|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/8/2009 7:17:21 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: USincognito
I really find it hard to believe that after two years (that I've been posting here off and on) of people explaining how nested hierarchies work that you still don't get it.
I really find it hard to believe that, after two years of us refuting the notion that evolution predicts nested hierarchies and after giving violations, you still don't get it.
quote:
It has been explained over and over to you that a chimera or modular/patchwork animal cannot be fit into the nested hierarchy nor would a species evolving a novel feature found in an unrelated taxon fit into evolutionary theory.
Such a thing has been asserted, assertions are not good enough.
quote:
I even gave you a list two years ago - shrimp with backbones, iguanas with mammary glands, trout with fur, crows with arms and wings, sponges with vertebrate brains, insects with placentas, griffons, pegasi, etc. etc.
If those things exist, you can simply make up some other list of some things that don't exist. You have given no reason why such a thing will falsify UCD.
quote:
There are a million possible falsifications of the nested hierarchy,
Even if the above exist, you can make up other ones and claim the same thing.
quote:
including a platypus with feathers and a gizzard, and you repeating "they could just claim they evolved" or "they could just reclassify them" doesn't change that fact,
It doesn't change the fact that none of these would falsify UCD. They could just come up with some other classification system and they have (I have given examples of this in other threads, but you just keep ignoring them).
quote:
nor the fact that we have yet to find anything that violates the nested hierarchy of common descent.
Even if there is some objective hierarchy, that's no reason to assert common descent (as I have already explained in other threads). The reasoning is circular, there exists a hierarchy because we evolved and the evidence for this is the existence of some hierarchy (similar to saying, the sky is blue because God made it that way and the evidence for this is the fact that the sky is blue. This doesn't prove that God exists). I have even shown how UCD should not predict a hierarchy (for example, such a hierarchy is not necessary to survive and we see violations within a specie all the time. These violations don't just disappear if the specie speciates).
quote:
You have also been asked over and over to show how an iguana with mammary glands or a crow with arms and wings could be fit into a nested hierarchy.
First of all, you have yet to show how evolution somehow predicts a nested hierarchy. It's not enough for you to assert it. Secondly, I have already explained how this can be fit into some other nested hierarchical system, they can simply push the alleged divergent point back in time, which has been done in the past before.
quote:
I just read the Nested Hierarchy thread the other night (I haven't read or posted here since early 2007 IIRC) and you just made ad hoc claims instead of presenting a case for how a chimera or swapped module animal might evolve or fit into the nested hierarchy. It's not enough to say that scientists "will claim whatever", you have to show how they might justify that claim. After all this time I don't see you doing that.
"Scientists" haven't justified the claim that we are entirely a product of evolution, so why should I believe they will justify the claim that such alleged violations would falsify evolution? The very thing we were discussing is whether other claims under a different set of evidence would do a worse job of justifying evolution than the current claims under this set of evidence, and I have explained why the answer is no.
You act like the burden of proof is on me to disprove evolution. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate its claims. It's not for me to prove that some chimera can evolve into a hierarchy, I'm not the one claiming evolution is true, you are. As far as being able to fit into some hierarchy, I've already explained that. You say I have to, "show how they might justify that claim," the assumption here is that evolutionists have justified the claims being made now and the validity of this assumption is exactly what I am questioning. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to show that such a mosaic would falsify evolution (explain why), not to simply assert that it would.
quote:
Thanks for the advice, but you could have used the time you spent composing this lecture to instead make your case that chimeras or swapped module animals could fit into a nested hierarchy or evolutionary theory.
First of all, I have already explained how it can be done (they can simply push the alleged divergent point backwards in time). Secondly, I have already given examples of violations in previous alleged hierarchies where this has been done. Thirdly, you have not justified why some alleged nested hierarchy should be predicted by evolution to begin with.
quote:
The elephant shark's genome is so similar to ours that we wind up having more in common with it, genetically speaking, than with other species, such as teleost (bony skeleton) fishes, which are nearer to us on the evolutionary tree.
RE: Mosaic disprove Common ancestry? (post 118)
In the case of the elephant shark, the alleged explanation for the violation tries to speculate something other than pushing back divergent points, which again, demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 1/8/2009 7:28:00 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 11:34:30 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
Betta,
Several posters have tried to explain where you are mistaken. Evolution does imply nested hierarchies. While it is true that we do not expect or observe nested hierarchies within a breeding population, we expect and observe nested hierarchies when new species form.
Evolution predicts nested hierarchies; we observe nested hierarchies. This is not circular reasoning. This is evidence that supports evolution.
There is no reason for designed creatures to fall into nested hierarchies. In fact, where we have (human) intelligent designers modifying genomes, we see violations of the nested hierarchy. ID proponents should be able to produce instances of violations, yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of violations, the evidence supports evolution and does not support intelligent design.
Your insistance that evolution does not imply nested hierarchies shows that you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 12:01:11 PM
|
|
|
318
Posts: 346
Joined: 1/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Please present some of that evidence so we can examine it. I say whatever you present will fail to be real evidence for evolution. It will fall under one of the following:
1 - bait and switch con game
2 - “musical” definitions (evidence of simple “change over time” is not evidence that a reptile can become a mammal)
3 – overzealous misinterpretation of the evidence
4 - fraud
This is ridiculous: "Let's examine the evidence-- but first let me renounce it before we even look at it."
A priori dismissal of an argument you haven't even had yet is one of the most absurd logical fallacies that can be committed.
The good news (for your argument) is that your comments aptly demonstrate that man has not, in fact, evolved into any sort of higher form.
Over and out . . .
_____________________________
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 12:22:59 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is ridiculous: "Let's examine the evidence-- but first let me renounce it before we even look at it."
A priori dismissal of an argument you haven't even had yet is one of the most absurd logical fallacies that can be committed.
The good news (for your argument) is that your comments aptly demonstrate that man has not, in fact, evolved into any sort of higher form.
Over and out . . .
Actually I believe he was making a prediction based on past experience.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 1:42:52 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 1007
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Betta,
Several posters have tried to explain where you are mistaken. Evolution does imply nested hierarchies. While it is true that we do not expect or observe nested hierarchies within a breeding population, we expect and observe nested hierarchies when new species form.
Evolution predicts nested hierarchies; we observe nested hierarchies. This is not circular reasoning. This is evidence that supports evolution.
There is no reason for designed creatures to fall into nested hierarchies. In fact, where we have (human) intelligent designers modifying genomes, we see violations of the nested hierarchy. ID proponents should be able to produce instances of violations, yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of violations, the evidence supports evolution and does not support intelligent design.
Your insistance that evolution does not imply nested hierarchies shows that you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution.
First off, you're simply interpreting data differently - squeezing it into NDE.
Nested hierarchies don't work well at all for evolutionists.
As W. Remine notes in the Biotic Message, quote:
"[NDE] does not predict a nested hierarchy. It never was evidence for evolution, because evolution never predicted it.
Darwinists took the natural pattern and used it as evidence.
The nested hierarchy is the result of a design plan that includes making life look unlike the result of evolution. As one of its central design goals, life was intentionally designed to resist all theories of evolution, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's theories. There exist other evolutionary explanations that evolutionists embrace — such as transposition mechanisms, and the masking and unmasking of genetic libraries (known as genetic throwbacks) — which are exceedingly potent, simple, and plausible. Those "explanations" had to be defeated, and were defeated (uniformly at the morphological, embryological, and biochemical levels) by life's nested hierarchy, while simultaneously displaying life as the unified product of one designer.
The observed abundance of so-called "convergence" is also explained with the self-same theory. These abundant features serve the ends of the biotic message — they help unify life as the product of one designer, yet they cannot be explained by common descent, nor by transposition, nor by atavism. Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation, that these similar designs happened to converge from highly diverse beginnings.
Newer un-nested models are also being developed. Maybe you should get off TO, PT et al and look up something actually useful?
Second and more importantly, I personally am so sick of hearing this pure diatribe about anyone who disagrees with NDE *and it's smoke and mirrors hand waving, just-so stories methodology) not understanding it, that I wish it's users would wake up and smell the genetic entropy.
It is ludicrous to say someone doesn't understand Darwin's simple idea - a child can understand it. So please cut out this inane tripe about creationists and IDists or anyone else you choose to target not understanding NDE.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 4:45:43 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Betta,
Several posters have tried to explain where you are mistaken. Evolution does imply nested hierarchies. While it is true that we do not expect or observe nested hierarchies within a breeding population, we expect and observe nested hierarchies when new species form.
Again, there is no reason for this. There is no reason for the violations within the population to just magically disappear once the organism speciates.
quote:
Evolution predicts nested hierarchies; we observe nested hierarchies.
The assumption here is that evolution predicts nested hierarchies, and such an assumption is unsubstantiated.
quote:
This is not circular reasoning. This is evidence that supports evolution.
Again, there is no reason for evolution to predict a nested hierarchy. Even if we do see some nested hierarchy and we can somehow objectify it, it doesn't mean evolution predicts one.
quote:
There is no reason for designed creatures to fall into nested hierarchies.
There is no reason for evolution to produce a nested hierarchy. Assuming some objective hierarchy does exist, perhaps the designer did so to resist evolutionary explanations, and I would argue such a scheme strongly resists such explanations.
quote:
In fact, where we have (human) intelligent designers modifying genomes, we see violations of the nested hierarchy.
Again, assuming this hierarchy is somehow objective, the reason human modification could violate it is because the humans involved did not intend to create or maintain such a hierarchy. In the case of evolution, there is no intent to produce or maintain such a nested hierarchy. Humans like to categorize things and nested hierarchies are easy for humans to understand. For example, on hard drives we create folders within folders and files within folders. However, unless a great amount of intentional effort is exerted to create and maintain such hierarchy, you could have violations (where one file is in two folders for example). In the case of evolution, there is no intent to create and maintain such a hierarchy, survival does not require one. When humans are modifying genomes with no intent of creating and maintaining any sort of hierarchy, I expect violations. Likewise, when evolution is doing the same thing, I also expect violations. The only case violations should not exist is if some intent was made to create and maintain such a hierarchy.
quote:
ID proponents should be able to produce instances of violations, yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of violations, the evidence supports evolution and does not support intelligent design.
Evolutionists should be able to produce instances of microbe to man evolution (without human intervention and microbe to man evolution does not refer to human development), yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of this, the evidence supports Intelligent design and not evolution.
quote:
Your insistance that evolution does not imply nested hierarchies shows that you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution.
Proof by assertion, excellent logic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 7:46:35 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Betta,
Several posters have tried to explain where you are mistaken. Evolution does imply nested hierarchies. While it is true that we do not expect or observe nested hierarchies within a breeding population, we expect and observe nested hierarchies when new species form.
Again, there is no reason for this. There is no reason for the violations within the population to just magically disappear once the organism speciates.
Once a population is separated into two reproductively isolated populations, mutations act randomly on each population. And selection pressures would be different. We would expect to see large chunks of DNA in common with variations that appeared after separation. The amount of difference tell us approximately how recently the populations separated.
quote:
quote:
Evolution predicts nested hierarchies; we observe nested hierarchies.
The assumption here is that evolution predicts nested hierarchies, and such an assumption is unsubstantiated.
Nested hierarchies is a consequence of mutation and selection. It is not an assumption.
quote:
quote:
This is not circular reasoning. This is evidence that supports evolution.
Again, there is no reason for evolution to predict a nested hierarchy. Even if we do see some nested hierarchy and we can somehow objectify it, it doesn't mean evolution predicts one.
That evolution predicts a nested hierarchy is explained above.
quote:
quote:
There is no reason for designed creatures to fall into nested hierarchies.
There is no reason for evolution to produce a nested hierarchy. Assuming some objective hierarchy does exist, perhaps the designer did so to resist evolutionary explanations, and I would argue such a scheme strongly resists such explanations.
Since evolution predicts a nested hierarchy, proposing that the Designer produced a nested hierarchy to resist evolutionary explanations makes no sense at all.
quote:
quote:
In fact, where we have (human) intelligent designers modifying genomes, we see violations of the nested hierarchy.
Again, assuming this hierarchy is somehow objective, the reason human modification could violate it is because the humans involved did not intend to create or maintain such a hierarchy. In the case of evolution, there is no intent to produce or maintain such a nested hierarchy. Humans like to categorize things and nested hierarchies are easy for humans to understand. For example, on hard drives we create folders within folders and files within folders. However, unless a great amount of intentional effort is exerted to create and maintain such hierarchy, you could have violations (where one file is in two folders for example). In the case of evolution, there is no intent to create and maintain such a hierarchy, survival does not require one. When humans are modifying genomes with no intent of creating and maintaining any sort of hierarchy, I expect violations. Likewise, when evolution is doing the same thing, I also expect violations. The only case violations should not exist is if some intent was made to create and maintain such a hierarchy.
There is no intent to produce nested hierarchies; nested hierarchies is an inevitable consequence of mutation and selection.
Designed objects do not generally fall into nested hierarchies.
quote:
quote:
ID proponents should be able to produce instances of violations, yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of violations, the evidence supports evolution and does not support intelligent design.
Evolutionists should be able to produce instances of microbe to man evolution (without human intervention and microbe to man evolution does not refer to human development), yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of this, the evidence supports Intelligent design and not evolution.
Nice try. Violations would be excellent support for ID. ID proponents have not produced any examples I'm aware of.
quote:
quote:
Your insistance that evolution does not imply nested hierarchies shows that you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution.
Proof by assertion, excellent logic.
What do you mean "proof by asssertion"? I've explained how mutation and selection predict that species should fall into a nested hierarchy. You keep saying evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 8:28:46 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Betta,
Several posters have tried to explain where you are mistaken. Evolution does imply nested hierarchies. While it is true that we do not expect or observe nested hierarchies within a breeding population, we expect and observe nested hierarchies when new species form.
Evolution predicts nested hierarchies; we observe nested hierarchies. This is not circular reasoning. This is evidence that supports evolution.
