Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Speedwell]

Sorry to set the trap... but I was describing the exact pattern you would find at an auto salvage yard.

Not to say this is 'slam dunk' evidence for design in itself, but to be fair, creative design IS the only proven method of achieving this particular pattern.
Whether nature can also achieve this remains unproven. At the very least, we certainly cannot use this pattern to suggest, far less prove 'random error + natural selection' as the most plausible explanation

Why not? Certainly it is consistent with random variation and selection as we understand it. It is consistent with observed instances of evolution up to and including speciation, it can be mathematically modelled and the interacting stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information-processing capacity to carry it off. And, it is the only plausible explanation currently available. "Design" at the present time is a conjecture, not an explanation.

 

[pitabread]

Clearly the original kinds were meant, being created as unique from others, but that still does not mean there would be no similarities, the creator would surely make unique kinds after common patterns.

Why would they though? They didn't have to.

It is explanable with the creation being made in a pattern with similarities among groups of different kinds, as many of us who could be creators in some way with our own works might do from our creativity. It is not excluded necessarily.

But there is no reason to necessarily include it.

With evolution, patterns of similarity are primarily a result of hereditary constraints.

With independent creation, those same constraints are not necessary. What you are effectively doing is applying evolutionary constraints to independent creation. But you have given no reason why you would do that.

You're effectively admitting that life has the appearance of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why not? Certainly it is consistent with random variation and selection as we understand it. It is consistent with observed instances of evolution up to and including speciation, it can be mathematically modelled and the interacting stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information-processing capacity to carry it off. And, it is the only plausible explanation currently available. "Design" at the present time is a conjecture, not an explanation.

I agree- consistent with, but not specific to

i.e. the pattern in the fossil record cannot be used to specifically support Darwinian evolution, as it is entirely consistent with evolution of creative designs also- again the latter being the more directly observable, empirical.

a new computer has the processing capacity to write a novel, just lacks the creative input- that's the trickier part

i.e. it's not that we don't know how such information systems are created, we do, just not by naturalistic mechanisms

 

[Speedwell]

I agree- consistent with, but not specific to

So what have you got?

 

[Ophiolite]

i.e. the pattern in the fossil record cannot be used to specifically support Darwinian evolution, as it is entirely consistent with evolution of creative designs also- again the latter being the more directly observable, empirical.

The evidence from evolution is supported by a multiplicity of evidence from a cornucopia of sciences, from Anatomy to Zoology, all of which point to Darwinian evolution. No such array of support is available to the Design hypothesis. Thus the parsimonious approach favours Darwinian evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

If we dig up the past and look at the record- we see similarities, shared traits, some gaps/jumps dead ends, redundant features and even some regressions- but a general trend towards increased sophistication, right? So what does this pattern tell you about how the different designs came about?

Something that doesn't have a clear plan.

Is that really the conclusion you are looking for?

Sorry to set the trap... but I was describing the exact pattern you would find at an auto salvage yard.

Not to say this is 'slam dunk' evidence for design in itself, but to be fair, creative design IS the only proven method of achieving this particular pattern.
Whether nature can also achieve this remains unproven. At the very least, we certainly cannot use this pattern to suggest, far less prove 'random error + natural selection' as the most plausible explanation

That's not sensible.

As I said, there's no reason for an omnipotent God to operate that way. A more efficient design process for a system with limited resources or time constraints like a human engineer or evolution doesn't apply to a being who can create perfection on the first try.

Also when human engineers build/design things they aren't constrained by a nested hierarchy. Life is, so that is consistent with evolution and not consistent limited designer and definitely not consistent with an unlimited designer.

 

[Ophiolite]

If we dig up the past and look at the record- we see similarities, shared traits, some gaps/jumps dead ends, redundant features and even some regressions- but a general trend towards increased sophistication, right?

It depends what you mean by greater sophistication. "Absorption" of other microbial forms to create mitochondria and chloroplasts was a neat development. Multicellularity was another one and the appearance of functional organs a third. Other than that its just details here and there, while the bulk of the mass of the biosphere remains in the Archaea and Bacteria. I imagine you think they are unsophisticated.

So what does this pattern tell you about how the different designs came about?

Trial and error ruled the day. There was no plan. Contingency 100: Consideration 0.

Sorry to set the trap... but I was describing the exact pattern you would find at an auto salvage yard.

From this I have to conclude you no very little about biological evolution, or about auto salvage yards, or possibly neither.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry to set the trap... but I was describing the exact pattern you would find at an auto salvage yard.

Except that the pattern we see in living things and their ancestors derives from multiple independent lines of evidence all supporting evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor.

At the very least, we certainly cannot use this pattern to suggest, far less prove 'random error + natural selection' as the most plausible explanation

The sole reason that evolution by natural selection was suggested is that it fits all the evidence (often with algorithmic precision), and is the best available explanation by rational abductive criteria.

Of course, you can invoke a powerful creative entity as an alternative, but that alternative has no explanatory power (i.e. gives no insight into the observed phenomena), makes no testable predictions, introduces an unevidenced, unexplained, and inexplicable entity (is not parsimonious), raises more questions than it answers, has no specificity or utility, and doesn't explain why the patterns we see exactly match what we'd expect from evolution by natural selection rather than anything else, etc.

