Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, August 28, 2018, 19:02 (113 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: If A then B programming. I don't know what the parameters are, but I would hazard a few guesses and say that perhaps certain dietary or environmental inputs (A) are the parameters that determine the output of the eggshape (B). I would also guess that when we find out what those inputs are, they will be ubiquitous between all pointy egg bird species.

DHW: An eggcellent answer. I would suggest that it is the environmental input (the steep slope) that determines the egg shape. Now please tell us how the birds come up with their pointy eggs. Did your God preprogramme them to do it, do a dabble, or install a mechanism enabling organisms to adapt autonomously to their environment?

It would most likely need to be something OTHER than the steep slope. When animals stand, they typically self-level. While it is conceivable that perhaps the same mechanisms that allow them to self-level while standing also trigger the changes to egg shape, I doubt it. The interesting thing would be to compare eggs cliff dwelling species that share no other environmental similarities (i.e. dessert cliffs vs. ocean cliffs). If all cliff dwellers do not produce pointy eggs, the trigger must be something else.

DHW: The website traces other anatomical similarities. Here is another which you will reject but which also focuses on other areas of the anatomy (including important vestigial structures). I’d be interested to hear whether your fellow theist David accepts or rejects the argument.
Whale Evolution
www.proof-of-evolution.com/whale-evolution.html

Does the anatomical taxonomy match the genetic taxanomy? If not, then it should be rejected. If so, it gains a little more credence in terms of a possible answer.

TONY: Show me something that can be repeated in a lab, step-wise. […] So show me the evidence by reproducing the process. That is science.

DHW: Agreed. […] But how does this prove scientifically that organisms can spring from nowhere, as opposed to springing from other organisms, and “don't tell me another damn fairy tale that has no objective evidence, no record, no traceable, documented process.”

TONY: Because the evidence shows that they spring up from nowhere, with no direct ancestry. That is documented. See above. I claim that the evidence shows no direct ancestry because the evidence shows no direct ancestry. I am not the one making incredible claims based off ear holes.

DHW: Sorry, but you asked me to show you “something that can be repeated in a lab, step-wise”, and to show you the evidence “by reproducing the process. That is science.” Let me repeat: NOBODY KNOWS HOW SPECIATION TOOK PLACE. We only have theories. Now please show me your scientific evidence that organisms can spring from nowhere. You claim that the gaps in the record denote the direct actions of an unknown and unprovable supermind. Others claim that the gaps in the record denote the rarity of fossils. Please don’t tell me that your theory is more scientific than theirs.

No one knows because it has never been observed. Hence the hard rejection. It currently stands as a fairy tale from start to finish. Secondly, I claim that the observed gaps denote gaps; the observed sudden appearance of species fully formed. The observed complexity and increase in genetic information implies design and intelligence. It is an inference based on the observed evidence. The sum total accumulation of observed evidence implies a planned design, governing intelligence, and massive level of power that so far outstrips humans that we would call it 'god'.

DAVID: (QUOTING RE BACTERIA) "The research team then used these genomic blueprints to construct a giant evolutionary tree of bacteria based on 120 genes that are highly conserved across the bacterial domain."

Tony: Unfortunately, it starts with the same assumption of common descent.

DAVID: I think the conserved genes are God's primary blueprint.

DHW: And conserved genes can be taken as evidence of common descent, not as a prior assumption. I have proposed that if God exists, cellular intelligence is his “primary blueprint”.

That is logically incorrect. First, even the name 'conserved genes' starts with the assumption of common decent. If that assumption were not in place, the more appropriate term would be 'genetic similarity'. I understand your hypothesis is cellular intelligence, I have simply not seen enough evidence to support the level of intelligence you ascribe to cells. If such evidence comes to light, then I would certainly consider that it was perhaps the method God used.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum