[continued from previous message]

other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water. >>>> With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body >>>> plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or >>>> even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for >>>> it.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169

That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"

I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusion.

Thank you

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[continued from previous message]

contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>>>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.

Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build >>>>> on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >>>>> innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>>>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>>>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >>>>> "break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the >>>>> other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water. >>>>> With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body >>>>> plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right, >>>>> (as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or >>>>> even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for >>>>> it.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169

That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a
similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"

I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusion.

Thank you

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[continued from previous message]

I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>> conclusion.

Thank you

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)