ID and Probability calculations

[ferengi]

Because that's how long it takes for one species to transition into another.

Prove that has ever happened.

 

[Newbirth]

You need to learn about the existence of ecological niches.

You need to tell me which fish you saw evolve into a mammal

It is very difficult to fill an already filled ecological niche.

How can it be full when they are becoming extinct faster than they are evolving?

The "intelligent land animal" niche is already filled by humans.

there is only one specie of human.

Any fish-man newly emerged from the water would not be able to compete with humans and would not survive

So have you seen any emerge?

-- just see any old horror movie like "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms".

So you are equating evolution with a horror movie? is that correct?

For a lot of evolution, you need something like the dino-killer meteor, which opens up a lot of ecological niches by killing the species that currently inhabit those niches.

Do you mean like the atomic bomb in Hiroshima? Should we expect to see humans evolving there?

Yet more new stuff for you to learn I'm afraid.

I am afraid for you.

 

[Newbirth]

Because that's how long it takes for one species to transition into another.

But it is that long already...Today is one billion years from one billion years ago, we should be seeing new species evolving today.

 

[Eightcrackers]

But it is that long already...Today is one billion years from one billion years ago, we should be seeing new species evolving today.

No.

It's not as though nothing happens for 999,999,999 years, and then on year one billion, DING!

 

[rossum]

You need to tell me which fish you saw evolve into a mammal

You ned to tell me which mammal you saw God create, of did you see the Intelligent Designer do it?

How can it be full when they are becoming extinct faster than they are evolving?

There are full niches, empty niches and new, partly full, niches. During mass extinctions niches become empty. In between mass extinctions, niches become full. If and when some catastrophe wipes out land animals, then fish will have another chance to evolve into land animals. As tings are now, currently, established land predators would prevent any such evolved fish establishing themselves on land. A cat or a rat can catch a mudskipper. If cats and rats were extinct, the mudskipper would have a much better chance.

Do you mean like the atomic bomb in Hiroshima? Should we expect to see humans evolving there?

Humans are evolving everywhere. Since children are not genetically identical to their parents then evolution is happening everywhere there are children. The proportions of different genes in the population is changing. Currently, genes helping resist Covid are increasing proportionately.

I am afraid for you.

No need to be, since I already know this stuff. It is you who needs to learn more about biology.

 

[Newbirth]

Because that's how long it takes for one species to transition into another.

So why are we not seeing new species? It has been that long.

 

[Newbirth]

No.

So you are saying.Today is not one billion years from one billion years ago, If not, how much is it?

It's not as though nothing happens for 999,999,999 years, and then on year one billion, DING!

Actually, it is as though nothing happened for 999,999,999 years, and then on year one billion still nothing...

 

[Newbirth]

You ned to tell me which mammal you saw God create, of did you see the Intelligent Designer do it?

I never made those claims. You are the one claiming to see evolution happening.

There are full niches, empty niches and new, partly full, niches.

Those are full excuses empty excuses and new partly full excuses.

During mass extinctions niches become empty. In between mass extinctions, niches become full.

that is a load of crap, any extinction can cause any niche to become empty. Lake Lanao, one of the few ancient lakes in the world, was home to about 17 freshwater fish species. It’s the second largest lake in the Philippines and research estimates it to be about 10 million years old. Of the species it inhabits, 15 of them have been declared extinct.
that seems to be a mass extinction...Where is the new niche?

If and when some catastrophe wipes out land animals, then fish will have another chance to evolve into land animals. As tings are now, currently, established land predators would prevent any such evolved fish establishing themselves on land. A cat or a rat can catch a mudskipper. If cats and rats were extinct, the mudskipper would have a much better chance.

So you are saying if there is no catastrophe then there can be no evolution because cats and rats prevent evolution? How much sillier is your story going to get?

Humans are evolving everywhere.

Into what?

Since children are not genetically identical to their parents then evolution is happening everywhere there are children.

So you are saying that children are not humans? Have they evolved into something other than humans?

The proportions of different genes in the population is changing. Currently, genes helping resist Covid are increasing proportionately.

You are jumping all over the place. First fishes cannot evolve into mammals because cats and rats will eat them. Now human children are evolving into something other than humans.

No need to be, since I already know this stuff. It is you who needs to learn more about biology.

That is even more frightening. Are you sure that you know that children are evolving into something other than humans?

 

[rossum]

I never made those claims. You are the one claiming to see evolution happening.

You are the one claiming that God created all mammals. I am asking you if you have seen what you claim. Or are you saying that God did not create all mammals?

Where is the new niche?

Some or all of the niches those 15 extinct species occupied.

Into what?

Into humans with slightly different genetics. I gave the example of increased Covid resistance. There is evidence of increased resistance to malaria in malarial areas.

So you are saying that children are not humans?

You need to learn the definition of a biological species. Unless you learn more, you will continue to make obvious and avoidable errors such as this. You cannot expect to discuss speciation without knowing the definition of a species.

 

[Eightcrackers]

So why are we not seeing new species? It has been that long.

We are - we are seeing species that didn't exist one billion years ago.

Actually, it is as though nothing happened for 999,999,999 years, and then on year one billion still nothing...

Did we have mammals one billion years ago?
Birds?
Reptiles?

And those are classes. If we go down the species level, almost all of the ones alive today did not exist one billion years ago.

 

[Eightcrackers]

First fishes cannot evolve into mammals because cats and rats will eat them.

Cats and rats don't eat whales or dolphins.

 

[Newbirth]

You are the one claiming that God created all mammals.

And you are claiming evolution did.

I am asking you if you have seen what you claim.

Why are you asking that ? I never claimed I saw it. You are the one claiming that you see evolution

Or are you saying that God did not create all mammals?

I never made that claim. Why would you ask that? I am asking you to verify what you claim you see. You are asking me if I said what I did not say.

Some or all of the niches those 15 extinct species occupied.

You are not making any sense. The 15 species are extinct they are not occupying any niche. Where are the replacements?

Into humans with slightly different genetics.

That is not another human species. If it is what is the classification? Homo ???

I gave the example of increased Covid resistance. There is evidence of increased resistance to malaria in malarial areas.

You are funny. So the people who are become covid resistant are a new human species? and those who become malarial resistant are another species of humans.
Humans with increased resistance to a particular disease or virus are still the same human species.

You need to learn the definition of a biological species.

You need to stick with one definition.

Unless you learn more, you will continue to make obvious and avoidable errors such as this.

Unless you can actually prove your claims you are riding on faith.

You cannot expect to discuss speciation without knowing the definition of a species.

A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. You are claiming species evolve into other species.

 

[Newbirth]

We are - we are seeing species that didn't exist one billion years ago.

There were no animals to see 1 billion years ago according to your science... Your first animals came about 500 million years ago... among them millipedes we still see millipedes today

Did we have mammals one billion years ago?

According to your science, you didn't have any animals

Birds?
Reptiles?

not according to your science. but there were millipedes about 500 million years ago and we still have them today.

And those are classes. If we go down the species level, almost all of the ones alive today did not exist one billion years ago.

You are funny according to your science 1 billion years ago there were no land animals. You are saying the land animals that existed one billion years ago do not exist today. That is because they did not exist 1 billion years ago in the first place.

 

[Eightcrackers]

There were no animals to see 1 billion years ago according to your science... Your first animals came about 500 million years ago... among them millipedes we still see millipedes today

So? Evolutions are only as dramatic as the driving changes in environment - no changes, no evolution.

There are bacteria in some places that have evolved so little in four billion years that they are essentially the same, because their environment has not changed.

You are saying the land animals that existed one billion years ago do not exist today.

Completely and utterly the reverse - there were no land animals one billion years ago, and there are now.

 

[rossum]

And you are claiming evolution did.

So, you have no evidence of God creating any mammal species. colour me unsurprised.

I have evidence from DNA of mammal species evolving. In science the evidence wins.

The 15 species are extinct they are not occupying any niche.

You asked where the empty niches were. I told you. Did you not understand your own question?

You are funny. So the people who are become covid resistant are a new human species?

You are funny. You do not seem to realise that different members of the same species do not have to be genetically identical. As I have said before, you need to learn a lot more biology before you will be able to avoid such basic errors. Even a little thought should have told you that the genetic differences between blue eyes and brown eyes exist, but are not enough to make a new species.

A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

Correct. That shows your error above. Increased Covid resistance does not prevent interbreeding, so changes in Covid resistance do not lead to a new species, just slightly changed genetics in the same species.

You are claiming species evolve into other species.

They do. As species separate their degree of inter-fertility changes. For example, lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons. However, due to the degree of separation, male ligers and tigons are infertile while female crossbreeds are fertile. These two species are in the process of separating. Horses and donkeys are yet further separated; they can produce live offspring—mules—but in that case all mules are infertile. That is evidence that horses and donkeys are further separated than lions and tigers. Kangaroos and elephants cannot interbreed at all, and so are even further separated.

 

[Newbirth]

So, you have no evidence of God creating any mammal species. colour me unsurprised.

I have not seen God create any mammals. That is the answer to the question you asked...

You are the one claiming that God created all mammals. I am asking you if you have seen what you claim.

Above is your original question, sir... Why are you moving the goalposts?

I have evidence from DNA of mammal species evolving. In science the evidence wins.

Mammal species evolving into what? Anyway, the question is have you seen what you claim?

You asked where the empty niches were. I told you. Did you not understand your own question?

You said...During mass extinctions niches become empty. In between mass extinctions, niches become full.

You are funny. You do not seem to realise that different members of the same species do not have to be genetically identical.

A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

As I have said before, you need to learn a lot more biology before you will be able to avoid such basic errors. Even a little thought should have told you that the genetic differences between blue eyes and brown eyes exist, but are not enough to make a new species.

That is my point, you are claiming species evolve into different species. When asked, evolved into what? you said...Into humans with slightly different genetics.
That is the same as saying humans evolved into humans with slightly different genetics. That is the same as saying a black person and a white person making a baby is evolution

Correct. That shows your error above.

It does not show any error on my part.

Increased Covid resistance does not prevent interbreeding, so changes in Covid resistance do not lead to a new species, just slightly changed genetics in the same species.

Therefore not evolution

They do. As species separate their degree of inter-fertility changes.

Species separating causes inter-fertility changes? Separating how?

For example, lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons.

These are two different species are they not?
Does that happen in nature? You said this is correct...A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

However, due to the degree of separation, male ligers and tigons are infertile while female crossbreeds are fertile. These two species are in the process of separating.

What separation are you referring to? Those are two separate species. You seem to be saying that they are the same species in the process of separating into two separate species.

Horses and donkeys are yet further separated; they can produce live offspring—mules—but in that case all mules are infertile.

Therefore mules are not another species according to the definition of species.

That is evidence that horses and donkeys are further separated than lions and tigers.

No that is evidence that they are not the same species in both cases.

Kangaroos and elephants cannot interbreed at all, and so are even further separated.

You just exposed your ignorance... Lions and Tigers belong to the same family . Horses and mules belong to the same family. However Elephants and kangaroos belong to different families.

 

[JNelson]

1. Are you saying that over a shorter period of time, or with more fossils, or a combination of both, you'd agree that some species evolved from another species?

I would say that at best it would be a bit more plausible but the bigger problem is that we have no evidence of any animal becoming another species. Canines always produce canines and bears always produce bears. If animals evolve to different species then there should be countless of living animals in the middle of their evolution so where’s the half bear half horse or half lion half dolphin?

2. The next step, then, is to understand the nested hierarchy. (Didn't I mention this upthread? Maybe not . . . .) When you classify organisms by their differences and similarities - and this was first done long before the theory of evolution was even imagined - that classification falls into what is called a nested hierarchy, which occurs in a historical, genealogical process in which each difference in a member (organism) of the hierarchy is a slight modification of a member or organism earlier in the historical process. You can make a nested hierarchy of languages which show how new languages developed from earlier ones over time.

Evolution explains why the nested hierarchy exists. If evolution is true, we'd have to see organisms in a nested hierarchy, it could be no other way. But we wouldn't have to see a nested hierarchy for an intelligent designer, as the designer could have made an organisms that would break the hierarchy (What would be stopping the designer from doing so?

