ID and Probability calculations

JNelson said:
Nested hierarchy is an assumption but it isn’t not proven based on the evidence we have.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that the nested hierarchy is an assumption?

JNelson said:
God created animals and plants according to their kind so it makes sense that there are hierarchies within those kinds (creation orchard) which is exactly what we can observe in fossils and living animals today. In fact, it’s what we’d expect to see with ID. If he designed a functional and beneficial part like the eye then we’d expect to see many different variations on many different kinds of animals. This is consistent with intelligent design as humans do the very same thing, the wheel is an example.
Click to expand...
How does creating organisms according to their kind require that they exhibit the very same pattern of similarities and differences that we'd see if species had a historical and genealogical relationship only to historical species? Why don't we see organisms that would break the hierarchy, like a mermaid, or a crocoduck?

More fundamentally, there is nothing necessarily about God that would require making organisms in a hierarchy because you can't say what features or characteristics or patterns we'd see in organisms or the hierarchy that would mean God **couldn't** have done it. Please tell me you understand that sentence.


JNelson said:
It’s your assumption which is impossible to confirm or deny since no one has or can live long enough to observe those changes.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. You made a claim: "Because [evolutionary] changes do not add the type of information that’s needed." It's up to you to back that up with evidence, or retract it. One or the other.
JNelson said:
It’s not arbitrary. If you say that those changes took place little by little during millions of years then there should be hundreds of thousands of intermediaries. Supposedly a hoofed animal evoled into a whale in 8-16 million years so there should be thousands and thousands of intermediary fossils not the dozen or less that’s normally shown which is really just different animals with similarities just as exists today.
Click to expand...
How many fossils you'd expect to see has nothing to do with how many fossils you need to rationally conclude that some species on one end of the continuum of fossils is evolutionarily related to the species on the other end. Until you actually say how many fossils would and would not be enough - not even an exact number, an estimate would be fine - and provide some calculation or evidence or reasoning as to why you chose that number and not some other number, it's arbitrary, because those are the things that would make it not arbitrary.

JNelson said:
And it’s already been explained that no matter what new evidence is found, evolutionists just adjusts their theory to fit it in making it unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...
Whether biologists adjust their theory impermissibly or not has nothing to do with the unfalsifiability of ID. Please stay focused on the sub-sub-sub-issue we're discussing. You don't defend a challenge by attacking something different but impermissible you think your opponent is doing, you have to meet the challenge head-on.

JNelson said:
You just don’t seem to understand the logical conclusion of your own beliefs. You say animals evolve over time, from one type to another, yet you can’t go to any point in history to find the middle point between a land animal and a sea animal nor do you have a record of those transitional fossils.
Click to expand...
Again, whether can't point to the middle between a land animal and sea animal or not has nothing to do with whether you understand evolution correctly, even if you would still think it is incorrect. Please stay focused on the sub-sub-sub-issue we're discussing. You don't defend a challenge by attacking something different but impermissible ion the contrary position, you have to meet the challenge head-on.

JNelson said:
Doesn’t matter what evolution predicts because no one can live long enough to prove it which makes it unfalsifiable
Click to expand...
I've already addressed it with my point about detectives not needing to witness a crime to solve it. You've already agreed to the principle that you don't need to observe a phenomenon in order to reach a conclusion about it, so why do you keep throwing out comments that challenge what you're already agreed to?
 
CrowCross said:
You tell me why they would or wouldn't.
Click to expand...
You were the one who gave the Platypus as an example, yet you don't know what it is an example of?

A Platypus is a good example of an intermediate species, it is a mammal, but it lays eggs rather than giving live birth. It sits near the root of the mammal tree. It does not break the hierarchy.
 
CrowCross said:
Oh, it lays eggs...so lets place it near the root. Where mosaic convergent evolution belongs.
Click to expand...
The platypus is not an example of convergent evolution. This source says
Egg-laying is an ancestral trait that has persisted in this particular evolutionary line, a trait which the platypus inherited from the egg-laying, reptile-like ancestors of all mammals . . . .

