Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm


Postby ryu238 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:52 am

Here is something an ID proponent said when showed this paper: http://m.pnas.org/content/99/8/5498.full
"But the origin of novel anatomical structures in insects, even relatively minor structures such as yucca moth tentacles, has never been observed."
Since we haven't seen the processes the designer did, only assuming just because it looks designed, then how can we say it is. At least with evolution you can predict homologies because of common descent and how the phyology shows the patterns of descent with modification, and the various types of selection involved.
The cladistics are the most important part to me. It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems.

Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals.
These patterns are here because evolution predicts that a new trait will emerge from an existing trait. These traits will be cultivated by the environment as they will help organisms live long enough to reproduce and pass on those traits.
A mix and match of characters would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars. Indeed a designer wouldn't need to follow any patter because it wouldn't have the same limitation as evolution and thus wouldn't need to follow the same pattern.
Which is why this is frustrating: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/co ... 51311.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/do ... 41021.html
You could predict that a designer would follow a pattern, but you could also predict that it wouldn't either. So ID is useless as a science since it can be anything it wants to be even when it could contradict an earlier prediction!
https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2014 ... n-descent/

Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests