Modulous, your knowledge isn't enough. You have said things in this post which prove you have not understood what I mean.
Of course this is entirely possible. I started my last post in a fashion which indicated that I may still not be understanding your position.
I feel at this stage, you are not thinking enough, as I have given a fair amount of clear information.
Thanks.
You state that the evolutionary model is ok aswell pertaining to cladistics. The difference logically is that in my cladogram I would not assign a genetic relatedness, AND I do not "suppose" transitional species that do not exist.
Forget 'genetic relatednes' let's look at an example.
It is my understanding that you think there are ancestral 'kinds' from which the varieties we see today have descended. Let us suppose that 'frog' is one such ancestral kind. You have therefore got a cladogram that includes 5,000 'sorts' of frog.
You might not try to argue that some of these 'sorts' are sorts more closely related to other sorts. But some people might suggest that the sorts of Ranidae (typical frogs) that are around are likely closer relatives of each other than the sorts of Dendrobatoidea (poison dart frogs).
Because logically there is a difference between starting to make a cake with all of the ingredients, and just starting with one ingredient, and throwing the rest in. Logically, if I start with 100% information, and re-combine that information, I can end up with many, many different cakes - especially if I remove information.
I understand the front loading idea, Mike. Different creationists have different ideas - some accept mutations and natural selection have played a role in the changing of the kinds - others don't. I was asking you about your position. You asked, rather snarkily, if I was being willfully obtuse in seeking this clarification.
As for mutations, there is no mutation that has produced any "new" kind of design that wasn't already there. If there is, as you state, please show this new limb, or gut, or whatever. Yet you can't. All you can do is say that a speciation provides something new, even though the facts show that you come up with something unique, not new.
If you would do me the courtesy of defining what a 'new' kind of design is (rather than random examples) so that I can do that, I might start a thread up. But I have made no claims about mutations in this thread, nor do I need to. I was just asking about how you handle the empirically observed phenomonen of mutation which is observed to affect morphology.
I'm willing to bet 'front loading'.
You misunderstand
OK, I'm really stupid. I was always told that until you can explain the concept to a child, you probably don't understand it yourself. It's a generally good heuristic. So, if it is not your position that all variety was 'built in' to the ancestral kinds and that no new information has been added to any of the 'sorts' since the ark or ever, then you'll have to talk me through it slowly. After all - I'm not thinking, I don't understand and I may even be being willfully obtuse.
If not for my benefit - then maybe for future and present readers?
"Explains" being the operative word. And it remains a "claim", of a theory I am not logically bound to.
Yes 'explains' not 'claims'. You are not bound to logically accept the Germ Theory of Disease - but it still explains how humans get diseases.
Your problem is that evolution is hypothetics that assume a great deal, rather than proving a great deal.
I know what you think my problem is. Otherwise you'd accept evolution, right? But criticising evolution isn't strictly on topic here, nor is defending it. Your model assumes a great deal, and you haven't given any justification for accepting those assumptions. I linked you to my justification for accepting evolution.
Logically, to prove mutations and natural selection are responsible, you have to provide an example in the present, of a mutation which produces, in part or in full, a new design in nature.
I am not trying to convince you that mutations or natural selection are responsible. I can certainly provide evidence that these mechanisms are responsible for morphological change in populations over time, as well as some other mechanisms. But that isn't the topic.
The topic is 'kinds' and whether or not they are related.
That, however disagreeable to you, is a very, very, very small request made by logic itself.
No it isn't made by logic. It is a reaonable request for empirical justification. I can provide the argument, it's just not on topic here. We're talking about kinds, yes?
All I am saying is that your version of natural history is exactly the same as standard scientifically accepted natural history 'aka evolution' (not the theory of evolution which is a theory that explains natural history and evolution it isn't natural history and evolution itself), except at some arbitrary point you say 'it ends here'. I am not at this point terribly interested in your mechanisms or explanations in anything but the reason you pick that particular point to cry 'Hold! Enough!'