There is no reason for designed creatures to fall into nested hierarchies. In fact, where we have (human) intelligent designers modifying genomes, we see violations of the nested hierarchy. ID proponents should be able to produce instances of violations, yet they are not doing so. Until they are able to produce examples of violations, the evidence supports evolution and does not support intelligent design.
Your insistance that evolution does not imply nested hierarchies shows that you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution.
First off, you're simply interpreting data differently - squeezing it into NDE.
Nested hierarchies don't work well at all for evolutionists.
Differently from whom? The few who reject evolution? Nested hierarchies work just fine as strong support for evolution.
quote:
As W. Remine notes in the Biotic Message, quote:
"[NDE] does not predict a nested hierarchy. It never was evidence for evolution, because evolution never predicted it.
Darwinists took the natural pattern and used it as evidence.
The nested hierarchy is the result of a design plan that includes making life look unlike the result of evolution. As one of its central design goals, life was intentionally designed to resist all theories of evolution, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's theories. There exist other evolutionary explanations that evolutionists embrace — such as transposition mechanisms, and the masking and unmasking of genetic libraries (known as genetic throwbacks) — which are exceedingly potent, simple, and plausible. Those "explanations" had to be defeated, and were defeated (uniformly at the morphological, embryological, and biochemical levels) by life's nested hierarchy, while simultaneously displaying life as the unified product of one designer.
The observed abundance of so-called "convergence" is also explained with the self-same theory. These abundant features serve the ends of the biotic message — they help unify life as the product of one designer, yet they cannot be explained by common descent, nor by transposition, nor by atavism. Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation, that these similar designs happened to converge from highly diverse beginnings.
He is mistaken. Since evolution does indeed predict the observed nested hierarchy, saying the Designer produced a nested hierarchy to make "life look unlike the result of evolution" is absurd.
quote:
Newer un-nested models are also being developed. Maybe you should get off TO, PT et al and look up something actually useful?
I've never seen anything from an evolution site that said anything about un-nested models. I'm interested in where you heard this.
quote:
Second and more importantly, I personally am so sick of hearing this pure diatribe about anyone who disagrees with NDE *and it's smoke and mirrors hand waving, just-so stories methodology) not understanding it, that I wish it's users would wake up and smell the genetic entropy.
Genetic entropy??? Are you serious?
quote:
It is ludicrous to say someone doesn't understand Darwin's simple idea - a child can understand it. So please cut out this inane tripe about creationists and IDists or anyone else you choose to target not understanding NDE.
If it's so simple that a child can understand it, why do we see ID proponents/creationists trying to say evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy, when it does?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/10/2009 9:34:28 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Once a population is separated into two reproductively isolated populations,
Certain members of one population will share characteristics with members of the other population that they do not share with certain members of their own population. These are called violations. Just like a cousin can share characteristics that brothers don't share (an immediate family can be considered one population and your extended family, for example, maybe considered another). The violations are present before the populations speciate, they do not just magically disappear when the populations speciate.
quote:
Nested hierarchies is a consequence of mutation and selection. It is not an assumption.
No, it's an assumed consequence based on your perception that some hierarchy exists.
quote:
There is no intent to produce nested hierarchies; nested hierarchies is an inevitable consequence of mutation and selection.
No, it's not. You hardly see such hierarchies within a population and the existing violations that exist within a population wouldn't magically disappear when the organisms speciate.
quote:
Designed objects do not generally fall into nested hierarchies.
Because people don't generally design objects with the intent of creating and maintaining some nested hierarchy. Evolution should also be expected to share this characteristic, things wouldn't be expected to evolve with the intent of creating and maintaining a nested hierarchy. As a result, if UCD is true, we should not expect any such hierarchy. How many undesigned things, where we observe the origins of, fall into some complicated nested hierarchy (we are looking for the rearrangement of matter to form a nested hierarchy, where such a rearrangement is not being manipulated by intent, and the hierarchy did not exist before the rearrangement occurred. The matter itself can't be intentionally designed to form a nested hierarchy upon its rearrangement either, and it can't be a product of something that was designed to create a nested hierarchy). The only time we observe a nested hierarchy, where the origins are known, is when a nested hierarchy is designed (ie: we may try to create nested hierarchies on computers where we put folders within folders and files within folders to avoid the unnecessary duplication of files. But unless intent is in place to ensure no violations exist, violations tend to exist). When a nested hierarchy is not designed (ie: when humans build cars without the intent of designing a nested hierarchy), we do not expect a nested hierarchy to result. Nested hierarchies are a product of intentional design, and as a result, when humans build objects without the intent of creating nested hierarchies, we should expect no such hierarchies (if humans designed a bunch of objects without the intent of creating some nested hierarchy and some objective nested hierarchy did result, that would mean the nested hierarchy itself was not a product of design, even though the objects being designed were a product of design. In such a situation, the nested hierarchy itself would be a product of random chance (not design), it just so happened to emerge as a result of the objects being designed. If the nested hierarchy was an intended consequence of what the humans were building, then the hierarchy would be a product of design. Nested hierarchies are a product of intentional design only if they are intended, otherwise, they are not a product of intentional design (their existence is by chance). Whenever nested hierarchies are not intended (which includes when humans build objects without the intent of creating such hierarchies), we do not expect them to exist. Of course, all of this assumes that such hierarchies are somehow some objective, non subjective, construct).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 1/10/2009 10:52:26 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/11/2009 6:05:47 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
As W. Remine notes in the Biotic Message...
