Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Edx]

In what setting, exactly, did you or "we" see the evolution of a bird into something other than a bird?

Now now, Aron never said that. Evolution doesnt say a bird could ever produce a non-bird. As such, we are still apes, we didnt stop being apes.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Except that we've seen (several times) one species of birds producing two or more new "kinds" of birds.

In what setting, exactly, did you or "we" see the evolution of a bird into something other than a bird?

Maybe you should read the post you're replying to again.

Darwin's tree of life requires that a single ancestor produced all of the species we see today. The question is not the internal changes within birds but the production of a species "other than bird" from a particular species of bird.

No, it results in variation, kinds of kinds of kinds of kinds, with each new variation becoming a new sub-group of the parent clade. We have new species and sister species, neither of which can still breed with the parent group. That's speciation, also defined as "macroevolution".

Seeing two birds with different characteristics makes them differing "species" only in our own human categorization of those life forms. This does not, in and of itself, indicate the "evolution of new species" but only a difference within a single type of animal.

Wrong. Every other classification, kingdom, phylum, order, family, etc., is meaningless, all except for species. Species-level diversification is the basis of macroevolution precisely because it is the only one that can be objectively determined and shown to have substantial impact in that it is the point of genetic divergence.

No my friend, this does not give you evolution. This only gives you a great many variations of bird.

Which is exactly what evolution is.

Biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Before you can criticize evolution, you have to understand what it is.

Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into something else. Every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. That's why humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still synapsid tetrapods, etc. etc. You can never grow out of your ancestry.

 

[MarkT]

Correct. Neither does reading the Bible prove the Bible. But this is a mostly text-based telecommunication; there are limits to how exactly we can 'see' the evidence. Besides, I would think that if Talk Origins fabricated evidence, then someone would have noticed.

The phylogenetic tree is manufactured evidence.

That said, Talk Origins is a very valid source of information. If you think you can refute their arguments, or think you have found a flaw in their logic, then please, post it, and we'll debate it. But their arguments come from clearly cited references. Do you doubt them?

I'm not sure what you mean by doubt. It's about time Evos understood that no Creationist accepts what comes out of Talk Origins no matter what their sources say.

But you cannot, and this is something talkorigins also states but you somehow missed, classifiy cars in a twin-nested hierarchy. Neither can you, with cars, show that one nested hierarchy is more parsimoneous than a different one, which is possible with biological organsisms. These differences between possibilities of classification are significant, but somehow you have skipped that bit.

Well, they tried to say something about being objective but as I said, only designed manufactured things can be put into a nested hierarchy and it was by design that the phylogenetic tree was manufactured. Cars can be put into nested hierarchies because they are redesigned every year. New models, like species, are designed and manufactured. But the phylogentic tree uses words and definitions. A jaw is a jaw by definition and a vertebral column is a vertebral column by definition. Some help comes from the fact that living things were designed and made and living things manufacture living things. Living things multiply and living things do possess alternative traits and they do inherit traits from both parents and there are kinds in kinds as Genesis says. He made them kinds, not one kind but more than one kind, according to their kind. That's what Genesis says. So groups in groups. The Bible doesn't dispute a nested hierarchy only it says, 'of the bird kind', for example, there were several kinds created. I'm assuming God created them in pairs. Then of course we have the flood to add to the equation. To point out the obvious, you are not adding hair to a fish like you might add airconditioning to a car; neither is adding a jaw or a vertebral column to a jelly fish like adding wheels and someday it will be a car. So the creatures were made fully formed. Now evolution says alternative traits can be selected; like eye and coat coloring. Ok. We can even see there are a number of possible shapes and sizes of birds, for example, and snakes and lizards and cattle etc. But that's different from saying nature designs living things, which is, I think, what common descent implies. So we have to look at these two things as two different theories. Common descent says nature designed the inner ear, for example, and eyes and hair etc. Evolution says nature redesigns living things over time sort of like GM redesigns cars over time. Ok, if by redesign we mean 'modify'. But companies can design and manufacture cars and trucks and airplanes and submarines. Nature can only modify a kind of creature, after it is designed and built.