The seven species is an example. Even with seven species, the diversity you would get is vast, with natural selection. Ironically, that is not a creationist claim, infact it is an evolutionary fact.
You are not seemingly able to comprehend how combinations of information can change, especially if you remove information. It does take some thought but any example of natural selection begins with information.
I'm not disputing that there can be a lot of diversity in a handful of species. I am just asking for any evidence that the 10,000 living species of bird can have derived from simple recombination of existing genetic variety of a viable parent 'kind/s'.
I am not claiming it is impossible, I am just asking for evidence that it actually is the case.
This is why a frog will "become" a frog, because you have the genetics for a frog, already. Therefore why do I need mutations for variation of bird, for example.
I am not asking for you to show that the ancestral collection of frogs has the variety to seed all birds. I am asking that it had the variety to seed all frogs.
You might say; "this doesn't explain much" -- my answer is that I cannot change history in order to satisfy a certain way of thinking you possess.
No - it explains things, it covers less than evolution - but it does explain things. I'm just asking for evidence that the explanation is accurate and not just, to use your phrasing 'imagination'. I shouldn't think this would be a controversial request.
To get a variety of frog, I firstly need frogs with all of the information to get that variety
For all your talk of me not understanding - so far you have not given me information that is different than my previous understanding. Either I did understand, and it was you that misunderstand my counter-points or you aren't explaining yourself any better than the first time round.
So let's say you have some flies, and you managed to split them apart and the two populations began to diversify away from each other. How would you propose we measure whether this variation was in the parent species or whether something novel has been included? Have creationists carried out these kinds of experiments? Evolutionists have carried out similar experiements, but creationists tend not to like those conclusions and start talking about they are still flies/bacteria/frogs whatever missing the point entirely.
If I have a bowl of different coloured balls, then to make a row of blue balls, I need there to be blue balls. If there are no blue balls I need a mutation. But the point is that at the Ark, our "original point of time" so to speak, you would have all of those colours. It would be ludicrous to assume that God did not know how to make the correct dimensions for the Ark if we have already assumed he is God, agree?
I think your logic got a little twisted there. What has YHWH's ability to make correct dimensions for the Ark got to do with the front loaded biodiversity of ancestral kinds?
Of course, YHWH - assuming he exists - is more than capable of front loading species in the fashion you describe as long as it is something that is in anyway possible, I'm sure. As are other deities, spirits, djinn, demons, angels, time travelling human scientists from the future and aliens.
But imagining entities that could do this is a far cry from providing evidence that they did, right?
But as I have said, variation is proven, I only need mutations to get something "new", but I have the information apriori.
It's not a question of need Mike, its a question of empirical fact. Mutations exist. They change morphology. It's a bit daft to deny completely their role in the changes that have occurred since your ancestral kinds - even if you don't think they are respsonsible for a lot, they are there.
As for your example of assuming diversity from one common ancestor, without mutations, logically it does not work, because you start out with zero designs.
Mike - are you saying the likes of YHWH can't build all those designs into the information of the genome of a single celled life and have various losses of information via speciation cause some of those designs to become realized?
As for trying to persuade you of something, this topic was at best a speculation. I cannot change you intellectually, where attitude is the problem.
This is a debate, Mike. The idea is to try and persuasively defend a position, no idly speculate on hypothetical possibilities. Otherwise we could speculate about alien races seeding the concept of god into the consciousness of humanity (aka Babylon 5) and the like.
You are saying:
1. I don't know what the fundamental designs are.
2. But I do know that evolutionary processes cannot create them.
Which is empty noise, typical of a newbie creationist who hasn't given the concept due thought...which makes me very surprised to see you attempting to make a debate topic about it and then accusing your opponents of not thinking or understanding and the like.
Are you sure the attitude problem is mine?
Bye for now. I tried a calmer post.
Calmer, maybe, but more patronising and insulting.
™ Version 4.2