Whenever he gets around to producing a viable model of baraminology that resembles something so obvious that Linneaus could see it long before Darwin and not some ad hoc mess of handwaving maybe it will be time to take his comments seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/11/2009 11:21:26 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Once a population is separated into two reproductively isolated populations,
Certain members of one population will share characteristics with members of the other population that they do not share with certain members of their own population. These are called violations. Just like a cousin can share characteristics that brothers don't share (an immediate family can be considered one population and your extended family, for example, maybe considered another). The violations are present before the populations speciate, they do not just magically disappear when the populations speciate.
Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve. Individuals do not found a new species. Sub-populations found new species.
There are minor differences between individuals within a species. These differences become overshadowed by the mutations that occur when a population splits into two populations where interbreeding does not occur. You are ignoring the fact that intra-species differences are negliable compared to inter-species differences.
quote:
quote:
Nested hierarchies is a consequence of mutation and selection. It is not an assumption.
No, it's an assumed consequence based on your perception that some hierarchy exists.
Again, no. It's not an "assumed" consequence. It's a logical consequence of the effects that mutation and selection have on populations that do not interbreed. It's not based on any perceptions. It's based on the effects mutation and selection should be expected to have on populations.
quote:
quote:
There is no intent to produce nested hierarchies; nested hierarchies is an inevitable consequence of mutation and selection.
No, it's not. You hardly see such hierarchies within a population and the existing violations that exist within a population wouldn't magically disappear when the organisms speciate.
quote:
Designed objects do not generally fall into nested hierarchies.
Because people don't generally design objects with the intent of creating and maintaining some nested hierarchy. Evolution should also be expected to share this characteristic, things wouldn't be expected to evolve with the intent of creating and maintaining a nested hierarchy. As a result, if UCD is true, we should not expect any such hierarchy. How many undesigned things, where we observe the origins of, fall into some complicated nested hierarchy (we are looking for the rearrangement of matter to form a nested hierarchy, where such a rearrangement is not being manipulated by intent, and the hierarchy did not exist before the rearrangement occurred. The matter itself can't be intentionally designed to form a nested hierarchy upon its rearrangement either, and it can't be a product of something that was designed to create a nested hierarchy). The only time we observe a nested hierarchy, where the origins are known, is when a nested hierarchy is designed (ie: we may try to create nested hierarchies on computers where we put folders within folders and files within folders to avoid the unnecessary duplication of files. But unless intent is in place to ensure no violations exist, violations tend to exist). When a nested hierarchy is not designed (ie: when humans build cars without the intent of designing a nested hierarchy), we do not expect a nested hierarchy to result. Nested hierarchies are a product of intentional design, and as a result, when humans build objects without the intent of creating nested hierarchies, we should expect no such hierarchies (if humans designed a bunch of objects without the intent of creating some nested hierarchy and some objective nested hierarchy did result, that would mean the nested hierarchy itself was not a product of design, even though the objects being designed were a product of design. In such a situation, the nested hierarchy itself would be a product of random chance (not design), it just so happened to emerge as a result of the objects being designed. If the nested hierarchy was an intended consequence of what the humans were building, then the hierarchy would be a product of design. Nested hierarchies are a product of intentional design only if they are intended, otherwise, they are not a product of intentional design (their existence is by chance). Whenever nested hierarchies are not intended (which includes when humans build objects without the intent of creating such hierarchies), we do not expect them to exist. Of course, all of this assumes that such hierarchies are somehow some objective, non subjective, construct).
OK. So if designed objects can but generally do not fall into nested hierarchies and life falls into a nested hierarchy by design, why did the Designer make a nested hierarchy? I realize ID proponents/creationists do not like to talk about the motivations of the Designer/God, but I can't help wondering why He would make it so the evidence points to evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/12/2009 12:15:15 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve. Individuals do not found a new species. Sub-populations found new species.
Populations are composed of individuals.
quote:
There are minor differences between individuals within a species.
Yeah, so?
quote:
These differences become overshadowed by the mutations that occur when a population splits into two populations where interbreeding does not occur.
