You realise we’re talking about an enhancer here, right? Not a gene or pseudogene. Read the paper, in the primitive snakes the enhancer still has a low level of activity, it’s not completely non-functional.
Yes, it is, as evidenced by the fact that mice develop without complete limbs when the region is deleted. Obviously that specific deletion have obviously been tolerated or compensated for somehow. (It’s 1 deletion and 1 substitution, not 2 deletions.) What’s your point?
“Appearing at different times in history” is also not how a phylogenetic tree is determined.
I really don’t think you have the faintest idea how these trees are derived, but I am happy to be proven wrong. Pretend you had to explain to a middle school class how they are derived. Tell us what you would say.
ok but how that big deletion didnt harm the function? isnt the enhancer suppose to bound to a protein by that sequence?
i didnt talked about phylogenetic tree here, just about the possibilty that some creatures might be designed at different times.
It’s a promoter region with lots of binding sites for various transcription factors plus sites that don’t bind anything.
The problem with creatures being designed at different times is that it doesn’t produce a nested hierarchy.
Your claim has been that phylogenetic analysis applied to designed artifacts like cars will produce the same results as are derived when applied to living organisms.
Are you now renouncing that claim? If not, my question remains pertinent, and you should answer it.
And these different times you mention, could they be billions of years apart?
If you mean change a modern car like my Honda Fit into a modern plane like a Cessna 172 then I agree with you. But evolution doesn’t claim that you can change a modern hippo into a modern blue whale by small steps. It claims that if you trace the development of hippos and blue whales back in time you arrive at a common ancestor. And when I look at the development of modern cars and modern planes back in time I see a similar process.
yes. why not.
i dont think so. for instance: say that we want to add a gps system to the car. i dont think that we can do that in small steps, since any gps will need at least several parts to its minimal function. also remember that a car by itself is evidence for design (even if it has DNA or self replication system).
isnt this what i showed above? do you agree that the designer can made creatures by groups?
In that case would you describe yourself as YEC or OEC/Progressive creationist like Hugh Ross?
i guess that im more like OEC. but im open to other options. and what do you think about my question above? do you think that we can add a gps by small steps? do you think that if that car had DNA and a self replicating system it was not point to design?
I would somewhat agree with you here; in all this discussion of phylogeny of technology of transportation, lines of descent being drawn with the intention of supporting the notion that biological tress could be similarly the result of design, what I notice is that in the case of technology, the branches really do exhibit, wait for it…irreducible complexity.
Sure, you can draw a line from a gas powered airplane to a solar powered airplane, but there is no incremental path diminishing the features of the one while growing the other. So while both planes may exhibit similarities of overall body plan, they are whole hog different. This jump is indeed the result of teleology due to the purposes of an intelligent mind. Radios, windshield wipers, oddball hobby vehicles covered in lawn grass, all absolutely do demonstrate integrated systems accounted for by deliberate design. Missing links dominate technology. The patent office is a massive ledger of irreducible complexity.
This is exactly what we don’t see in biology. The first three and a half billion years of life on earth has not left much of a fossil record beyond mineral stains, so unknowns in microbiology can get played up. But where the fossil record kicks in, as well in studies of current ecology, what we find is a pattern whereby all adaptation starts with what a organism has to work with. We do not see teleology at play at all; the more is uncovered in the fossil record, the smoother the transitions are seen to be.
first: many fossils are indeed out of place. second: we can arrange designed objects in hierarchy too (for instance: a car–> a van–> a truck). but it doesnt prove non-design of course.
No.
Please answer my question. Thanks.
According to that “hierarchy”, all trucks are vans, and all vans (which include all trucks) are cars.
Which only further confirms that you have not the faintest idea what constitutes a nested hierarchy.
The only question remaining is how and why you keep insisting that you do understand.
Also, no fossils are out of place. We have no mammalian fossils, for instance, that are invertebrates. You disagree?
@scd, this is a very good suggestion.
Ok, thanks for helping me to understand that.
I kind of do, and I’ll try to explain why. When I was a kid one of my favourite TV programmes was Connections by James Burke. It was a history of science show, and showed how well known inventions were actually a combination of many other inventions, everything was connected, hence the title. It had quite an impact on my thinking. So when I see a GPS I see a radio receiver that wouldn’t exist without Marconi. But Marconi couldn’t have done it without Tesla and Hertz. I see a satellite network that wouldn’t exist without sputnik. I see electronics that wouldn’t exist without Georg Ohm and his peers. I see trilateration and geometry that boggles my mind. I see atomic clocks that wouldn’t exist without Lord Kelvin. The clocks run slow because of their speed which can be described using Einstein’s special relativity. and so on. Take away any one of those pieces and there wouldn’t be a GPS. Can we build a GPS in small steps? I’d say yes. In fact I’d go further and say there isn’t any other way to build one! Imagine God creating a GPS reciever ex nihilo in the Roman empire. (or imagine aliens, time travel, whatever mechanism you prefer). Do I believe he could? Yes, of course. Do I believe he would? No, what use would it be without those myriad other connections?
Name three. Beware of repeating creationist garbage.
No you can’t.
It’s very hard to remain “peaceful” here. Suffice to say that you have been making this claim for some time, but have not only not produced a single hierarchy containing designed objects*, but also show no sign of even understanding what a nested hierarchy is, despite having been shown not only lots of nested hierarchy but also directed to the methods for making them.
*cartoons labelled “car” and “truck” are not hierarchies
what? i im just showing that puting things in order doesnt prove they evolved from each other.
as for the nested hierarchy: as i said before: a designer could make creatures by groups: reptiles, fishes, mammals etc. it doesnt prove non-design. take the transformers for instance. they contain many groups (and sub-groups) but everyone know that they were designed:
(image from Transformers - Decepticon Group Pics by omega-shockwave on DeviantArt)
ok thanks. but notice that these inventions are complex by their own. so we cant realy reduce them to a single part. lets take a specific example: a car. any minimal car need at least 3 main parts: wheels, chassis, and engine. so if you need to make a car by small steps (when every step is functional) how will you do that?
first we need to define what “out of place fossil” is. to me any fossil that doesnt fit with the evolutionery hierarchy is out of place. so if for instance we will present fossils as numbers, out of place fossil will be the order 12354 instead of 12345, when 5 is out of place. do you agree?
Again, NAME THREE. You haven’t named any.
No. Evolution produces branching descent as well as linear descent. It’s quite possible for ancestral species to continue to live alongside species that evolve from them, so that some fossils of the parent species may be younger than some fossils of the child species.
But you didn’t need my agreement in order to name three fossils that are out of place according to your criteria. You’re evading. If you reply again without naming any out-of-place fossils, I’ll conclude you’re uncritically repeating YEC nonsense that you can’t back up.
P.S. The transformers are fictional. They don’t exist. They weren’t designed. Pictures, models and animations of the fictional transformers were designed, but there are no actual transformers to which a design inference can apply.
That’s obvious, and not how any palaeontology works. No one is putting fossils “in order” and claiming that they evolved from each other.