First this is a man made design and humans repeat what works. In fact the design is constrained by a large number of human factors. I have an interesting story about what happens when human factors are ignored.
Second, how many other planes match the list you provided? So these two planes are similar to a large number of other planes.
2 Likes
So, there is no philosophical objection to evolution whatsoever. It would be like a philosophical objection to a dining room, gravity, potato chips, a pine cone, lamplight.
Critique, yes, like there is of movies, literature, politics, research methods and philosophy itself.
3 Likes
When? It’s often called “convergence”.
For instance, both Ostrea lawrencei and Plicatula marginata are bivalves that live attached to hard surfaces in bivalve reefs. Both of them have an atypical level of plasticity to their shape. It is not due to direct relationship, as Plicatula is closer related to scallops than to oysters. The fact that both grow in among hard objects make a level of plasticity quite useful, in being able to grow despite things being in the way.
Similarly, patellogastropods, fissurellids, hipponicids, calyptraeids, Concholepas, cocculinids, ancylines, and a few other groups of gastropods are limpet-shaped. That shape is useful for hanging onto hard surfaces, for whatever exact reason (strong currents, mode of life, etc.). None of those groups are closely related: they are in four different subclasses, and have been known to not be very related for a while, as their anatomies are extremely different.
1 Like
No, it means that you are failing to see how it might. And missing the whole point.
All the answers so far have been concentrating on trying to affirm what details may or may not be correct. The article did not indicate that a theft actually occurred as you suggested. But, that is still not the point of Philosophy or how to criticise an analogy. It is not about the specific details or any historical accuracies or inaccuracies. It is about the thought process that constructed the theories.
By stating that the idea of function removes it from Evolution is the complete reverse of what the analogy is trying to show. Evolutionists refuse to even consider the idea of function! And you are obviously included.
The whole point of the analogy is to show how function might acutally apply. (because of comparable thought processes in reaching conclusions in the two theories), It is not about any real diefferenece/ similiraities between the two planes. It is about any similarites between the way the two theories were constructed (The conspiracy theory and Evolution)
LIke I said from the start. You need to understand what an analogy is about. and what it is actually trying to address. But scientists seem to be unable to think along these lines. (This is no more an insult than pointing out the differences between the male and female thought processes. ie Men are from mars and women from Venus)
Richard
Just for interest let’s try a different type of argument. (comparison)
Here is a very famous optical illusion
Most people see either an old hag or a beautiful woman, and struggle to identify the other one.
That is not the point. Neither actually exist. The human brain takes what it sees and tries to make sense of it. It uses experience and “similarities” of shape and form to undersand and conceptualise.
What you are looking at is nothing more than pen marks on a piece of paper. No person exists or ever existed here.
Now I hope that you already know where I am going…
Fossils. They rely on our knowledge of what to look for. They rely on us identifying a shape be it 2D or 3D and deducing what it is (or might be)
(I can already hear the cries of indignation. Of course Fossils are actual bones, or at least the impressions left by them) Of course?
And as for the connections in DNA Heredity…
(Of course they are there!)
I saw a program claim that a hinged jaw bone evolved from the first ridge of a gill. Why? Because the images (fossils) matched! You do not even know whether DNA is that specific. That the sequence is so specific it can change a part of an organ into something else. Or that if you corrupt the DNA for a Gill the whole gill will ossify not one specific (lucky) part.
The evolutionary theory relies almost 100% on interpreting data. How can you be certain that what you see actually exists or ever existed? The computer-generated (Or artist-drawn) impressions of DInosaurs. They are pure speculation (in many senses).The internal organs are deduced using what we know about modern creatures and visually identifying the signs of them.
The whole connection theory is based on visual and cognitive perceived connections.
(But it is impossible to even consider that any of this might be an illusion)
Let the outrage begin (or continue, it has been building ever since you starrted reading this, probably)
Richard
Which brings us back to these examples:
If you wish me to send you a few thousand photographs of these sorts of mollusks fossils, I can do so, but there are better ways to apply the next few months.
Here is a specific example:
Would you agree that considering these to be very similar, but not identical, is reasonable?
1 Like
I will say you were having so much fun with your comparison that I really was having a difficult time trying to figure out where you were going. I read it twice and came up with two possibilities.
To boil it down, you think the thought process was.
The two planes were visually similar
The planes performed the same function
An assumption was made that one was a copy of the other
Q.E.D. the design must have been stolen
Do I have your analogy correctly stated? Let’s get it boiled down correctly before we tear it apart. 
It helps if your analogy is clearly stated.
1 Like
You can provide obvious examples, I can probably provide less obvious examples. I cited an abuse. (gill to jaw bone)
Once again I am not claiming total fallacy/illusion or anything else “or all nothing”. But, it would seem that Science is about absolutes, not maybes.
Richard
No.
The consensus is that the design was not stolen.
I just explained how the notion (theory) of stolen came to be and what ideas, or other proofs were used to form that theory.
I then compared the origins of the Evolutionary theory as having been arrived at in a similar manner. (using different ancillary or supporting proofs which seem to have relevance and standing)
It had nothing to do with the actual, only with the theories that surrounded the actual.
let me propose another theory, based on the evidence of our discussion.
No matter how I try, or what language I use, you will never follow my reasoning or understand my train of thoughts because they are so different and alien to yours. It would be like trying to understand the Chinese language using western syntax and lettering.
Richard
Intermixed with comments about evolution.
I am trying. So just lay out the simple chain of steps for how the conspiracy theory came to be and the proofs offered for it. At this point make no mention of evolution. When you mix the two it does make it hard to follow. As I said I read your initial description twice and came up with two different interpretations.
1 Like
I don’t want to appear condescending or insulting. I know you are trying.
You can see that the conspiracy theory of the two planes is based on the following (theories)
1 their similarity (visual)
2 knowledge of Russian and European rivalry (proven)
3 Knowledge of Industrial Espionage and counter-espionage ( from other examples)
There is also the conviction that the Russians were incapable to do it themselves
and a sense of the superiority of the Europeans, Brits etc.
Are you happy so far?
The next step will be to “marry” or substitute aspects of the theory of Evolution to the above rationales to show that the theory of Evolution might have conceptual flaws in it. It would then be up to you to decide whether what I claim is being thought, is being thought. (or could be)
Also, any comparison or analogy will be limited in scope. The conception of Evolution is almost certainly more complex than marrying certain theories together. There may be other factors, proofs or mitigations that point towards Evolution that are not covered by this analogy.
Richard
To make sure I am clear, you analogy is how a theory came to be and not any type of comment about the validity of that theory.
That is going to be difficult.
- Darwin’s initial observation was the great diversity in creation. Darwin also observed there were no terrestrial mammals on islands.
- Life can be grouped into nested hierarchies. Carl Linnaeus 1735
- Species found on an island are closely related to the species on the nearest land.
- Darwin proposed Common Descent with modification to explain what he was seeing.
What say you?
1 Like
I think you are jumping the gun.
Layout as follows:
Evolutionary theory (comparative Conspiracy of the planes)
The theory that a microbe could become a human being over time. (the theory that the design was stolen)
1 there is a proven means of doing it but it has only been proved at a limited level (The existence of espionage and proof that it exists)
2 similarites at the neuclear level (Visual similarites of the two planes)
3 the only paper trail youh have is fossils but they are static. They do not show any transitions as they happen, they are a snapshot of a single creature. And you have to use modern observations to “translate” them (paperwork for the copying is mostly about other copies not this one.)
4 No eye witness of the actual event (no eye witness account of the design process)
IOW the theory is based on coroboritive theories or information, and not empiracle eye-witness evidence.
Darwin’s initial observations only covered diversification. You have no proof that any living thing can develop into a completely different creature. Not then. Not now. It is corroborative only
Life can be? You claim that it does.
Nested hierarchies are still visual similarities whether you like it or not.
Species related? = diversification, not new creatures. 98% of the finches were identical and the differences were only matters of size and proportions.
That Darwin proposed it? So what! someone had to start the idea off. He had less proof than you have now! Would the conspiracy theory carry more weight if it was proposed by the Prime Minister or a meteorologist.? Darwin had absolutely no qualifications in Evolution,but he was a biologist and an observer.
Can you not see that The theory of Evolution relies solely on corroborative theories and evidence? And just because there is no other theory (other than God did it) it stands as fact.
(The conspiratory theory did have an alternative that was decreed fact. otherwise, it too might still hold sway.)
Look, you know I do not agree that this similarity in DNA means what you think it does. But even if it does, it does not prove that there is a method to join the dots (create new creatures from old ones) It is purely corroborative.
You need that proof. If you can’t even change a virus that has a 60 second cyle, how can you claim that time will do what the evidence doesn’t?
And to prove the nested hierarchies you need to show that if a new creature is created it carries enough of the donor DNA to be identified and compared.
Richard
You ignore the DNA evidence that is also a paper trail.
Sorry but we see speciation happen in real time. Granted it isn’t human but the principle still stands.
Not “fact”, just the best model that we have. When a better model is proposed this one will be thrown out.
It has been demonstrated that bacteria can evolve new functionality. What more could you want?
Any “new creature” is going to be so nearly identical to the parent as to be nearly indistinguishable. Evolution doesn’t work the way you seem to think that it does.
and beak shape/function and the fact that they didn’t interbreed. Basic definition of a species difference.
1 Like
So we are just seeing things? Is that what you are saying?
Let’s see how that holds up. Take a look at the pelvises in this picture.
To me, the two in the middle look more like the one on the left than the one on the right. Can you please tell me how this is an optical illusion?
THAT IS TRUE FOR EVERY SINGLE THEORY IN SCIENCE!!!
4 Likes
It doesn’t matter since planes don’t fall into a nested hierarchy.
No one is saying that simply sharing similarities is evidence for common ancestry, so what is the point of your analogy?
3 Likes
That’s the trouble with science, too … sciency!
3 Likes
“But Evolution does not conform to pure scientific rules”
What are these ‘pure scientific rules’ to which evolution does not conform?
1 Like
You are arguing in circles. One argument for gradual change and the other for a complete change. It is you who is not being consistent, not me.
As I said elsewhere. You cannot:
Describe the necessities of a neutral ancestor for both reptiles and mammals, or how to "build them. Nor can you describe a route from one to the other . You clearly have no idea of the practicalities of your “belief” because that is what it amounts to. It is you, not me who needs to study the practical applications of Evolution and the reciprocation of the theory in practical terms. You need to study physiology and ecology and all the disciplines that so far you have ignored.
Show me a neutral creature who could be the matriarch of Mammals without being one. Show me the progressions. Show me you actually understand what you claim and can demonstrate it beyond your micro-connections and DNA blarney.
That does not describe any progression of note let alone the ability to “create” mammals from anything other than a mammal!
I have had enough of this!
For once you answer my challenges without using the words Not relevant, (or the equivalent)
Richard
Empirical evidence.
Evolution is a combination of corroborative theories. (they may or may not be based on empirical data) There is no empirical evidence to prove it can change anything other than a few minor adjustments. No empirical evidence of its grandiose claims of microbe to human. None.
It is an unprovable theory. But because of your definition of theory, that is enough.
Richard