Posted on 02/19/2002 2:59:38 PM PST by Cameron
Wow, have you ever missed the point. The reason successful cross breeding of geographically isolated species disproves ID has nothing to do with the viability of the offspring or whether or not a new species emerges. It is the respective genetic histories of the two species that is at issue. The ability to interbreed can only be the result of a shared ancestry between the two species. Your rantings about cross breeding the first and second species also indicate a deplorable lack of knowledge and comprehension. Don't you realize that you don't know what you are talking about?
The first life on this planet did not reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction evolved later.
You mean that I missed the fossil evidence of species X, Y, and Z that gradually led up to the duck-billed platipus (the only poisonous mammal in all of time)?! Did I miss ten or twenty transitional species that led up to the first bird?
Come on, there are these and other examples of big new design releases.
"ID doesn't say the designer has to mimic evolution, but He always does. ID doesn't say why." - VadeRetro
Specifically how does Intelligent Design mimic Evolutionary Theory in regards to the formation of the duck-billed platipus? Please explain.
I said that cross-breeding could not possibly explain how the first and second species came into being. Do you dispute that fact?
Nonsense! That's the same as saying that the ability of two computer programs to interface with each other can only be the result of a shared ancestry between them. It's a nonsensical claim that is bogus even at its face value.
There are lots of related species that can't interbreed (housecats and tigers, for instance) just as there are lots of software programs with shared histories that can't interface with each other. Drawing your conclusion from either example is ludicrous and disproves nothing, much less Intelligent Design.
Can non-related species be cross-bred via Intelligent Intervention (e.g., gene-splicing, cloning, et al)?
That's the (marginally) better question.
Ah, the Gap Game! And if we start discovering fossils to fill the platypus gap (as has happened in recent decades with the once-touted whale gap and the bird gap), then you go to the bat gap or whatever else is left.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Especially when we have a lot of examples now of the general principle (and we've filled a lot of gaps already).
Lawyering games make nice debate tactics but they aren't science. Your delusional system is bullet-proof. There's nothing it can't handle, which means that it actually isn't making any predictions or telling us anything.
I once mentioned to gore3000 that we think we know approximately when and in what lineage the mammalian ear bones arose. We can see them forming gradually in the fossil record. If we found a modern lizard species or an ancient salamander with bones exactly like mammalian ear bones, that would be a serious problem for what we think we know about the evolution of mammals. It would probably be put down to spectacularly convergent evolution, but it would be a serious anomaly.
ID would of course trumpet the same thing as proof of itself. But what would ever disprove ID?
I haven't tried to count the fossil bird series. Your pamphlets may be out of date. You'd better raise to bar to one hundred.
Creation Science is too easy to be useful.
Please refer to post #194.
"Ah, the Gap Game! And if we start discovering fossils to fill the platypus gap (as has happened in recent decades with the once-touted whale gap and the bird gap), then you go to the bat gap or whatever else is left. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Especially when we have a lot of examples now of the general principle (and we've filled a lot of gaps already)." - VadeRetro
No, not the gap game. I simply asked you to substantiate the wild-eyed claim that you made that Intelligent Design NEVER introduced big new design changes.
There is one mammal, and only one mamal, in all of history that is poisonous. Intelligent Design can explain it with ease. Can Evolutionary Theory explain that animal?
You didn't even try to explain it. Perhaps that's because you can't...
And yet, Intelligent Design will save millions of lives by modifying animals to give humans their organs.
Not useful, indeed...
Intelligent Design is disproved if DNA fails to be capable of modification in the lab by an intelligent process. Good luck with that one...
Specifically how does Intelligent Design mimic Evolutionary Theory in regards to the formation of the duck-billed platipus? Please explain.
The monotremes branch off before mammals invented live birth. This has to do with the separation of Australia from the rest of Gondwonaland . . .
Well, why am I telling this?
The Natural History of the Monotremes.
Your main point is that a lack of record is a lack of history. Wrong. Even if you don't know who your Daddy is, you had one.
That's good. You weren't doing very well in this debate, either...
See post 273. You're badgering the witness, counselor.
You need to show where ID has something to tell us that evolution hasn't already told us without appealing to magic.
Did they get a patent on that?! < GRIN! >
Seriously, how does Evolution explain the poison of the duck-billed platipus better than Intelligent Design explains it?
That's easy. Intelligent Design is responsible for the genetically modified organs we see growing in pigs and rats in laboritories. Evolution has not explained the same phenomenon. Hence, that is an example of ID telling us something useful that Evolution can't and hasn't said or predicted.
No magic required, only science.
What does this disingenuous protest mean?
We didn't used to know much about the history of whales. Duane Gish was still in 1994 quoting some guy named Colbert as follows:
Speaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."You have to follow a footnote pointer to get to the following:
[3] E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955, p. 303.Do you see the problem? In the same article, Gish tries to undermine all the new whale finds from the Tethys Sea sediments in Pakistan and India. (Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, etc.) It's clearly dishonest, but never mind that.
The gradual transition happened. Nothing sprang from nothing. We just didn't have the evidence for many decades. You have to look in the right place, assuming it even fossilized.
You're simply lawyering on the lack of evidence. Don't forget to change your tune if it turns up; you wouldn't want to look like Gish.
Without magic. Look up Occam's Razor sometime.
I'll withdraw the objection when you show evidence for magic anywhere, anytime.
I'm going to have to knock off for the night. Just pile up the lawyerly quibbles and obfuscations. I'll work them off tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.