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.
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.
Well, you'd be wrong. With cars, for instance, you don't get car radios only among the group of cars in which they first appeared: car radios appear across brands and across types of cars.Well, I would say they do fall into a 'nested hierarchy' (from your given examples) since I never mix tubes with transistors.
Then you admit that your argument is fallacious: you are equivocating, yes?Maybe for an evolutionist, this is true.
However, creationists do mean evolution as change, not necessarily 'inheretable traits over time in a population'
Well, you'd be wrong...
No I'm not.
As you quoted me. Did you read what you quoted?
I referred to MY elctronics designs.
Since cars, etc had many designers and bio-systems only one, the lack of nested hierarchy designs is not a valid comparison.
Well, I would say they do fall into a 'nested hierarchy' (from your given examples) since I never mix tubes with transistors.
Tubes are still in use by many.Since tubes preceded transistors this wouldn't be a problem. It would be a bit like egg laying mammals or lungfish that have both lungs and gills.
But anyway, I really, really doubt that your designs fall into a nested hierarchy. I would also guess that you do not have a full grasp of what a nested hierarchy is.
You mean, in the same way God mixed proteins? DNA structures? etc?But let me put it this way. If you found a good, basic design that has broad applications would you mix it in with other designs? Of course you would. Do you mix and match transistors from different companies? Of course, why wouldn't you. We see it all of the time in personal computers where video cards, sound cards, motherboards, and CPU's are interchangeable and easily violate a nested hierarchy.
You mean, in the same way God mixed proteins? DNA structures? etc?
Tell me, if you're working on project X, and find a solution to a problem that is also useful in project Y, do you or do you not, when you go back to work on project Y, make use of that solution?No I'm not.
As you quoted me. Did you read what you quoted?
I referred to MY elctronics designs.
Since cars, etc had many designers and bio-systems only one, the lack of nested hierarchy designs is not a valid comparison.
Tell me, if you're working on project X, and find a solution to a problem that is also useful in project Y, do you or do you not, when you go back to work on project Y, make use of that solution?
Sometimes, no.
Yes.
I also noticed when the discussion went from one engineer to many.
Did you notice?
However, humans have moved proteins around in a way that violates the nested hierarchy. One of the more entertaining examples is the Glofish This is a zebrafish that has an exact copy of a jellyfish gene, GFP. How did it get there? Humans put it there. This illustrates the fact that a non-nested hierarchy is what one would expect if life was designed.
So, sometimes you do. That means your designs do not fit into a nested hierarchy. This is the case all across human designs: when we find something that works, we reuse it. Life, for the most part, can't do that, and that's why human-made things don't look evolved at all.Sometimes, no.
Horizontal gene transfer between Bacteria and Archaea (domains, the highest level meaningful taxa)?Indeed, this is one major thing that facinated me when I started learning about genetics. The fact that whole genes can be moved across taxa (even higher level taxa) would be incredible evidence for ID. And yet such examples don't exist in nature.
This is the case all across human designs: when we find something that works, we reuse it. Life, for the most part, can't do that, and that's why human-made things don't look evolved at all.
Nonsense.
Concepts reused:
eye, stomach, hair, teeth, heart, blood, intestines, bone, and so on.
But these concepts don't appear independently. taking the hair example, the only creatures that have hair are those that evolved from reptiles. Insects may have hair-like structures, but they are configured differently. If a non-mammalian creature has hair then it would develop independently, but that isn't the case.
These are traits that the earliest organisms had. That means that their offspring would have it too. And even if it isn't exactly alive (but they are organic), there are viruses that only have RNA.So, none have DNA.
None have cells,
None have proteins,
except humans, right?
wouldn't want to reuse concepts across different life forms
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?