RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (18) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Cornelius Hunter Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cornelius Hunter



Posts: 11
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2007,17:14   

==============================
Me: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Stephen: "For starters, how about some discussion of dentition and skull morphology, with regard to the claim that the thylacine and the wolf have "almost identical" dentition?"

Wesley: "It's strange how failing to note obvious differences in a mammalian dental formula amounts to a "scientific problem"... unless, of course, one is identifying the locus of the problem as the particular ignorance displayed by Hunter in urging the thylacine and wolf as somehow proving "problematic" for scientific explanation. Let's clear that one up first before proceeding to other supposed examples. If Jonathan Wells can get outraged over perfectly reasonable photographs to display the issue of crypsis, how come the ID community has not risen as one in condemnation of the far more flagrant abuse of imagery used by Hunter? "
===============================

Stephen and Wesley are not reckoning with the problem. Hence Wesley comes to the erroneous conclusion about "flagrant abuse of imagery." I'll restate the question in more acceptable terms. How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves? Please look at the very bottom here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf

Then look at here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png#filelinks

And then consider my question, and explain why similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence.

Regarding ID and religion, the question of whether or not proponents of a theory/position can (i) leverage the theory for non scientific purposes and (ii) simultaneously maintain that the theory itself is scientific, seems straightforward enough. Why would people want to do that? Again, this seems pretty obvious. It happens with a wide variety of theories (evolution comes to mind as an example). I'm more interested in the evidences *for* the theory rather than what metaphysics certain people want to conclude *from* the theory.

  
  510 replies since Jan. 26 2007,15:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (18) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]