Starboy

Fascinating. Mr. Ed is quoting science as if it were scripture.

Mr. Ed, does Wilbur know you are loose?

Starboy

lpetrich

And what's the alternative? That they were created with the appearance of one being descended from another?

Ed, how is that conclusion arrived at?

In what way are they "reptile families"? Because their earlier members had lots of reptilian features? And Synapsida and Therapsida are bigger taxa than Linnaean families.

Ed, Ed, Ed, splitting hairs over classification does not prove one thing. "Reptilia" is a paraphyletic group.

Ed, be specific about your allegations. Otherwise, we may have to conclude not only that they are totally baseless, but that you are manufacturing them to distract us from your lack of a case.

Easily only if one knows exactly what to look for.

And the hypothesis of special creation is completely falsifiable, right?

And what would you consider empirical evidence, O Ed? Following the generations back with a time machine? If the God you believe in decided to grab you and take you back in time so as to show you the generations, would you consider that to be evidence of evolution?

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Ed

I do see beauty and complexity of design in the fossil record. Organisms appearing abruptly fully formed and then disappearing and replaced by other forms abruptly appearing. And I do see a translation of it, but it differs from macroevolution. I too find it sad that you no longer want to discuss things with me, though I dont consider this discussion, ie the mode of creation of very much importance. I would rather discuss the serious problems of atheism as a worldview.

lpetrich

Then go over to the Existence of God section of this bboard. And stay on-topic.

Duvenoy

I was gone for a while - health problems (read: the indignities of advancing age). Coming back, I can't believe that this cannonball is still flying! But, so it is.

Ed, I like you. Really, I do. Your head is at least as hard as mine. Some day, I'd like to buy you a beer.

An atheist world view, or any world view, has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Again, you are mixing religion with science. It won't work. I've read that there are a fair number of highly reputable scientists that hold religious beliefs, but they don't let their faith color the results of their studies. I, as an atheist, don't understand exactly how they rationalize this, but, as long as they're doing good science, hey, go for it, sez I.

This is not to say that scientists, atheistic or otherwise, are right all the time. They are not. This is where peer review comes in and that can get all but bloody. Remember the great to-do over Cold Fusion some years back? Remenber how fast that dud got buried? Bro, that's the way science works. If you got it, flaunt it; if you don't got it, be careful!

Blood is now all but flowing over the new, 7 myo skull recently found. Me, I reserve judgment until the dust settles and I get to read the various papers. Is it a transitional, ape/hominid species? Or just another, ancient feces-thrower? Or is it another, exceptionally clever Piltdown, hmmm? I await the final (if there will be such a thing) results with baited breath.

Baited breath is why I have so few friends.

See what fun this can be?

doov

Oolon Colluphid

And how about in living things? I see it too... and knowing how such designs came about also explains the cases of ‘intelligent design’ in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801" target="_blank">this thread</a>. Care to explain them by creation? Please. I insist.

I’m also still waiting for your comments on Old Testament timescales -- see my post of 2 July in this thread, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000275&p=19" target="_blank">this page</a>.

TTFN, Oolon

Ed

We can learn from both nature and the scriptures that the creator's intentions are that creatures are to survive. And one of the ways for this to occur is adaptation which would sometimes cause subtle differences in the skeleton.

Quote:

Ed: Because being created by one creator and designer would mean that much of the same "blueprints" would be used. lp: The only kind of design reuse that could give the kinds of treelike patterns that we see is psuedo-evolutionary design reuse -- design reuse that happens in an evolution-like pattern. I suggest that Ed study some molecular evolutionary biology some time -- he'll be amazed.

What is an evolution-like pattern? At one time evolutionists thought that evolution was mostly a straight line of complexity. It only changed because the millions of transition forms were never found. So it became "bushy".

Quote:

lp: Also, there is an abundance of evidence of kludgy design; consider my recent discussion of aphids. I'm surprised that Ed has not weighed in on aphids, their nutritional needs, and how they manage to survive on the junk food that is their preferred diet.

How do you decide what is kludgy? And what is junk food? Maybe they were designed to be kludgy.
Also little quirks help show that there is just one designer rather than a committee. Just like your signature has little quirks that help identify it as coming from you and not written by cursive writing experts.

Quote:

OC: Oh, and don’t forget that, according to you, a kind roughly equates to the taxonomic group Family. Want me to show you how different things within the same family can be? Ed: You already did, but that is somewhat irrelevant given that species within families sometimes vary greatly and sometimes appear almost identical. lp: Ed has given no justification for identifying "created kinds" with the Linnean level of "family". Could it be that he is unable to do so?

Because they are the most easily identified as being different by a non-scientific society like the ancient hebrews.

Quote:

lp: Also, mainstream biologists have yet to find a big difference between evolution inside of families and evolution between families -- however families are to be defined.

There is one big difference, the second has NEVER been observed while the other has to a certain extent.

[b] I am referring to the traditional classification. Looking at both features, ie hybrid is probably more accurate than somewhat arbitrary groupings around hypothetical ancestors.

lpetrich

Then why not create living things appropriate for a 100% harmonious ecosystem with nothing ever dying?

I don't know where Ed gets his ideas about the history of evolutionary biology -- is it from some creationist out-of-context quotebook?

Although some evolutionary biologists have indeed had naive straight-line views, bushiness became recognized as a result of trying to work out what is most closely related to what. Transitional forms have nothing to do with it; I wonder what Ed considers a legitimate transitional form.

Ed says "maybe" again!!! And I have had plenty of experience designing software, so I know what "kludgy" means. I call plant sap "junk food for aphids", because it has only very limited nutritional value -- it's very dilute, and dissolved in it is mostly sugars.

I think that Ed ought to check out some collection of his favorite creative or artistic works; in many cases, their creators will reveal individual quirks in the design of their creations -- which is completely consistent with there being many of them for the whole set.

And a committee of designers can easily put their individual quirks into their designs -- which would give some hint of the designers' multiplicity.

And how in the world had Ed figured that out? Has he written some lengthy document explaining why a "created kind" is always a Linnaean family and not a Linnaean species or genus or order or class or phylum of kingdom?

And he ought to consider how taxa sometimes get promoted or demoted in the judgment of taxonomists. Thus, nowadays, Pisces is usually promoted from a class to a superclass, while Pinnipedia is usually demoted from an order to a superfamily. Let's see if everybody's favorite wildlife biologist can think of why that might be.

I wonder what Ed would accept as evidence of evolution, short of going back in a time machine.

How would it be more accurate if all of the Earth's biota is a large number of "created kinds"?

Ed

No, there is a goal, survival.

Ed

You would expect to find some evidence of design and you do. Special creation would not be able to account for true transition forms.


[b] So ancient humans may have been more variable than the species you mention like domestic dogs.

Quote:

Ed: Creation expects microevolutionary subtle differences. ... lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, tell us how that is supposed to be "expected". Ed: Because we know from living in the computer age that only a mind can develop an adaptable system or programmed system. lp: And how is that supposed to be the case?

Because that is the only way they have come into existence that we know about.


[b] Well we cant be sure that they didnt design life but they can be eliminated using logic as the creators of the universe. And most likely whatever produced the universe also created life.