Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

lifepsyop

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

lifepsyop last won the day on June 18

lifepsyop had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

230 Excellent

About lifepsyop

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    30
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Maine

Recent Profile Visitors

134 profile views
  1. lifepsyop

    Subtractive Creation Model

    The whole point is that they are differentiated. Sorry if there was confusion about that. When I speak of copies, I am referring to the creation of templates for subsequent refinement. See above. I don't really understand your question. I'm sure part of the confusion is over the word "information" which I'm only using very loosely.. and the term 'information' is already a horribly ambiguous term to begin with, as you may be aware. So my apologies for entering with that vocabulary. (Hey it's just a rough draft!) Maybe my comment below will provide some clarity. Good that you bring this issue up. I don't think any subdivision would necessarily lose any potentiality for design. e.g. There's nothing stopping you from refining the donut back into a cube, is there? I can't think of any reason to impose that limitation. The point is that once you have designed the donut, it makes little sense to design completely backwards back to the cube - (it would refute your intention of changing the cube in the first place). Now that you have a donut-template, you can copy and refine from that, and so forth. In this way, a nested hierarchy of shapes branch out from the original grouping. Your confusion probably comes in trying to weigh changing quantities and constraints of things, but there really isn't anything more than the constraint of one's application of intention. Very similar to a 3D modeler with the model of a cube. I can potentially model and sculpt that cube into the shape of a human with a trillion+ facets... and from that human shape, conform it back into a simple cube again. If you remove the human constraint of time, (and the hardware constraint of graphics rendering) the only thing I am constrained by is my own decision-making. (actually for my 2nd draft I should use this for a better visual example) On the subject of quantities, I think when I refer to a "totality" in the image, that refers to the totality of potential design decisions. Think of an artist with a blank canvas. The canvas is both empty and completely full of potential for design. As soon as you begin making design decisions (adding marks to the canvas) you are removing the total amount of potential for what the final product may be. Which is kind of an interesting way of looking at it. The purpose of this 'creation hypothesis' is to show that deriving a series of branching templates from an original would create a large variety of types whose characteristics would then fall into a nested hierarchy. They would have to because you'd literally be creating a nested hierarchy by your actions. And, importantly, this type of design would not be some contrived series of events made to "look like evolution", but a very simple and elegant design process that I've actually used myself many times without even thinking of it. I'm not sure I understand you're thinking here. If I have two copies of a book, and the chapters are reversed on the 2nd book.. are you suggesting the 2nd book now contains more information than the first? That seems very strange to me but maybe you have a deeper understanding than I. I'm still not sure of the relevance here but I'm happy to keep musing on the subject for now.
  2. lifepsyop

    Subtractive Creation Model

    You're having trouble because you're wrapped up in thinking of it literally..I'm sure you know we're not dealing with actual raw stone here.. Let's move to virtual space. Are you familiar with 3D modeling on a computer? Say I start with a simple cube model. Now I can section this cube into 100 smaller cubes (or a million, or infinite number really).. but I have not lost any potential design space in any of these cubes. In each of those smaller cubes I can design anything I could have designed in the larger cube. (just zoom in the camera to see it up close) This virtual cube's scale has zero effect on the actual complexity of design a modeler can extract from it. Actually scale is totally unnecessary concept here. Just say we copy the cube a hundred times. Now say we refine one of the sub-cubes into a donut shape. Now we copy that donut a hundred times. The donut is now a template we use to model a variety of slightly modified donut shapes, and so on, creating a nested hierarchy of design. Think of the "information" as an alphabet. It's not so much information as it is design potential. I'm not adding or taking away from the alphabet by creating new strings of content out of it. I don't suddenly run out of the letter E when writing a story, and I don't need to invent new letters to write certain words. What is important is differentiation of design. I write a book, and this book then becomes my template that I base variations of that book off of. Actually that is false. To be different the copies could simply contain rearrangements of that information. But I'm not sure this is relevant.. see my previous comment.
  3. lifepsyop

