Mosaic disprove Common ancestry?

Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Bettawrekonize -> Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/12/2007 9:29:38 PM)
I wanted to respond to a comment Quasar made on this thread http://forums.christianity.com/m_2349062/mpage_3/tm.htm quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Nothing is a problem for universal evolution (the notion that all organisms share a common ancestor), universal evolution is unfalsifiable. A "mosaic" which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms would falsify the theory of a common ancestor. First of all a "mosaic" is one of those ambiguous words. What constitutes a mosaic? A half bird / half cow? What kinda silly nonsense is this? Darwinists can still argue, well, it's not really a mosaic and point out the differences between the two (since all objects pretty much have some differences, at least at the molecular level) and say that any similarities are due to common ancestry, convergent evolution, or parallel evolution. Besides, in the past we have demonstrated numerous examples of organisms that seem to have hybrid parts. For example, the platypus has a snout that looks very similar to a duck beak. Secondly, Darwinists often speculate relationships based on "similar" features. So if a mosaic had shared features, they may argue that they are related. quote: It was thought that somebody had sewn a duck's beak onto the body of a beaver-like animal. Shaw even took a pair of scissors to the dried skin to check for stitches.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus When we point this out, Darwinists will say, well... it's not similar enough. How similar does it need to be? All duck beaks are different. Do you really expect a platypus to have a beak exactly like a duck? That's silly, the snout of a platypus has different functions than the beak of a duck. All duck beaks are different from one another if you scrutinize it on the molecular level, so such differences are a matter of degree. Darwinists can always argue, well.... they're not similar enough and the similarities that exist are due to convergent evolution, parallel evolution, or common ancestry. Even if they admit something is a mosaic, this may only falsify darwinism as we know it now, it would not falsify the notion that all living organisms share a common ancestor. They can still attribute the similarities to common ancestry, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, or just coincidence (or necessity due to environmental pressures).

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/13/2007 10:27:43 PM)
Ahh... the platypus. As I'm sure your aware, the platypus is a monotreme... i.e. a cross between reptile and mammal. Its eggs are very different to avian eggs, (leathery, tough shell rather than hard, brittle shell), but very similar to reptiles. This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal. To quote: In general, the platypus has a fascinating mixture of reptilian and mammalian features. Mammalian traits include fur and mammary glands. Reptilian traits include the laying of eggs, and a common rectal and urinogenital opening, or cloaca (hence 'monotreme', Latin for 'single hole'). There are a number of skeletal features of the pectoral girdle that are found only in therapsids, extinct mammal-like reptiles thought to be ancestral to mammals. This mixture is even found at the cellular level; the chromosomes and sperm of platypuses display both reptilian and mammalian traits. (Griffiths, 1988) The bill, however, is like nothing seen on a duck, except for outer shape. Quoting again: The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the environment and find food http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html The shape of the bill isn't even that similar. A platypus bill A duck bill In short, The platypus bill is an entirely different organ to the duck bill, and this is obvious when they are examined. They are used for different purposes, the are made differently, out of different materials, and they are certainly not examples of something that doesn't fit the nested heirachy. quote: First of all a "mosaic" is one of those ambiguous words. What constitutes a mosaic? A half bird / half cow? What kinda silly nonsense is this? Well, that would certainly disprove the nested heirachy, but I'm not looking for something so dramatic. A creature with any mammal and any bird features would do... or an elephant with giraffe features... or even just a parrot with a pigeon beak (or vise versa)... any two things that evolved on different creatures on the same creature. (That sentence does make sense, but you might have to read it a few times).

BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/14/2007 1:31:21 AM)
Good question. Heres a simple way to look at it: Any two creatures that have the SAME feature that their common ancestor did NOT have, would be evidence against evolution. For instance, if you find a bird with fur, it would fit this rule. The common ancestor between mammals and birds did not have fur, or any form of hair. So, a bird with hair/fur would falsify evolution. Why? Because how did the gene for hair/fur get into the bird when there is no opportunity for their lines to interbreed? About the Platypus bill. It is not a 'duck' bill. Just because two things have the same shape, does not make them the same thing. Do you think your nose is a 'bill'? If not, why not, it has almost the same shape as a bird beak. If you examine the bill on a platypus, you will find that it is in fact not a 'duck bill'. For instance, both bats and birds have wings. Yet bats don't have bird winds, and birds don't have bat wings.

