Bechley also misuses the study. You haven’t read it, right? You have no real idea what it says, right? I think we’ve established that. Why do you keep citing papers whose contents you don’t actually know?
Just all of geology.
I’m sorry, but your lack of expertise in biology is showing. There’s a disturbing trend here: your arrogance is increasing, and that’s the opposite direction from what should be happening.
Sure, I will tone it down. Just tell me this… So your argument for why sudden appearances don’t or can’t represent evidence for created kinds is because the fossil record is incomplete in those areas, correct?
Also, I get that ,from a purely materialistic secular perspective of evolution, chemistry and biology are separate fields. But, this cannot apply to my theory and model because it involves quantum physics and consciousness, which would unite the two, incidently.
Thus, this is why common design and common descent have to be mutually exclusive, which means Common design and guided evolution and common descent have to be considered different terms.
That’s part of it. The other part is that it’s individual species that appear suddenly, but you don’t call those basic types. And further, those species generally do have prior relatives, contrary to your claim.
You would have to explain why this matters when evaluating the paleontological and phylogenetic evidence.
Again, whenever you say anything implying a conclusion or restatement, like “thus” or “i.e.”, what follows is generally a non sequitur, as it is here. Of course common design, guided evolution, and common descent are different terms. But they aren’t mutually exclusive. Separate creation, which is what you mean by common design, and guided evolution are mutually exclusive, but that’s just because of your personal definition of common design.
You don’t have a theory. In real science, theories are hypotheses with a long record of successful empirical predictions. The empirical stuff is in the figures and tables that you ignore instead of misinterpreting snippets of text.
You don’t even have a coherent hypothesis or model. Why did you write, “theory AND model,” when you don’t have either one?
In the real secular world, there is a massive overlap between chemistry and biology, the most obvious for a layperson being the existence of the field of biochemistry. How can it exist if your claim is true?
Since then, unless we have overlooked something, there does not appear to be a single word of further research or discussion regarding this hypothesis from ID researchers.
Nonetheless, only yesterday someone responded to my claim that ID has failed to produce any evidence to support their claims by mentioning Ewart’s hypothesis in the “journal” (sic) Biocomplexity, and suggesting that this contradicted my position.
Without casting aspersions on @Winston_Ewert personally, I will simply note that this situation seems entirely in line with the DI’s longstanding strategy of producing half-baked science-like material that succeeds in convincing potential supporters that there is scientific evidence to support ID, without having to do any of the heavy lifting required of actual scientific research.
I don’t think you have any idea what you mean by that. At the very least you are going to have to stop and explain your argument in detail. As far as I can tell, none of the things you mention are relevant to whether separate creation and guided evolution are mutually exclusive.
As I explained before, common ancestry is considered linked to the concept of gradualism, and gradualism is intrinsically linked to natural selection via random mutations in regards to the development of life. It requires a substantial time of separation between major species that branch off to create wholly different species to construct a tree of life from a universal common ancestor that came from mainly one origin of life event:
“But many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern!”
I also made it clear that to say that the Adam and Eve story did not happen at all would be to directly challenge the divinity of Christ. Since the evidence identifies the designer to be Jesus and the common design model is consistent with the Genesis account, this is another reason why both models are mutually exclusive.
Lastly, in regards to your claim about the fossil record, a researcher examined the fossil record’s over/under representation of certain species or groups of organisms, and completeness for a species over the entire history of its existence. He ended up concluding that the fossil record is indeed complete, with about 10% of all species that have ever lived being represented (Baumiller 1999). Even though he suggested there are still some biases and stratigraphic gaps in the fossil record, these problems can be mathematically estimated from the available data.
Baumiller, T.K. 1999. Enough remains to work with. Science 283: 1271.
However, I was unable to find the study and read it myself. So I had to rely on secondary sources again, unfortunately.
Neither of those things are true. Every new species could have been created by a god yanking an example or two of an extant species up to heaven, messing around with their genomes, then sending them back down to earth to start a new species. I have spoken with some Muslims who think this is what happened with Adam and Eve, at least.
I’m going to guess that’s another article you haven’t actually read. Am I right?
Another false claim.
The evidence does no such thing, and your model is not consistent with the Genesis account. Further, that’s not a reason that models are mutually exclusive, even if your other two claims were true.
And another paper you haven’t read. I don’t feel like responding to claims you make about things you know nothing about. Do you even know that the source you haven’t read is a book review?
Your secondary sources are creationists who probably didn’t read it either. You are making unsupported assertions, and for that reason they can be easily dismissed. Why, after all this time encountering people who actually know about the subjects you are talking about, do you remain so arrogant?
your objection is assuming that God only has the attribute of omnipotence, but obviously this cannot be the case if we are talking about the Christian God. For instance, the attributes of the Christian lGod 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
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 “Personal’ nature. Moreover, previous experiments and observations suggest that God mimics the behavior of humans rather than Natural law. Thus, God must be true to “all” his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self.
Alright, I’m raising the white flag. If you guys insist that random mutations and Gradualism are not intrisentically linked to the tree of life, then fine. I will let it go. But, I insist that the fossil record and human exceptionalism make the two aspects mutually exclusive as I explain further.
No, I did read it
Are you just going to assert this or are you actually going to explain and support these claims?
How so? Or are you going to just repeat what you said before on this subject?
Alright John, you are going to need to provide studies showing that the fossil record is just incomplete in regards to those sudden appearances. Until then, I am just going to respond with this…
Since there are a remarkable number of fossils that have been revealed over the years, there is no reason why this line of reasoning would not apply to the fossil record.as well.
Your explanations tend to be gibberish, and that’s also true in the present case. You are of course free to try again.
Then what did it say that makes any sort of point for you?
You first. Support a claim.
I’m willing to defer to theologians on that point. Not my field, really.
First, you will have to show that the studies you have cited say anything relevant to your claims.
Sorry, but no. We can explore the current world a lot better than we can explore the past. Here’s a factoid for you: 50% of all dinosaur genera (not species, note) are known from a single specimen only. Think about what that implies for the number of genera for which we haven’t yet found that specimen. The fossils we have access to are a tiny proportion of the fossils that were preserved. Consider all the cubic miles of fossiliferous strata that have eroded away and have been lost. Consider all the cubic miles of fossiliferous strata that are not exposed on the surface and are therefore unavailable to be examined. And consider that depositional environments are only a small proportion of the earth’s surface at any time, and anything that dies elsewhere will be lost. Finally, consider that many species have low intrinsic preservation potential; in fact there are entire phyla with no fossil record at all.
The study cited by Gunter Bechly to claim that the fossil record is “essentially complete” actually says that the fossil record is mostly represented at the level of families or genera (as opposed to species), and that most of these representations at the level of families or genera are known only from teeth.
Now of course, every single new fossil discovered is outright proof of any given contemporary fossil record’s incompleteness. Clearly if the fossil record was complete or nearly complete, it should be extremely unlikely to find new fossils. Neil Shubin and his team found new transitional tetrapods at his latest Antarctica expedition studying 385 mya early Devonian sediments.
Isn’t it weird that scientists can literally predict sediment types and ages where to find new fossils of particular transitional morphologies?
Edit: Oh and also, in that paper cited by Bechly they also state that the fossil record’s “completeness”(still represented mostly at the level of family or genera, by teeth) decreases significantly with age beyond the Permian.