Is there anything other than “relative” fitness? In what way could this be a meaningful or helpful clarification?
True but others may have been there. Let’s not discount Crick’s panspermia hypothesis. We have established a workable mechanism we just don’t know exactly what it looked like.
Where is the evidence for that?
I don’t see how that applies. If memory serves, this is where life originates on another planet and then hitchhikes on a meteor to a new planet.
Just like the missing evidence that know evolutionary mechanisms can create complex adaptions.
We have evidence in the form of phylogenetic signal. This is what evidences evolutionary mechanisms in the past.
Yes, you do have evidence that mutations are following a pattern. That they can create complex adaptions without direction toward the ending sequence is missing and appears unlikely.
That’s just your opinion.
True, but based on lots of data.
What you have not shown is a connection between the observed pattern and the mechanism that you think created this pattern finding a complex adaption in almost infinite sequence space.
This is the claim evolution is making.
No, that is not the evidence to which he was referring.
Random mutation and selection produce a phylogeny which can be determined from first principles or by observing living populations. That’s the connection.
All the data we have been talking about over the last 7 months.
Not sure what this means.
None of that data supports what you are claiming.
We observe living populations producing phylogenies because of vertical inheritance, random mutation, and other evolutionary factors:
It is also easy to see why evolutionary mechanisms would produce this pattern just from a simple understanding of how they work, what we call first principles. If you split a population in two and allow them to reproduce over many generations then it is quite obvious that different mutations will accumulate in each population. Lineage specific differences along with shared features from common ancestry is a phylogeny, and that is exactly what we would expect to see from evolution.
This is your opinion and that’s fine.
You have yet to connect to complex adaptions. You need to model the mechanism.
Energy is a terrible designer. If nature is the ultimate, then one has to really be supressing common sense of things to say that life was produced by energy let alone that energy causes simple to become more complex.
To me, you are making the case for design: energy pumping into intelligently designed bio machines causes them to function as designed. If they are designed to survive, the sense has it that they are front loaded w genetic traits to be selected for adaptation. And upon adaptation, genetic traits reduce in scope thus causing the species more likely to find devolution to extinction and not the other way.
The elephant in the room in out observations of the beginning of our cosmos and entropy is a Cause. To me, thats God.
The elephant in the room that explains life and adaptation which the sun is pumping life into is not the sun- it is also a Cause which i believe is God.
That is a theological debate i have been having with some other Christians recently. If God can create a sun, He could surely keep it recharged for eternity. I believe that human kind was created in Gods image to live forever and to live forever requires an environment that also would live forever. My argument is that death and dying is the result of the fall of man where Adam and Eve attempted to replace God to become self sovereign by a wrongful act of disobedience. And it was an unwise choice. Death and suffering are introduced. In the new testament, the apostle Paul says that all of the created order was subjected to futility due to the disobedience of Adam.
(facepalm) Another day, another round of Bill butchering basic logic.
Conscious intelligent beings create devices to water the lawn
Rain clouds water the lawn
Therefore rain clouds were created by conscious intelligent beings.
It’s the Bill Show. The plot never changes.
The Bill Cole Show
Of course Bill always falls back to his favorite long disproven falsehood, that evolution has to search an impossibly large ginormous sequence space. It’s like his security blanket.
No, Bill, there is no entity “evolution” that can make claims.
Try this: it is a stone-cold fact that the functional sequences we have in hand occupy a very small amount of sequence space. Therefore, if they were designed, the Designer clearly didn’t have to bother with exploring sequence space. Why should evolution have to explore “almost infinite” space if the sequences that work occupy so little of it?
I agree with you if the mechanism is not trial and error. If you claim it is trial and error are you possibly begging the question?
I asked a “why” question, Bill. I didn’t ask for your agreement. You’re just being evasive.