RSR: Spiders & Termites & Magnets

[DavisBJ]

I bet I could line them up according to any number of criteria and show an increase in "complexity".

:idea: I bet we could line them up according to size and show an increase in complexity!

Stripe, you are dismissive of the diagrams and data that Alate provided. If you decided to seriously see if there is evidence of common ancestry, what evidence would you give serious consideration to?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, you are dismissive of the diagrams and data that Alate provided.

With good reason!

If you decided to seriously see if there is evidence of common ancestry

If?

what evidence would you give serious consideration to?

Universal common descent? Something that radical would require every relevant field of science to cater for it. Geology doesn't and geology is the number one tool we have for investigating past life. Biology is next. There is no way biology can overcome the challenges to evolution posed by geology, but biology discussions are a challenge for me.

So if I were to study more in order to investigate evolution it would be in biology. But, based on the evidence from both fields, there's zero chance that universal common descent describes reality. So investigation to establish evolution would be a waste of time.

What evidence would you give consideration to that might establish creation?

 

[DavisBJ]

Universal common descent? Something that radical would require every relevant field of science to cater for it. Geology doesn't and geology is the number one tool we have for investigating past life. Biology is next. There is no way biology can overcome the challenges to evolution posed by geology, but biology discussions are a challenge for me.

So if I were to study more in order to investigate evolution it would be in biology. But, based on the evidence from both fields, there's zero chance that universal common descent describes reality. So investigation to establish evolution would be a waste of time.

You didn’t answer the question. You only said geology and biology would be important fields, but you think they fail to support evolution. My question was why? What specific criteria in these fields did you have in mind that would have, if seen, made you consider that evolution might be credible? If you had no such criteria, yet you concluded evolution was not true, then it must have been a foregone conclusion for you, rather than one made on the basis of examining the evidence.

For example, Alate’s figures don’t prove evolution, but they are the sort of thing I would expect to see if common descent were a fact. So on an “evolution checksheet” next to “Do we find a fairly continuous continuum of examples of increasing complexity in heart development?” I would check the “Yes” box.

If such a continuum in heart examples did not exist, I would wonder why. With the range of organisms varying from simple to complex, I would expect that the complexity of the circulatory system would reflect that same continuum of increasing development.

Since you pooh-pooh evidence that the sophistication of the heart parallels the circulatory demands of the animal, I am wondering if there are reasonable similar evidences for evolution that you expected but did not find.

 

[Jukia]

Jukia asks for the evidence of the inability of evolution to act between kinds. The non coding sequences of dna are the evidence. Many creatures have similar amounts of genes and share many of the same ones and yet they can be of completely different families. The major difference lies in the non coding sequences. If the gene difference between the organisms is not great, it is unlikely that gene mutations could be responsible for any possible evolution. That only leaves the non coding sequences as a possible way to evolve from one kind to another. continued next.

I also asked for a citation to the "falsification" of the human/chimp ancestor that you wrote existed. Please provide it, thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Lining up diagrams is no evidence of common ancestry.

What it does, is debunk the idea that such organs can't form by gradual steps.

There is much other evidence for the evolution of organs. Want to learn about it?

 

[zoo22]

What about the squishy fossilized inky squid ink?!? What a scam! How could squid fossils have squishy ink!?! No way!! Enough said! Stupid evolutionists!

Ridiculous!! But anyway, pass the Quarter Pounder With Cheese! PS: Try to fossize a Big Mac!! No way!! You'd need a big global flood to do it! Get a grip!! Seriously: Get. A. grip.

 

[Stripe]

You didn’t answer the question.

Sure, I did.

what evidence would you give serious consideration to?

Something that radical would require every relevant field of science to cater for it.

You'd need to reintroduce a mountain of empirical evidence from geology and biology under a far more rigorous and well defined theory 'cos random mutation and natural selection and millions of years doesn't cut it.

My question was why?

Really? Did you write that one in invisible squid ink?

What specific criteria in these fields did you have in mind that would have, if seen, made you consider that evolution might be credible? If you had no such criteria, yet you concluded evolution was not true, then it must have been a foregone conclusion for you, rather than one made on the basis of examining the evidence.

