A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

I will be back. Think about my offer. We do not even need to bring up evolution while discussing the scientific method and the nature of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You already have. You just keep imagining the incredible design you see isn’t really design, because no one wants to admit to the Designer....

Blinding yourself to the design won’t make it go away. It just means you have to keep making up more excuses to ignore it....

No, I haven't.
Can you provide anything to back up your claim, or were you just talking out your rear end?


I believe things which can be demonstrated. Go ahead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Define species.......

I gave you the definition of Kind....

Definition of SPECIES

You are just incapable of following your own definitions so it’s understandable you would be confused.

“a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name”

So you're saying that a "kind" is the same as a "species?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

And such will be your only response because you can’t make a rational one.......

So you’ll blind yourself....

So tell us, what is the difference between the water in one place and whatever distance I’ll let you decide is another place?

Has it changed to a different type of water?

Have the brothers changed?

Their boats?

Is the air suddenly not air?

What exactly is the difference besides a arbitrary name?????

You completely missed the point of that person's post. Like, totally and completely. Hence the face palm.

What's different between the water in one place and another? The environment. The amount of time that has passed. The distance traveled. The creatures that live in different parts of the water. Just to name a few.

 

[sealchan]

Except my brother won’t change, the water will still be water. They will still be in the same body of water regardless that we may call it the Pacific or Atlantic..... There really is no coherent argument that you can use..... because the ToE is incoherent....

You are missing my analogy. I didn't say the brother would change...I said their location in the ocean would change. It is not the brother's genetics that change it is the area of the ocean they are in that changes. Any two populations that separate will very slowly drift apart genetically because they are no longer sharing their genetics. If one population undergoes different environmental changes that speed up that genetic drift then their difference will become more dramatic. The longer the time between the separation the greater the likelihood that the two continuous genetic populations will be different. No species parents ever need to give birth to a child of a different species. Does this make sense?

As another analogy, consider the evolution of the various sects of Christianity. Different communities that became isolated (Eastern Orthodox vs Roman Catholic, Angilcan vs Roman Catholic, etc...) often did so under the influence of regional culture. These traditions established their traditions and grew and evolved on different lines. Later conflicts arose between the various sects because of those differences and they behaved as if they were separate species although they all evolved from a common base of the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

 

[sealchan]

You completely missed the point of that person's post. Like, totally and completely. Hence the face palm.

What's different between the water in one place and another? The environment. The amount of time that has passed. The distance traveled. The creatures that live in different parts of the water. Just to name a few.

My analogy is a bit confusing but so is understanding evolution. This is because evolution follows systemic laws which are a little different than the sort of simple cause and effect laws that we find easier to think about.

I editted my post to include an analogy to the evolution of Christian sects.

Another trick, of course, is that no individual of a species can evolve. One brother cannot set out, even with one wife and re-populate the Earth. This is a dead giveway that the Adam and Eve story can't be literally true.

It ALWAYS requires a community to have a species. You must have a sufficiently diverse body of genes within a interbreeding group for that group to evolve and survive. Given this the chances for a fortunate mutation increases dramatically when you factor in that no member of a species is an island (although islands make for great labs for studying evolution as we all know!).

I think it may make more sense to think of our various species in terms of species-groups where the degree of isolation of a group of interbreeding species is considered. It is this group that evolves and not the individual. This allows for mutational experiments to proceed. And for any given environmental change there is not one right answer in terms of genetics. It may be that there are multiple right answers and that one or more members of a species may already carry the expression of genetic differences that give the species an existing adaptation that favors that environmental change before the environmental change has already occurred.

Then there is the idea that the whole genetic framework is already ready to foster rapid changes in certain traits due to the centuries long experience of the need of species to be flexible in this regard through trial and error. A sort of meta-genetical adaptation that allows such things as size and diet to be able to change when the environment requires it to.

In a naturally evolved system there are many ways that species-groups can change in order to adapt to a changing environment. If this weren't the case we shouldn't expect life to have arisen in the first place because change has always been a constant in nature (aka God's creation).

Consider from the literalist Biblical perspective just how easy it would be for Satan to cause the extinction of species that a God had set in stone from the beginning of time if they weren't adaptable to slow and fast environmental changes.

 

[Polymath257]

My favorite analogy for evolution is language. Languages change over time, but at any moment in time they are understood by the population of speakers of that language.

But, over time, languages change into new languages, they split into more than one language, they acquire new characteristics, etc.

So, for example, both modern French and modern Spanish evolved from ancient Latin. In both cases, there was some exchange with the languages of Germanic tribes, but the main ancestry of both is Latin. They have a common ancestral language.

But it would also be incredibly difficult to pin down an *exact* time when those languages split: it was a gradual process and those living during the split would probably not have been aware of the split occurring.

Similarly, there was no 'first French speaker', nor a 'first Spanish speaker'. The changes in both languages were gradual enough that no thin line distinguishes a 'before French' and 'French'.

And, even once the split occurred, both languages changed significantly: medieval French and modern French are quite different (although clearly related).

