Member # 140
posted 03. March 2002 13:59
The thing is, the nested hierarchy prediction falls straight out of the proposition that descent is lineal, from
parent(s) to child, with changes (however they occur) being inherited, but only vertical inheritance occurring. *If*
this is how things work, then the nested hierarchy prediction falls straight out of this process.
(so, really, RM & NS is not what produces nested hierarchy, rather descent with hereditary modification produces
My point exactly, Random Mutation & Natural Selection are not what produces nested hierarchy! Descent with modification due to directed mutation, progressive creation and as you pointed out special creation can all account for it. I'm glad we agree here. As to Doug Theobald's 29 evidences FAQ, it's been responded to in a point by point fashion by Ashby Camp-> http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp and that response has been has been addressed by Theobald -> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html. And finally, Theobald's response has also been addressed point by point -> http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp
I don't think you've gained any ground at all in your attempt to promote Darwinism, though you have brought up some interesting material. As I stated earlier, functional linkages remain a problem. They are a larger problem for undirected causes than they are for intelligently designed causes, simply because intelligent causes have the ability to leap frog unselected steps.
Now a couple of points about your long quote:
In this view, evolution does not behave like a good engineer who always wants to do the best job with a well-prepared plan and specifically provided materials.
Instead, evolution works like a tinker who uses whatever material comes
to hand in making a device that crudely serves some new functions but does so in a far-from-perfect manner at first. Thus, a tinker can make a roulette table from an old bicycle wheel or a TV stand from a broken chair.
How much actual information's added to turn a broken chair into a TV stand? Where is the data on the information increase? NDT requires an increase! Spetner, Truman and Gitt have all pointed this out.-> (e.g., http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp & http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp) The reuse in another place is not an information increase, but Darwinism demands that information be increased. This is why you're able to say that your graphic (discussed earlier) is lineal and vertical. There must be an increase not just a swap.
The high substitution rates of the shuffled exons, as shown in Sdic and other new genes [9,59] , however, suggests that the original exons were not adept in their new roles and needed further modifications by the diligent tinker.
This smacks of teleology. Which is it, does evolution behave like a good engineer or not?
I've got quite a bit to do today so I've got to go, talk to you later...................................Cre8
[ 03 March 2002: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]