Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

Design

(Curtis Henderson) #441

So… are you going to answer the question?


#442

The answer to the question is that “Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism is whatever a person wants it to be.”


(Greg) #443

I found out about this thru the Fox News website.


#444

This bird has been designated Eofringillirostrum boudreauxi, and it isn’t around anymore. Your point?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) split this topic #445

3 posts were split to a new topic: Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?


Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?
(S. Joshua Swamidass) split this topic #447

A post was merged into an existing topic: Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?


(John Harshman) #448

Sloppy language in that article. If you look at the actual article, which unfortunately is paywalled, you will see that this bird isn’t a passerine but just a fairly close relative, related to the extinct Zygodactylidae. A fine example of an evolutionary transition, in fact.

And of course it’s also support for the point that we find new fossil taxa all the time, and that this tells us the known record is far from complete.


(John Harshman) #449

If we have a nearly complete record, why is it that those modern mammal and mollusk species you mention are only found in fairly recent deposits, mammals almost all within the last million years and mollusks almost all within the last 10 million years? Why aren’t any of them found in the Green River or Burgess Shale formations, which show exceptional preservation of whole communities?


(Greg) #450

Thats a good question. Are you interested to see what Kurt Wise has to say? Video about an hour long and if you can bear the idea of a global flood, the data is compelling towards the Biblical young earth model. . Here it is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o

So i have so many questions…such as can convergent evolution really explain marsupial populations and placental populations that both have similar kinds in both but just differing reproductive organs? And how is it that the fossil record is supposed to only consist of a small percentage of species yet 99% of ones current types are represented?

We are probably all going to be really surprised one day to find out how the mechanisms and strategies God used to speciate the planet differ from all of our notions. Scripture shows Him to be a God who does not offer exacting patterns in how He works …prob to keep us on a relational and dependent level with Him instead of a mighty fast food kiosk to order up and expect quick satisfaction.


(Mikkel R.) #451

What?


(Timothy Horton) #452

Isn’t that the same falsehood you posted a week ago and which was soundly beaten into the proverbial pink mist?


(T J Runyon) #453

What??


(John Harshman) #454

Yes, but not enough to watch an hour-long video. Your idea of what’s compelling is not all that impressive.

No, that would be difficult to explain. However, it isn’t true unless you stretch “similar”. They differ in a host of ways in addition to reproductive organs. A marsupial “wolf” doesn’t actually look that much like a wolf, and the details are all different.

Because the record gets worse as sediments get older. More of them have been lost to erosion or metamorphosis. That has a name in the literature: the pull of the recent. Did you know that about 50% of all dinosaur genera (not just species) are known from only a single specimen? How does that fit with your notions of completeness?

If you’re interested in correct terminology, whatever you did there is not what “speciate” means. Speciate: to evolve reproductive isolation between populations.

Sounds like he’s insecure in his divinity. No wonder he’s a jealous God.


Kurt Wise: Dawkins' Honest Creationist
(S. Joshua Swamidass) split this topic #455

30 posts were split to a new topic: Kurt Wise: Dawkin’s A Honest Creationist