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/17/2007 1:45:52 AM)
Bump. Betta? You're the one who started this thread. Got scared?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/17/2007 1:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal. To quote: In general, the platypus has a fascinating mixture of reptilian and mammalian features. Mammalian traits include fur and mammary glands. Reptilian traits include the laying of eggs, and a common rectal and urinogenital opening, or cloaca (hence 'monotreme', Latin for 'single hole'). There are a number of skeletal features of the pectoral girdle that are found only in therapsids, extinct mammal-like reptiles thought to be ancestral to mammals. This mixture is even found at the cellular level; the chromosomes and sperm of platypuses display both reptilian and mammalian traits. (Griffiths, 1988) It seems that you admit that this is a mosaic and yet it doesn't disprove evolution. Basically, universal evolution is unfalsifiable. quote: The bill, however, is like nothing seen on a duck, except for outer shape. Quoting again: The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the environment and find food Yes, there are differences due to the fact that they serve different functions, but the point is that there are similarities as well (ie: the appearance is very similar). So basically, you are simply arguing that they aren't similar enough based on your subjective definition of what constitutes a violation of this arbitrary hierarchy. quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ Any two creatures that have the SAME feature that their common ancestor did NOT have, would be evidence against evolution. No it wouldn't be. quote: For instance, if you find a bird with fur, it would fit this rule. No it wouldn't, because, as Quasar and I have already pointed out, darwinists would say, the fur is not similar enough (they would say, it attaches to the animal differently or the animal uses it for different purposes, or that it grows and develops differently, and even if it developed similarly, they would say that the surrounding organs interact with it differently since the surrounding organs are different, etc... until eventually you have an organism that is very similar to the platypus and they would then argue, well... these similarities are due to a combination of common ancestry, convergent evolution, and/or parallel evolution or just coincidence, possibly due to similar environmental pressures). Even if something did satisfy your subjective definition of a mosaic, that still doesn't falsify the notion that it is the result of common ancestry. Darwinists can argue, well... there are huge quantities of organisms and we don't know every combination of characteristics that may survive and every biological pathway that these organisms can take to achieve these combinations, so it's possible that, with the limited number of combinations of organisms that may survive + the limited number of biological pathways they may take, there is a limited number of characteristics that may form, this happens to be one of them, and with the huge quantity of organisms that exist, perhaps there is a good chance that at least one other organism would form the same characteristic. They may argue, until we can actually study all of the possible characteristics that could survive and all the possible biological pathways they may take to achieve those characteristics and compare that with the amount of organisms that exist, we can't know for sure what the chances are of a mosaic existing. If mosaics were common, that would even make it easier for them to argue that there is a limited number of characteristic combinations that could survive and biological pathways that may achieve these characteristics and with the huge quantities of organisms that exist, many organisms are bound to be mosaic (again, what constitutes a mosaic is subject to opinion). Or they could attribute these mosaics (again, what constitutes a mosaic is subjective) to common ancestry, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, luck, or environmental pressures. It still won't falsify the notion that all living organisms share a common ancestor. quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the environment and find food They are different for functional purposes, if such a mosaic existed, proponents of universal evolution could then argue that this is bad design but evolution explains this nicely due to the limited amount of characteristics that may form and the limited biological pathways that may achieve such characteristics.

Unriggable -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/17/2007 5:53:12 PM)
Beaks. They are useful in seas. All birds are thought to come from a sea-inhabitting archaic bird that did not die out during the mass extinction of BC 65,000,000. SO it makes sense that these water-bound birds had beaks. Why? Well its easier at grabbing onto the slippery skin of fish. That's true because many other marine animals have beaks as well - octopi, platipi, squids, you name it. While the same marine beaks are made of different materials and different types of protein, they accomplish the same thing and therefore do not change much. And besides, following your judgment about different animals picking up the same traits, wouldn't evolution be completely false considering that ants have hair? Nope. A lot of creatures, in fact most, have hair (some "rogue" cells have small hair-like proteins that stick off to feel for bacteria). A creature with hair is more likely to survive because it can feel things easily. The hairs don't need to grow to huge sizes, that's why humans don't have lots of hair covering their bodies (while almost 100% of your skin has hair, its very, very short). The short hairs are hard to see ERGO you don't think they are there. So just because some archosaurs (crocodiles) dont look like they have hairs doesn't mean that dinosaurs (a type of archosaur) were completely naked. They could easily grow it.

BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/21/2007 6:53:47 AM)
Betta you talk a lot, but you don't really say a lot do you? The only example you gave was a platypus, and its beak. We demonstrated to you that the platypus beak, is in fact a platypus beak. It is not a bird beak, and no birds have platypus beaks. THEN you rant for a bit, something like this: quote: No it wouldn't, because, as Quasar and I have already pointed out, darwinists would say, the fur is not similar enough (they would say, it attaches to the animal differently or the animal uses it for different purposes, or that it grows and develops differently, and even if it developed similarly, they would say that the surrounding organs interact with it differently since the surrounding organs are different, etc... until eventually you have an organism that is very similar to the platypus and they would then argue, well... these similarities are due to a combination of common ancestry, convergent evolution, and/or parallel evolution or just coincidence, possibly due to similar environmental pressures). Even if something did satisfy your subjective definition of a mosaic, that still doesn't falsify the notion that it is the result of common ancestry. Darwinists can argue, well... there are huge quantities of organisms and we don't know every combination of characteristics that may survive and every biological pathway that these organisms can take to achieve these combinations, so it's possible that, with the limited number of combinations of organisms that may survive + the limited number of biological pathways they may take, there is a limited number of characteristics that may form, this happens to be one of them, and with the huge quantity of organisms that exist, perhaps there is a good chance that at least one other organism would form the same characteristic. They may argue, until we can actually study all of the possible characteristics that could survive and all the possible biological pathways they may take to achieve those characteristics and compare that with the amount of organisms that exist, we can't know for sure what the chances are of a mosaic existing. If mosaics were common, that would even make it easier for them to argue that there is a limited number of characteristic combinations that could survive and biological pathways that may achieve these characteristics and with the huge quantities of organisms that exist, many organisms are bound to be mosaic (again, what constitutes a mosaic is subject to opinion). Thats nice and all, but it doesn't change anything. Without any actual examples you are doing nothing more that talking. Could you give me an example where something like what you describe here has happened?

