Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft

Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Jack Dominey wrote:


In <8LqHf.1540$lo3.1174@trnddc07>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Jack Dominey wrote:



In <XmaFf.9235$%i3.4810@trnddc02>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Deadrat wrote:


"Wall Of Sleep" <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:RA8Ef.89645$M94.36905@xxxxxxxxxxx


<snip>

The differences in the languages might just be the difference in the
intelligence of their designers. I'm not saying that DNA is a language
"exactly like" any human language - just that it bears the hallmarks of
intelligent designed languages everywhere.


There are "designed" languages like Esperanto and Klingon, but most
human language isn't designed in any normal sense of the term. Or are
you saying that the Great Vowel Shift in English
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift) was something that
someone decided on ahead of time?


They are all the product of intelligent agents. If you know of some
language that had no input from intelligence, but just came into being
due to random vowel and consonant mutations, let me know.


Please try to make a consistent argument. You said DNA "bears the
hallmarks of intelligent [sic] designed languages everywhere." Natural
languages are human products, but that does not make them "designed".
They actually change through the effect of thousands of people
interacting over long time periods. The analogy between DNA and
natural languages has nothing to do with design.



<snip>


Where does the Bat fit into this hierarchy? A bat has systems that are
not accounted for anywhere else but within itself.




"The" bat? There are over nine hundred species of bats, and you want
to treat them as if there were only one?


According to your theory, they started from a common ancestor didn't they?


Yes, in all likelyhood. I'm trying to get at what you are talking
about, though, and you aren't doing anything to make yourself clearer.



And just what are these systems you're talking about? The wings that
are obvious adaptations of earlier mammalian forelimbs? The
hyperdeveloped vocalization and hearing in some (but not all) bats?


What evidence do you have that they are "adaptations"? The *only*
evidence you have is that other mammals have forelimbs that look like
bat wings (sans the wing part) - therefore bat wings "had to be"
adaptations from them. This is circular reasoning and *assumes* the
conclusion in order to show evidence of it.


I note that you did not answer my questions.

Your assertion of circular reasoning is simply wrong. The evidence
that bat wings are adapted mammalian forelimbs is in the detailed
similarities in structure. The bones are in different proportions,
but the configuration is the same. Calling them adaptations doesn't
even say anything about how they got that way - it's just pointing out
the painfully obvious.

Bats' wings are not organs that just sprang out of nowhere. So what
"systems" were you talking about?



The wing, the echolocation... you name it.

The fact that you *assume* that bat wings had to be an "adaptation" from
similar forelimbs shows how steeped in the circular world of evolution
you are.

Because bat forelimbs and other mammalian forelimbs are similar does not
mean one evolved from the other. You're still *assuming* your conclusion.

A Ford looks like a Chevy, does that mean they come from the same plant?

You're also inferring that it's "no big deal" to get from mammalian
forelimbs to bat wings via mutations - when random mutations have never
been shown to be capable of building complex functions.



What about the Platypus? It has traits that appear to be "borrowed" from
other lineages. Where does it fit?


It has traits that appear "borrowed" from its ancestors.

Which are?
The duck?

There are no traits that appear borrowed if you bother to look. A
platypus snout is only vaguely shaped like a duck's bill and is
constructed entirely differently.

And descended from what?


Why do you ask? You refuse to believe the answer. Are you admitting
you were wrong to say there's anything "borrowed" about a platypus?


I'm asking to see if you have an explanation.

John Harshman did.
About the platypus bill:
"Rather similar to that of a New Zealand blue duck, by the way, for
similar adaptive reasons."

So how did these two similar bills (according to JH) or two completely
dissimilar bills (according to you) come into being?

So far, I'm the only person to mention the blue duck, so it's unfair of
you to suggest that Jack has any particular position on its similarity
to a platypus. The two bills are similar in a superficial way, in that
they both have flexible, rubbery surfaces with a lot of touch receptors
in them. This is explained easily by adaptive evolution, because both
animals make their livings finding invertebrates under rocks, where
touch is the main way of searching. They are not at all similar in
detail. Blue ducks are related to other ducks, whose bills are less
similar, even superficially, to a platypus's. Platypodes are related to
other monotremes, which don't even have anything you could call bills.

Convergent evolution in response to similar selective regimes is hardly
a difficult concept. What about it confuses you?

What's your explanation?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... I'm not saying that DNA is a language ... natural languages has nothing to do with design. ... evidence you have is that other mammals have forelimbs that look like ... So how did these two similar bills or two completely ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... intelligence of their designers. ... I'm not saying that DNA is a language ... evidence you have is that other mammals have forelimbs that look like ... Because bat forelimbs and other mammalian forelimbs are similar does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Requesting C advice
    ... language designers made the language ... Every compiler I've used compiles C to native machine code for the ... libraries was not pleasant. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: [LONG] C# too sharp for me
    ... much more about you than the language. ... or that you think the language designers didn't understand ... OTOH, I do a lot of VB.Net work, and VB programmers are always asking me ... this morning I bought a copy of Programming Ruby! ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme
    ... is not Lisp is a domain-specific language for ... You say that's because Lisp can be used ... > designers have found the best language feature for any task that might ... So, umm, how does Lisp handle shared memory? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
Loading