Other features of the platypus aren't primitive, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all mammals shared a common ancestor with today's birds and reptiles. The venomous spines possessed by the male platypus are not there because of some reptile ancestor that had venomous spines; early mammals probably had no venom, and evolutionary biologists have long insisted that this interesting platypus feature is likely an independent evolutionary invention. Venomous spurs are no more reptilian than the human lack of fur: we don't have fur, and our reptile ancestors didn't have fur, but our bare skin is not a trait inherited from fur-less reptile-like ancestors, it's a trait we lost recently in our evolutionary history.

The same is true of the 'duck bill', which has nothing at all to do with any ancestors the platypus (and all mammals) share with birds: it's a separate invention, a highly developed electrical sensor that the platypus uses to search for food, much like the bill of a paddlefish (which is also an independent invention). Despite the bill and the webbed feet, the platypus is not "part bird" (as USA Today proclaimed), and its flat tail does not make it part beaver either (beavers are placental mammals, more closely related to us than to a platypus).

The platypus is not part anything: it's 100% mammal, with some primitive traits of ancient mammals, like egg laying, and a few newly invented traits like the bill, the webbed feet, and the venomous spines.
Click to expand...
 
Gus Bovona said:
The platypus is not an example of convergent evolution. This source says
Click to expand...
Your source also says...
The Independent Invention of Venom

What about venom? Few other mammals have venom, and the most plausible evolutionary scenario is that early mammals did not have venom - it arose independently in the platypus, and not by inheritance from a venomous reptile ancestor. Again, what we find in the genome supports this scenario: the platypus does not have the exact same venom genes found in reptiles, meaning that the platypus did not inherit its venom-producing ability from an ancient venomous ancestor. Platypus venom is a great example of what biologists call convergent evolution, the independent evolutionary invention of similar traits in different groups of animals.

Just saying Gus.
 
CrowCross said:
Your source also says...
The Independent Invention of Venom

What about venom? Few other mammals have venom, and the most plausible evolutionary scenario is that early mammals did not have venom - it arose independently in the platypus, and not by inheritance from a venomous reptile ancestor. Again, what we find in the genome supports this scenario: the platypus does not have the exact same venom genes found in reptiles, meaning that the platypus did not inherit its venom-producing ability from an ancient venomous ancestor. Platypus venom is a great example of what biologists call convergent evolution, the independent evolutionary invention of similar traits in different groups of animals.

Just saying Gus.
Click to expand...
You're right; the venom is an example of convergent evolution. I was thinking of laying eggs as not being convergent evolution, and didn't remember the venom even though I copied and pasted that part. My bad.
 
rossum said:
It lays eggs, as do echidna. They inherited egg-laying from their therapsid ancestors. Other mammals have replaced egg laying with live birth.
Click to expand...
The amount of steps required to go from eggs to live birth are too many....evos tend to act as if there is the need for only one mutation required to complete the process. This very simple truth tells us clearly that "Other mammals have replaced egg laying with live birth." is also Bravo Sierra.
 
CrowCross said:
The amount of steps required to go from eggs to live birth are too many....
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Where is your calculation of the number of steps required? Do those calculations include the various sharks, snakes and other non-mammals that also give live birth? Have you done separate calculations for placental mammals and marsupials? You need to tell us the numbers, and show us how you derived them.

Claiming to have numbers, but not telling us what those numbers are, or how you derived them, will not get you very far.
 
rossum said:
How do you know this? Where is your calculation of the number of steps required? Do those calculations include the various sharks, snakes and other non-mammals that also give live birth? Have you done separate calculations for placental mammals and marsupials? You need to tell us the numbers, and show us how you derived them.

Claiming to have numbers, but not telling us what those numbers are, or how you derived them, will not get you very far.
Click to expand...
Beep, beep...back the truck up....It's you Evo-babblers who claim it took many small steps. Perhaps you would like to tell us how many.
 