A designer can design as he wants to and this doesn’t prove there isn’t a creator. If every living species where completely different and had no similarities at all then an ID would be still dismissed because there’s no clear pattern that suggests one designer. So the fact that there are many similarities in creatures it most definitely supports a common creator.

My tide analogy was only trying to make a point that you've already said you're OK with, the one about not needing to see every single step of the way.


I'm glad we can agree on that.

??

 

[Gus Bovona]

I would say that at best it would be a bit more plausible but the bigger problem is that we have no evidence of any animal becoming another species.

I just laid out for you why we do have evidence of speciation: the nested hierarchy of organisms - both through their morphology and their genetics - is just what we'd expect from a historical, genealogical process. When it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There's more to say on that, but I'll do that later on in this post.

Canines always produce canines and bears always produce bears.

And that's what evolution says, when you look at it going from just one organism to their offspring. Evolution merely says that the very slight changes from parent to offspring in DNA can add up over time to produce another species.

Separate from how much evidence there is for that, can I ask you, why couldn't those small changes add up over time to make a new species? What's preventing that? Also, how long do you think it would take for small changes to add up to a new species? Or a new genus?

If animals evolve to different species then there should be countless of living animals in the middle of their evolution so where’s the half bear half horse or half lion half dolphin?

All those half-organisms are merely the organisms that show some similarity with each other that you have dismissed as merely being similar and not relatives evolutionarily. But because of the nested hierarchy, there will be countless half-animals (so to speak) that we will never see because they lie outside of the hierarchy. That's what the nested hierarchy means - these animals have a genealogical relationship, but these don't.

A designer can design as he wants to and this doesn’t prove there isn’t a creator.

That's what makes the designer claim unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless. Unless you can say what the designer could not have designed (like evolution does for itself), there's no evidence that will falsify the claim. It's Sagan's dragon.

If every living species where completely different and had no similarities at all then an ID would be still dismissed because there’s no clear pattern that suggests one designer.

It's not a question of when you think ID will be dismissed, but a question of you not being able to say when it would have to be dismissed: what would we see - even if we never see it - in order to conclude that ID was wrong?

So the fact that there are many similarities in creatures it most definitely supports a common creator.

??

You're still missing it. *Any* patter of similarities/differences - all similar, all different, some similarities/differences - is compatible with the ID claim. That's the problem.

 

[JNelson]

Your sources are lying to you, again. YEC is so scientifically bad that all YEC has to support its claims is lies. That is why their websites lie to you so often.

Sorry, the only lying done is but your sources. You can’t scientifically prove old earth because the scientific method requires observation and testing. We all have the same evidence, you just have a different interpretation.

Scientific dating methods have far fewer assumptions than your sources are telling you. For example, isochron dating methods can determine the initial amount of daughter product in a sample as well as its date. Did you sources mention that? If they didn't, then they are lying to you.

Fewer assumptions isn’t the same as no assumptions which is what’s needed to truly date something. We can know the approximate age of a person because we have seen humans grow from birth. No human has ever observed the earth since it began so you can never actually know it’s true age.

You are wrong there. The Sumerian King List shows that the earth has been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years. If you are going to treat a text from the Ancient Near East as good evidence, then I will do the same. King En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43,200 years and there were other kings who reigned for over 30,000 years. Naturally, you accept the truth of this document because it mentions the Flood, between king Ubara-Tutu (reigned 18,600 years) and king Jushur (reigned 1,200 years).

Your 6,000 year old earth is wrong, and I have ancient writings to prove it.

There’s a lot of ancient writings so just because I accept one doesn’t mean I accept all of them.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Sorry, the only lying done is but your sources. You can’t scientifically prove old earth because the scientific method requires observation and testing. We all have the same evidence, you just have a different interpretation.

Fewer assumptions isn’t the same as no assumptions which is what’s needed to truly date something. We can know the approximate age of a person because we have seen humans grow from birth. No human has ever observed the earth since it began so you can never actually know it’s true age.

You apparently think that we need to observe directly some phenomenon in order to make a conclusion about it, but if that were true, no homicide detective could solve any murder unless they observed it directly.