Functionally complex

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I have heard of strawman fallacy, you have a point?

My point is that things are what they are, and we have never seen
anything ever turn into something else. What are dogs when
changes occur still leave us with dogs, the same is true with
single cell life too. Maybe I have missed something about how all
life got to where it is today, from where i ...[text shortened]... f life we see today?

This is not what evolution supposedly has done in your opinion?
Kelly

We have evidence in the fossil record of things tuning into other things.

Yes, I think you've missed something

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I have heard of strawman fallacy, you have a point?

My point is that things are what they are, and we have never seen
anything ever turn into something else. What are dogs when
changes occur still leave us with dogs, the same is true with
single cell life too. Maybe I have missed something about how all
life got to where it is today, from where i f life we see today?

This is not what evolution supposedly has done in your opinion?
Kelly

Life started with cells, and it's still cells. There has been change, just as pit-bulls have changed from their wolflike ancestors, but it's still cells.

Now hopefully you'll stop spreading misinformation about evolutionary theory. You're not ignorant any more. If you keep doing so, it will be clear you are being deceitful.

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point is that things are what they are, and we have never seen
anything ever turn into something else. What are dogs when
changes occur still leave us with dogs, the same is true with
single cell life too.

Your ignorance of biology (or ability to mislead and lie) is starting to show. The word 'dog' is merely one used for classification purposes and your claim that a new breed of dog is not unique because we still call it a dog is false. Every living being is unique and new. With most sexualy reproducing life each and every being has a unique genetic code.The basic processes of evolution can and have been shown to take place in the breeding of dogs (as most dog breeders would know) and other animals /plants/ insects etc.

Your claims in your other posts that all processes run down and become increasingly disordered or random is false and you know it and have repetedly refused to support the claim but rather try to repeat it and ignore anyone who posts examples to the contrary.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
We have evidence in the fossil record of things tuning into other things.

Yes, I think you've missed something

No, there are fossils, than there is your claims they turned into other
things, what supposedly turned into what is an argument, it is not
anything you know for sure.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your ignorance of biology (or ability to mislead and lie) is starting to show. The word 'dog' is merely one used for classification purposes and your claim that a new breed of dog is not unique because we still call it a dog is false. Every living being is unique and new. With most sexualy reproducing life each and every being has a unique genetic code.Th ...[text shortened]... rt the claim but rather try to repeat it and ignore anyone who posts examples to the contrary.

I've been addressing examples during this discussion, and I resent
your claims I'm attempting to lie about anything, or for that matter
even attempt to mislead. I'm attempting to answer several people
if a few get by me, what can I say, reintroduce the points I have
missed. I just ask you and other stop making me the subject of this
discussion by making negative claims or insinuations about my
character.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, there are fossils, than there is your claims they turned into other
things, what supposedly turned into what is an argument, it is not
anything you know for sure.
Kelly

You don't exist

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've been addressing examples during this discussion, and I resent
your claims I'm attempting to lie about anything, or for that matter
even attempt to mislead. I'm attempting to answer several people
if a few get by me, what can I say, reintroduce the points I have
missed. I just ask you and other stop making me the subject of this
discussion by making negative claims or insinuations about my
character.
Kelly

You repeatedly misrepresent, heap undeserved scorn and derision yet you expect everyone to argue gently with you?

You bend the truth to breaking point then take umbrage at people's reaction. Please, you're better than that

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your ignorance of biology (or ability to mislead and lie) is starting to show. The word 'dog' is merely one used for classification purposes and your claim that a new breed of dog is not unique because we still call it a dog is false. Every living being is unique and new. With most sexualy reproducing life each and every being has a unique genetic code.Th ...[text shortened]... rt the claim but rather try to repeat it and ignore anyone who posts examples to the contrary.

I think the point you are missing is that non-evolutionist creationists/skeptics have no qualms with variation. In the past few hundred years dog breeding has led to a great variation -- from the Great Dane to the French Poodle. That is not a problem. Those breeds are still inherently dog -- they have all the intrinsic characteristics that distinguish them from cats or bats, for example. They all have the same basic skeletal structure, etc, etc. The point of contention that the creationist argues for is that given all the variation, they will still remain dogs –- and had always been dogs.

With all your smoke and mirror blustering you haven't succeeded in disproving anything, you've only been stating the obvious while saying nothing.

An example of what you claimed: all humans are unique (with unique DNA, blah, blah, blah) -- but they are still humans -- and the fact that they can all be classified to one taxonomical group means they are similar. Humans are both unique and similar. So what? That is not the point.

Your claims in your other posts that all processes run down and become increasingly disordered or random is false.

Actually, it’s you who’s false. Have you ever heard of the scientific principle of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics, perhaps? Kelly's position is well supported scientifically -- it's you who needs to disprove it or give special conditions where it would not apply.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
You don't exist

Isn't it past your bedtime?

Edit: I don't like the odds of one against four -- cut the dude some slack, will ya.