So, has French remained 'constant' for the whole time it has existed? Not even close. But has it been stable enough to call it French for most of that time? yes, indeed.

Are there identifiable properties of French and Spanish that show they are related languages? Yes. Are they still different languages? Yes, very much so. They are still both 'Latin languages' and have not evolved to be, say 'Germanic languages'. So they stayed within the same classification scheme as they split.

In the same way, ceratopsian dinosaurs split, and diverged, but had certain common characteristics over time.

 

[We Never Know]

And evolution, don’t forget to add that to the list.

The list was of made up stories. Evolution doesn't belong on the list. I did however leave off the great flood.

 

[tas8831]

You keep repeating the same stupid lie as if you’ve done anything but claim you’ve shown anything.

Excellent retort.

Still, you clearly have no idea how molecular phylogenetic analyses are performed, and despite my linking a couple of good resources for you to actually learn how it is done, you just repeat the same dumb YECist lies.

And remind us all how many such analyses you've done?

As this post proves.... just another “because I said so” argument which you’ve already rejected by your own admission....

And your 'because i said so' lie about how genomes are chopped up and arbitrarily matched? Where did that stupidity come from?

The same source that told you Adam and Eve's children magically, without mutation, became Africans and Asians and Nordic and Inuuit?

Here is what I wrote to you in October on another forum:

Looks like Wile is ignorant of how blast BLAST works. Or he was unwittingly dissing Tomkins' sleazy antics. Or both. And as SFS has documented on here, Buggs basically admitted that his 'study' was in error.

You've never done a BLAST, have you?

I have done BLAST searches using megabases of DNA, not little chunks - see, Tomkins chopped his DNA into 'little chunks' for HIS study, then told BLAST (using a script) to only return hits between human and chimp that matched 100%. It is as if he set out to get lower scores...

Anyway - here is what you nor Tomkins nor Wile seem to be aware of (or are actively trying to cover up) - using the techniques of Buggs or Tomkins, the pairwise comparisons of ALL pairs of taxa will be lowered. This includes taxa that creationists believe to be related via intrabaraminic evolution.

IOW - the creation "scientists" have hoisted themselves by their own petard and either are too driven by dogma to know it, or driven by their mendacity to cover it up.​

So precious - you took the ranting of creationist non-biologist Jay Wile and took his word for it? LOL!!!!

So, physicist creationist Wile has an added disclaimer on his essay -

"PLEASE NOTE: The results of this study are known to be wrong due to a bug in the computer program used. A new study that uses several different computer programs shows an 88% overall similarity."

So Tomkins was wrong. GET THAT JUSTA???

And anyone that has done any kind of phylogenetic analysis will know that nobody does phylogenetic analyses using BLAST, and what Tomkins did was not even such a study, so justa is just out of his element (as usual).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I haven't.
Can you provide anything to back up your claim, or were you just talking out your rear end?


I believe things which can be demonstrated. Go ahead.

Ask cosmologists to explain to you the precision and fine tuning in the physical constants.

Perhaps, just perhaps you’ll then get a clue. But I doubt it.

 

[We Never Know]

Agreed, you keep claiming you’ll support them.....

The reliability of the sources is what is in question as those sources will keep claiming “missing common ancestors” to support their belief.....

Or just be plain wrong as they were with claiming the Colecanth was the ancestor between water and land....

But then you’ll just “claim” they are correct this time when they have repeatedly been wrong. “Because they say so”.....



It’s pure random chance that a random mutation “might” just make a creature able to survive in whatever environment happens to be randomly existing at any given time.....

Your avoidance does you little credit except show your avoidance....



Repeating a claim of an error without showing the error dies not help you.

Back to the “because I said so” fallacy you go....



If you got it prove it. Stop relying on the fallacy it’s my fault you can’t present your claimed evidence....



You’ve presented none. Just keep claiming you are going to.....



I got every observation in history. All you got is “missing common ancestors”....




That’s what you keep claiming....

Definition of SPECIES

Notice definition 1a, the primary definition of species. So the fact you can’t define species is why Kind can’t be precisely defined...


Can’t even argue your own theory correctly....

Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia



“Because you said so”?????

It seems you can't accept the common ancestor because it hasn't been produced, or what ever your major complaint is. That was millions and millions of years ago.

Let's move closer. You have ancestors that lived 2000 years ago. Can you produce them? If you can't does that mean they didn't exist?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Excellent retort.

Still, you clearly have no idea how molecular phylogenetic analyses are performed, and despite my linking a couple of good resources for you to actually learn how it is done, you just repeat the same dumb YECist lies.

And remind us all how many such analyses you've done?


And your 'because i said so' lie about how genomes are chopped up and arbitrarily matched? Where did that stupidity come from?

The same source that told you Adam and Eve's children magically, without mutation, because Africans and Asians and Nordic and Inuuit?

Here is what I wrote to you in October on another forum:

Looks like Wile is ignorant of how blast BLAST works. Or he was unwittingly dissing Tomkins' sleazy antics. Or both. And as SFS has documented on here, Buggs basically admitted that his 'study' was in error.