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/22/2007 12:03:17 AM)
quote: quote: This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal It seems that you admit that this is a mosaic and yet it doesn't disprove evolution. Yes. I specifically said "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". Mammels came from reptiles. quote: Basically, universal evolution is unfalsifiable. http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/200.JPG quote: Yes, there are differences due to the fact that they serve different functions, but the point is that there are similarities as well (ie: the appearance is very similar). Allow me to quote someone: quote: The shape of the bill isn't even that similar. A platypus bill A duck bill The entire internal structure is different, the materials are different the shape is different, the function and the way it develops are different... quote: So basically, you are simply arguing that they aren't similar enough based on your subjective definition of what constitutes a violation of this arbitrary hierarchy. Two entirely different things that demonstrate the fact that they evolved seperately for different reasons do not violate the nested heirachy, no. quote: [Massive Incoherent Rant] You saying that we would do something has no bearing on what we would actually do. Convergent evolution can manage a certain amount (like the duck/platypus bill) but there is only so much it can do. This is agreed on by the scientific community. A bird with fur-like feathers could be attribute to evolution, but a bird with fur... a clearly mammalian feature... would indicate that our entire understanding is wrong. "Universal Evolution" would fall apart. If you can provide evidence for a mosaic of features on non-related creatures (as you might expect if a 'intelligent designer' was using common building blocks to create His creatures)... then I would accept that common ancestory was falsified for those creatures.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/23/2007 12:57:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 Yes. I specifically said "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". So basically, if there is a mosaic, evolutionists can simply speculate that these animals are somehow related. quote: Mammels came from reptiles. This is speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions. quote: The shape of the bill isn't even that similar. Apparently they're similar enough to trick people into thinking that they are the same by looking at it. You're only argument is that there are differences. As mentioned, even the beaks of two different ducks have differences. So basically you're arguing they're not similar enough to constitute a mosaic according to your subjective interpretation of what allegedly constitutes a mosaic. quote: Convergent evolution can manage a certain amount (like the duck/platypus bill) but there is only so much it can do. Exactly how much can convergent evolution allegedly do and why only that much? quote: This is agreed on by the scientific community. Truth is not based on unanimous consent. quote: A bird with fur-like feathers could be attribute to evolution, but a bird with fur... a clearly mammalian feature... would indicate that our entire understanding is wrong. It would indicate that our current understanding is wrong but it would in no way refute common ancestry. It could be attributed to mere coincidence. quote: "Universal Evolution" would fall apart. No it wouldn't. Besides the fact that what constitutes a mosaic is subject to interpretation, one can be speculated by common ancestry. quote: If you can provide evidence for a mosaic of features on non-related creatures (as you might expect if a 'intelligent designer' was using common building blocks to create His creatures)... No, a platypus with the beak of a duck would be inefficient and then naturalists could claim this is either bad design or evolution. As you mentioned before, the bill of a duck is different for functional purposes. quote: The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the environment and find food quote: ORIGINAL: BVZ The only example you gave was a platypus, and its beak. We demonstrated to you that the platypus beak, is in fact a platypus beak. It is not a bird beak, and no birds have platypus beaks. They are similar in appearance. Yes, there are differences for functional purposes but they also have similarities in appearance. Your only argument seems to be that they aren't "similar enough" based on your subjective interpretation of what constitutes a mosaic. quote: Thats nice and all, but it doesn't change anything. You're right, it doesn't change the fact that universal evolution stands entirely on tax dollars, and not evidence. The problem with universal evolution is that it's not science. It's not falsifiable. Without tax dollars and secular censorship of all potentially opposing views (like ID) darwinism would fall apart. The only thing keeping it standing is tax dollars, not evidence. quote: Without any actual examples you are doing nothing more that talking. Could you give me an example where something like what you describe here has happened? I gave you an example and your only argument is that the beak of a platypus isn't similar enough according to your subjective interpretation of what constitutes a mosaic.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/23/2007 1:19:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Darwinists can argue, well... there are huge quantities of organisms and we don't know every combination of characteristics that may survive and every biological pathway that these organisms can take to achieve these combinations, so it's possible that, with the limited number of combinations of organisms that may survive + the limited number of biological pathways they may take, there is a limited number of characteristics that may form, this happens to be one of them, and with the huge quantity of organisms that exist, perhaps there is a good chance that at least one other organism would form the same characteristic. They may argue, until we can actually study all of the possible characteristics that could survive and all the possible biological pathways they may take to achieve those characteristics and compare that with the amount of organisms that exist, we can't know for sure what the chances are of a mosaic existing. If mosaics were common, that would even make it easier for them to argue that there is a limited number of characteristic combinations that could survive and biological pathways that may achieve these characteristics and with the huge quantities of organisms that exist, many organisms are bound to be mosaic (again, what constitutes a mosaic is subject to opinion). I wanted to further re - iterate this point with a quote from a link in case anyone may misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. This link was originally posted by drmark on some thread. quote: 8. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after Darwin's Black Box appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution." http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/2001Dembsk1.html So basically universal evolution is unfalsifiable. Even if there is something that may constitute someones subjective interpretation of a mosaic, it still won't falsify universal evolution (for reasons I already state above).

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/24/2007 1:21:59 AM)
quote: quote: Yes. I specifically said "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". So basically, if there is a mosaic, evolutionists can simply speculate that these animals are somehow related. No, we already know which animals are related. Man from apes, apes from small mammals, birds from dinosaurs, dinosaurs from reptiles, amphibions from fish, insects from aquatic crustations... we can't 'speculate' anything. quote: quote: Mammels came from reptiles. This is speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions. 1) I never said it wasn't. 2) It isn't, it is inference based on the evidence in the fossil record. 3) What does that have to do with this discussion? quote: quote: The shape of the bill isn't even that similar. Apparently they're similar enough to trick people into thinking that they are the same by looking at it. But not similar enough to trick people who actually take a bit of time and examine the bills of both creatures. quote: You're only argument is that there are differences. As mentioned, even the beaks of two different ducks have differences. Thats a point. We can observe the differences in ducks beaks to establish a 'margin of error', and then apply this margin to the platypus bill, concluding that platypus's are not related in any way to ducks. quote: So basically you're arguing they're not similar enough to constitute a mosaic according to your subjective interpretation of what allegedly constitutes a mosaic. What constitutes a 'mosaic' in the sense I am using it is simple: any two features which belong to different species found on the same animal. quote: quote: Convergent evolution can manage a certain amount (like the duck/platypus bill) but there is only so much it can do. Exactly how much can convergent evolution allegedly do and why only that much? Laws of probability. It is expected that creatures in the same environment will develop ways to adapt to that environment which are similar. It is incredibly improbable that they will develop ways to adapt which are exactly the same, or similar to a massive extent. quote: quote: This is agreed on by the scientific community. Truth is not based on unanimous consent. So it's a good thing I never said it was. quote: quote: A bird with fur-like feathers could be attribute to evolution, but a bird with fur... a clearly mammalian feature... would indicate that our entire understanding is wrong. It would indicate that our current understanding is wrong but it would in no way refute common ancestry. It could be attributed to mere coincidence. Now you're just making things up. Two identical features on unrelated organisms... that could not be attributed to co-incidence anymore than finding a 'computer on Mars' could... quote: quote: If you can provide evidence for a mosaic of features on non-related creatures (as you might expect if a 'intelligent designer' was using common building blocks to create His creatures)... No, a platypus with the beak of a duck would be inefficient and then naturalists could claim this is either bad design or evolution. As you mentioned before, the bill of a duck is different for functional purposes. But we aren't discussing how efficient it would be. We're discussing the fact that it couldn't happen by evolutionary processes (natural selection, mutation and co.) quote: They are similar in appearance. Yes, there are differences for functional purposes but they also have similarities in appearance. They are not similar in any way at all other than appearance. In fact, they are not even different simply for functional purposes. There are elements of a platypus bill that could be exactly the same as a duck bill and work just as well, but are different despite this. quote: Your only argument seems to be that they aren't "similar enough" based on your subjective interpretation of what constitutes a mosaic. And your only argument seems to be "they look something like each other". We can characterise each other all day, but we both know that is not what the other person is trying to say. quote: You're right, it doesn't change the fact that universal evolution stands entirely on tax dollars, and not evidence. The problem with universal evolution is that it's not science. It's not falsifiable. Without tax dollars and secular censorship of all potentially opposing views (like ID) darwinism would fall apart. The only thing keeping it standing is tax dollars, not evidence. Seven thousand, two hundred and Forty-Five. quote: quote: Without any actual examples you are doing nothing more that talking. Could you give me an example where something like what you describe here has happened? I gave you an example and your only argument is that the beak of a platypus isn't similar enough according to your subjective interpretation of what constitutes a mosaic. No, you gave an example, we pointed out that it was massively different to what you were trying to liken it to, and you went and characterised our argument without actually bothering to try and refute it. The platypus bill is in no way related to the duck bill. It is obviously designed (either by evolution or the unnamed intelligent designer) from the ground up, without any reference to the other instances of 'bills' that exist in nature. quote: Quote from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/2001Dembsk1.html No, to do so you need to show that either a) the organism in question cannot evolve... something that Behe tried to do with his 'Irreducable Complexity' argument (and fell short) or b) Show that the organism in question has features that evolved on a completely different unrelated organism. quote: So basically universal evolution is unfalsifiable. Repetition does not make truth.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/25/2007 10:22:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 quote: quote: Yes. I specifically said "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". So basically, if there is a mosaic, evolutionists can simply speculate that these animals are somehow related. No, we already know which animals are related. Man from apes, apes from small mammals, birds from dinosaurs, dinosaurs from reptiles, amphibions from fish, insects from aquatic crustations... we can't 'speculate' anything. This is speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions. How do they speculate these alleged relationships? They speculate them based on the characteristics of these organisms. So basically, if there is a mosaic (and you admit that this is a mosaic when you said, "This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal") you will simply attribute it to common ancestry. quote: quote: This is speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions. 1) I never said it wasn't. Good quote: 2) It isn't, it is inference based on the evidence in the fossil record. 1: It is not an inference based on the fossil record. The fossil record does not support universal evolution. That's why they came up with the unfalsifiable notion of punctuated equilibrium. 2: Inferences are subject to interpretation. quote: 3) What does that have to do with this discussion? You said mosaics (which is a subjective construct subject to your interpretation) somehow disprove common ancestry, you admit that, "This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal" and then you denied that this somehow disproves common ancestry by speculating that this mosaic is due to common ancestry. quote: But not similar enough to trick people who actually take a bit of time and examine the bills of both creatures. Yes, but the shape is very similar. As noted here many people thought it was a hoax, so the shapes are very similar. quote: Thats a point. We can observe the differences in ducks beaks to establish a 'margin of error', and then apply this margin to the platypus bill, concluding that platypus's are not related in any way to ducks. So basically if the the platypus was more similar to a duck, you would conclude that this isn't a mosaic, but instead, the similarities are due to common ancestry. quote: What constitutes a 'mosaic' in the sense I am using it is simple: any two features which belong to different species found on the same animal. Yes, the shape of the bill of a platypus is very similar to that of a duck. quote: quote: Exactly how much can convergent evolution allegedly do and why only that much? Laws of probability. Laws of probability also say that abiogenesis will never happen. It has never been observed to happen. So basically you only use the laws of probability when it's convenient for you. quote: It is expected that creatures in the same environment will develop ways to adapt to that environment which are similar. It is incredibly improbable that they will develop ways to adapt which are exactly the same, or similar to a massive extent. How incredibly improbable? Even if it is incredibly improbable, you admit that it's not impossible. After all, abiogenesis is incredibly improbable. So basically, a mosaic (again, a subjective construct) can be explained by natural processes and hence won't falsify universal evolution. Also, no two duck beaks are exactly the same. So how massively similar do they have to be to constitute your subjective interpretation of a mosaic. After all, the shape of a platypus bill is very similar to that of a duck bill and you admit that it's, "a mosaic of reptile and mammal." Or if there is a mosaic (for example: the one I already pointed out) will you simply speculate that it is due to common ancestry (like you did when you said, "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms"). quote: quote: quote: This is agreed on by the scientific community. Truth is not based on unanimous consent. So it's a good thing I never said it was. but you implied it. quote: quote: quote: A bird with fur-like feathers could be attribute to evolution, but a bird with fur... a clearly mammalian feature... would indicate that our entire understanding is wrong. It would indicate that our current understanding is wrong but it would in no way refute common ancestry. It could be attributed to mere coincidence. Now you're just making things up. Two identical features on unrelated organisms... that could not be attributed to co-incidence anymore than finding a 'computer on Mars' could... Why not? Abiogenesis is very unlikely, yet naturalists attribute that to chance. Why can't a mosaic (again, a subjective construct) be attributed to coincidence. I already gave an example of a mosaic and you simply attributed it to common ancestry. There are many different organisms, what are the chances that any two of them will be a mosaic? How similar do they have to be to constitute a mosaic? Why that similar? quote: quote: quote: If you can provide evidence for a mosaic of features on non-related creatures (as you might expect if a 'intelligent designer' was using common building blocks to create His creatures)... No, a platypus with the beak of a duck would be inefficient and then naturalists could claim this is either bad design or evolution. As you mentioned before, the bill of a duck is different for functional purposes. But we aren't discussing how efficient it would be. We're discussing the fact that it couldn't happen by evolutionary processes (natural selection, mutation and co.) You said, "as you might expect if a 'intelligent designer' was using common building blocks to create His creatures." First of all, this assumes we know the intentions of the intelligent designer when creating this. Secondly, such a design would be inefficient so there is no reason to expect an intelligent designer to do something like this. quote: They are not similar in any way at all other than appearance. and shape. quote: In fact, they are not even different simply for functional purposes. There are elements of a platypus bill that could be exactly the same as a duck bill and work just as well, but are different despite this. What elements? How similar do they have to be to constitute a mosaic? Why that similar? Again, even if those elements were exactly the same, you could then point out differences in other elements (even elements relating to how the bill attaches to the platypus differently or develops differently since, the fact that a duck and a platypus are different make it that such features would have to attach to the platypus differently or develop differently and since they serve different functions they would have to be different. Even if they were the same, you could point out differences between the platypus and the duck. The brain is different so the way it sends signals to the bill is different, etc... until you have a creature similar enough to a duck such that you can easily attribute the similarities to common ancestry) or attribute the similarities to common ancestry (like you already did when you admit that this was a mosaic and attributed it to common ancestry), convergent evolution, parallel evolution, or just coincidence. quote: And your only argument seems to be "they look something like each other". The shape is very similar. quote: We can characterise each other all day, but we both know that is not what the other person is trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that a mosaic is subject to opinion. quote: quote: You're right, it doesn't change the fact that universal evolution stands entirely on tax dollars, and not evidence. The problem with universal evolution is that it's not science. It's not falsifiable. Without tax dollars and secular censorship of all potentially opposing views (like ID) darwinism would fall apart. The only thing keeping it standing is tax dollars, not evidence. Seven thousand, two hundred and Forty-Five. I still see you can't refute this claim. I can understand why you don't want me to keep repeating it, the truth hurts. quote: No, you gave an example, we pointed out that it was massively different to what you were trying to liken it to, How "massively" different are they and how similar do they have to be to constitute a mosaic? The shape and appearance are very similar. quote: and you went and characterised our argument without actually bothering to try and refute it. I refuted your argument. quote: The platypus bill is in no way related to the duck bill. The relationship is subject to interpretation. Evolutionary relationships are assumed based on evolutionary presuppositions, not evidence. quote: It is obviously designed (either by evolution or the unnamed intelligent designer) from the ground up, without any reference to the other instances of 'bills' that exist in nature. Please elaborate? When you say, it is designed from the ground up, do you mean that they formed differently? Sure, they were created differently, but the shape and appearance are very similar. So now you argue that it doesn't constitute a mosaic based on your subjective interpretation of a mosaic. quote: No, to do so you need to show that either a) the organism in question cannot evolve... As already demonstrated, universal evolution is unfalsifiable. quote: b) Show that the organism in question has features that evolved on a completely different unrelated organism. Again, the alleged relationships among these organisms are based on their similarities and differences. I already gave you an example of a mosaic, you admit that it was a mosaic when you said, "This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal" and then you attributed the mosaic to common ancestry. Basically, universal evolution is unfalsifiable. quote: quote: So basically universal evolution is unfalsifiable. Repetition does not make truth. You're right, that statement is true no matter how many or few times I repeat it. The fact that the secular community constantly repeats naturalistic lies (like universal evolution and the Big bang) to students at the expense of tax payers and truth while censoring anything that challenges their naturalistic religion doesn't make such naturalistic philosophies any more true. Universal evolution is still a lie no matter how many tax dollars they pour into promoting their naturalistic religion while censoring anything that may challenge it.

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/27/2007 8:57:30 PM)
Betta, I love debating with you. [hint: cryptic insult] quote: This is speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions. How do they speculate these alleged relationships? They speculate them based on the characteristics of these organisms. So basically, if there is a mosaic (and you admit that this is a mosaic when you said, "This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal") you will simply attribute it to common ancestry. Wow look! Those goalposts are really moving! Look at them go! At no point did I say that a 'mosaic' would disprove common ancestry. I did say (as I have pointed out already) "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". Since we know that most elements of birds and mammels evolved separately, we would not expect a mammel to have bird features, or vice versa. OK? quote: 1: It is not an inference based on the fossil record. The fossil record does not support universal evolution. That's why they came up with the unfalsifiable notion of punctuated equilibrium. BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait, you weren't joking... Let me laugh even harder! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHaHaHa!!!! Punctuated equilibrium is a conclusion based on common sense. Less selection pressure = more mutations survive = faster evolution, end. The fossil record matches the nested heirachy, and continues to match the nested heirachy as more fossils are found. Dates match. Features match. quote: 2: Inferences are subject to interpretation. Correct. However, interpreting "my backyard looks empty" as "my backyard is empty" is a better interpretation than "my backyard has an invisible pink unicorn in it". quote: quote: quote: This is speculation based on evolutionary presuppositions. What does that have to do with this discussion? You said mosaics (which is a subjective construct subject to your interpretation) somehow disprove common ancestry, you admit that, "This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal" and then you denied that this somehow disproves common ancestry by speculating that this mosaic is due to common ancestry. Read the three quotes above, and tell me how your post answers my question. PS:"a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". Thats three times so far you've ignored that second bit. BIRDS AND MAMMELS AREN'T RELATED, DARNIT! quote: Yes, but the shape is very similar. As noted here many people thought it was a hoax, so the shapes are very similar So you are trying to tell me that just because some prominant people in the early 1800's had doubts about the authenticity of the platypus bill, that... does what exactly? quote: So basically if the the platypus was more similar to a duck, you would conclude that this isn't a mosaic, but instead, the similarities are due to common ancestry. What that the platypus is decended from early ducks? No, because the other features of the platypus are undoubtedly mammalian. I personally would be stumped, since ducks and mammals are not related. quote: quote: What constitutes a 'mosaic' in the sense I am using it is simple: any two features which belong to different species found on the same animal. Yes, the shape of the bill of a platypus is very similar to that of a duck. Keep saying it, it might come true! quote: quote: Laws of probability. Laws of probability also say that abiogenesis will never happen. It has never been observed to happen. So basically you only use the laws of probability when it's convenient for you. Pur-leese. I direct you to "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" by Ian Musgrave. quote: How incredibly improbable? Even if it is incredibly improbable, you admit that it's not impossible. About as incredibly improbable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Its not impossible either. So? quote: the shape of a platypus bill is very similar to that of a duck bill and you admit that it's, "a mosaic of reptile and mammal." Or if there is a mosaic (for example: the one I already pointed out) will you simply speculate that it is due to common ancestry (like you did when you said, "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms"). Ah, we come to the heart of the issue. The platypus itself is a monotreme, a combination of reptile, mammal and unique features. Since monotremes are predicted to have broken away from conventional mammels long before the dinosaurs, there is no reson for it to have bird or dinosaurian features, except those features that already existed on the common ancestor so many millenia ago. The bill evolved seperately, and is unique... no other species has a mouthpiece even similar. THAT INCLUDES DUCKS! PS: A common trait that can be put down to would be something like predatory birds feet. Take a good look at an eagles feet, and then take a good look at the feet of a small raptor, and you'll see that there is a much better visual similarity there then the platypus/duck bill. quote: quote: quote: quote: This is agreed on by the scientific community. Truth is not based on unanimous consent. So it's a good thing I never said it was. but you implied it. No, what I implied was that a very large group of well-educated people almost unanimously agree that convergent evolution cannot produce almost identical features seperately. quote: I already gave an example of a mosaic and you simply attributed it to common ancestry. What?!?!?! Are we still talking about the platypus bill? Because I would never attribute that to common ancestory, the reason being, it is a unique product of evolution that (if you squint) vaugely resembles another unique product of evolution. quote: quote: They are not similar in any way at all other than appearance. and shape. Shape is a part of Appearance, No? quote: quote: And your only argument seems to be "they look something like each other". The shape is very similar. Then I correct myself: Your only argument seems to be "The shape is very similar", which is a mistruth, since the shape is not similar enough to with stand a direct comparison, such as this one: quote: The shape of the bill isn't even that similar. A platypus bill A duck bill quote: What I'm trying to say is that a mosaic is subject to opinion. Certainly, but I know enough to recognise the difference between two very similar features and two features that vaugly resemble each others shape. The playpus's bill is wider than a ducks, and if you look at the photo of a platypus in that link you provided, and compare it to the woodcut, you can see that the image showed a visibly different bill to the actual creature. Is it possible that the other people who proclaimed it a hoax had only ever seen the image? quote: I still see you can't refute this claim. I can understand why you don't want me to keep repeating it, the truth hurts. No, actually, I crack up every time I see it. Comedy gold. And I see that you still cannot give any reason that the claim should be taken as anything more than the lunatic ravings of an internet bozo (I'm not saying that you are said bozo, simply that you haven't provided any reason for the post be be taken otherwise). quote: How "massively" different are they and how similar do they have to be to constitute a mosaic? The shape and appearance are very similar. How similar? Similar enough that an educated person from our era can classify them as the same feature, give or take a few mods. A good example would be the talons of an eagle and the claws of a raptor, if it weren't for the fact that these are related. quote: I refuted your argument. I'll have to take your word for it. quote: Please elaborate? When you say, it is designed from the ground up, do you mean that they formed differently? Sure, they were created differently, but the shape and appearance are very similar. So now you argue that it doesn't constitute a mosaic based on your subjective interpretation of a mosaic. They are made out of different materials, they are made to serve different functions, they are sturcturally different, microscopically different, and visibly different. One is wider and larger than the other, the lower part fits into the upper part differently on one... quote: As already demonstrated, universal evolution is unfalsifiable. Believe what you will, nothing I (or anyone else) could possibly come up with in any universe would change your mind. quote: Again, the alleged relationships among these organisms are based on their similarities and differences. I already gave you an example of a mosaic, you admit that it was a mosaic when you said, "This and many other features indicate that it is a mosaic of reptile and mammal" and then you attributed the mosaic to common ancestry. [Full on 'The Incredible Hulk' rip off] AAAAAAAAAARRRRGH! YES IT IS A MOSAIC! IT IS A MOSAIC OF RELATED CREATURES! THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED FOR! MY SHIFT KEY IS STUCK DOWN! AAAAaaaaargh! oh... thats better. quote: Universal evolution is still a lie no matter how many tax dollars they pour into promoting their naturalistic religion while censoring anything that may challenge it. Seventeen thousand, three hundred and ninety-two. Substantiate or suffocate.

