Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, May 29, 2006

Evolutionism and Nested Hierarchies

As anyone familiar with evolutionism should know, evolution can select any direction. Therefore nested hierarchies are not a prediction, ie not expected, of evolutionism. Realistically NH should be evidence against evolutionism and evidence for some common design as both Aristotle and Karl von Linne (the father of modern classification) stated.

That evolutionists attempt to use NH as evidence for evolutionism should demonstrate their ability to accomodate ANY data into their "theory".

It should also be noted that NH can be constructed of unrelated objects. And again NH is circumstantial evidence

8 Comments:

  • At 12:37 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    As anyone familiar with evolutionism should know, evolution can select any direction.

    Uhhmmm no, this is quite false. The above implies that natural selection is random and it is anything but random.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As anyone familiar with evolutionism should know, evolution can select any direction.

    Steve:
    Uhhmmm no, this is quite false.

    The scientific data and scientists say I am correct:

    “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

    Can evolution make things less complicated?
    Scientists suggest cell origins involved a forward-and-backward process


    Steve:
    The above implies that natural selection is random

    That is incorrect.

    Steve:
    and it is anything but random.

    Dan Dennett tells us there is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time. Natural selection just keeps what works at that point & place in time. And now we have evos trupeting the find of organisms that lost their sight because they "evolved" in a cave. Pretty much substantiates my claim.

    Does Steve have ANY data that would demonstrate I am wrong?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    Joe,

    Sure predicting which way natural selection will go is very difficult for any given organism. So what, but the process (natural selection) is completely deterministic. As such it can't pick any old direction, only those that will survive. True, over a large number of selection events there is no direction that is favored, but that doesn't mean that in any given instant any old direction will be selected.

    Basically you are making a fallacy of compostion. What is true in the aggregate does not have to be true in the disaggregated cases. At best your wording is sloppy at worst deliberately misleading.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve,

    I will go with the scientific data that demonstrates that evolution does NOT have a direction.

    And again nature selects what works best at that point and place in time.

    Natural selection is a RESULT of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits. And those who survive can be less complex than those who came before- just as the paper states.

     
  • At 2:16 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    I will go with the scientific data that demonstrates that evolution does NOT have a direction.

    I never said nor implied that evolution has a direction. What I said was that natural selection was deterministic. Keep on trying to put words in my mouth if you want, it only indicates you have nothing else to support your position.

    And again nature selects what works best at that point and place in time.

    Uhhmmm, no. Nature selects what works, not just what works best.

    Natural selection is a RESULT of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits. And those who survive can be less complex than those who came before- just as the paper states.

    Yes, precisely which is why evolution can't go in just any old direction. It goes in the direction of that which is selected for. To say "any direction" implies it is like a lottery, it isn't.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    will go with the scientific data that demonstrates that evolution does NOT have a direction.

    Steve:
    I never said nor implied that evolution has a direction.

    I did NOT say you did.

    Natural selection is a RESULT of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits. And those who survive can be less complex than those who came before- just as the paper states.

    Steve:
    Yes, precisely which is why evolution can't go in just any old direction.

    Again quoting an evolutionary scientist:

    “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

    THAT is what the scientific data tells us. I will go with the scientific data. YOU have not provided anything except for your assertions. Why is that?


    Steve:
    It goes in the direction of that which is selected for.

    Bingo! Which can be any direction- just as the scientific data demonstrates.

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Bingo! Which can be any direction- just as the scientific data demonstrates.

    In general over a large number of events, sure. In specific, no. Your wording is sloppy...which I've found is typical.

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Bingo! Which can be any direction- just as the scientific data demonstrates.

    Steve:
    In general over a large number of events, sure. In specific, no.

    In general and specifically because "survival" depends on chance- that is under evolutionism's umbrella.

    Steve:
    Your wording is sloppy...which I've found is typical.

    Your thought process is not only sloppy but as my recent posts demonstrate your inference is quite incorrect.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home