    Subtractive Creation Model

    I'm just musing here, but can't rocks be nested within the physical processes (e.g. heating and cooling events) they've undergone to arrive at their present characteristics? Don't such events pass on characteristics to the affected matter? Yes it is about shape. Think of the 'stoniness' as design potential. No matter how much you section up raw stone, you still have the same potential for sculpting out a particular shape. (not a perfect analogy because we aren't dealing with limitations of actual physical material but you get the idea) Yes I think that's the point. Once you design a "mammal shape", you now have a root template to base all sub-mammal shapes on. You copy this template as you would a computer program, and further refine each shape and so on. This is how nested groupings form. From a design perspective, this is a far more elegant solution than making, say, a dog and a cat from scratch. Not sure what you're confused about here. Changing the contents is the whole point. Master File Make 10 copies Edit each copy Make 10 copies from each of the previous copies Vertebrate program Make 2 copies of this program, one for amphibians and one for mammals. For the mammal program, make a copy for each mammal subgroup
  4. lifepsyop

    Subtractive Creation Model

    Doesn't all physical matter "descend" through a hierarchy of events from a common source? Think of the blocks more as design spaces for different potential organizational patterns, rather than literal chopping away of information. When a mason splits stone, he may have a smaller stone but he hasn't reduced its "stoniness" in any way. So think of the blocks of life as sharing the same quality of potential information as it's previous state, but now that information can be organized in a unique fashion. I guess it is misleading of me to show the blocks getting smaller in the image. It is differentiation of design, not actual reduction of material. Computer program analogy works too I suppose. You can copy a file of data as much as you want without actually reducing the data. And then go on to refine the copies.
  5. This is a simple Creation model that crossed my mind the other night and I sketched up an image for it. Actually it's so simple I'm surprised I never thought of it before. I've only ever seen Divine Creation depicted as an "additive" process, where individual creature types would be shaped into existence out of nothing. "Poofed into thin air" if you will. This additive process you could say is similar to assembling an automobile out of many little pieces of raw material. But what if we look at the reverse idea... of designs being chiseled out of a shared primary state, or a "subtractive" creation process. We start with a design space. In this design space is the totality of all potential information that will be used to create different types of living things. The "raw material". This is the original "block" of information. This design block is then sectioned into differentiated smaller blocks, like a sculptor chiseling out basic shapes to later refine.. The different sections are then refined into their own unique shapes and then split up into smaller and smaller blocks which are themselves refined. The effect of this is that each subsequent block retains the raw material of the previous sequence of blocks it "descended" from, thus giving an effect of a "nested hierarchy". For example, the original block of life is divided into a block designed for vertebrate bodyplans, and a block designed for invertebrate bodyplans. The vertebrate block is then sectioned into a block for amphibians and a block for mammals. The block for mammals is then section into a block for elephants and a block for humans, and so forth. This way it's sort of like taking the evolutionary "tree of life" and flipping it upside down. (of course the connecting branches between major groups are totally imaginary) This subtractive model would predict a "nested hierarchy" of information that evolutionists often tout as proof positive for their beliefs. When all the sections are refined to their final variety of types and introduced into the natural world, and begin to reproduce, they of begin to further differentiate and diversify based on mutation and environmental pressures. These varieties of course are limited to loss, activating or deactivating information that was already present. Seems like an elegant idea, just wanted to throw it out there.