To the extent that those different mutations are significant enough to make the species significantly different from one another, they would not form a nested hierarchy because they are random and independent of each other (those differences would just produce a lot of random distortion and noise. Those mutations aren't specifically trying to mutate in a manner that would form some nested hierarchy among species, they are mutating randomly relative to each other). To the extent that there isn't enough differences to make the species unsimilar to each other, violations would exist because the violations that existed before the species diverged wouldn't magically disappear.
quote:
You are ignoring the fact that intra-species differences are negliable compared to inter-species differences.
No, I am not. I have gone into far more detail refuting your claims in previous posts and on other threads, but you simply ignore my refutations. Assuming humans and chimps share a common ancestor, look at the DNA humans have in common with chimps. Humans do have similar DNA to chimps and mice even (so, apparently mutations weren't significant enough to "overshadow" the differences within your alleged common ancestrial specie, refuting your whole already refuted mutation argument) and, if UCD is true, we should expect violations within the similar DNA for reasons I have already given. To the extent that those mutations are significant enough to "overshadow" the differences within a specie, those mutations would be random, they would have no intent of producing any nested hierarchy, and they would not (they would just produce noise relative to each other, which would only distort the similar DNA that exists among various species, making them have less similar DNA).
quote:
Again, no. It's not an "assumed" consequence. It's a logical consequence of the effects that mutation and selection have on populations that do not interbreed.
For reasons already given, that's not true.
quote:
It's not based on any perceptions. It's based on the effects mutation and selection should be expected to have on populations.
No, they should not be expected to have those effects.
quote:
OK. So if designed objects can but generally do not fall into nested hierarchies and life falls into a nested hierarchy by design, why did the Designer make a nested hierarchy? I realize ID proponents/creationists do not like to talk about the motivations of the Designer/God, but I can't help wondering why He would make it so the evidence points to evolution?
Perhaps because a nested hierarchy strongly resists naturalistic explanation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 1/12/2009 12:28:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/12/2009 1:08:45 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
To the extent that the mutations aren't significant enough to distort the similarities among various species, they won't be significant enough to distort the violations that already existed within the alleged ancestral specie and those violations will continue to exist after the specie diverged. To the extent that they are significant enough to "overshadow" the similarities and differences within a specie (once the specie speciates), they would also be significant enough to distort the similarities among various species making it more difficult to find ancestral similar DNA among them and making it more difficult to tell which sequences of DNA originated from a common source by simply comparing their similarities and differences (but to the extent that any similar DNA does exist due to common ancestry, violations should exist everywhere).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/12/2009 8:11:26 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 1007
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Differently from whom? The few who reject evolution? Nested hierarchies work just fine as strong support for evolution. Those who look at it and see that there is more than 1 interpretation possible. Something Dawrinists can't even consider.
quote:
He is mistaken. No you are mistaken, and sadly so.
quote:
Since evolution does indeed predict the observed nested hierarchy, saying the Designer produced a nested hierarchy to make "life look unlike the result of evolution" is absurd. That's not what he said. - "making life look unlike the result of evolution". Maybe you should read before rebutting?
quote:
I've never seen anything from an evolution site that said anything about un-nested models. I'm interested in where you heard this.
quote:
Genetic entropy??? Are you serious? Maybe you should read geneticist Dr. John Sanford's "Genetic Entropy".
You will be unpleasantly surprised to see just how far off Darwinism is. Of course I suspect based on your posts here that as a unconditionally committed worshiper of materialism you "will not be moved".
Are you not aware of the fact that mutations are never of zero-effect? That virtually all so-called neutral mutations will eventually cause damage? That beneficial ones are so rare and so incapable of resisting the avalanche of bad ones that there is virtually no use in talking about them in NDE terms?
In the mid 50's Morton, Crow and Muller estimated that 0.12 to 0.30 mutations per person per generation would create a high genetic load and the eventual degeneration of populations. Most geneticists think that if the rate attained 1 mutation/per/gen long term genetic deterioration would be certain. (Muller 1950)
More recently, it has be shown that the actual rate is around 100 nucleotide substitutions (misspellings) /per/gen (Kondrashov 2002) !
And that is his lower estimate since he has stated privately that it is probably closer to 300!
This has profound implications for NDE. How can selection stop this? A: It can't.
And this is only the beginning, the actual rate with macro mutations and other types included is way higher.
Is Selection the answer? No. It always comes at a cost (Haldane). It only works at a limited level. It doesn't work at the genomic level, only the genic.
Crow, has stated that the fitness of race is degenerating at about 1-2% per generation due to mutation accumulation. This will obviously lead to significant loss of human fitness within a historical timeframe!! Given the current world population of about 6 billion do the math; at 100/per/gen we will be over 600 billion mutations from our gen alone! The consequences of all these misspellings will be felt in future generations without fail.