There are a couple of areas in biology that can be presented in a way to look very conclusive. But those tend to require one to have first assumed evolutionary theory. I can present rather simplistic explanations in place of the evolutionary ones, but my understanding is not good enough to put up much of a fight for mine and against evolution.

For example, Alate’s figures don’t prove evolution, but they are the sort of thing I would expect to see if common descent were a fact.

Really? I think it is a ridiculous thing to call evidence! We can all go outside, kill a few animal, extract their bones and line them up to show a similar sort of thing.

So on an “evolution checksheet” next to “Do we find a fairly continuous continuum of examples of increasing complexity in heart development?” I would check the “Yes” box.

Without even comparing their origins? No fossils? No in-situ descriptions? No DNA comparison?

If such a continuum in heart examples did not exist, I would wonder why. With the range of organisms varying from simple to complex, I would expect that the complexity of the circulatory system would reflect that same continuum of increasing development.

And I would suggest that comparing plain old body mass would generate a similar pattern.

What it does, is debunk the idea that such organs can't form by gradual steps.

Care to show us which of those hearts is not a vital organ? :up:

What about the squishy fossilized inky squid ink?!? What a scam! How could squid fossils have squishy ink!?! No way!! Enough said! Stupid evolutionists! Ridiculous!! But anyway, pass the Quarter Pounder With Cheese! PS: Try to fossize a Big Mac!! No way!! You'd need a big global flood to do it! Get a grip!! Seriously: Get. A. grip.

Uh oh. Zoo has lost it. :kook:

:chuckle:

 

[DavisBJ]

You'd need to reintroduce a mountain of empirical evidence from geology and biology under a far more rigorous and well defined theory 'cos random mutation and natural selection and millions of years doesn't cut it.

You are still just tossing out generalities – “mountain of evidence, biology, geology, mutation and selection doesn’t cut it”. I take it in fact you never did honestly entertain any possibility evolution might be valid.

Really? Did you write that one in invisible squid ink?

My bad. I should have remembered that with you there is no expectation that you will discern what was meant. Nothing above baby-talk for you.

There are a couple of areas in biology that can be presented in a way to look very conclusive. But those tend to require one to have first assumed evolutionary theory. I can present rather simplistic explanations in place of the evolutionary ones, but my understanding is not good enough to put up much of a fight for mine and against evolution.

More generalities.

Really? I think it is a ridiculous thing to call evidence! We can all go outside, kill a few animal, extract their bones and line them up to show a similar sort of thing.

There may be cases where an apparent sequence of bone development might be meaningful. Posit how that would lend evidence for or against the ToE.

Without even comparing their origins? No fossils? No in-situ descriptions? No DNA comparison?

Baby talk for Stripe starts here – part of the point is to determine if there is some commonality in origins. Look at the specific question I answered yes to: ““Do we find a fairly continuous continuum of examples of increasing complexity in heart development?” I take you are incapable of looking at the figures Alate provided and answering that question. If you don’t have a clear fossil history, then you are unable to see increasing complexity in those figures? As to in-situ descriptions, I kinda think the answer would be “on the dissection table.” If you are presented with just a basic blood vessel with a portion that is slightly muscularized to aid in blood flow (as in a very simple heart), and you place it next to a multi-chambered heart with valves and regulatory nervous controls, you need a DNA analysis to know which one is most complex?

And I would suggest that comparing plain old body mass would generate a similar pattern.

If you can posit a reason you think a particular sequence of body mass changes might lend evidence to or against evolution, then let’s hear your reason and see the body mass changes you are using as data.
(Baby talk ends)

 

[Stripe]

I take it in fact you never did honestly entertain any possibility evolution might be valid.

:idunno:

Can't remember. I might have.

What does that matter?

There may be cases where an apparent sequence of bone development might be meaningful. Posit how that would lend evidence for or against the ToE.

