by our experience with natural process. we know that there is a level that a natural process cant produce. on the same principle that we know our PC is the result of design.
we need the information. one similar way is to check for shared genes. i guess that we will get a similar result since a tipical gene is a complex trait.
We donât actually know that there is such a level, and you certainly havenât shown that any feature of any organism exceeds that level, whatever it is. We know that PCs are the result of design because we know that they are manufactured (in China, mostly).
I have no idea what âwe need the informationâ is supposed to mean. And if itâs about shared genes, closely related species frequently have at least a few genes not shared. So are they separate kinds or not?
I see youâre still ignoring the nested hierarchy.
My experience tells me that a PC is the result of design. And it also tells me that biological organisms are not the kind of thing that could be designed.
we also know that genomes are manufactured by genetic engineering. so a genome is also the product of design?
if its not the result of gene loss probably they are.
ok if you want. first: evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy. if every creature will show the same distance from other creature for instance (so we will not be able to group them) evolution will be just fine. so evolution doesnt realy predict nested hierarchy.
can you tell why? after that we will see if its also fit with biological systems.
I could make up stuff. But thatâs all it would be.
I have experience with designed things. And I have experience with things that do not appear to have possibly been designed.
I could have already said something like that at age 10, which was before I had heard of evolution and before PCs existed. At that time, I was noticing how to distinguish between artificial flowers (clearly designed) and natural flowers (clearly undesigned, but perhaps shaped by human horticultural practices).
so how you can distinguish between designed and not designed? if you cant then you also cant in living creatures.
Sorry, no. We know that most genomes are not manufactured by genetic engineering. Try to maintain at least the illusion of serious argument.
Congratulations. You have just affirmed that most species are separate kinds, which you had previously denied. You need to agree on a story among yourself.
This just shows you still donât know what a nested hierarchy is. Or what prediction is, for that matter.
its begging the question. you assume that most genomes arent the result of design. you dont know that.
any reference that most species in the same family have unique genes that other dont?
a nested hierarchy is just a classification into groups and sub groups. so the end result has a nested-like shape:
(image from berkeley)
Donât be too hard on @scd. Even the guy who is among the closest thing creationism has to an actual scientist says the same thing:
Iâll try to think back to when I was a ten year old. My memory might be imperfect.
As I recall, I was looking at that way that parts fit together.
Designed things have parts that fit together. Natural things have parts that grew and developed together, so that they really cannot be separated into parts.
Perhaps 3D printing will change that way of looking at it.
Most genomes are the result of copying from previous genomes. I do know that.
You could easily look that up yourself. But hereâs the first reference I found. Gene duplication is a relatively common event, and conversion of junk sequences to functional genes is not uncommon either.
Yep, you donât know. The classification represents the hierarchy, but the hierarchy itself is present in the data.
You misunderstand what Denton is saying. He says quite a bit that isnât true in that video, but he isnât attacking common descent at all.
I know that. What he seems to be saying is that evolution cannot explain, or would not predict, the nested hierarchy. He believes âstructuralismâ predicts and explains it better.
Then why did you post it as saying what @scd was saying? Did you not understand what he was arguing?
If he believes that, he didnât say it in the video. What does âstructuralismâ even mean as a predictor? And you are confusing evolution (which heâs fine with) and âDarwinianâ evolution (which is what he thinks doesnât explain innovations).
Iâve read all of his work. He thinks Darwinian evolution is an âadaptive maskâ over the bauplans.
What does that mean, if you have any clue?
You have these primal patterns or body plans that arise from what he calls âthe law of formâ. Predetermined body plans. And Darwinian processes can only create variants of these body plans.
if you are talking about human genome that produce more human genome i agree. but we are talking about evolution of genomes from non genomes or from other types of genomes.
of course that it base on the genomic data (or morphology). but evolution doesnt predict such hierarchy. if we never had such hierarchy evolution will have no problem.
Are we talking about phyla, or what? And is this some kind of Dâarcy Thompson stuff?
No, we arenât talking about genomes from non-genomes. And of course the genomes of new species also arise from the genomes of their ancestors. Are you denying that speciation happens?
You have given no reason for this claim.