Or perhaps the contrast between the Silly Party and the Extremely Silly Party?
I think itâs more the scene about what the Romans have ever done for us.
Nobody expects ⌠to study marine invertebrates? 
1 Like
Though I am reminded of the âboring prophetâ from Life of Brian here, too.
This absurd claim has continued to irritate me, so I made an effort to track down where @Meerkat_SK5 purported to demonstrate this claim.
Tracking this claim down within this topic lead me to this even more absurd claim in the OP:
Does anybody accept for even a moment that @Meerkat_SK5 has access to any sources that conclusively demonstrate that even one alleged design flaw was optimal, let alone a sufficiently large majority of these alleged design flaws to actually substantiate their absurd claim.
Not wanting to leave myself hanging around waiting for @Meerkat_SK5 to provide alleged sources that I know wonât in fact substantiate their claims, I went hunting on older threads:
The problem being that Onedrive informs me that this file no longer exists â so on top of whatever flaws it may have originally contained (and it was almost certainly not peer reviewed in any way), itâs mere evaporation makes it a terrible source.
None of these sources purport that any given alleged flaw is conclusively optimal. At best, they suggest that optimality may be more complex, and thus difficult to ascertain.
The first source, amusingly, each give conclusions that outright contradict @Meerkat_SK5âs claim:
Instead of asking why vertebrates possess apparently problematic inverted retinas, one may ask why such space-saving retinas are limited to vertebrates and a handful of invertebrates (Duke-Elder, 1958). The answer is the same for both questions: animals have their group-specific eye and retina types because of common decent within each phylogenetic group. Vertebrates have evolved into the group of animals which most heavily rely on vision with high spatial resolution. The inverted retina has most likely been an important factor since it allows for massive retinal processing of visual information without investment of precious space and weight.
The problem being that, even if you declare the inverted retina to be âoptimalâ, you then have to explain why âdesignsâ that lack an inverted retina are also optimal.
Also, I was unaware of anybody declaring that the physical dimensions of the human bronchial tree was a âflawed designâ. The closest I could come up with on a quick search was the claim that:
In the pulmonary tree only branches larger than bronchi have cilia
Bronchioles and alveolar ducts and alveoli are to small to have cilia
This causes inflammation inflammation over time damages cells in the lungs, becomes easier for cancer to grow
⌠which is unrelated to the optimisation that Mauroy, et al were analysing.
I would also note that the conclusions of Flamholz, et al are extremely tentative and preliminary, and raises more questions than answers:
However, although the genomic tendencies discussed are sta- tistically signiďŹcant, they are only tendencies. It is not the case that all aerobes rely solely on the ED pathway in the way that nearly all anaerobes rely on the EMP (Fig. 6), which raises a number of fascinating questions. For example, what factors other than pro- tein cost determine the glycolytic pathway (1, 5)? If protein cost is a primary determinant of glycolytic strategy, is there an âexchange rateâ between ATP production and protein investment (18)? Is this tradeoff constant, or does it vary greatly between organisms and conditions? More sharply, how does additional protein pro- duction affect cell growth (16, 33â35), and how does metabolism evolve to cope with high protein cost (17, 34)? Many researchers have begun to address these questions, but they are by no means resolved. We hope that future work will elucidate the degree to which such tradeoffs explain the structure and regulation of natural metabolic systems.
So, does any of this support @Meerkat_SK5âs absurdly inflated claims? Of course not!
These sub-optimal designs have not âbeen discovered to be optimalâ.
âThe number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimalâ would appear to be ZERO!
Also, I would note that none of these sources are remotely relevant to @T_aquaticusâ and my own questions on Bird/Mammal admixture. What evidence is there that separation of Bird and Mammal features is optimal, and that their admixture (e.g. giving bats feathers, or nocturnal birds sonar for that matter) would be sub-optimal?
1 Like
I have been completely ignoring anything @Meerkat_SK5 says about optimal design. It is pretty obvious that it is all rhetoric rather than science.
More importantly, @Meerkat_SK5 would need to explain why all of the species with an inverted retina have a vertebral column while all of the species with a forward facing retina do not have a vertebral column. This is true even when the species are sharing the same exact environment, such as in the case of squid and vertebrate fish.
2 Likes
These sources should give you the answer:
Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina - PubMed (nih.gov)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity (aps.org)
I donât know why this is relevant, but sure maybe there is a platonic form that has a mixture of bird and mammal features. But, it could not be a platonic form that is both a bird and mammal because that would be a logical contradiction and God cannot produce logical contradictions by definition.
I agree, but I was talking specifically about transmutation evolution. I have not seen any evidence that stands up to scrutiny. If there is some, please provide it. And while you are at it, please provide an explanation on how it can be disproven, at least, in principle.
The lack of clear-cut lineages between and among either or both fossil and living forms. This includes the time gap between the lineageâs appearance in the fossil record when you date them.
Not according to many other studies on this issue.
Look up Von Neumannâs universal constructor. It shows that functional requirements within Top-down processes would naturally produce a nest pattern similar to biological systems:
Here is a snippet of it that should answer your questions, but I encourage you to read more into the source:
"âŚTo be functional over successive generations, a complete self-replicating automaton must therefore consist of three components: an UC, a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit.
To a rough approximation, all known life contains these three components, which is particularly remarkable, given that von Neumann formulated his ideas before the discoveries of modern molecular biology, including the structure of DNA and the ribosome. From the insights provided by molecular biology over the past 50 years, we can now identify that all known life functions in a manner akin to von Neumann automata, where DNA provides an (partial) algorithm, ribosomes act as the core of the UC and DNA polymerases (along with a suite of other molecular machinery) play the role of a supervisory unit [60,61].7"
Yeah but, the criteria I described is based on common physiology AND morphological appearances. The differences in morphological appearances between crocodiles and chameleons is much larger, which is one reason why we donât group them together with lizards. The other is the fossil record showing discontinuities in time of appearance and lack of clear cut transitional sequences between the two.
For now, they are considered to be groups of basic types until we do all the tests. These tests will allow us to discern whether these living lizards all came from a large lizard kind with a lot of variation (i.e. basic type). Or, discern whether they are multiple kinds with common design element (i.e. groups of basic types .
The Dog, Cat, and Horse kind, on the other hand, are considered basic types with many different groups of species that each of them possesses.
Well first off, I was suggesting that very little research has been done on marine invertebrates using a creation model perspective by creationists. Second, creationists do a lot of research actually. I am not sure why you would say they donât given that they have their own science journals and conferences. I think you can probably say that is the case when it comes to ID proponents though.
Correct, when I mentioned marine invertebrates, I was referring to every other marine life that is NOT Nekton marine life and jawless fish.
I have done this already with the Fea viper and Pit viper kind (including the Dog, Cat, and Horse kind). Here is a snippet of what I said before about the snakesâŚ
Although both Vipers are known to live in rainforest or moist and cool areas, the Fea viper cannot tolerate dry environments while Pit vipers are known to live and tolerate many different environments. Since there was a definite yes to the âHabitat criteriaâ, there was no need to use the other methods to look for signatures of common design.
Conclusion
Assuming that the hybridization attempts were not successful, we can confidently conclude that God constructed the Fea viper kind for only that particular environment while he blessed the Pit Viper kind to fill many different environments.
Again John, I told you already that there is no one method for determining the real basic types. More importantly, Grouping them first is important because continuity and discontinuity are related observations. You cannot see discontinuity without seeing continuities first.
Think about it. Letâs pretend that the fossil record showed a gradualistic account of life from start to finish. If this were the case, what would be the point of looking for discontinuities?
I get that it isnât true according to your model and methods. But, it is true for mine because hybridization tests between living species of Dogs, Cats, and Horses have been successful.
Furthermore, we donât assume that nested patterns represent common descent because it could be common design at play as described by Von Neumanâs Universal constructor model.
Instead, we only use phylogenetic methods to group organisms together when all other tests have failed to yield positive results.
This is because these methods are very poor at determining patterns of relatedness in comparison. Examples include homoplasy and convergent evolution because they cause too much uncertainty.
There is also no independent evidence for transmutation, which makes any assumption of common descent even more problematic.
I was just referring to the lineage criteria or the fossil record and its discontinuities.
I agreed that they are not useful for determining basic types, directly speaking. But, indirectly, it is useful because it is used in combination with the ecology criteria, which does directly determine basic types.
Well, there is no reason for such groups, actually. I was just explaining how we can determine basic types easier.
No, I already told you we do. I am going to copy and paste what I said again:
OBSERVATIONS
According to observations, a number of alleged design flaws have been found to be optimal. This involves the survival, reproduction or fit within an environment of those basic types.
This suggests that the stepwise evolution of reproductive and survival capabilties did not arise through an unforeseen trial and error process of random mutations and natural selection.
Instead, the reproductive and adaptive capacity or âseedâ of an organism was always programmed âin itselfâ to reproduce âafter its kindâ so that the organism could be âfruitful [divide/branch into diverse progeny] and multiplyâ to deliberately pioneer or âfillâ environments of âthe earth.â.
This means that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same basic type.
Other observations by Parkerâs et. al survey suggest that members of a given family tend to thrive in more or less in similar ecologies and trophic levels. Moreover, experiments previously showed that basic types are likely to be identified near or at the level of the family.
This means that different ecological or trophic features should delineate separate basic types because basic types are supposed to be preprogrammed to survive a particular environment.
Therefore, the best method for reducing the number of basic types and determining common descent between them is Hybridization.
In addition, the best method for determining common design is the ecology criteria.
HYPOTHESIS
The differences between a particular pair or set of basic types that are similar in morphology and/or molecularly similar are due to the different design requirements that each of them will need for their environment.
Null hypothesis: these similar basic types are not multiple kinds with a common design element, but are species from an original created kind.
PREDICTIONS
The habitats between these similar created kinds should be substantially different from each other.
EXPERIMENT
If the hybridization tests failed to show positive results, we use the ecology criteria to determine basic types.
This involves examining where each basic type lives and how each of them interact with their environment including other living things.
There is a survey of 5 questions where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A through E) and a title in the form of a question. If the answer is âyesâ to the question of âIs there a substantial difference in Habitat?â, we can automatically conclude that God constructed each basic type for that environment.
However, if the answer is âNOâ or âTBDâ, then we have to rely on other questions to make a confident conclusion. If majority of the questions yield a âNOâ or âTBDâ answer, then the results are inconclusive
Again, I have already told you and showed you. I am just going to copy and paste what I said before again. From Todd Elderâs findingsâŚ
"To illustrate the point better, I turn to the standard statistical bell-shaped curve. Many are familiar with this curve in regards to receiving grades (A, B, C, D, F) in school. Most people will receive a C grade, a few will receive either a B or a D grade, and rarely will someone receive an A or F grade. Similarly, most of the kinds equate with the Family level, a few with the Sub-Family or Super-Family level, and rarely it will equate with the Genus or Order levels.
At the www.baraminology.net website, there is now an ongoing project to display the Creation Orchard and make a comprehensive list of currently recognized created kinds. The following statistics, taken from those lists, are more consistent with methods that produce a splitting effect in taxonomy.
At the time of writing this book, there are 360 kinds listed among reptiles, birds, and mammals. Within the 360 listed kinds, 297 of them (82.5%) fall at the Family level. The others include 32 orders, 2 suborder, 1 infraorder, 2 superfamily, 23 subfamily, and 3 genera. This follows the expected bell curve, but suggests the averaged center is slightly higher than Family. "
By using other mechanisms besides natural selection that operate in a quantum mechanical manner. We also donât have any experimental evidence showing that it happens on its own without the help of a human designer.
This is not true if God has a human nature that is immutable. If so, we would expect God to be consistent with his nature and operate like a human would.
For instance, according to the laws of logic, the attributes of God have to work in accordance with each other in a logically consistent manner because he is who he is (i.e. the law of identity) and cannot not be who he is at the same time (i.e. law of non-contradiction).
This means that God cannot make himself cease to exist because this would conflict with him being a necessary being. God cannot make a square-circle because this would conflict with his omniscience. God cannot lie because it would conflict with his omnibenevolence. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift because it would conflict with his omni-potency.
Most importantly, God cannot create and develop a world that does not have God intimately involved in the process every step of the way because it would conflict with his âPersonalâ nature.
Thus, God must be true to âallâ his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self.
As these sources make no mention of invertebrate eyes, they give no answer whatsoever.
This article makes no mention of nested hierarchies. It would seem that @Meerkat_SK5 is simply assuming that nested hierarchies equate to the âtop-down causationâ discussed in this article. The validity of this assumption seems to be unsubstantiated.
How does that answer the question??? Here it is again.
More importantly, @Meerkat_SK5 would need to explain why all of the species with an inverted retina have a vertebral column while all of the species with a forward facing retina do not have a vertebral column. This is true even when the species are sharing the same exact environment, such as in the case of squid and vertebrate fish.
Why would a bird-mammal mixture be a logical contradiction? There are reptile-mammal mixtures, whale-land mammal mixtures, bird-dinosaur mixtures, fish-amphibian mixtures, and ape-man mixtures. So why not a bird-mammal mixture?
The evidence is a nested hierarchy. It can be disproven by finding numerous and massive violations of a nested hierarchy, such as a whole group of species with a mixture of bird and mammal features.
Fossils fall into the very same nested hierarchy which makes them clear-cut lineages.
You mean machines that evolve through common ancestry?
1 Like
Angels are commonly depicted as having a mixture of bird and mammal features. Whether angels form a logical contradiction depends on oneâs grasp of logic.
3 Likes
Mythical creatures are often described as having a mixture of bird and mammal features, such as the griffin.
Where are these research facilities? The necessary apparatus of investigation such as labs with centrifuges, high power microscopes, and spectrographs? Creationists are more occupied with taking the original research of others and misrepresenting the findings.
Putting out glossy literature and web pages, working the church speaking circuit, and setting up conferences of like minded deniers does not constitute research.
The irony here is that the Bible specifically groups bats with birds.
3 Likes
It is only âa logical contradictionâ if you define bird and mammal to be mutually exclusive. A definition that does not include this restriction would eliminate any logical contradiction. âBirdâ, âMammalâ, and thus their mutual exclusivity, are human concepts. It makes no sense that God would consider himself to be restricted by these concepts.
Someone living in the time before Australia was discovered might have defined swans to be white. That would have meant that the Black Swan (Cygnus atratus) was âa logical contradictionâ. Would that have meant that God could not produce the Black Swan? Of course not.
As a side note, our acceptance of the mutual exclusivity of birds and mammals is itself a product of our immersion in a natural world of nested hierarchies. As others have pointed out, stipulating a supernatural world (e.g. one where a God specially created individual âkindsâ), potentially inhabited by such creatures as gryphons, sphinxes, etc, would immediately undermine that unquestioned acceptance.
4 Likes
This just shows that you pick whatever criterion you like at the moment and ignore all the criteria that donât fit, to achieve whatever predetermined result you are looking for.
Why should there be groups of basic types? Further, why should there be groups of groups of basic types?
Why?
Of course. Iâll say further: no research has been done on anything by creationists. Creationists have at time attempted to mimic what real research looks like, but they mimic only the surface features of research.
No, they have their own imitations of science journals and conferences, but there is no science in them.
Why? What makes this a category worthy of discussion? What makes removal of nekton marine life and jawless fish a reasonable practice? This just shows how arbitrary and pointless your categories are.
Weâll see. But did you notice that you have claimed that dogs, cats, and horses here are included within the pit viper kind? Can you not write just a little more carefully.
But letâs analyze you claims about snakes.
So you can discern kinds by their ecological uniformity, except when you canât.
But there was a yes for one and a no for the other. How is that in any way consistent?
This only means that ecological criteria are useless, since God can make them apply or fail to apply within a single basic type. And we are left with no reason to suppose that the Fea viper belongs to a separate basic type. As for the hybridization, you have given no reason to think that members of different basic types would be unable to hybridize.
Worse than that: we see continuities and discontinuities at all levels, in the modern world and in fossils. Again, you apply criteria in an arbitrary fashion to produce the result you like.
Of course we expect discontinuities, given that the record is not complete. You ignore the discontinuities at the species level and concentrate on those at the family level. And every time a fossil fills a gap, you just call that two more gaps. Continuity is in the eye of the beholder and so is useless as a criterion for recognizing basic types.
Depends on what you call successful, doesnât it? Hybridization between some species has happened, but not others. Hybridization happens within Canis, but what of other canids? There has been a bit of hybridization between a few species of Panthera and between a few species of Felis, but what about between Panthera and Felis? Hybridization within Equus is spotty, and mules are generally sterile. What counts as hybridization? And of course you have given no reason why we would expect hybridization within but not between basic types.
That model does not have anything to say about nested patterns due to design. Now of course, nested hierarchy is a clear prediction of common descent. The reasons for that expectation should be obvious to anyone. Contrast that with your expectations of common design, which have no justification, only excuses and arbitrarily applied criteria.
It turns out that they donât.
Whatever does that mean? The fossil biotic succession, biogeographic patterns, developmental patterns, DNA sequences, indels, and chromosomal mutations all present independent evidence of âtransmutationâ. Are you suggesting that we need to watch a cat give birth to a dog?
No, it doesnât, as you have used both criteria inconsistently, demanding both hybridization and ecological uniformity when it suits you and abandoning either or both when it doesnât.
If there is no reason for such groups, why do they exist? Now, the group âmarine invertebratesâ does not in fact exist. But the groups Carnivora, Placentalia, Mammalia, Amniota, and Tetrapoda actually do. Why? If you canât explain that, your theory is strongly contradicted by the evidence.
Let me save you the trouble. If I respond to you the first time that your claims are false, and explicitly show why they are, just repeating them verbatim is not going to help. What follows is more gibberish, and I feel no need to analyze it a second time. We have already seen that in practice you donât even follow your own criteria, either singly or in combination. Itâs cargo cult science.
Iâm suspecting that very few of those kinds were established based on any rigorous criteria, and were just automatically assumed to be kinds based on the notion that kinds correspond to families. Can you provide justification for any of these 360 kinds based on any of your expressed criteria? I doubt it. Does the fact of this bell curve (not really a bell curve, but never mind) provide evidence that basic types are real? Not in the slightest.
Thatâs nothing that an appeal to buzzword.
Well, of course. Experimental evidence, by definition, requires human intervention. Observational evidence, on the other hand, does not. Plenty of observational evidence of natural selection, and plenty of experimental evidence in which the selection isnât caused by the experimenter.
More argument by buzzword. Humans are nothing if not inconsistent, so appeal to his human nature argues against your claim of consistency. Besides, what would consistency even mean in this context?
Ah, so he is involved in every human experiment, and there is no way to provide experimental evidence of what happens in his absence. As I said, though you claimed otherwise. Once more you defeat your own claims.
3 Likes
Yes, they apparently do and have all those things. Take a look for yourself:
Research - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
HybriDatabase - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Not quite, they are all grouped together including insects as âFlying creaturesâ according to Hebrew translations:
"'Owph ("Flying Creatures â) - This Hebrew word is often translated âfowlâ by the KJV but simply refers to flying creatures, both birds and insects, and appears the best defined of the Biblical families. They are the second creation mentioned in Genesis 1 and were made the 5th day. (Genesis 1:20-30 )â
In that case, I donât get why this is relevant or needs to be explained. What are you getting at?
Because God is a perfect being, these blueprints are supposed to be perfect idealized examples of a bird or a mammal in the perfect mind of God. A platonic ancestor that you claim could be both a bird and a mammal are a logical contradiction because (P) and (non-P) cannot both be true at the same time (i.e. square-circle, married-bachelor).
Nope, try again. That is just evidence for common design from a common designer. The nested patterns we see merely appears to be common descent because a complete self-replicating automaton must consist of three components: an Universal Constructor (i.e. God), a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit. The cellular automation naturally produces nested patterns.
Instead, you guys need evidence that can only be explained by universal common descent. The fossil record and the Lenski experiment are the only ways to demonstrate this, in my opinion, and both methods have failed.
According to wiki, âCellular automata can simulate a variety of real-world systems, including biological and chemical onesâ:
Cellular automaton - Wikipedia
Nested Patterns: Wolfram Physics Project Technical Background
No, it just means that I use more than one method to determine the real basic types as I mentioned before.
Because hybridizations within species of the Dog, Cat, and Horse kind have all been successful in showing common descent. This also includes the Cattle kind.
Prove it, how can this be? Define what is supposed to be real research versus surface level research. Keep in mind, they would say the same thing about evolutionists when it comes to Darwinian evolution. They think itâs your atheistic religion that you are peddling.
Because the fossil record shows a disconnect between the three groups of marine life. This allows us to get closer to discovering the real basic types within groups of Jawless fish, nekton marine life, and every other marine life.
No, I just need to bring more clarity. Letâs try this again:
The ecology criteria to determine basic types involves examining where each basic type lives and how each of them interacts with their environment including other living things.
There is a survey of 5 questions where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A through E) and a title in the form of a question. (shelter,prey, predators, trophic level, habitat)
If the answer is âyesâ to the question of âIs there a substantial difference in Habitat?â, we can automatically conclude that God constructed each basic type for that environment.
if the answer is âNOâ or âTBDâ, then we ask the question " Do they respond differently in a different habitats". (this may require articficially planting them in different habitats)
However, if the answer is still âNOâ orâTBDâ, then we have to rely on other measures to make a confident conclusion. If majority of the questions yield a âNOâ or âTBDâ answer, then the results are inconclusive
Remember, we are not dealing with a tinkering God here. God has to be consistent with his nature, BUT this also includes his will or volition.
This means that reproductive and survival capabilties did not arise through an unforeseen trial and error process of random mutations and natural selection.
Instead, the reproductive and adaptive capacity or âseedâ of the very first groups of created kinds were always programmed âin itselfâ to reproduce âafter its kindâ so that the organism could divide/branch into diverse progeny to deliberately pioneer or âfillâ environments of âthe earth.â.
In other words, God preordained which basic types will occupy a certain environmental niche in order to fill the globe
Here is a picture from creationists to get an idea of what a basic type looks like:
I am not sure why this is relevant nor see your point here.
No, I was talking about the lack of transitional forms between major lineages that is needed to connect each major lineages into a universal tree of life.
According to Walter remine, "reproductive viability spans a range of outcomes, from complete to fragmentary to incomplete. More research must be done to further develop this membership criterion.
Using reproductive viability as a criterion; the horses, mules, asses, zebras, and onagers are united into a [species]. Lions and tigers are placed into a [species]; as are cattle, buffalo, yaks and bison. Mallards and pintail ducks are united into their own [species]; as are placental dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, and foxes united into their own. One of the first tasks for Discontinuity Systematics should be the documentation of all such species. "
Not true. as I showed @T_aquaticus with this quote:
"âŚTo be functional over successive generations, a complete self-replicating automaton must therefore consist of three components: an UC, a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit.
To a rough approximation, all known life contains these three components, which is particularly remarkable, given that von Neumann formulated his ideas before the discoveries of modern molecular biology, including the structure of DNA and the ribosome. From the insights provided by molecular biology over the past 50 years, we can now identify that all known life functions in a manner akin to von Neumann automata, where DNA provides an (partial) algorithm, ribosomes act as the core of the UC and DNA polymerases (along with a suite of other molecular machinery) play the role of a supervisory unit"
As suggested, the nested patterns we see merely appears to be common descent because
a complete self-replicating automaton must consist of three components: an Universal Constructor (i.e. God), a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit.
The cellular automation naturally produces nested patterns. If you still donât believe me, look up cellular automation and see for yourself:
Cellular automaton - Wikipedia
Nested Patterns: Wolfram Physics Project Technical Background
Thatâs it. What makes you say that despite all the studies I provided that show otherwise?
Again, that is just evidence for common design from a common designer or can be explained by it as well.
You guys need evidence that can only be explained by universal common descent. The fossil record and the Lenski experiment are the only ways to demonstrate this, in my opinion, and both methods have failed.
I told you already. They exist as a guide for further research. As I said, Basic types are identified through a process of successive refinement. Because every group of species are a subset of a basic type, a basic type is approached as a species is successively increased in membership.
On the other hand, since every basic type is a subset of âgroups of basic typesâ (such as herbivore mammals), the basic type is also approached as âgroups of basic typesâ are subdivided into smaller groups of basic types.
Thus, basic types are identified by successively refining our knowledge of âspeciesâ and âgroups of basic typesâ as described by Walter Remine.
Yes, I can. They said that the hybridization method is what helped them to make that determination:
"Dogs, for example, exhibit tremendous variety. Yet diverse breeds of dogs can produce offspring with each otherâindicating that all dogs are of the same kind. Dogs will not interbreed with cats, however, since they are a different kind. Modern breeding research therefore confirms the biblical concept of animal and plant kinds.