Apparent sequence? I'd want to know how the sequence was established. If you have fossils, I want to know where they were found, what they were found in and how they were correlated. I guarantee you there is no way you can put together any such sequence that would cover any significant changes that would not require the assumption of evolutionary processes in order to provide evidence for evolution.

part of the point is to determine if there is some commonality in origins. Look at the specific question I answered yes to: ““Do we find a fairly continuous continuum of examples of increasing complexity in heart development?” I take you are incapable of looking at the figures Alate provided and answering that question. If you don’t have a clear fossil history, then you are unable to see increasing complexity in those figures? As to in-situ descriptions, I kinda think the answer would be “on the dissection table.” If you are presented with just a basic blood vessel with a portion that is slightly muscularized to aid in blood flow (as in a very simple heart), and you place it next to a multi-chambered heart with valves and regulatory nervous controls, you need a DNA analysis to know which one is most complex?

I have no doubt one is of more complex design than the other. I just know moreso that putting two hearts next to each other and saying one is more complex is no sort of evidence that one descended from the other.

If you can posit a reason you think a particular sequence of body mass changes might lend evidence to or against evolution

:doh:

 

[Jukia]

Wow, you know exactly what you want. In that case, I suggest you contact someone at, oh, AiG, or some other creationist organization, they ought to have scientists right on top of that.
Or better yet, do the research yourself, get published and show the world you are correct.

 

[DavisBJ]

:idunno: … Can't remember. I might have. …What does that matter?

It’s just that if you never took an unbiased look at the proposed evidence for evolution, then you are singularly hypocritical in critiquing that evidence.

Note to myself- Stripe rails against ideas that he admits he has not impartially considered.

Apparent sequence? I'd want to know how the sequence was established.

You’re the one that mentioned a sequence of bones. If you have no rationale for the way you sequenced them, then they are probably meaningless as displayed.

In contrast, Alate’s figures clearly illustrate that hearts can exist in a range of forms – from very simple to multi-chambered ones. Evolution posits the more advanced forms of life we see came from earlier and simpler forms. Those earlier and simpler forms would have had simpler hearts. Nature shows that simpler hearts do exist, and that there are multiple small changes leading from the simple forms to the complex ones. Evolution is based on having a pathway from one form to another in small steps. Alate showed that criteria is seen in living organisms.

I guarantee you there is no way you can put together any such sequence that would cover any significant changes that would not require the assumption of evolutionary processes in order to provide evidence for evolution.

There is nothing wrong with assuming the validity of an idea when you are looking at evidence. Forensics is built on that approach. When a crime scene investigation finds a 45 caliber bullet casing, they don’t start by playing dumb and saying “Anyone in the world could have fired this shell.” They propose scenarios – such as “Maybe the husband did it.” Then they look to see if his DNA is there, and if he owned a 45, if he was in the vicinity of the crime, etc. If they find he was overseas they reject that scenario and they move on to the next proposed scenario – It was a jealous ex-boyfriend.

I have no doubt one is of more complex design than the other. I just know moreso that putting two hearts next to each other and saying one is more complex is no sort of evidence that one descended from the other.

No one said (other than you) that one descended from the other. Those figures show that hearts in fact exist in a continuous range of complexities, as would be required for evolution to proceed. If animals only had no hearts, or else fully developed ones like we have, then the absence of “simple” hearts would be a question that evolution would be faced with.

:doh:

Please keep your baby-talk response for the playpen. Talk adult here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
What it does, is debunk the idea that such organs can't form by gradual steps.

Care to show us which of those hearts is not a vital organ?

Sure.
http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/earthworm_anatomy1.jpg

The annelid "heart" is really a series of slightly thickened blood vessels that pump blood through the system, but all of the circulatory system does this by the same contractile process, involving one-way valves. Earthworms can function with just the other blood vessels working. Pretty much a very primitive form of our system, except that the heart has become so important to us, that we can't live without it.

 

[Yorzhik]

Is that really the only way you have of refuting what I say by quote mining me Yorzhik? Surely you will allow me to have a rational conclusion of what I personally consider a fact, which is after all what I said, even if in fact in the unlikely event that it isn't fact.

If the ToE isn't in fact a fact then falsifying it with Precambrian rabbit or its equivalent must be a very likely possibility.
However I don't think that is possible because it is in fact, a fact.
But if I'm nevertheless wrong then falsifying evidence must surely be out there somewhere.

Ya' know... at least JW was funny.

 

[alwight]

Ya' know... at least JW was funny.

