long tail, and, feathers? Bird? Reptile? Neither?
The answer like with all vertebrates is that it is part of a continum. You can draw certain lines for the sake of convenience but it doesnt mean there are bright line distinctions to be made.
As to novel features: any structure you will find in any vertebrate has its origin somewhere deep in the history of the vertebrates. Nothing is "novel" in the sense that it does not have roots in earlier animals.
So by that logic I would say if we have that much trouble defining creatures we have full access to how much more difficult trying to form relationships from bones alone?
Also if we based modern species on skeletons alone it would seriously reduce the number of species none to us.
Do you think if we took all modern dogs known to us and buried the skeletons in different strata and then dug them up we would say they were the same species and able to interbreed?
Regards,
Paul
Yes it predicts design for a specific habitat.
Also we have similar creatures alive today living in probably similar shallow water areas, what does it prove?
Kind regards,
Paul
Do you think if we took all modern dogs known to us and buried the skeletons in different strata and then dug them up we would say they were the same species and able to interbreed?
Most likely not. Which is expected from their being found in different strata.
The thing about using dogs in your example is that they have been subject to artificial selection, primarily based upon physical appearance and traits. This greatly accelerates the effects of the selection process. But the sexual compatibility of the different breeds is not generally subject to these artificial pressures, and as such would not have as much disparity between breeds. Even though any breed of dog can technically reproduce with any other breed (even though extreme measures may be required) doesn't change the fact that lots of times they won't do it of their own volition.
Have you ever seen a Great Dane-Chihuahua mix? I doubt you ever will. Sexual separation is not just being unable to interbreed, it is also being unwilling.
So it's open to interpretation? There is no definitive answer this is a fish and this is not?
Regards,
Paul
Yes it predicts design for a specific habitat.
Most likely not. Which is expected from their being found in different strata.
The thing about using dogs in your example is that they have been subject to artificial selection, primarily based upon physical appearance and traits. This greatly accelerates the effects of the selection process. But the sexual compatibility of the different breeds is not generally subject to these artificial pressures, and as such would not have as much disparity between breeds. Even though any breed of dog can technically reproduce with any other breed (even though extreme measures may be required) doesn't change the fact that lots of times they won't do it of their own volition.
Have you ever seen a Great Dane-Chihuahua mix? I doubt you ever will. Sexual separation is not just being unable to interbreed, it is also being unwilling.
What are you referring to with "similar creatures alive today"?
kind regards to you too..
XC
1. No, not at all. The skeletons are highly diagnostic, you dont need the soft parts to tell you what something is.
Sorry I dont know what you mean?2. You mean "known" to us? And no, why would it do that?
3. The "different strata" is too hypothetical to make sense. Easy fake to figure out. But lets say you could do that. Dog bones are dog bones, where ever you find them.
As to interbreed, sure! Dog bones are very distinctively dog bones. You can interbreed dogs, coyotes, wolves now, any old kind of dog can interbreed. What is your point here?
OK, that's a prediction, but is that what we find? What exactly does "design for a specific habitat" mean? For example, one sort of habitat is the ocean. But the "designs" of ocean-dwelling creatures vary greatly, from jellyfish to coral to sponges to barnacles to sharks to lobsters to stingrays to sea otters to plankton to dolphins to eels to whales... I could go on. And that's not even counting plant life.
Also, why do all mammals have three earbones in the middle ear, whereas no non-mammals have three earbones in the middle ear. Mammals live in all sorts of habitats; do such habitats all lend themselves to this same "design?" Non-mammals also live in all sorts of habitats; wouldn't at least some of them not also benefit from this "design" for the middle ear?
This is readily predicted by evolution, but not so much by design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?