You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable, and an inexplicable that can 'explain' anything at all - is no explanation at all; it's just a label covering a lack of explanation.

Other than that, it's fine

 

[pitabread]

Sorry to set the trap... but I was describing the exact pattern you would find at an auto salvage yard.

A year or so ago I did an experiment by constructing phylogenetic trees based on vehicle characteristics. It turns out vehicles don't fall into the same pattern as one would expect if they were constrained by inheritance.

 

[coffee4u]

However, why on earth would he create these birds with the broken switched off genes for teeth structured like the working teeth genes from a lizard?

What we see now is not how it was created.
When first created there were no broken switched off genes, no disease and structures had other purposes.
Everything changed at the fall. Both structural and behavior changes. The entire creation became corrupted. This is why God says the creation is groaning.

What you see and test now is this groaning corrupted creation, not the creation as God made it, that is gone. Because no, he wouldn't create birds with broken switched off genes for teeth, the fall caused that. A broken gene like that indicates that birds before the fall had teeth the same way that snakes had legs.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What we see now is not how it was created.
When first created there were no broken switched off genes, no disease and structures had other purposes.
Everything changed at the fall. Both structural and behavior changes. The entire creation became corrupted. This is why God says the creation is groaning.

What you see and test now is this groaning corrupted creation, not the creation as God made it, that is gone. Because no, he wouldn't create birds with broken switched off genes for teeth, the fall caused that. A broken gene like that indicates that birds before the fall had teeth the same way that snakes had legs.

Teeth for killing prey during a time when every animal was vegetarian and there was no death? Makes so much sense.....

 

[coffee4u]

Teeth for killing prey during a time when every animal was vegetarian and there was no death? Makes so much sense.....

You are assuming such teeth are for killing prey. Fruit bats also have sharp teeth and it's for ripping into tough plant fibers.

 

[Shemjaza]

What we see now is not how it was created.
When first created there were no broken switched off genes, no disease and structures had other purposes.
Everything changed at the fall. Both structural and behavior changes. The entire creation became corrupted. This is why God says the creation is groaning.

What you see and test now is this groaning corrupted creation, not the creation as God made it, that is gone. Because no, he wouldn't create birds with broken switched off genes for teeth, the fall caused that. A broken gene like that indicates that birds before the fall had teeth the same way that snakes had legs.

Beaks or maws full of sharp teeth are an either/or situation... unless whales had four legs, birds had teeth and humans had tails, then this doesn't really make any sense.

 

[pitabread]

When first created there were no broken switched off genes, no disease and structures had other purposes.
Everything changed at the fall. Both structural and behavior changes. The entire creation became corrupted.

This is what I find so contradictory about creationist views. On the one hand, I see creationists lauding the amazing designs of life as we know it (design flaws and all).

On the other hand, you're claiming that life as we know it wasn't life as we know it.

Creation seems to be whatever creationists want it to be depending on the argument they are trying to make. Which, ironically, seems to always fall back to apologizing for why life appears evolved.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So what have you got?

a less improbable explanation

The modifications in DNA leading to new/functional information are in most cases not random

 

[Speedwell]

a less improbable explanation

The modifications in DNA leading to new/functional information are in most cases not random

How do you predict them?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Something that doesn't have a clear plan.

Is that really the conclusion you are looking for?


That's not sensible.

As I said, there's no reason for an omnipotent God to operate that way. A more efficient design process for a system with limited resources or time constraints like a human engineer or evolution doesn't apply to a being who can create perfection on the first try.

Also when human engineers build/design things they aren't constrained by a nested hierarchy. Life is, so that is consistent with evolution and not consistent limited designer and definitely not consistent with an unlimited designer.

As I said, this was merely to point out that the pattern in the fossil record itself, is in no way specific to naturalistic v creative mechanisms. (no need to mention God here)

But 'What would God do?' is a very subjective question. Cleary 'imperfection' is an inherent and necessary part of being human.
As for nested hierarchies- this is inherent in self replication, many are looking at designing machines which can gather their own resources and replicate- in some cases as a way to 'colonize' the galaxy with scouts for inhabitable planets etc- these would also be constrained to nested hierarchies to a large degree.

Then you also have things like orphan genes/ independent development of features using the same DNA. which could be used to argue against nested hierarchies being an 'immutable' law'.

is it demanded by the evidence- or just by the theory?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you predict them?

For one:

You would look for evidence of volumes of new information arising in DNA, appearing within time frames that are far too short for random mutations to achieve, given known waiting times and possible combinations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

From this I have to conclude you no very little about biological evolution, or about auto salvage yards, or possibly neither.

sticks and stones,

I am always happy to respond to any substantive arguments without derogatory comments.

I'm not offended by them, I just find trading insults boring, many people here are willing and able to debate without them (makes for a far more compelling case also)

 

[Speedwell]

For one:

You would look for evidence of volumes of new information arising in DNA, appearing within time frames that are far too short for random mutations to achieve, given known waiting times and possible combinations.

And what have you found? Though it seems to me that since a random string contains the most information your search would not tell you much.