Are you getting this or just ignoring it as usual?
So, yeah, I'm very serious and you should get with it because it is, to say the least, evidence positive that Darwinism is way wrong.
You Darwinists are living in fantasy world. A world that is unraveling exponentially.
quote:
If it's so simple that a child can understand it, why do we see ID proponents/creationists trying to say evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy, when it does? You misread the facts again. Accommodation after the fact is not a prediction. Linneaus and others saw the "nested" aspect of species long before Darwin, so he didn't need Darwinian theory.
Darwinism predicts everything and nothing. A hypothesis that is so incredibly flabby as to accommodate anything at all (usually post hoc of course) is not a valid theory in the first place.
Life looks like a nested hierarchy? Darwinism predicted it. Life doesn't look like a nested hierarchy? Darwinism would have predicted that too.
We see this all the time in the NDE literature.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/13/2009 11:16:24 PM
|
|
|
Rasico
Posts: 15
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Darwinism predicts everything and nothing. A hypothesis that is so incredibly flabby as to accommodate anything at all (usually post hoc of course) is not a valid theory in the first place.
Life looks like a nested hierarchy? Darwinism predicted it. Life doesn't look like a nested hierarchy? Darwinism would have predicted that too.
We see this all the time in the NDE literature.
While I agree with the logic of what you're saying: Two things. A, if you claim evolutionists predict both then provide some credible sources, at least two with one stating it does predict nested hierarchies, and one that says it doesn't. This will at the very least establish some credibility to the fact evolution has some bad science supporting it. I think this is reasonable and would bring us one step closer to discrediting evolution as a scientific theory. Bashing Darwinists and generally engaging in personal attacks however only hurts our case.
And it seems fairly reasonable to me that an Intelligent Design could also predict that there may or may not be nested hierarchies, so truly I don't think this is favoring intelligent design over evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 7:18:15 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Since evolution does indeed predict the observed nested hierarchy, saying the Designer produced a nested hierarchy to make "life look unlike the result of evolution" is absurd. That's not what he said. - "making life look unlike the result of evolution". Maybe you should read before rebutting?
Um... Uh... Wha... ?
quote:
You Darwinists are living in fantasy world. A world that is unraveling exponentially.
Let's review the facts. The theory of evolution is firmly established in the scientific community. ID creationism is not. ID creationism is pretty much a non-issue outside the US. In the US, creationism lost each and every legal challenge. The Supreme Court decision Edwards v Aguillard pretty much put the last nail in coffin for creationism. Creationists then turned to Intelligent Design. When ID was challenged in Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID was exposed for what it is; ID is stealth creationism.
The theory of evolution is doing just fine. ID creationism has lost at every turn.
Who's living in a fantasy world?
quote:
quote:
If it's so simple that a child can understand it, why do we see ID proponents/creationists trying to say evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy, when it does? You misread the facts again. Accommodation after the fact is not a prediction. Linneaus and others saw the "nested" aspect of species long before Darwin, so he didn't need Darwinian theory.
Linneas and others observed the nested hierarchy, but didn't offer an explanation. Darwin's idea of descent with modification provided the necessary explanation.
quote:
Darwinism predicts everything and nothing. A hypothesis that is so incredibly flabby as to accommodate anything at all (usually post hoc of course) is not a valid theory in the first place.
Life looks like a nested hierarchy? Darwinism predicted it. Life doesn't look like a nested hierarchy? Darwinism would have predicted that too.
We see this all the time in the NDE literature.
I've never seen anything in the literature that shows that evolution could predict anything but a nested hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 4:16:51 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's review the facts. The theory of evolution is firmly established in the scientific community. ID creationism is not. ID creationism is pretty much a non-issue outside the US. In the US, creationism lost each and every legal challenge. The Supreme Court decision Edwards v Aguillard pretty much put the last nail in coffin for creationism. Creationists then turned to Intelligent Design. When ID was challenged in Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID was exposed for what it is; ID is stealth creationism.
The theory of evolution is doing just fine. ID creationism has lost at every turn.
Who's living in a fantasy world?
Why is it every time their is a discussion about science, you start talking about the law? Have the last five times you were off topic not been sufficient to realize the difference, or do you simply have no other means of dealing with the scientific questions?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 4:33:28 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Let's review the facts. The theory of evolution is firmly established in the scientific community. ID creationism is not. ID creationism is pretty much a non-issue outside the US. In the US, creationism lost each and every legal challenge. The Supreme Court decision Edwards v Aguillard pretty much put the last nail in coffin for creationism. Creationists then turned to Intelligent Design. When ID was challenged in Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID was exposed for what it is; ID is stealth creationism.
The theory of evolution is doing just fine. ID creationism has lost at every turn.