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/28/2007 8:25:33 PM)
These posts are growing exponentially. However, I'd like to go into a little more detail on the 'shape of bill' argument, so maybe we can focus on that one for a while. Betta's argument is "The shape is very similar". My argument is "It is not!". To put it another way "Uh hah!", "Na aa!", "Uh hah!", "Na aa!". So, I'm going to back myself up with photographic evidence. I'll link to the two images again. I suggest anyone reading this should bring both images up in seperate windows and place them side by side... you too Betta! Then read my comparitive description A platypus bill A duck bill General Shape: The platypus has a wide, bulky bill, which is quite thin when seen edgeways. The duck has a thin, streamlined bill, which is quite tall. Nostrils: The platypus has two close-set nostrils right up the front of the bill. These nostrils are on the top of the bill, turned inwards at about a 45 degree angle, and slightly raised from the rest of the structure. In comparison, the duck has two nostrils on the sides of the bill, and up close to the head. These nostrils are also aligned parallel to each other. Front end of bill: The platypus has a very wide 'scoop' at the front of its bill. The duck has a narrow point, with a small tip downwards (You'll have to see the picture to understand what I'm getting at) Note: Not all ducks have a different coloured tip on their bill. Connection to head: The platypus has a large amount of material to 'brace' the bill on their head. The fur seems to start underneath this bracing. In comparison, the duck's feathers shrink gradually to join the point where the bill fits onto the face. The ducks bill has no bracing material. Appearance: The platypus bill appears quite lumpy, and is significantly softer than the comparison. This is because the platypus bill has hundreds of nerve endings in the bill... it is a 'touch organ', much like human fingertips. The duck bill, however, is very hard and smooth, and has no nerve endings at all.. Size: In relation to each other, the platypus is of a similar size to the duck... but the platypus bill is much larger than the ducks bill both relative to body mass and in real world size. I was also going to mention the lower part of the bill on both creatures, but I can't find a good picture.[;)] The only place you'll see a duck with a beak that looks anything like the platypus bill is in cartoons. Edited for typo's.

