tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5656849570389748411..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: A Clever Spliceosome Mechanism Was Just Reported Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger290125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28734798360495220592014-07-08T03:19:33.416-07:002014-07-08T03:19:33.416-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anwar Fazilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04342640946805733049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69438804545640710152014-06-16T12:01:16.030-07:002014-06-16T12:01:16.030-07:00Nic: To infer design does not require the designer...Nic: To infer design does not require the designer be known. Good grief, Scott, that's truly elementary logic. <br /><br />Two possibilities: [1] a designer made the world the way he did because he just wanted to, in which adding a designer to the mix adds nothing to the explanation. [2] A designer had to make the world a certain way for reason X, in which case X explains why the world works the way it does, not the designer. <br /><br />IOW, if you want to say designers are essentially "magic", in that they are not concrete and get what they want because they exhibit the property of "design", then they have no necessary consequences by which they represent explanations for anything. <br /><br />What's particularly ironic, is that the property of "design" as used in the current crop of ID, is what Cornelius objects to as Aristotelian. It's like the property of dryness, etc., in that it's in need of an explanation. Why did the designer pick X over Y? Surely, a designer could choose to create a world that appeared to have evolved naturally. So, could that be used to infer design as well? How did the designer obtain the necessary knowledge to bring about X? What method did it use?<br /><br />For example, human beings are good explanations for human designed things precisely because of our human limitations, wants and needs. We infer design because we are humans. We underhand ourselves. <br /><br />On one side of it's mouth, ID claims the designer isn't like us, but it also claims that it *is* like us out of the other side. That sounds an awful lot like the view many people hold of God, don't you think?. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34479131476029603892014-06-13T23:37:45.141-07:002014-06-13T23:37:45.141-07:00So much unimaginable integrated complexity and yet...So much unimaginable integrated complexity and yet, the laryngeal nerve is proof all that integrated complexity must have evolved blindingly.<br />The laryngeal nerve overrides all explanations of possible design.<br />Sorry ID proponents.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61236824764573050052014-06-13T23:35:54.954-07:002014-06-13T23:35:54.954-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60854422305840351722014-06-13T09:36:26.412-07:002014-06-13T09:36:26.412-07:00"You were? I'm sure that would be news to..."You were? I'm sure that would be news to any open minded individual reading this blog."<br /><br />Wonder how many readers qualify as open minded here...<br /><br /><br />"And evolution, which cannot be observed, tested, repeated, "<br /><br />Patently false. We have pointed out many observations (e.g., similarity of related organisms, genetic variation), and tests (parallel speciation, experimental evolution, confirmation of predictions made by evolutionary theory). If by repeated you mean: do we have duplicate trees of life...well, no. We DO have parallel radiations of e.g., cichlids, plants into similar niches. Not sure what you mean though. <br /><br /><br />"Creationists and ID adherents use exactly the same scientific disciplines but yet come to different conclusions. "<br /><br />Evolutionary biology is a science. I'm repeating myself, but saying it is not is like saying condensed matter physics is not physics. And you are aren't using science at all - as I've said said, your science, by your own admission, is a heady combination of ignorance (see next point) and "common sense" (see your own comment above).<br /><br /><br />"A variety of insects "<br /><br />Precisely...a variety. Also, you should now look up Tephritidae and educate yourself about what a "fruit fly" is. <br /><br /><br />"you have not even come close to providing an answer."<br /><br />No, but Zachriel sure has. What I've done (and you would know this if you were ACTUALLY carefully reading), is point out the difficulty in making arguments based on nestedness per se (since lack if nestedness for some traits doesn't refute common descent, but CAN be evidence for adaptive evolution).Stuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296177279488943653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84608359480151748832014-06-13T06:38:00.569-07:002014-06-13T06:38:00.569-07:00Nic: And evolution, which cannot be observed, test...Nic: And evolution, which cannot be observed, tested, repeated, etc., is scientific? <br /><br />Can dinosaurs be observed? Can they be tested or repeated? <br /><br />We do not say that Dinosaurs are merely an interoperation of fossils. Rather, they are *the* explanation of fossils, in that the really did exist millions of years ago. <br /><br />Nic: This may come as a shock to you, but cest' la vie. Evolution is not even a science. <br /><br />From <a href="http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution" rel="nofollow">What did Popper really say about Evolution</a>... <br /><br /><i>What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.<br /><br />A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.</i><br /><br />Do you have any criticism of this?<br /><br />Nic: Yes, it uses scientific disciplines, but in and of itself, it is nothing more than an interpretation of science, not science itself. <br /><br />Equivocate much? you might as well have said... <br /><br />Painting is not even an art. Yes, it uses artistic disciplines, but in and of itself, it is nothing more than an interpretation of art, not art itself. <br /><br />Technically speaking Evolution cannot itself *be* science. That's a category error and uncontroversial. <br /><br />Nic: Creationists and ID adherents use exactly the same scientific disciplines but yet come to different conclusions. Why is that, Stuart? Is it simply because they are not as smart as evolutionists?<br /><br />Bad philosophy. Specifically, a bad philosophy of science. <br /><br />Nic: And what gripes you no end is the fact you know logically that I am right. You cannot in any way demonstrate your interpretation of the evidence is in fact the only possible interpretation. <br /><br />We cannot demonstrate the only possible interoperation of fossils are dinosaurs either. Yet, dinosaurs are *the* explanation of fossils, in that they actually existed millions of years ago. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62410439641612012002014-06-13T02:32:05.332-07:002014-06-13T02:32:05.332-07:00Nic: What exactly do you mean by the term artefact...<b>Nic</b>: <i>What exactly do you mean by the term artefacts in this context? </i><br /><br />An object made by a human being. You might try categorizing vehicles, containers, or buildings, or all of them. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7751557695349795102014-06-13T02:30:22.234-07:002014-06-13T02:30:22.234-07:00Nic: Do try to keep up. It is you who is pushing N...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Do try to keep up. It is you who is pushing NHs as evidence for evolution, not me. </i><br /><br />The nested hierarchy refers to how organisms naturally group by trait, not to a nested hierarchy within the human body; e.g., eukaryote, metazoa, deuterostome, chordate, vertebrate, gnathostome, tetrapod, amniote, mammal, eutheria, primate, hominid, hominin, homo. <br /><br />Any rational categorization would put cats and dogs closer than either to fish, for instance. There are strong correlations due to these natural groupings. <br /><br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51758046194752109552014-06-13T02:21:24.178-07:002014-06-13T02:21:24.178-07:00Nic: To infer design does not require the designer...<b>Nic</b>: <i>To infer design does not require the designer be known. </i><br /><br />If you hypothesize a designer, it has implications based on the characteristics of the designer. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82409241721684983992014-06-13T02:16:14.069-07:002014-06-13T02:16:14.069-07:00Nic: Now in this case Q is Chuck's dead. How m...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Now in this case Q is Chuck's dead. How many Ps can you come up with? </i><br /><br />Possibly many, but each can be subject to testing. If you say Q was murdered by Colonel Mustard, then it means Colonel Mustard must have had the opportunity and means.<br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>What evolutionists do is in stating If P is they mean if P and only if P. </i><br /><br />Well, no. Evolutionary theory is subject to constant testing. Due to this, the theory has been revised many times. However, no one has yet proposed an alternative theory that can explain why evolutionary theory is so predictive while also providing specific and distinguishing predictions. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>But you do not have confirmations, only support stemming from your assumptions. </i><br /><br />Um, that's what is meant by confirmation. If tetrapods evolved from fish, then fishapods. A fishapod is confirmation of the hypothesis. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Tiktaalik is simply a fish, nothing more.</i><br /><br />A fish like no fish ever seen before, one with a wrist, a flexible neck, and a robust rib cage for lungs. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Possibly from the fact that evolution proposes all life descended from a single common ancestor. </i><br /><br />Why would that imply a nested hierarchy in the human body? It predicts that when classifying organisms, they will fall into a nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>At any rate, you still have not even defined NHs or provided any examples. </i><br /><br />A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. The hypothesis of branching descent predicts a nested hierarchy. If we classify organisms by trait, they will form a nested hierarchy. This leads to correlations between otherwise unrelated traits. For instance, having mammary glands predicts the structure of the middle ear. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>All things I've asked you to do for several days now. </i><br /><br />No, you've been asking some odd question about nested hierarchies in the human body. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18777199735213432652014-06-12T21:42:49.039-07:002014-06-12T21:42:49.039-07:00Zachriel,
"Evolution doesn't predict nes...Zachriel,<br /><br />"Evolution doesn't predict nested hierarchies in the human body. Where did you get that idea?"<br /><br />Possibly from the fact that evolution proposes all life descended from a single common ancestor. <br /><br />So, if that is indeed the case why would humans not possess NHs? <br /><br />At any rate, you still have not even defined NHs or provided any examples. Nor have you yet explained why they are evidence for evolution. All things I've asked you to do for several days now. <br /><br />However, at this point I've given up on the possibility you will provide an answer. It's plainly obvious you have no idea at all what constitutes an NH or why they are important to evolution. What a pain in the butt it proves to be when someone actually asks you to back up your rhetoric. Sorry about that, Zachriel.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14793924389196302042014-06-12T21:17:44.308-07:002014-06-12T21:17:44.308-07:00Stuart,