Creation researchers have found that âkindâ is often at the level of âfamilyâ in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So âkindâ may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others."
Quantum tunneling and quantum entanglement are also mechanisms that influence mutations besides natural selection.
Because all experiments are performed by an experimenter, they must involve investigator intervention. However, there are experiments that must be viewed as an ineligible simulation when certain aspects of observer interference are crucial to their success.
In constructing a simulation experiment, the investigator creates the setting; supplies the aqueous medium, the energy and, the chemicals; and establishes the boundary conditions (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985). This activity produces the overall background conditions for the experiment, and although it is vital to the success of the experiment, it is relatively legitimate because it simulates conceivable natural conditions.
However, the intrusion of the researcher becomes critical in an illegitimate sense whenever laboratory conditions are not defensible by association to consistently credible features of natural processes and conditions. Thus, the illegitimate intervention of the investigator is directly comparable to the geochemical implausibility of the condition arising from the researcherâs experimental design and/or procedure, and the level of such intrusion would be the greatest when such plausibility is missing altogether (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985).
The Lenski experiment would be legitimate intervention. On the other hand, Phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE ) experiments would be considered illegitmate intervention.
No, the Lenskiâs experiment did not produce the same positive result in his 11 other populations.
Nor did it produce speciation or an entire genome of information (i.e. tells the cell how to maintain information or how to pass it on to the next generation).
More importantly, the bacteria did not evolve into anything other than a bacteria!!!
When it comes to observations, the ENCODE results show that God is most likely guiding that process, especially since it is in nature not the lab
Thus, we are left with no reason to think it happened on its own.
I agree. But, I specifically said that if God has a human nature that is immutable, we expect God to be consistent with his nature AND operate like a human.
In other words, a perfect human designer would have to be consistent at all times while a non-perfect one would not.
No, this does not apply in the lab where humans can manipulate the situation. Donât act like you donât see the difference when you just acknowledged that difference in your previous response:
âWell, of course. Experimental evidence, by definition, requires human intervention. Observational evidence, on the other hand, does not.â
Can someone close this thread?
3 Likes
Ah, but you choose which methods to pay attention to by whatever gives you the result you want in any particular case.
Not true. Not all species of Canidae hybridize, nor do all species of Felidae. Some creationists accept only fertile hybrids, some accept sterile hybrids, and some accept hybridization beyond the blastula stage. There is no attempt at justifying the criterion, regardless.
Show me a case of what you think is creationist research and Iâll axplain why it isnât.]
What would you say?
But it doesnât show any such disconnect. âNektonâ and âmarine invertebratesâ arenât even groups, and there is no disconnect between invertebrate chordates and jawless fish.
Then why do vipers, which according to your source live in many different habitats, count as a single basic type? What reasons can you give to expect the 5 questions to reliably delimit types?
Thatâs a meaning-free claim.
How do you know that Felidae is a basic type? Nothing you have said is evidence that they are.
The fact that your âdiscontinuityâ criterion is useless is not relevant?
What lack of transitional forms? What major lineages? I think you would find, if you looked, that there are plenty of transitional forms between major lineages. Most of the absence it at the species level, as Gould has said.
What research would develop it? You have no expectation from creation, so nothing to test against.
This has nothing, apparently, to do with âbasic typesâ, so why bother quoting?
Nothing that follows is relevant to criteria for basic types.
Your conclusion doesnât follow from your premise. None of that has anything to do with nested hierarchy or basic types.
You provided no such studies. You donât understand what the studies say.
Iâd like to see you try.
No, all we need is evidence that can only be explained by common descent between what you claim are different basic types. Common descent of different mammalian families, for example, would do just fine.
You never said that. That wouldnât be why they exist; that would be why you feel a need to make them up. But they actually exist, at least the ones that correspond to taxa rather than your random assemblages like âmarine invertebratesâ. I ask again: why should there be a real, discoverable nested hierarchy of groups of basic types?
It confirms no such thing. There is no reason to suppose that different basic types could not produce hybrids and no reason to suppose that different species of the same basic type must be able to. With no real expectation, itâs a useless criterion.
Natural selection doesnât influence mutation.
Must you persist in the most basic creationist cliches?
And there you have a logical contradiction of the sort you claim god canât do. Human nature is to be changeable, so an immutable human is a contradiction just as a square circle would be.
Thatâs the difference between experiment and observation, not between God acting and not acting. You are very confused.
What makes you say that?
It does not have to be all species from them to be considered from the same basic type. This is because it can be either two animals to hybridize with each other or each with a
third organism.
For example, ducks hybridize easily with other ducks, geese with geese, and swans with swans. However, even though ducks hybridize with geese and geese hybridize with swans, there are no reportingâs of successful duck and swan hybrids.
But, this is does not mean they did not descend from the same basic type. They are still considered descendants that are connected to a larger kind. The same applies to Dog and Cat basic types.
Not true, here is how they justify it:
"Creationists view sexual compatibility to be one of the best physical indicators that organism belong to the same baramin (created kind).[13] This is largely based on the observations that compatibility diminishes over time in related species due to genetic drift. "
Other observations suggests that the reproductive and adaptive capacity or âseedâ of an organism was always programmed âin itselfâ to reproduce âafter its kindâ .
âTherefore, the ability of genetically dissimilar species to mate successfully would seem to indicate that they are related. A hybrid is the progeny that results from such a mating.â
Baraminology. I could list more but I donât want to change the subject.
I would say that Darwinian evolution and Young earth creationism are both models about evolution or creationism with outlandish assumptions that can and have been tested and failed. These are the assumptions I mean:
Darwinian evolution: Transmutation and unguided natural selection
Young earth creationism: Global flood and young earth
Mariine invertebrates disconnected from jawless fish:
The Ordovician: Lifeâs second big bang | New Scientist
Nekton animals disconnected marine invertbrates:
The Devonian nekton revolution - KLUG - 2010 - Lethaia - Wiley Online Library
Because they respond differently in different environments. For instance, although both Vipers are known to live in rainforest or moist and cool areas, the Fea viper cannot tolerate dry environments while Pit vipers are known to live and tolerate many different environments.
My reasons are that we donât have to rely on observation alone to answer those questions. We can do experiments on top of it where we put them in different situations and see how they fare.
From hybridization experiments and similar morphological appearances.
Jawless fish to Jawed fish
Fish to Plants
Plants to Insects
Amphibians to Reptiles
Birds to Mammals
Research into speciation. Evo-devo, and morphology according to creationists.
My point was that common design equally explains and predicts those patterns through cellular automation. It can simulate a variety of real-world systems, including biological and chemical ones.
Unless you were referring to a universal tree of life pattern, this is the functional requirement that I was referring to that happens to satisfy those nested patterns by default.
These studies:
âStudies of homoplasy and convergence demonstrate that morphological similarity can sometimes be a poor guide to evolutionary relationshipsâ
So I am going to assume you mean from a universal common design standpoint, which claims there are an unrelated population of basic types that these nested patterns branched from.
I have already did this actually. As described by Eugene Koonin, it looks like a bush or star tree of life at the base of the tree:
âA Bush of Life: a typical tree with unresolved deep branches. The tree was generated from simulated data using the TreeView program [114].â
Here is part of the abstract:
"The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwinâs original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution⌠In each of these pivotal nexuses in lifeâs history, the principal âtypesâ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate âgradesâ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. [emphasis added]
Nope, try again. This can be explained by common design from convergent genes found between bats and whales:
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature
Actually, several of the groups of basic types I listed are not supposed to be real, but just help guide research. The ones that are supposed to be real should be discoverable based on the inference that God wants to fill different types of environments with different types of animals.
Correct, this is why it is a developing field of study. They most likely came to this conclusion based on the bible and the different morphological appearances between those basic types on top of hybridizations. But you are right. it is possible that the hybridization tests did not work between dissimilar basic types for other reasons.
Ultimately, I think the ecology criteria will potentially be the best way to determine this.
Prove it. How? You need to elaborate on your claim.
I see no difference in this particular case. Observations involve natural processes that must be governed by God while experiments involve artificial processes that are governed by humans.
More importantly, there is no logical reason why God would interfere with experiments. God always must have a reason for doing something based on this nature.
I am not aware of any hybrids between big cats and smaller cat species, or between cheetahs and any other cats. That would seem to suggest there are at least three Cat kinds, according to this line of argument.