I reckon that a YEC of any real faith and moral fibre would be out there right now looking for falsifying evidence but maybe even they know it won't be found.
Who's JW?

 

[Yorzhik]

Stripe, you are dismissive of the diagrams and data that Alate provided. If you decided to seriously see if there is evidence of common ancestry, what evidence would you give serious consideration to?

I'll answer this one too.

Alate did not answer this, but maybe you can. How many nucleotide differences are there between all those hearts in those diagrams?

I was once an old earth creationist because that's what I was told in school. But then I took a serious look at the evidence and realized evolution was not just highly unlikely, it was flying monkey stupid.

So here is what evolution has to do, at least to begin with. Demonstrate non-selectable nucleotide changes spreading in a population; and at the same time avoiding mutational load; to the point where a complex organ required for survival is created.

This would be another good start: take a living population and change it at the phylum level via selection. And do it in such a way that at least 25% of the DNA nucleotides are different than the original population.

While you're getting all this information, I'm not up on geology as much as I'd like, but it sure would nice to get maps of the sedimentary layers.

 

[Yorzhik]

I reckon that a YEC of any real faith and moral fibre would be out there right now looking for falsifying evidence

Why? The evolutionists found it for us.

Who's JW?

JWStipple. He actually wrote as if he was serious.

 

[alwight]

Why? The evolutionists found it for us.

Citations required.

JWStipple. He actually wrote as if he was serious.

Oh yes I forgot, I like him too.

 

[Yorzhik]

Citations required.

:darwinsm: Much better! Keep practicing and you'll be the new JW before you know it.

 

[DavisBJ]

I'll answer this one too.

I generally find your responses more specific than those Stripe gives. I do wish you would not dodge responding to some issues where it may pinch a bit – like the question (in another thread) about why you think Walt Brown is in error on frozen mammoths.

Alate did not answer this, but maybe you can. How many nucleotide differences are there between all those hearts in those diagrams?

I am not a molecular biologist, and I am sure Alate is better positioned to handle that question than I am. As I already explained to Stripe, at the morphological level it appears that Alate presented a very reasonable progression of increasing complexity.

I admit that gradualism in morphological presentation does not preclude radical nucleotide differences. But with the specific examples Alate provided, since they are not claimed to lie in a single line of descent, comparison of the DNA is probably not highly meaningful anyway. If we could reach far back into the actual ancestral lines and get DNA, then indeed the evolution seen in the DNA would be of substantial import.

I was once an old earth creationist because that's what I was told in school. But then I took a serious look at the evidence and realized evolution was not just highly unlikely, it was flying monkey stupid.

These pie-in-the-sky slaps at the integrity of the entire opposing camp are a poor way to conduct a conversation. There are specific members on each side who demonstrate that they seem to be “flying monkey stupid”, but do you really think the whole evolutionist community is a bunch of intellectually deficient hucksters?

When evaluated on issues other than their acceptance of evolutionary theory, huge swaths of the evolutionist community will match the fundamentalists in almost every meaningful way – compassion for the poor, obedience to law, respect for parents, intelligence, and so on.

So here is what evolution has to do, at least to begin with. Demonstrate non-selectable nucleotide changes spreading in a population; and at the same time avoiding mutational load; to the point where a complex organ required for survival is created.

I don’t know what you mean by “non-selectable” nucleotides.

And evolution does not have to create (initially) an organ that is required for survival. It only has to marginally improve the reproductive success of those who have the improvement. Think brown fur giving way to white fur.

This would be another good start: take a living population and change it at the phylum level via selection. And do it in such a way that at least 25% of the DNA nucleotides are different than the original population.

What does that mean – to change something at the phylum level? If 25% of the (coding) DNA is altered, I suspect you will have far exceeded the changes normally found within a phylum.

While you're getting all this information, I'm not up on geology as much as I'd like, but it sure would nice to get maps of the sedimentary layers.

Isn’t geology Stripe’s forte? It isn’t mine.

 

[DavisBJ]

Referring to evidence falsifying evolution:

Why? The evolutionists found it for us.

I know alwight asked for a citation, and got a brush-off. But I too would be interested in what this falsifying evidence is that you think evolutionists have found.