"I was, and it's disingenuous of...Stuart,<br /><br />"I was, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise."<br /><br />You were? I'm sure that would be news to any open minded individual reading this blog.<br /><br /><br />"like Int Design, which I pointed out were non scientific,..."<br /><br />And evolution, which cannot be observed, tested, repeated, etc., is scientific? This may come as a shock to you, but cest' la vie. Evolution is not even a science. Yes, it uses scientific disciplines, but in and of itself, it is nothing more than an interpretation of science, not science itself. <br /><br />Creationists and ID adherents use exactly the same scientific disciplines but yet come to different conclusions. Why is that, Stuart? Is it simply because they are not as smart as evolutionists?<br /><br />"The only thing you have said in response is "they don't count"<br /><br />And what gripes you no end is the fact you know logically that I am right. You cannot in any way demonstrate your interpretation of the evidence is in fact the only possible interpretation. Or that minor variations lead inevitably to the massive changes necessary for descent from a common ancestor. If you could or any other evolutionist could, Darwinism would not be withering and dying as it is.<br /><br />"Are they still fruitflies".<br /><br />"Tell me what you think a fruit fly is and I'll try to help you."<br /><br />A variety of insects belonging to the family Drosophilidae.<br /><br /><br />Nic:"Explain to me why nested hierarchies were evidence for evolution" <br /><br />Stuart: "If only you were ACTUALLY reading my comments."<br /><br />I am, and you have not even come close to providing an answer.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57842235342948349942014-06-12T20:39:40.281-07:002014-06-12T20:39:40.281-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: "Why are nested hierarchies s...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: "Why are nested hierarchies such great evidence for evolution?"<br /><br />Zachriel: "You have to understand the nested hierarchy if you are to understand why it is evidence."<br /><br />And how many times now have I asked you to help me understand and you have provided absolutely nothing, zilch, nada? It's painfully obvious you have no clue whatsoever of the significance of NHs. It's simply rhetoric to you.<br /><br />"Do you understand that artifacts do not normally arrange into a distinct nested hierarchy, but biological organisms do?"<br /><br />I know I'm going to regret this. What exactly do you mean by the term artefacts in this context? <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79993686716128561912014-06-12T20:31:37.691-07:002014-06-12T20:31:37.691-07:00Zachriel,
"Is there a well-defined nested hi...Zachriel,<br /><br />"Is there a well-defined nested hierarchy in the human body? Can you identify one?"<br /><br />Do try to keep up. It is you who is pushing NHs as evidence for evolution, not me. <br /><br />It truly appears you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what they are as you have failed to provide me with any examples, nor do you understand how the concept is evidence for evolution. It appears to me you use the argument as pure rhetoric and when pressed to support it you're completely in the dark.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25421865645294436842014-06-12T20:25:47.952-07:002014-06-12T20:25:47.952-07:00Scott,
"Yet, it supposedly knows the biosphe...Scott,<br /><br />"Yet, it supposedly knows the biosphere was designed."<br /><br />To infer design does not require the designer be known. Good grief, Scott, that's truly elementary logic. <br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73166818692813225192014-06-12T20:18:19.369-07:002014-06-12T20:18:19.369-07:00Zachriel,
"If P then Q
Q
P is supported
Repe...Zachriel,<br /><br />"If P then Q<br />Q<br />P is supported<br />Repeat"<br /><br />True, if P then Q, Q, P is supported. The key word there is supported.<br /><br />If P then Q<br />Q<br />P is supported.<br /><br />Now in this case Q is Chuck's dead. How many Ps can you come up with?<br /><br />What evolutionists do is in stating If P is they mean if P and only if P. At that point your equation crashes and burns.<br /><br />"The more confirmations, the more surprising the discoveries, the wider the variety of evidence, the stronger the support."<br /><br />But you do not have confirmations, only support stemming from your assumptions. <br /><br /> <br />"Tiktaalik certainly qualifies as an incredible confirmation."<br /><br />Tiktaalik is simply a fish, nothing more. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13686255975917534122014-06-12T12:33:32.590-07:002014-06-12T12:33:32.590-07:00Nic: So, are you then admitting evolution is indee...<b>Nic</b>: <i>So, are you then admitting evolution is indeed a faith position? </i><br /><br />You posed a strawman argument, and when it was pointed out, you mangle our position. Are you saying we can't reach reasonable conclusions about the past? <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Pointing to limited change over hundreds of years as evidence for massive change over millions of years is noting more than unfounded extrapolation. </i><br /><br />It is evidence, but it is not the only evidence. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Extrapolation which can not be supported by testing, repetition, observation or any other aspect of scientific investigation. </i><br /><br />Of course it can. We have the nested hierarchy, we can predict transitionals, and we have the fossil succession. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Now, as I, and others who think as I do, base our conclusions that there are limits to change, on observation and repeated testing, and you, and those who think as you do, do not, the obvious question </i><br /><br />What are those limits? What is the evidence of those limits? And how does that explain the fossil succession, and the success at finding transitionals? <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>multiple millions of generations, fruit flies </i><br /><br />The generation of fruit flies is about a week or so. That's 50 generations per year, 50 times 100 is somewhat less than a million. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Of course over time organisms may change, but they do not change to the degree necessary for you to support your claim of descent from a single common ancestor. </i><br /><br />That's an important question. Is the rate of observed evolution as least as great as the inferred rate of evolution based on the fossil record? Turns out the observed rate is many times faster than the inferred rate. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75573282677269552022014-06-12T12:08:54.825-07:002014-06-12T12:08:54.825-07:00Stuart,
"Well that was too easy!"
Good...Stuart,<br /><br />"Well that was too easy!"<br /><br />Good, I like arrogance. It makes it all the funnier when you crash.<br /><br />"By your completely inane logic,..." <br /><br />My inane logic? My logic determines that if after 100 years and multiple millions of generations, fruit flies still produce fruit flies, it's likely safe to assume they will continue to produce fruit flies. Maybe fruit flies with slight variations, but fruit flies nonetheless. <br /><br />On the other hand your logic concludes that after 100 years and multiple millions of generations of fruit flies producing fruit flies, they will eventually produce something other than fruit flies. All it takes is time, Trust me, I'm a scientist. <br /><br />So that begs the question, who's logic is completely inane?<br /><br />"Selectively ignoring those differences just so you can say "they're all still fruit flies" is downright obtuse."<br /><br />Who ignored the differences? I never said anything about them not being different. So, please stop putting words in my mouth. That is intellectual dishonesty, nothing more.<br /><br />Of course over time organisms may change, but they do not change to the degree necessary for you to support your claim of descent from a single common ancestor. By repeatedly trying to justify the extrapolation of minor variations of an organism into wholesale changes resulting in completely new body plans and completely new organisms, is the very pinnacle of obtuseness. Congratulations.<br /><br />Nic: "Ask yourself this question. Is it still mustard? If the answer is yes, it's still mustard, then no, it doesn't count. More common sense." <br /><br />Stuart: "Great, I realise now that your alternative model for life is based on your apparently trivial appreciation for biological diversity and your "common sense". Very rigorous!"<br /><br />So, I guess that would be a yes then. It is indeed still mustard. And as it is still mustard and as such not really much of an argument for evolution you find it necessary to ridicule me as lacking rigor. Good for you, you've now come down to ad hominems. <br /><br />Stuart: "And it's true, we scientists are WAY too narrow minded."<br /><br />Sorry, I'm not buying the 'I'm a scientist' ploy.<br /><br />"I should deal with this. I plan on smearing the blood of a freshly sacrificed (organic) kangaroo on trees near my field sites, to allow me to better access the spiritual understanding that I've been ignoring for so long!"<br /><br />Now we begin to see the display of immaturity which is closely followed by the 'I'm too smart for you so I'm not going to respond to you anymore' exit. If nothing else, evolutionists are consistent. <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81649871068486446712014-06-12T11:33:45.849-07:002014-06-12T11:33:45.849-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: "And you must realize you can...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: "And you must realize you cannot demonstrate that, or test that or repeat that, and as such it does not qualify as science but is simply a faith position." <br /><br />Zachriel: "At the very least, we can identify your strawman argument. If evolution posits change over millions of years, then pointing to limited change over a hundred years is not a counterargument."<br /><br />So, are you then admitting evolution is indeed a faith position?<br /><br />Pointing to limited change over hundreds of years as evidence for massive change over millions of years is noting more than unfounded extrapolation. Extrapolation which can not be supported by testing, repetition, observation or any other aspect of scientific investigation. <br /><br />Now, as I, and others who think as I do, base our conclusions that there are limits to change, on observation and repeated testing, and you, and those who think as you do, do not, the obvious question becomes, who has the more scientifically sound approach to the evidence? A hint, it's not you.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62584445104126252552014-06-12T00:18:54.677-07:002014-06-12T00:18:54.677-07:00We have knowledge of the designer.
We have the h...We have knowledge of the designer. <br />We have the historical record of Jesus. Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905104887549850614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86125853726533008702014-06-11T21:17:11.113-07:002014-06-11T21:17:11.113-07:00Scott: Specifically, it claims that ID's desi...Scott: Specifically, it claims that ID's designer would create what we observe, or even create anything at all.<br /><br />Nic: ID does not claim to know what a designer would or would not do, on the contrary, it strongly criticizes such arguments, as even a casual reader of this blog would quickly realize.<br /><br />Yet, it supposedly knows the biosphere was designed. <br /><br />The biosphere is not an abstract thing. It's a specific. So, it's implicit in the claim. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24111596944728407362014-06-11T06:17:59.550-07:002014-06-11T06:17:59.550-07:00Nic,
"Well sir, decency demands you answer m...Nic,<br /><br />"Well sir, decency demands you answer my questions first."<br /><br />I was, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. I did explain to you a number of points. You're back to asking that I engage with alternatives to those explanations, like Int Design, which I pointed out were non scientific, and therefore not in the same arena. You didn't address this nor are you able to give us a single piece of evidence for your alternative explanations ... do you have specific case studies, organisms, genes, populations, or theory which help you out? We have given you such examples. The only thing you have said in response is "they don't count". Nic, I won't articulate YOUR position/opinion and then argue with myself - but ridiculously, you are asking us to do that.<br /><br />"Are they still fruitflies".<br /><br />Tell me what you think a fruit fly is and I'll try to help you.<br /><br /><br />"Explain to me why nested hierarchies were evidence for evolution" <br /><br />If only you were ACTUALLY reading my comments. Stuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296177279488943653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18592825756402631772014-06-11T05:15:19.955-07:002014-06-11T05:15:19.955-07:00Nic: Are they or are they not still fruit flies?
...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Are they or are they not still fruit flies? </i><br /><br />Are they or are they not still insects? <br />Are they or are they not still arthropods? <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Perhaps you would like to take a stab at identifying a couple of nested hierarchies in humans. </i><br /><br />Evolution doesn't predict nested hierarchies in the human body. Where did you get that idea? <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>If that is the case you must be able to demonstrate they are the result of evolution and not creatures unique onto themselves. </i><br /><br />Tiktaalik is unique in many ways, and adapted to its own semi-aquatic environment. It also shows transitional features. It is a confirmation of a prediction, a confirmation which supports evolutionary theory. Many such confirmations lend confidence to the theory. <br /><br />This is hypothetico-deduction, the core of the scientific method: <br /><br />If P then Q<br />Q<br />P is supported<br />Repeat<br /><br />The more confirmations, the more surprising the discoveries, the wider the variety of evidence, the stronger the support. <br /><br />The Theory of Evolution has a strong record of confirmed predictions, from geology to molecular biology. Tiktaalik certainly qualifies as an incredible confirmation. If you are to propose a competing theory, it has to explain how scientists knew about fishapods before their discovery, and then make new and distinguishing predictions. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89872864575173520572014-06-11T05:03:48.426-07:002014-06-11T05:03:48.426-07:00Nic: Why are nested hierarchies such great evidenc...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Why are nested hierarchies such great evidence for evolution? </i><br /><br />You have to understand the nested hierarchy if you are to understand why it is evidence. Do you understand that artifacts do not normally arrange into a distinct nested hierarchy, but biological organisms do? <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87602943451649763712014-06-11T05:01:59.759-07:002014-06-11T05:01:59.759-07:00Nic: I would have been happy with anything remotel...<b>Nic</b>: <i>I would have been happy with anything remotely resembling an answer. </i><br /><br />You have asked two completely different questions, whether there is a nested hierarchy in the human body, and whether there is a nested hierarchy in human populations. We're unsure of exactly what you are asking, and have stated as such. <br /><br />Is there a well-defined nested hierarchy in the human body? Can you identify one?<br /><br />The Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that there will be a nested hierarchy of body parts, or whatever it is you are asking, so we're not sure of its relevance. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com