  6. Iguana, read Bonediggers responses to you again, sloooowly. "homologies" are not being identified or "traced" through the fossil record. They are simply inferred on the basis of whether or not they harmonize a particular model of phylogeny. As Bonedigger explained to you, a trait can be a homology one day, and then a homoplasy the next. Many structures that were once thought to be homologous, are now believed to have arisen in multiple lineages independently. You do not have "criteria for determining" homologies. At best you have educated guesses on what is probably a homology or not based on evolutionary assumptions, but it is never scientifically determined. To make the matter of homology even more ambiguous, researchers have found that an alleged "homologous trait" can potentially be self-contradictory in that homologous anatomy can be developed by non-homologous genes, and homologous genes can produce non-homologous anatomy. This little tidbit is never explained to the public. This is what happens when the Evolutionary cult leaders sanitize presentations for their followers. Homology is one of the most fundamental concepts of Evolution theory and most of its proponents do not even seem to understand the logic behind it.
  7. Practically any idea can be potentially falsifiable in some extreme way. Any potential falsification at all does not automatically vindicate a theory... not even remotely. ToE heavily resists potential falsification. This is demonstrated in the OP in regards to nested hierarchies. When highly unexpected character trait assemblages are discovered, new models of imaginary evolutionary lineages can be conjured up out of thin air, or older imaginary models can be revised. There is no rigorous testing or confirmation of ToE taking place. But the evolutionary community perpetuates the myth that all lifeforms are neatly and precisely "fitting into place" in the nested hierarchy of common descent and confirming ToE over and over again.
  8. If a theory is designed to be able to accommodate too much discordant data, then it resists potential falsification, and the conclusion is that the theory is not being rigorously tested. To understand whether or not this is happening with Evolution theory, we must examine its major claims of testability. That is why I made this thread. For example provided in the OP, when a dinosaur is discovered exhibiting complex traits never before seen in dinosaurs, evolutionists simply conjure up a new imaginary lineage that gave rise to this animal. This amount of flexibility immediately casts doubt on the claim that Evolution is being rigorously tested by character traits of animals. Yet evolutionists everywhere are claiming that all animals "fit perfectly into a nested hierarchy of common descent". Someone is being very misleading here. I suggest you review the OP. I spent a lot of time addressing this point. I don't see how this is relevant to anything but that's because Evolution is a state-sponsored, tax-funded creation religion. Creationists have done a lot of work with the limited resources available to them.
  9. Correct. And it shows your models are ad-hoc and Evolution is not being tested or confirmed. Evolution changes to fit the data the way the shape of water changes to fill different containers.
  10. No argument has been advanced. There is nothing to respond to. Here is a suggestion. Try writing at least a paragraph clearly explaining your position. It's not that hard.
  11. The subject of this thread is whether or not the "nested hierarchy" is a test and confirmation of Evolution. You have so far failed to produce an argument that supports your position. You are free to advance another argument if you have one.
  12. You do realize that the quality of being "derived" is not found in data, right? It is assumed. Do you understand this or not? For example, a previously assumed "derived" trait can also later be changed to a "non-derived homoplasy" if evolutionists need to change a model. Later on it might be changed back to "derived" again. You do not need to assume common descent to arrange life into nested hierarchies based on shared traits. So far you've advanced nothing but demonstrably flawed assertions on this point.
  13. Wrong, Common descent is the major assumption. Like MarkForbes pointed out, shared characteristics are only assumed to be "derived" because of the amount of sharedness. Sharedness itself is not evidence of being derived. The common descent assumption is completely unnecessary in arranging life into nested hierarchies based on shared characteristics.
  14. But I'm not trying to "disprove" common ancestry. I'm demonstrating that phylogenies based on ERV's can contradict a nested hierarchy and still be accommodated, thus they are not a test/confirmation of common descent. Then you admit that ERV's could contradict the conventional phylogenetic branching of hominids and Evolution theory would still accommodate it. Yet you previously claimed the specific phylogenetic ordering of ERVs was a rigid test of Evolution theory. Do you see the contradiction in your position? Of course there would. Phylogenetic trees are simply based on shared characteristics. Relation is not a requirement at all.
  15. As I've explained, a common descent phylogeny of ERVs is totally violated in placental mammal groups and is still accommodated by invoking incomplete lineage sorting. It is not a test of common descent.
×

Important Information

Our Terms