 

[Ondoher]

The phylogenetic tree is manufactured evidence.

No, it is inferred from character traits of living things.

I'm not sure what you mean by doubt. It's about time Evos understood that no Creationist accepts what comes out of Talk Origins no matter what their sources say.

Arguments are true or false based on their content, not who has given them. Talk.Origins represents the mainstream scientific opinion on these matters. If you have problems with a specific argument based on a specific counter argument, then feel free to air it.

Well, they tried to say something about being objective but as I said, only designed manufactured things can be put into a nested hierarchy and it was by design that the phylogenetic tree was manufactured.

Except that you're wrong. Designed thing s never fit into a nested hierachy. I explained this just a little while ago here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28823577&postcount=379

Cars can be put into nested hierarchies because they are redesigned every year. New models, like species, are designed and manufactured.

Except that two people building a phylogeny of cars will reach different trees and will end up with cars that belong in more than one group. For instance, my Hyundai Sonata had a Mitsubishi engine in it. Designed objects do not form natural, nested hiearchies. Independent phylogenies of cars will not convege on a statistically strong, single tree.

But the phylogentic tree uses words and definitions.

Should they use pictographs?

A jaw is a jaw by definition and a vertebral column is a vertebral column by definition. Some help comes from the fact that living things were designed and made and living things manufacture living things. Living things multiply and living things do possess alternative traits and they do inherit traits from both parents and there are kinds in kinds as Genesis says. He made them kinds, not one kind but more than one kind, according to their kind. That's what Genesis says. So groups in groups. The Bible doesn't dispute a nested hierarchy only it says, 'of the bird kind', for example, there were several kinds created. I'm assuming God created them in pairs.

This whole block of text appears to be nonsense. What exactly are you trying to say. Are you claiming that special creation predicts a single, natural, nested hierarchy of species?

Then of course we have the flood to add to the equation. To point out the obvious, you are not adding hair to a fish like you might add airconditioning to a car; neither is adding a jaw or a vertebral column to a jelly fish like adding wheels and someday it will be a car. So the creatures were made fully formed.

I bet whales sure would have appreciated gills.

Now evolution says alternative traits can be selected; like eye and coat coloring. Ok. We can even see there are a number of possible shapes and sizes of birds, for example, and snakes and lizards and cattle etc. But that's different from saying nature designs living things, which is, I think, what common descent implies. So we have to look at these two things as two different theories. Common descent says nature designed the inner ear, for example, and eyes and hair etc.

No it doesn't. It says that all species are related via common ancestry. It nothing about the mechanisms that led to this diversification.

Evolution says nature redesigns living things over time sort of like GM redesigns cars over time. Ok, if by redesign we mean 'modify'. But companies can design and manufacture cars and trucks and airplanes and submarines. Nature can only modify a kind of creature, after it is designed and built.

More apparent nonsense. It isn't clear what point you're trying to make here.

 

[bobhope]

I'm not sure what you mean by doubt. It's about time Evos understood that no Creationist accepts what comes out of Talk Origins no matter what their sources say.

That's because when you're set in your belief of a book that's thousands of years old, there's no possible way to shake that "belief." You could be shown a video of a one-celled organism evolving into a different organism and still not be satisfied. You could be shown conclusive proof that one species has evolved into another, and you would ignore it.

You have no reason to come to these forums. "Evolutionists" believe in facts, not superstition. "We" (most people) require evidence. So, if you come here and assert that no matter what, your very old book of fables is somehow more "truthful" than hundreds of years of objective research... well, you have shot yourself in the foot. Your (un)belief is ridiculous. If you could show a single shred of evidence that what you believe is true, you might have a leg to stand on. But you do not.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The phylogenetic tree is manufactured evidence.

No its not, and I can easily prove that point. In fact, the phylogenetic tree was first conceived by a creationist a century before Darwin. He was greatly confused by his own discovery because he could see these relationships indicated but he couldn't explain them.

A couple hundred years or so of additional data and improved research technologies have lead to numerous corrections to Carl Linn's initial observations. The very reason we can objectively determine whether some part of that construct needs correction proves the fact that the phylogenetic tree wasn't manufactured, it was discovered. The construct of the phylogenetic tree is a chart of demonstrable data that was no more "maufactured" than this chart:

 

[MarkT]

The problem with forming a nested hierarchy out of cars is that:
You will invariably find a car that would belong in more than one grouping. For instance, my old Hyundai Sonata had a Mitsubishi motor in it.
Two or more people developing such a nested heirarchy will produce vastly different results.
This is not true of living beings.

GM has divisions and each division produces models and each model comes with different equipment in different colors. That's a nested hierarchy. It doesn't matter if your car has a Mitsubishi motor in it. That motor was put there by design, on purpose if you will. There was a reason for doing it and it was done by man, by his will. Sure we can invent things and make improvements on things and we can add things on and take things away. Nature can't do that. Nature can only modify things that already exist; like traits. Natural processes can only morph things; like metamorphic rock, for example. We can create nested hierarchies. You can say machinery has evolved. There's the history of machinery. But everything that we design is designed for a purpose, general or specific. Everything is made for it's purpose and serves the purpose it was designed for. Say a truck. A truck can carry a refrigerator. A car can't. So a car and a truck are two kinds of vehicle. An airplane is a kind of vehicle and so is a train and so is a boat. An airplane might have seats but they wouldn't look like boat seats. You can group vehicles in larger groups. That's a nested hierarchy. Now, I'm not trying to create anything like a tree with a common ancestor. The object of this lesson is that nested hierarchies exist and we create them. The phylogenetic tree is created. It's manufactured evidence for common ancestry. Now, I would not call it evidence in the first place. I would call it a chart or a diagram but if you want to call it evidence, then I would have to point out that it is manufactured and call it manufactured evidence. So far we can see nested hierarchies are created by design, so we can say living things were made by design. We also know nature does not invent or design things. Nature can only modify. So we have things made by design and modified by nature over time. Everything was made for it's purpose; birds to fly, fish to swim, animals to walk on all fours. Birds were given wings to fly, fish were given fins to swim, etc. And more than one kind of bird, for example, was created. The phylogenetic tree is like a geneaology. You can trace the history of cars. You can trace the history of computers, you can trace the history of almost anything that is created by design and everything that is created by design serves a purpose. Now you said your car had a Mitsubishi motor in it? Science would not recognize the difference just as evos don't recognize human hair and human hands. A motor is by definition a motor. To evos, human hands are ape hands.

 

[Chalnoth]

GM has divisions and each division produces models and each model comes with different equipment in different colors. That's a nested hierarchy.

No, it's not. A more familiar nested hierarchy is found in the military: each person in the military has a direct superior. Each of those people has a direct superior. And so on and so forth up to the President (in the US). You don't have people that are simultaneously a part of two separate groups: there is always a direct chain of command.

Now, let's go back to the cars example. We could make a grouping: cars with 4-cylinder gasoline engines. This is going to encompass many smaller, low-budget cars, and a few budget trucks. Now, let's make another grouping. Let's pick cars with automatic transmissions. In principle, there will be no relationship whatsoever between those cars with automatic transmissions and 4-cylinder gasoline engines. That's not a nested hierarchy at all!

Instead, let's take a look at life. Take any two traits, and you will find they follow a simple set of rules:
1. One trait will usually be a subset of the other trait (i.e. it will be found in a portion of those that carry the other trait, but no animals that do not carry the other trait).
2. One trait is not a subset of the other trait, but, upon closer inspection, it is found that the members within one grouping can be split into two separate groups, based solely upon the particular implementation of that one trait and nothing else, such that the new groupings do only fit within subsets of one another.
3. There is no overlap between the groups.

So, let's take a quick example. Let's take, oh, leaves and chloroplasts. Every life form that has leaves has chloroplasts, but there are some life forms that have chloroplasts and no leaves. The group of life forms with leaves is a subset of the group of life forms with chloroplasts.

Try it. Pick any two traits, any two traits at all. With life forms, you'll find that it fits into one of these three situations: one trait lies only within a subset of the other, there is no overlap, or we haven't closely defined the traits enough.