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (5/31/2007 12:58:15 AM)
Bump? I wan't an answer, Betta...

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (6/4/2007 7:38:59 PM)
Silence? Does this mean you concede?

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (6/17/2007 9:03:33 PM)
Bump again. If you are anywhere out there, Betta, I'd like an answer. Heck, if anyone else wants to claim that a mosaic of unrelated organisms would falsify evolution, or wants to claim that the platypus could be considered an instance of a mosaic of unrelated organisms, please, go ahead. I believe that I have successfully defended my argument. Your call, Betta. quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 These posts are growing exponentially. However, I'd like to go into a little more detail on the 'shape of bill' argument, so maybe we can focus on that one for a while. Betta's argument is "The shape is very similar". My argument is "It is not!". To put it another way "Uh hah!", "Na aa!", "Uh hah!", "Na aa!". So, I'm going to back myself up with photographic evidence. I'll link to the two images again. I suggest anyone reading this should bring both images up in seperate windows and place them side by side... you too Betta! Then read my comparitive description A platypus bill A duck bill General Shape: The platypus has a wide, bulky bill, which is quite thin when seen edgeways. The duck has a thin, streamlined bill, which is quite tall. Nostrils: The platypus has two close-set nostrils right up the front of the bill. These nostrils are on the top of the bill, turned inwards at about a 45 degree angle, and slightly raised from the rest of the structure. In comparison, the duck has two nostrils on the sides of the bill, and up close to the head. These nostrils are also aligned parallel to each other. Front end of bill: The platypus has a very wide 'scoop' at the front of its bill. The duck has a narrow point, with a small tip downwards (You'll have to see the picture to understand what I'm getting at) Note: Not all ducks have a different coloured tip on their bill. Connection to head: The platypus has a large amount of material to 'brace' the bill on their head. The fur seems to start underneath this bracing. In comparison, the duck's feathers shrink gradually to join the point where the bill fits onto the face. The ducks bill has no bracing material. Appearance: The platypus bill appears quite lumpy, and is significantly softer than the comparison. This is because the platypus bill has hundreds of nerve endings in the bill... it is a 'touch organ', much like human fingertips. The duck bill, however, is very hard and smooth, and has no nerve endings at all.. Size: In relation to each other, the platypus is of a similar size to the duck... but the platypus bill is much larger than the ducks bill both relative to body mass and in real world size. I was also going to mention the lower part of the bill on both creatures, but I can't find a good picture.[;)] The only place you'll see a duck with a beak that looks anything like the platypus bill is in cartoons. Edited for typo's.

