Replies

"Your diagram in #223 has an obvious flaw which..." - Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

It's not *my* diagram, ergo it's not my flaw...and I'm fine with using any tree of life diagram posted by any reputable Evolutionary Theory organization. So by all means post any such *relevant* (i.e. shows coral, humans, and all meaningful intermediary steps) tree of life diagram.

It’s trying to chart how different forms diverged, but it’s also drawn in such a way as to imply the passage of time." - Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Oh, heaven forbid! The passage of time! Does time not pass in your world?!

"In doing so, it locates fish only in the past—the flaw is that there’s no place in it for modern fish. If you add a fish up next to the bird to represent today’s fish, you need to also add another line extending from the original fish to today’s fish. And a lot of evolution can happen along that line—including the loss of some aspects of the immune system." - Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Modern fish. Ancient fish. Doesn't matter.

All Fish qualify. One could *pretend* that ancient Fish have different immune functionality than modern Fish, but there's no evidence for such red herrings.

Furthermore, losing a trait isn't the issue. Heck, even every Fish losing a trait isn't the issue.

The issue is that coral have a trait that humans have, but that trait doesn't appear in intermediary species (like Fish).

That's *not* evolution. That's genetic code skipping.

That's what human programmers do when they borrow an ancient coding subroutine for a next generation piece of software that a previous version didn't have.

Welcome to the world of Information Theory, where Evolution is easily disproved trillions of times per millisecond.

Let’s have a freeper show of hands. How many of you lurkers out there agree with southhack that modern fish are ancestors of humans?

How about modern corals?

Oh, heaven forbid! The passage of time! Does time not pass in your world?!

What a dumb thing to say! The point isn't that there's anything wrong with showing the passage of time. The point is that the diagram is trying to do two things at once and as a result has misrepresented one of them.

One could *pretend* that ancient Fish have different immune functionality than modern Fish, but there's no evidence for such red herrings.

You're relying on the assumption that the immune functionality didn't change--that's the only way "Modern fish. Ancient fish. Doesn't matter." could make sense. It's up to you to demonstrate that it didn't change, since you're the one basing your argument on that being the case.

Nice fish pun, though.

I gave you a link that seemingly you didn’t have time to read, but which have clarified the mistake you are making.

Somehow you’ve had time to continuye digging the hole you are already in, though.

... The issue is that coral have a trait that humans have, but that trait doesn't appear in intermediary species (like Fish). That's *not* evolution. That's genetic code skipping. ...

This is all a bit vague.

Exactly what "trait" are you talking about?

Where, exactly, is it found in the tree of life?

Evo prediction: It will be resricted to certain subtrees, not scattered randomly thoughout the tree.

Crider prediction: It could be restricted to subtrees, if that's the way the designer designed it, or it could occur randomly, if that's the way the designer designed it.

After you have provided more detailed data it may be possible to decide whether the alleged phenomenon is contrary to the predictions of normal biology.

Of course, it will be in agreement with creationist or ID "predictions", see above.