Trying this with cars doesn't work. A CD player in a budget car by the same manufacturer may well be the exact same CD player in a much more expensive car from that manufacturer, but the CD player is optional in both models. Cars with CD players are not a subset of any group of cars, nor is there any group of cars that is a subset of cars with CD players.

 

[Aron-Ra]

GM has divisions and each division produces models and each model comes with different equipment in different colors. That's a nested hierarchy. It doesn't matter if your car has a Mitsubishi motor in it. That motor was put there by design, on purpose if you will. There was a reason for doing it and it was done by man, by his will.

And we never see anything like this in nature. That's why birds still have reptile brains and archosaur hearts like a crocodile. They can't change those things or swap them out for mammal parts.

Sure we can invent things and make improvements on things and we can add things on and take things away. Nature can't do that. Nature can only modify things that already exist; like traits.

Exactly! That's why we can't construct a nested heirarchy for cars.

Natural processes can only morph things; like metamorphic rock, for example. We can create nested hierarchies. You can say machinery has evolved. There's the history of machinery. But everything that we design is designed for a purpose, general or specific. Everything is made for it's purpose and serves the purpose it was designed for. Say a truck. A truck can carry a refrigerator. A car can't. So a car and a truck are two kinds of vehicle. An airplane is a kind of vehicle and so is a train and so is a boat. An airplane might have seats but they wouldn't look like boat seats. You can group vehicles in larger groups. That's a nested hierarchy. Now, I'm not trying to create anything like a tree with a common ancestor. The object of this lesson is that nested hierarchies exist and we create them.

But no matter how hard we try, we can't create them for cars or other vehicles, and we certainly can't construct twin-nested heirarchies for anything that doesn't naturally reproduce without the aid of a manufacturer's design.

The phylogenetic tree is created. It's manufactured evidence for common ancestry. Now, I would not call it evidence in the first place. I would call it a chart or a diagram but if you want to call it evidence, then I would have to point out that it is manufactured and call it manufactured evidence.

What, are you ignoring my post?

So far we can see nested hierarchies are created by design, so we can say living things were made by design.

But we didn't design those heirarchies; their constructed is mandated by nature in often random patterns, so we can say living things were also derived naturally in often random patterns.

We also know nature does not invent or design things. Nature can only modify. So we have things made by design and modified by nature over time.

Or made by mutation and modified by natural selection.

Everything was made for it's purpose; birds to fly,

Penguins, ratites, hesperornis, terror birds, dodos, roadrunners, etc.

fish to swim,

Except for lungfish which can't really swim and hybernate on land.

animals to walk on all fours.

Excuse me, but birds, fish, lobsters, spiders, and humans are all animals, and none of them walk on all fours.

Birds were given wings to fly,

Penguins, ratites, hesperornis, terror birds, dodos, roadrunners, etc.

What were dinosaurs "given" wings for?

fish were given fins to swim, etc.

Lungfish don't have fins. There are several fish who don't have fins.

And more than one kind of bird, for example, was created.

Evolved.

The phylogenetic tree is like a geneaology. You can trace the history of cars. You can trace the history of computers, you can trace the history of almost anything that is created by design and everything that is created by design serves a purpose.

But you can't trace the geneology for any of these things. You can however trace the geneology of all the things you listed above that you insist you can't trace a geneology for.

Now you said your car had a Mitsubishi motor in it? Science would not recognize the difference just as evos don't recognize human hair and human hands. A motor is by definition a motor. To evos, human hands are ape hands.

Yes, human hands are ape hands, just as duck's wings are bird's wings, and trout's fins are fish fins, and lion's whiskers are cat whiskers. That's because lions are cats, trout are fish, ducks are birds, and humans are apes.

 

[MarkT]

This whole block of text appears to be nonsense. What exactly are you trying to say. Are you claiming that special creation predicts a single, natural, nested hierarchy of species?

No. I'm not saying there's a single tree. A single designer maybe. I'm not saying there is a single natural tree because nature did not create a single tree. We did.

 

[Aron-Ra]

No. I'm not saying there's a single tree. A single designer maybe. I'm not saying there is a single natural tree because nature did not create a single tree. We did.

No, we didn't create the phylogenetic tree any more than we created the periodic table. It is what it is, and we can't change it because we had no hand in its construction.

Let me explain that another way. At the most basic stem of this tree, there is a fork with prokaryotes on one side and eukaryotes on the other. Every plant, animal or fungus that ever existed is on the eukaryote side. Now if this were a man-made tree, then it would be possible to have some animals with prokaryote cells just like we can put Sony batteries in Dell laptops. But that sort of thing doesn't happen in nature because natural developments don't indicate any manufacturer's design.

Let me help you out with something else too. Sponges hydras, anenomies, starfish, worm, barnicles, trilobites, millipedes, centipedes, insects, lobsters, scorpions, octupodes, squid, nautoloids, fish, whales, kangaroos, birds, therapod dinosaurs, snakes, plesiosaurs, lemurs, and humans are all animals and none of them go about on all fours. There is no heirarchy one can construct for quadrupeds, and you keep using the wrong definition for "animal".

For your information, an animal is any organic (Carbon-based) replicative RNA/DNA protein organism:
(a) consisting of multiple diploid cells which each contain a nucleus;
(b) which perform chemical reactions and acheive homeostasis;
(c) who's gammete cells have a posterior flagella;
(d) which must ingest and digest other organisms in a digestive tract in order to sustain themselves.
--Biological definition

Just so you know.

 

[MarkT]

Now, let's go back to the cars example. We could make a grouping: cars with 4-cylinder gasoline engines. This is going to encompass many smaller, low-budget cars, and a few budget trucks. Now, let's make another grouping. Let's pick cars with automatic transmissions. In principle, there will be no relationship whatsoever between those cars with automatic transmissions and 4-cylinder gasoline engines. That's not a nested hierarchy at all!

Those are options and by definition, not every car would possess every option. But you could create a nested hierarchy if you tried. You would have to define 'car' and then you could look for something like improvements that came along over time that every car possesses, like seat belts, for example, and vulcanized rubber tires. Unfortunately companies sell and trade and steal inventions. You could also define options. If something is an option by definition, then you could define the option by when it became available, not that every car built afterwards would have an automatic transmission but the option is there. So you could say it comes with the option and characterize it that way. Then having an option becomes more important than possessing the option and possessing the option becomes irrelevant. You wouldn't group cars the way you did if you wanted to create a nested hierarchy. Keep it in mind that 'the car' was invented and certain improvements came along over time, so 'the car' has a history, however, a car is still a car.

And cars are not trucks. Cars don't have a box for carrying large objects. But if you wanted to, you could call it a 'car' if you narrowly defined 'car' so that everyone has to call it a 'car' even though it's a truck. Then you could call the box an improvement, a trait that every 'car' in that branch inherited.

 

[Chalnoth]

Those are options and by definition, not every car would possess every option. But you could create a nested hierarchy if you tried.

Not a nested hierarchy of physical traits. Try it. There are basically always going to be counterexamples.

For example, take your cars and trucks idea. Some cars have CD players, some don't. Some trucks have CD players, some don't. There, a physical trait which isn't a subset of the other. Not a nested hierarchy.

You would have to define 'car' and then you could look for something like improvements that came along over time that every car possesses, like seat belts, for example, and vulcanized rubber tires.

And this is exactly why there is no nested hierarchy: when these advancements came along, they were placed in all vehicles. If this were a nested hierarchy, they would have been placed in only one type of vehicle, and other vehicles would have to either go without, or have completely differently-designed systems for the same purpose.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, what's an El Camino?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Oh, and by the way, what's an El Camino?

The automotive equivalent to the potential evolution killing chimera of course. Oh look, I found a rare camino / station wagon transitional!

 

[Aron-Ra]

And cars are not trucks. Cars don't have a box for carrying large objects. But if you wanted to, you could call it a 'car' if you narrowly defined 'car' so that everyone has to call it a 'car' even though it's a truck.

Our 1960 Ford Falcon was available either as a sedan or a truck.

But they were both the exact same car.

The truck version lead to the Ranchero, which was eventually a "truck" version of the Gran Torino, and Ford's answer to Chevy's El Camino, which was a "truck" version of their Chevelle.

If you're wrong about every point every time, how long can you continue to claim "absolute" truth?

 

[bobhope]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but the most ridiculous thing about this picture is that Ford was producing vehicles in 1960 that got ~30 mpg. Now we have the Ford Excursion, which is exempt from EPA estimates, but some people tested at a whopping ~14mpg. But I digress.

If you're wrong about every point every time, how long can you continue to claim "absolute" truth?

As long as he wants, apparently.

 

[Split Rock]

I would accept Homo habilis as a chimpanzee ancestor, KNM-WT 17000 as a gorilla ancestor and Turkana Boy as a human ancestor. Does that clarify anything because that was one of the easiest pop quizes I've had on here in a long time.

All well and good Mark, now just show us some chimps and gorillas that are fully bipedal like their ancestors.

 

[MarkT]

Not a nested hierarchy of physical traits. Try it. There are basically always going to be counterexamples.

For example, take your cars and trucks idea. Some cars have CD players, some don't. Some trucks have CD players, some don't. There, a physical trait which isn't a subset of the other. Not a nested hierarchy.

CD players are a recent invention. Before CD players there was FM radio and before that there was AM radio and before radio there was nothing. So you could say cars with CD players are a subset of cars with FM radios and cars with FM radios are a subset of cars with AM radios and cars with AM radios are a subset of cars without radios. Over time new features were added. Remember, we're looking at the history of cars! We're drawing a chart.

But you can almost ignore anything that doesn't make a car a car. Those things are like eye color and coat coloring. They don't make a car a car. A CD player is a device for playing CDs. Thats it's function. You have to decide what makes a car a car. What makes a truck different from a car? Is it 4 wheels? They both have 4 wheels though truck tires wouldn't fit on a car. An engine? They both have engines though truck engines are designed for trucks. I think. The only difference that I can think of is the box for carrying large objects. Of course trucks have a history which runs parallel with cars. And before cars and trucks there was the horse drawn carriage. So we have a nested hierarchy and you can draw a chart if you like. So man, by design and invention, creates nested hierarchies.

 

[Tomk80]

CD players are a recent invention. Before CD players there was FM radio and before that there was AM radio and before radio there was nothing. So you could say cars with CD players are a subset of cars with FM radios and cars with FM radios are a subset of cars with AM radios and cars with AM radios are a subset of cars without radios. Over time new features were added. Remember, we're looking at the history of cars! We're drawing a chart.

And still this would mean that grouping cars with respect to radio's would give a very different result then grouping them according to whether they are a truck or not. Radio's or CD-players, it doesn't matter. They can be found in both trucks and cars, meaning that we have two equally valid groupings.

But you can almost ignore anything that doesn't make a car a car. Those things are like eye color and coat coloring. They don't make a car a car. A CD player is a device for playing CDs. Thats it's function. You have to decide what makes a car a car. What makes a truck different from a car? Is it 4 wheels? They both have 4 wheels though truck tires wouldn't fit on a car. An engine? They both have engines though truck engines are designed for trucks. I think. The only difference that I can think of is the box for carrying large objects. Of course trucks have a history which runs parallel with cars. And before cars and trucks there was the horse drawn carriage. So we have a nested hierarchy and you can draw a chart if you like. So man, by design and invention, creates nested hierarchies.

And if you would be the least bit interested in car or truck mechanics, you would know that there is an enourmous overlap between the motors of both cars and trucks. They do not fit into a nested hierarchy, sorry. That's just the way it is.

 

[MarkT]

And if you would be the least bit interested in car or truck mechanics, you would know that there is an enourmous overlap between the motors of both cars and trucks. They do not fit into a nested hierarchy, sorry. That's just the way it is.

That's like saying there's an enormous overlap between ape traits and human traits so apes and humans do not fit into a nested hierarchy.