Quasar6 -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/5/2007 11:17:10 PM)
Add to the previous post this point: Skull: The platypus 'bill' is composed of soft tissues stretched over a framework - the duck bill is a solid entity. Make sure you look closely at the images. quote: The only place you'll see a duck with a beak that looks anything like the platypus bill is in cartoons.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/27/2007 1:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 These posts are growing exponentially. However, I'd like to go into a little more detail on the 'shape of bill' argument, so maybe we can focus on that one for a while. Betta's argument is "The shape is very similar". My argument is "It is not!". To put it another way "Uh hah!", "Na aa!", "Uh hah!", "Na aa!". So, I'm going to back myself up with photographic evidence. I'll link to the two images again. I suggest anyone reading this should bring both images up in seperate windows and place them side by side... you too Betta! Then read my comparitive description A platypus bill A duck bill http://www.lakesidenaturecenter.org/images/AC_Mallard_Duck%20bill.jpg http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci338m/Lectures/platybill.jpg I like this image better

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/27/2007 1:38:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 Read the three quotes above, and tell me how your post answers my question. See above (well, below now since my post didn't show up the first time for whatever reason). quote: PS:"a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". Thats three times so far you've ignored that second bit. BIRDS AND MAMMELS AREN'T RELATED, DARNIT! It is speculated that they aren't related. This speculation is based on their characteristics. If their characteristics were different, it could just as easily be speculated that they are related. quote: So you are trying to tell me that just because some prominant people in the early 1800's had doubts about the authenticity of the platypus bill, that... does what exactly? You argue the similarities are only superficial and I argue the differences are only superficial. quote: What that the platypus is decended from early ducks? No, because the other features of the platypus are undoubtedly mammalian. I personally would be stumped, since ducks and mammals are not related. It is speculated that they are not related and it could just as easily be speculated that they are related. quote: quote: quote: Laws of probability. Laws of probability also say that abiogenesis will never happen. It has never been observed to happen. So basically you only use the laws of probability when it's convenient for you. Pur-leese. I direct you to "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" by Ian Musgrave. quote: Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. There is no evidence to suggest that the first living things were much simpler, that is based on pure speculation. quote: 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates [2,15]. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html So basically, they are arguing that given enough simultaneous trials and time there is a much higher probability that abiogenesis could occur. Given enough simultaneous trials and time there is a much higher chance a nested hierarchy violation can occur (by chance) as well.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/27/2007 1:58:51 AM)
uhm... I thought I posted something before my last post but somehow I don't see it. Weird. I guess I'll have to re - type everything. :(

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/27/2007 2:15:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 At no point did I say that a 'mosaic' would disprove common ancestry. I did say (as I have pointed out already) "a mosaic which shared features of two creatures not related in evolutionary terms". The speculated relationship of these organisms are based on their features. Whenever there is a mosaic, it could be speculated that these organisms have some sort of evolutionary relationship. quote: Since we know that most elements of birds and mammels evolved separately, we would not expect a mammel to have bird features, or vice versa. OK? We don't know that birds and mammals evolved separately, naturalists speculate that they evolved separately (based on their characteristics). If a mammal had bird feathers, it could be speculated that they did not evolve separately. Just like with the horse, bat, and cow violation, they can simply re - arrange the arbitrarily hierarchy to fit some other hierarchy. quote: "We need to look at fossils from a new point of view, because there must have been a common ancestor of bats, horses and dogs," Okada says. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025575.600-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html quote: The platypus itself is a monotreme, a combination of reptile, mammal and unique features. Since monotremes are predicted to have broken away from conventional mammels long before the dinosaurs, there is no reson for it to have bird or dinosaurian features, except those features that already existed on the common ancestor so many millenia ago. The reason they speculate that it broke away from conventional mammals so long ago is based on the features that it does have. If it has features that violate the hierarchy, they can claim that those features were present long ago and broke off long ago. It is not "predicted" that they broke away from conventional mammals long before the dinosaurs, it is speculated that they broke away so long ago based on the characteristics of these animals. If there is a violation, they can speculate that such features were around a much longer time ago.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/27/2007 2:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quasar6 Punctuated equilibrium is a conclusion based on common sense. Less selection pressure = more mutations survive = faster evolution, end. The fossil record matches the nested heirachy, and continues to match the nested heirachy as more fossils are found. Dates match. Features match. Punctuated equilibrium is not based on common sense, it is based on unsupported speculation. It is an attempt to explain why the fossil record doesn't support gradualism (as darwin predicted it should). Basically, it speculates that organisms stay relatively stable for a long period of time and evolve in sudden large spurts leaving behind little to no evidence. quote: Punctuated equilibrium (sometimes referred to as punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology, which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little change for most of their geological history. When phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis), and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full and stable duration on earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium Unfortunately this has never been demonstrated and is unfalsifiable.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/27/2007 2:34:16 AM)
Also, there is no reason to believe that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. There could be brothers who look alike but one of them would have brown eyes (person A) and another would have green eyes (person B). Yet, someone else, who isn't closely related to the brothers, may have green eyes (person C) and have a brother with brown eyes (person D). The eyes of person C would be more similar to the eyes of person B than they are to person D even though person C is more closely related to person D than B. This is a violation of a nested hierarchy even though we all agree that persons A, B, C, and D do share a common ancestor (because they're all human). Since we don't observe nested hierarchies among organisms that we know share a common ancestor (because we can trace their lineages), speculating that some arbitrary nested hierarchy is predicted by evolution is evidently unsupported at best.

BVZ -> RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (8/29/2007 4:44:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Also, there is no reason to believe that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. There is only one type of hierarchy you CAN get if evolution is true, and that is a nested one. Hence, the ToE predicts a nested hierarchy. quote: There could be brothers who look alike but one of them would have brown eyes (person A) and another would have green eyes (person B). Yet, someone else, who isn't closely related to the brothers, may have green eyes (person C) and have a brother with brown eyes (person D). The eyes of person C would be more similar to the eyes of person B than they are to person D even though person C is more closely related to person D than B. This is a violation of a nested hierarchy even though we all agree that persons A, B, C, and D do share a common ancestor (because they're all human). Since we don't observe nested hierarchies among organisms that we know share a common ancestor (because we can trace their lineages), speculating that some arbitrary nested hierarchy is predicted by evolution is evidently unsupported at best. The mistake you are making is that you assume that eye color is determined by a single trait. This is not the case. Eye color is determined by more than one trait. If you examine these traits and how they are inherited by children from thier parents, you will find... you've guessed it... a nested hierarchy. Heres a tip: Don't oversimplify.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI