Why does life look as if it evolved?

RichardT · Oct 21, 2007

I've already expressed what I thought about homologies in general, if you would like a more detailed explanation, please visit the following link. To those whose axioms are attuned with Christian theology, revelation and historiography, it will seem to make sense. But to those whose axioms are attuned with materialism, uniformitarianism and positivism, it will be like another "PRATT" to them. Remember that a "PRATT" is whatever is agreed by evolutionists to have been defeated a thousand times, not what Creationists and evolutionists can agree on to be false.

http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp

Blayz · Oct 21, 2007

According to Berra, “If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people..

More mis-representative rubbish from the fundie crowd.
Some time between 1953 and now, someone invented automatic transmission. In one of these corvettes, automatic transmission just...'appeared". No common ancestor, no descent with modification, the new piece of equipment was just there. Same goes for air conditioning, airbags, cd players, GPS, car alarm, powered steering.... the list of clearly designed and non-descent related car based modifications is obvious to a blind rabbit. Sad that a blind rabbit has more common sense than a creationist fundie.

And as for this

Efforts to correlate evolution with changes in gene frequencies, however, have not been very successful. Detailed studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between changes in gene products and the sorts of organismal changes which constitute the “stuff of evolution.” (Lewontin, 1974, p. 160). According to Rudolf Raff and Thomas Kaufman, evolution by DNA mutations “is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution;” the “most spectacular” example of this is the morphological dissimilarity of humans and chimpanzees despite a 99% similarity in their DNA. (Raff and Kaufman, 1983, pp. 67, 78).

The chimp genome came out in 2007, and this review quotes a paper from 1983.
Why stop there? If you are going to quote outdated science to support a current view, why not go back to Aristotle.

RichardT · Oct 21, 2007

Blayz said:
[/i]More mis-representative rubbish from the fundie crowd.
Some time between 1953 and now, someone invented automatic transmission. In one of these corvettes, automatic transmission just...'appeared". No common ancestor, no descent with modification, the new piece of equipment was just there. Same goes for air conditioning, airbags, cd players, GPS, car alarm, powered steering.... the list of clearly designed and non-descent related car based modifications is obvious to a blind rabbit. Sad that a blind rabbit has more common sense than a creationist fundie.

Apart from your derogative terms, I don't really understand what you're arguing (sorry). I'm guessing you mean to say that descent with modification predicts these homologies? Dr. Wells disagrees.

"Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions."

The chimp genome came out in 2007, and this review quotes a paper from 1983.
Why stop there? If you are going to quote outdated science to support a current view, why not go back to Aristotle

The article was written in 1997.

Nathan Poe · Oct 21, 2007

RichardT said:
Remember that a "PRATT" is whatever is agreed by evolutionists to have been defeated a thousand times, not what Creationists and evolutionists can agree on to be false.

If Creationists and Evolutionists agreed on a PRATT, then Creationists would stop using it.

TeddyKGB · Oct 21, 2007

RichardT said:
I've already expressed what I thought about homologies in general, if you would like a more detailed explanation, please visit the following link. To those whose axioms are attuned with Christian theology, revelation and historiography, it will seem to make sense. But to those whose axioms are attuned with materialism, uniformitarianism and positivism, it will be like another "PRATT" to them. Remember that a "PRATT" is whatever is agreed by evolutionists to have been defeated a thousand times, not what Creationists and evolutionists can agree on to be false.

http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp

You are the quintessential sophist: Someone whose philosophical vocabulary exceeds his philosophical understanding.

Blayz · Oct 21, 2007

RichardT said:
Apart from your derogative terms, I don't really understand what you're arguing (sorry). I'm guessing you mean to say that descent with modification predicts these homologies? Dr. Wells disagrees.

I am arguing the exact opposite, that descent with modification is demonstably proven false in the case of the evolution of the corvette. There are a number of features which "spontaneously arose" (to extend the metaphor) such as automatic transmission and electric windows for which no ancestor state is observable.

In other words, a car shows clear evidence of an intelligent designer. Life, on the other hand, shows the exact opposite.

"Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions."

Lucky then, that we actually have an empirically deomstrated naturalistic mechanism for evolution.

The article was written in 1997.

An article is only as good as its references. An article on avionics in 2007 that only reference Leonardo da Vinci would not be accurate.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 22, 2007

guzman said:
have any examples? Humans look and act nothing like any other animal in the world.

The same could be said for any species of animal (or plant, for that matter).You point?

guzman said:
and why is it that evolutionists believe in common ancestors -- millions of them -- when not even one can be found?

Ahem:

Wiccan_Child · Oct 22, 2007

RichardT said:
I've already expressed what I thought about homologies in general, if you would like a more detailed explanation, please visit the following link. To those whose axioms are attuned with Christian theology, revelation and historiography, it will seem to make sense. But to those whose axioms are attuned with materialism, uniformitarianism and positivism, it will be like another "PRATT" to them. Remember that a "PRATT" is whatever is agreed by evolutionists to have been defeated a thousand times, not what Creationists and evolutionists can agree on to be false.

http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp

AiG has its own PRATT list. Try again.

CrashCursor · Oct 22, 2007

Blayz said:
...
Some time between 1953 and now, someone invented automatic transmission. In one of these corvettes, automatic transmission just...'appeared". No common ancestor, no descent with modification, the new piece of equipment was just there.
....

It's my understanding that the automatic transmission was a replacement for the manual transmission.

This could be analogous to the feather, I think. It is maintained that feathers up & replaced scales on some "models".

There are those who prefer evidence before believing in such fantasies. And there are those who don't. To one of these groups, it's not hard for life to "look" as if it "evolved".

The way things "look" to me, homology and "parallel evolution" falsify each other.

Blayz · Oct 22, 2007

CrashCursor said:
It's my understanding that the automatic transmission was a replacement for the manual transmission.

That explains why there are no more manual transmissions. no..wait...

You are, of course, missing the point. I am talking about the mecahnics of the gear box, not its selling point. Consider airbags instead. Point the previously existing proto-airbag organ in early cars that gave rise to the airbag.

There isn't one, because cars are intelligently designed, not evolved.

This could be analogous to the feather, I think. It is maintained that feathers up & replaced scales on some "models".

Except the link between scales and feathers is clear. The link between airg bags and not air bags is not.

There are those who prefer evidence before believing in such fantasies. And there are those who don't. To one of these groups, it's not hard for life to "look" as if it "evolved".

The former being a sad group of reality denying idolatrous book-worshiping pseudo-xtian fundies who desperately wish their 2000 year old barely literate nomad written fairytale had even the smallest hint of truth, versus the entire scientific community and its overwhelming evidence.

The way things "look" to me, homology and "parallel evolution" falsify each other.

Glad I don't have your misunderstandings, thats for sure. Have you ever studies biology? I mean, I am not expecting the 20+ years I have put into it, but you know, maybe finished high school?

Merlin · Oct 22, 2007

Wiccan_Child said:
*I have my doubts that you single-handedly designed the entirety of modern electronics.

Didn't say I personally designed all electronics.
I said electronics has evolved.
And I
said everything in electronics I've designed has evolved.

FishFace · Oct 22, 2007

guzman said:
have any examples? Humans look and act nothing like any other animal in the world.

and why is it that evolutionists believe in common ancestors -- millions of them -- when not even one can be found?

We look like bald apes with big brains, actually.

FishFace · Oct 22, 2007

Merlin said:
I'm only pointing out other things look like they evolved.

Except they don't! That's the point - life follows a nested hierarchy, electronics doesn't.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 22, 2007

Merlin said:
Didn't say I personally designed all electronics.
I said electronics has evolved.
And I
said everything in electronics I've designed has evolved.

Well, thanks for answering the jocular footnote of my post. Perhaps you would like to address the serious part of it? Namely:

Wiccan_Child said:
Merlin said:

Just about everything I have ever designed shows 'evolving'
Electronic circuits: telephone, TV, VCR, watches, etc.
Houses, cars, Vacuums, airplanes, and on and on.
They all evolve into more advanced designs.

...

I'm only pointing out other things look like they evolved.

Click to expand...

Except that you aren't: you are equivocating to get your point across. You say that the things you designed* evolved into their present form. That may be true, for given definitions of 'evolved', but suffice to say this is not what anyone means when there refer to biological evolution (namely, the change in the frequency of inheretable traits over time in a population).

Indeed, the following video shows how even timepieces can evolve:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&eurl=http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=39983234

Merlin · Oct 22, 2007

Wiccan_Child said:
suffice to say this is not what anyone means when there refer to biological evolution (namely, the change in the frequency of inheretable traits over time in a population).

Maybe for an evolutionist, this is true.
However, creationists do mean evolution as change, not necessarily 'inheretable traits over time in a population'

TheOutsider · Oct 22, 2007

Merlin said:
Maybe for an evolutionist, this is true.
However, creationists do mean evolution as change, not necessarily 'inheretable traits over time in a population'

Too bad. You don't get to redefine your opponents' terms however you see fit.

Vene · Oct 22, 2007

Merlin said:
Maybe for an evolutionist, this is true.
However, creationists do mean evolution as change, not necessarily 'inheretable traits over time in a population'

So you admit that to argue the Theory of Evolution you have to make a strawman argument? That's awfully honest of you.

Split Rock · Oct 22, 2007

RichardT said:
Apart from your derogative terms, I don't really understand what you're arguing (sorry). I'm guessing you mean to say that descent with modification predicts these homologies? Dr. Wells disagrees.

"Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions."

But we do have such a mechanism
Natural Selection, or as you yourself already answered, Descent with Modification.

Loudmouth · Oct 22, 2007

Merlin said:
Didn't say I personally designed all electronics.
I said electronics has evolved.
And I
said everything in electronics I've designed has evolved.

Evolution, as a general term, means "change over time". What we are speaking about is biological evolution.

If you put two of your electronic designs in a dark room for a few months would they produce an imperfect replica of themselves? No. So electronics can not evolve in the same way as organisms do.

Even more, organisms look evolved because of the pattern of similarities. Notice that I said PATTERN of similarities. Life falls into a nested hierarchy where adaptations can not leap across the limbs of the tree of life. Feathers are only found in certain limbs of that tree, not scattered throughout. Fur is only found in certain limbs, as are numerous other features. We never see an organism that has feathers and three middle ear bones, for instance.

But let's look at electronics and cars. If cars "looked evolved" then we would see designs that only stayed in a specific lineage. For instance, only one lineage would have air bags and only one lineage would have an automatic transmission. But this is not what we see. Designs do not stay in a lineage, they are scattered throughout just as we would expect from a designer.

Just ask yourself this question. Do your electronic circuits fall into a nested hierarchy? I would guess that they don't. You probably mix and match several different features from disparate sources.

RichardT · Oct 22, 2007

Wiccan_Child said:
AiG has its own PRATT list. Try again.

In the context used on this forum that's how I'll define it.

Why does life look as if it evolved?

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Well-Known Member

Paradigm Buster

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Paradigm Buster

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency