Phew! Good riddance.
1 Like
In this thread, I will be outlining all the instances where Design is shown to be a better explanation than Descent. However, I will be pointing out only the instances where they make different predictions and rather than the same ones. There are
Determining which scientific explanation better explains observations requires evaluating the hypotheses based on several factors, including:
1. Predictive power: The hypothesis that makes more accurate and precise predictions about future observations is usually preferred over others.
Design predicts:
Sudden appearances and stasis in the fossil record.
Most of the Junk DNA in the non-coding regions of the genome is functional
Confirmed predictions:
The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts | PNAS 1
Expanded encyclopaedias of DNA elements in the human and mouse genomes | Nature
Descent predicts:
Family trees based on anatomical features will be congruent with family trees based on molecular similarities,
Bacterial population has evolved over time, with new traits and adaptations emerging through random mutations and natural selection.
Failed predictions:
Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats - PMC (nih.gov)
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15
2. Simplicity: A scientific explanation is considered simple if it requires fewer assumptions or entities to explain a phenomenon. For example, if two hypotheses can both explain a set of data, but one requires the existence of multiple new and unobserved entities while the other does not, the latter is considered more parsimonious and simple
Descent: assumes an unobservable process of transmutation of species.
In contrast, design does not assume anything. Design wins here!!!
3. Testability: The hypothesis that is testable through experiments or further observations is preferred, as it allows for additional evidence to support or refute the hypothesis.
Both explanations generally make the same predictions regarding the similarities, differences, and nested hierarchies among species.
However, we can craft experiments that can directly test whether these observations support one over the other. Design wins here!!!
4. Coherence: A scientific explanation that is consistent with all available evidence and has the fewest anomalies or inconsistencies is generally considered better than one that requires a large number of ad hoc assumptions or special cases to explain the evidence.
Common design does a better job at explaining the biogeography distribution because it does not depend on ad-hoc justifications.
For instance, traditional evolutionary explanations of biogeography, such as plate tectonics and migrations routes or land bridges, fail when terrestrial (or freshwater) organisms appear on an island or continent without any standard migratory mechanism for them to have arrived there from some ancestral population.
There have been models proposed to explain away these discrepancies within the common descent model, such as the “rafting hypothesis”, which is a type of oceanic dispersal method for species to migrate to other areas around the globe. But, they are considered unfalsifiable and implausible
The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography - ScienceDirect
Furthermore, common descent cannot explain RNA viruses because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic—they have many evolutionary origins
It is another win for Design win!!!
Scope: A scientific explanation that can explain a broad range of observations is more likely to be accepted than one that can only explain a narrow range of observations.
Falsifiability: A scientific explanation that can be potentially falsified or shown to be false by new evidence is generally considered more scientifically valuable than one that cannot.
- Consistency with existing knowledge: The hypothesis that is consistent with established theories and empirical evidence is generally preferred.
It is a tie for these three categories.
It makes no predictions you are willing or able to name or the rest of us to infer, that’s why. At best it is you who makes retrodictions in the model’s stead, then calls them predictions. But that doesn’t get us anywhere.
For now, I’m concentrating on preparing that basics of quantum physics test you agreed to take. Only double checking and assigning scores left, though, so stay tuned. 
Anyone else willing to check it out before release and contribute, now is a great time.
1 Like
Descent assumes an observed process of descent with modification.
Design assumes an unobserved designer. Descent wins here!
5 Likes
How is the process of speciation “unobservable”? Did you mean “unobserved”? Even if that’s the case, it’s false, since you should know that we’ve observed numerous speciation events. In any case, the presumed designer is truly unobserved, so the design hypothesis certainly does not win here.
2 Likes
No, we only have observable evidence that dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats.
In contrast, you are assuming that dogs can, will, and did evolve into cats, fish, lizards, etc.
This is like ID proponents claiming that we have observable evidence of a divine human designer because we have observable evidence of human designers at work.
I still would have to provide additional independent evidence for a divine human designer.
The same standard applies to you guys. You need to provide additional independent evidence for dogs producing anything other than a dog.
This leads me to address your other objection…
No true. For instance, Using the Planck scale Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), researchers demonstrated that the fine-structure constant in physics has remained fixed over the history of the universe. For the first time, a team of five physicists led by Nathan Leefer have confirmed the constancy of the fine-structure constant to the entire geographical extent of the universe.
Here is the argument again:
Premise 1: The universal common designer and the cosmic constants governing the universe and life are constant throughout space and time are identical phenomena.
Premise 2: The universal common designer is confirmed if the cosmic constants governing the universe and life are constant throughout space and time is confirmed.
Premise 3: The cosmic constants governing the universe and life are constant throughout space and time is confirmed.
Therefore, the universal common designer is confirmed.
My actual model is highlighted as followed:
All extant species share a similar design that can be traced back to a universal common designer. However, what makes them different is the application of the differences in parts and functions that fit better in different environmental niches, giving them their uniqueness.
This model allows us to make predictions about the genetic convergent mechanisms underlying phenotypic convergent traits.
This is what happened in one of the panda studies:
The giant panda and red panda are obligate bamboo-feeders that independently evolved from meat-eating ancestors and possess adaptive pseudothumbs, making them ideal models for studying convergent evolution. In this study, we identified genomic signatures of convergent evolution associated with bamboo eating. Comparative genomic analyses revealed adaptively convergent genes potentially involved with pseudothumb development and essential bamboo nutrient utilization.
Remember, it needs to be ,at the very least, relevant to what I am arguing or advocating for.
So…? What do you think descent means?
This is not what the theory of evolution suggests. Nearly the opposite. It’s really sad that you’ve been here this long, posting this much, and still have such a cartoonish understanding of evolutionary theory.
Premise 1 rejected.
4 Likes
So now you’re going full Kent Hovind? I should have expected this but I’m still disappointed. 
Cats evolving into dogs or dogs evolving into cats?
I wondered whether that was what you meant by “transmutation of species”.
Nobody who actually understands evolution is assuming this. We all agree that it unlikely, and evolution does not depend on any assumption that it happens.
I suggest you stop using creationist sites to learn about evolution.
Your “similar design” is an unevidenced assumption. Your common designer is an unevidenced assumption. Your “traced back” is an unevidenced assumption.
If your argument is based on Occam’s principle of keeping unevidenced assumptions to a minimum, then you are not doing it at all well.
4 Likes
It’s not unlikely, it’s impossible. Meer requested as evidence for evolution something that is impossible under evolution. That’s the level of clueless we’re dealing with.
5 Likes
You can’t be serious.
5 Likes
So are you saying that Darwin’s theory does not suggests that fish eventually evolved into Dogs or cats over the process of million years?
Read post 633 where I show how premise 1 is true.
Read post 986 and 727 where I support these claims.
That was not your assertion. Does your understanding of English include subject and predicate?
4 Likes
Are you going to answer the question or not?
Dogs did not evolve into fish.
1 Like
If you’re using fish in a biological sense, dogs and cats are fish. In which case, fish evolved into a more specialized type of fish.
You are welcome to quote the relevant portion, but I don’t see it in that post. I strongly suspect you are mistaken about this.
1 Like
You did not answer the question.
Are you saying that Darwin’s theory does not suggests that fish eventually evolved into Dogs or reptiles over the process of million years?
That was not your original assertion. You seem to not understand what you have written.
Edit: For reference, here is Meerkat’s original assertion:
In contrast, you are assuming that dogs can, will, and did evolve into cats, fish, lizards, etc.
4 Likes
You are attempting to deflect from your original inane post. I’m out.
4 Likes
I made the same argument when I suggested that the fine-tuned structure constant is the same as the universal common designer and you rejected it.
Without making any prior assumptions, How do you know dogs and cats are fish?
It is really long though. Are you sure?
That’s ok. @CrisprCAS9 answered the question for you and it was as expected.
Yes, I should have said…
In contrast, you are assuming that dogs can, will, and did evolve into [and/or from] cats, fish, lizards, etc.