You've never done a BLAST, have you?

I have done BLAST searches using megabases of DNA, not little chunks - see, Tomkins chopped his DNA into 'little chunks' for HIS study, then told BLAST (using a script) to only return hits between human and chimp that matched 100%. It is as if he set out to get lower scores...

Anyway - here is what you nor Tomkins nor Wile seem to be aware of (or are actively trying to cover up) - using the techniques of Buggs or Tomkins, the pairwise comparisons of ALL pairs of taxa will be lowered. This includes taxa that creationists believe to be related via intrabaraminic evolution.

IOW - the creation "scientists" have hoisted themselves by their own petard and either are too driven by dogma to know it, or driven by their mendacity to cover it up.​

So precious - you took the ranting of creationist non-biologist Jay Wile and took his word for it? LOL!!!!

So, physicist creationist Wile has an added disclaimer on his essay -

"PLEASE NOTE: The results of this study are known to be wrong due to a bug in the computer program used. A new study that uses several different computer programs shows an 88% overall similarity."

So Tomkins was wrong. GET THAT JUSTA???

And anyone that has done any kind of phylogenetic analysis will know that nobody does phylogenetic analyses using BLAST, and what Tomkins did was not even such a study, so justa is just out of his element (as usual).

Then you are quite aware that BLAST is not what is used to prove relationship in a court of law.....

So, if your claim that chimps and humans are only 2% different were true, then the same test used in a court of law could be used with only a 2% margin of error.....

So, why are you refusing to use the proven test and instead using one that uses an algorithm to match sequences randomly?

Because you can’t get your pseudoscientific answers to come out in your favor in other way....

I mean who you trying to convince with your PR rant, yourself?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It seems you can't accept the common ancestor because it hasn't been produced, or what ever your major complaint is. That was millions and millions of years ago.

Let's move closer. You have ancestors that lived 2000 years ago. Can you produce them? If you can't does that mean they didn't exist?

You got the ones you claim went before the common ancestor and the ones after.

Surely you can produce one out of the billions required?

Your excuses of not being able to find them when you claim you can clearly identify what came before and what came after is just that, an excuse.

They never existed because the link between the different creatures you are trying to connect never existed.....

I’m not the one claiming my ancestors from 2000 years ago split to become anything..... If you wish to make the claim that my ancestors 2000 years ago were not human just like I am, that’s your burden to prove.

Deliberately try to throw straw men in often to avoid the subject?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ask cosmologists to explain to you the precision and fine tuning in the physical constants.

Perhaps, just perhaps you’ll then get a clue. But I doubt it.

This is just another PRATT of creationists using and argument from ignorance to try to claim that a god exists. Further it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Even if there is a God the evidence shows that evolution, without any apparent guidance, is how life got to the stage that we see today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You got the ones you claim went before the common ancestor and the ones after.

Surely you can produce one out of the billions required?

Your excuses of not being able to find them when you claim you can clearly identify what came before and what came after is just that, an excuse.

They never existed because the link between the different creatures you are trying to connect never existed.....

I’m not the one claiming my ancestors from 2000 years ago split to become anything..... If you wish to make the claim that my ancestors 2000 years ago were not human just like I am, that’s your burden to prove.

Deliberately try to throw straw men in often to avoid the subject?

We have endless evidence for the common last ancestor. You have no reliable evidence for your beliefs at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You got the ones you claim went before the common ancestor and the ones after.

Surely you can produce one out of the billions required?

Your excuses of not being able to find them when you claim you can clearly identify what came before and what came after is just that, an excuse.

They never existed because the link between the different creatures you are trying to connect never existed.....

I’m not the one claiming my ancestors from 2000 years ago split to become anything..... If you wish to make the claim that my ancestors 2000 years ago were not human just like I am, that’s your burden to prove.

Deliberately try to throw straw men in often to avoid the subject?

No, the strawmen are all yours. Making ridiculous demands only demonstrates a lack of understanding of what you are trying to argue against.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ask cosmologists to explain to you the precision and fine tuning in the physical constants.

Perhaps, just perhaps you’ll then get a clue. But I doubt it.

Okay, so you've got nothing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is just another PRATT of creationists using and argument from ignorance to try to claim that a god exists. Further it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Even if there is a God the evidence shows that evolution, without any apparent guidance, is how life got to the stage that we see today.

Based upon connecting different creatures that have no relationship with those “missing common ancestors”.

But then that’s why every creature found stays the same until it goes extinct. There is no evolution when you stop imagining missing common ancestors that don’t exist.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Okay, so you've got nothing.

The only answer to a universe so fine tuned even all the experts recognize it is usually denial by evolutionists who claim to understand science but don’t really understand it at all....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, the strawmen are all yours. Making ridiculous demands only demonstrates a lack of understanding of what you are trying to argue against.

One out of countless billions is certainly not a ridiculous demand.

Might as well just admit you got nothing to back up your claims..... it would save us all time....