CrowCross said:
I did. I used the language of evolutionism.

Why is it the evos say a morphological process takes many steps...then ask me for a number? It's your theory pal.
Click to expand...
Not ever claim needs to have every step or detail known in order to rationally accept the claim. We can see a broken guardrail, a steep cliff, and a car upside down at the bottom, and not have to know how many times the car flipped over in order to know that the car went down the cliff.

But you made the claim that the number of steps are too many, so possum and I are just looking for how you know that. We don't need an exact cut-off for how many steps are too many, either, An approximation is OK. But it has to be based on something actual, not just your common sense, or pulling a number out of nowhere.
 
Gus Bovona said:
What evidence do you have that the nested hierarchy is an assumption?
Click to expand...
It’s an assumption based on the belief that everything has a common ancestor.
Gus Bovona said:
How does creating organisms according to their kind require that they exhibit the very same pattern of similarities and differences that we'd see if species had a historical and genealogical relationship only to historical species?
Click to expand...
If an ID designed eyes for one species and it works then it’s logical he would reuse that design and modify it for another species. Both dogs and sharks have eyes but each are designed differently for obvious reasons yet one has legs and the other doesn’t, also for obvious reasons.
Gus Bovona said:
Why don't we see organisms that would break the hierarchy, like a mermaid, or a crocoduck?
Click to expand...
Those wouldn’t break your hierarchy, you would just fit them at some middle point between reptile and bird or fish and mammal.
Gus Bovona said:
More fundamentally, there is nothing necessarily about God that would require making organisms in a hierarchy because you can't say what features or characteristics or patterns we'd see in organisms or the hierarchy that would mean God **couldn't** have done it. Please tell me you understand that sentence.
Click to expand...
Whether something is or isn’t falsifiable has no relevance in determining truth. If something is true then logically, it is unfalsifiable.

In observable and experimental science we can prove many things like who the real father of a child is for example.

When it comes to historical science, specifically the origin of the universe, we cannot observe nor conduct an experiment that proves one view or the other. This means that both IDers and Evolutionists have presuppositional beliefs that influence how they interpret evidence.

Gus Bovona said:
No, no, no. You made a claim: "Because [evolutionary] changes do not add the type of information that’s needed." It's up to you to back that up with evidence, or retract it. One or the other.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that changes overtime in reptiles will eventually produce a mammal you do so the burden of proof is on you.

Has anyone observed a reptile add new completely new information that enables the ability for it to give live birth?

Gus Bovona said:
How many fossils you'd expect to see has nothing to do with how many fossils you need to rationally conclude that some species on one end of the continuum of fossils is evolutionarily related to the species on the other end. Until you actually say how many fossils would and would not be enough - not even an exact number, an estimate would be fine - and provide some calculation or evidence or reasoning as to why you chose that number and not some other number, it's arbitrary, because those are the things that would make it not arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Your rational conclusion is based on your presuppositional beliefs not the amount of similar animals that were fossilized. The simple fact is that just like today, in history there were many different animals that have many similarities and differences. Reptiles were reptiles before and they continue to be reptiles, birds were birds before and continue to be birds etc.
Gus Bovona said:
Whether biologists adjust their theory impermissibly or not has nothing to do with the unfalsifiability of ID. Please stay focused on the sub-sub-sub-issue we're discussing. You don't defend a challenge by attacking something different but impermissible you think your opponent is doing, you have to meet the challenge head-on.
Click to expand...
Like I said above, unfalsifiability doesn’t determine truth.
Gus Bovona said:
I've already addressed it with my point about detectives not needing to witness a crime to solve it. You've already agreed to the principle that you don't need to observe a phenomenon in order to reach a conclusion about it, so why do you keep throwing out comments that challenge what you're already agreed to?
Click to expand...
Right, I agree with the principal just not your interpretation of the evidence. All the evidence we have is consistent with an ID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top