Originally posted by Halitose
I think the point you are missing is that non-evolutionist creationists/skeptics have no qualms with variation. In the past few hundred years dog breeding has led to a great variation -- from the Great Dane to the French Poodle. That is not a problem. Those breeds are still inherently dog -- they have all the intrinsic characteristics that distinguish them t's you who needs to disprove it or give special conditions where it would not apply.

"The second law of thermodynamics, which requires average entropy (or disorder) to increase, does not in any way forbid local order from arising through various mechanisms of self-organization, which can turn accidents into frozen ones producing extensive regularities. Again, such mechanisms are not restricted to complex adaptive systems.
Different entities may have different potentialities for developing higher complexity. Something that is not particularly distinguished from similar things by its effective complexity can nevertheless be remarkable for the complexity it may achieve in the future. Therefore it is important to define a new quantity, "potential complexity," as a function of future time, relative to a fixed time, say the present. The new quantity is the effective complexity of the entity at each future time, averaged over the various coarse-grained histories of the universe between the present and that time, weighted according to their probabilities.
The era may not last forever in which more and more complex forms appear as time goes on. If, in the very distant future, virtually all nuclei in the universe decay into electrons and positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos, and photons, then the era characterized by fairly well-defined individual objects may draw to an end, while self-organization becomes rare and the envelope of complexity begins to shrink. " ...
Murray Gell-Mann summarizing material from his book ' The Quark And The Jaguar'

Originally posted by Halitose

Actually, it’s you who’s false. Have you ever heard of the scientific principle of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics, perhaps? Kelly's position is well supported scientifically -- it's you who needs to disprove it or give special conditions where it would not apply.

I'm afraid you maintain an inaccurate conceptualization of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, many here seem to either misunderstand or mischaracterize the physics involved, or are simply ignorant on the point.

I know I am not the first to make this comment, nor am I likely to be the last. Whenever someone indicates there has been an incorrect representation of the second law's concern for entropy, that individual is either marginalized or ignored.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4
http://www.entropylaw.com/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Of general interest, but not necessarily germane to the argument on hand, is this link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2572

"One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems."

-JC

Originally posted by Halitose
I think the point you are missing is that non-evolutionist creationists/skeptics have no qualms with variation. In the past few hundred years dog breeding has led to a great variation -- from the Great Dane to the French Poodle. That is not a problem. Those breeds are still inherently dog -- they have all the intrinsic characteristics that distinguish them ...[text shortened]... t's you who needs to disprove it or give special conditions where it would not apply.

But dogs haven't always been dogs.

Dogs have been doges for 20-15 thousand years. They originate as domesticated wolves. We're not talking fossils here but intact skeletal remains.
Title: Mitochondrial DNA from prehistoric canids highlights relationships between dogs and South-East European wolves
Author(s): Verginelli F, Capelli C, Coia V, Musiani M, Falchetti M, Ottini L, Palmirotta R, Tagliacozzo A, Mazzorin ID, Mariani-Costantini R
Source: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 22 (12): 2541-2551 DEC 2005
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 66 Times Cited: 0 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: The question of the origins of the dog has been much debated. The dog is descended from the wolf that at the end of the last glaciation (the archaeologically hypothesized period of dog domestication) was one of the most widespread among Holarctic mammals. Scenarios provided by genetic studies range from multiple dog-founding events to a single origin in East Asia. The earliest fossil dogs, dated approximate to 17-12,000 radiocarbon (C-14) years ago (YA), were found in Europe and in the Middle East. Ancient DNA (a-DNA) evidence could contribute to the identification of dog-founder wolf populations. To gain insight into the relationships between ancient European wolves and dogs we analyzed a 262-bp mitochondrial DNA control region fragment retrieved from five prehistoric Italian canids ranging in age from approximate to 15,000 to approximate to 3,000 C-14 YA. These canids were compared to a worldwide sample of 547 purebred dogs and 341 wolves. The ancient sequences were highly diverse and joined the three major clades of extant dog sequences. Phylogenetic investigations highlighted relationships between the ancient sequences and geographically widespread extant dog matrilines and between the ancient sequences and extant wolf matrilines of mainly East European origin. The results provide a-DNA support for the involvement of European wolves in the origins of the three major dog clades. Genetic data also suggest multiple independent domestication events. East European wolves may still reflect the genetic variation of ancient dog-founder populations.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
But dogs haven't always been dogs.

I believe Haltiose's point is that the general canine appearance has remained recognizable, despite genetic variation.

As KellyJay might say - European wolves didn't turn into European elephants, therefore evolution is obviously a fraud.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I believe Haltiose's point is that the general canine appearance has remained recognizable, despite genetic variation.

As KellyJay might say - European wolves didn't turn into European elephants, therefore evolution is obviously a fraud.

-JC

why on earth would a dog evolve into an elephant , anyway.
a dog has a different evolutionary path to sniff and the trunk would be too easily infected with sinusitus.

Originally posted by frogstomp
why on earth would a dog evolve into an elephant , anyway.
a dog has a different evolutionary path to sniff and the trunk would be too easily infected with sinusitus.

Apparently the Dogephant did not survive as a species due to these mechanical issues. Natural selection at work.

-JC