Who's living in a fantasy world?
Why is it every time their is a discussion about science, you start talking about the law? Have the last five times you were off topic not been sufficient to realize the difference, or do you simply have no other means of dealing with the scientific questions?
I realize the difference. GHitch said that Darwinists' world was unraveling exponentially. I was just pointing out that this is not true in the scientific world. As well as the fact that it is ID creationism that has lost every legal challenge. What I said directly relates to what GHitch said.
ID creationism is unravelling, the theory of evolution is doing just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 4:58:07 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I realize the difference. GHitch said that Darwinists' world was unraveling exponentially. I was just pointing out that this is not true in the scientific world. As well as the fact that it is ID creationism that has lost every legal challenge. What I said directly relates to what GHitch said.
ID creationism is unravelling, the theory of evolution is doing just fine.
Court rulings have nothing to do with the 'scienctific world', nor are they evidence for evolution; you are simply trying to drag yet another thread off topic, please cease.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 9:05:59 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I realize the difference. GHitch said that Darwinists' world was unraveling exponentially. I was just pointing out that this is not true in the scientific world. As well as the fact that it is ID creationism that has lost every legal challenge. What I said directly relates to what GHitch said.
ID creationism is unravelling, the theory of evolution is doing just fine.
Court rulings have nothing to do with the 'scienctific world', nor are they evidence for evolution; you are simply trying to drag yet another thread off topic, please cease.
I realize that you may not like discussing the dismal failures of ID creationism, in particular the evidence presented at Dover and the Dover decision itself, but, like or not, court rulings are all about evidence and they serve to show that it is not Darwinism that is crumbling, but ID creationism.
Court rulings are mentioned in the OP to this thread.
As I said, ID creationism has made no headway in the scientific community, and has lost every challenge met in the public schools. ID creationism is unravelling. If Darwinism is unravelling, where can we see evidence of this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 10:30:37 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I realize that you may not like discussing the dismal failures of ID creationism, in particular the evidence presented at Dover and the Dover decision itself, but, like or not, court rulings are all about evidence and they serve to show that it is not Darwinism that is crumbling, but ID creationism.
Court rulings are mentioned in the OP to this thread.
As I said, ID creationism has made no headway in the scientific community, and has lost every challenge met in the public schools. ID creationism is unravelling. If Darwinism is unravelling, where can we see evidence of this?
It's not about the court case, it is about the evidence that isn't allowed to be heard, specifically per the OP, that such evidence is "bait and switch con games and “musical” definitions "; such discussions of the supposed evidence for evolution aren't banned here, and this thread isn't about Dover, indeed we have plenty of threads about that subject; how far do you want to press it?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/14/2009 10:59:47 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I realize that you may not like discussing the dismal failures of ID creationism, in particular the evidence presented at Dover and the Dover decision itself, but, like or not, court rulings are all about evidence and they serve to show that it is not Darwinism that is crumbling, but ID creationism.
Court rulings are mentioned in the OP to this thread.
As I said, ID creationism has made no headway in the scientific community, and has lost every challenge met in the public schools. ID creationism is unravelling. If Darwinism is unravelling, where can we see evidence of this?
It's not about the court case, it is about the evidence that isn't allowed to be heard, specifically per the OP, that such evidence is "bait and switch con games and “musical” definitions "; such discussions of the supposed evidence for evolution aren't banned here, and this thread isn't about Dover, indeed we have plenty of threads about that subject; how far do you want to press it?
I do not intend to rehash Dover in this thread, but evidence is evidence. The Dover trial and its evidence isn't a "One-Stop" topic.
Speaking of evidence, I ask again: If Darwinism is unravelling, where can we see evidence of this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/15/2009 12:34:12 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not intend to rehash Dover in this thread, but evidence is evidence. The Dover trial and its evidence isn't a "One-Stop" topic.
It is an already extant one, and you know that.
quote:
Speaking of evidence, I ask again: If Darwinism is unravelling, where can we see evidence of this?
Well, I think the fact that we know now that the fundamental genetic code existed deep in life's history and preceded presumed evolutionary events is more than sufficient to cast evolution into serious doubt.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/15/2009 1:20:36 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 528
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I do not intend to rehash Dover in this thread, but evidence is evidence. The Dover trial and its evidence isn't a "One-Stop" topic.
It is an already extant one, and you know that.
It's not a one stop thread and you know that.
quote:
quote:
Speaking of evidence, I ask again: If Darwinism is unravelling, where can we see evidence of this?
Well, I think the fact that we know now that the fundamental genetic code existed deep in life's history and preceded presumed evolutionary events is more than sufficient to cast evolution into serious doubt.
What do you mean by "the fundamental genetic code"? To which "presumed evolutionary events" are you referring?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
