|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
Actually, I did not question the evolutionary explanation, but I guess that would spoil your story. Folks, I am really not your enemy here. I have no problem with evolution, in principle. My skepticism is with several of the evidential arguments. I came here asking for a justification/ defense of one of the most fundamental claims of evolution. My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?
Hunter gave a talk at Cornell. He described it in a blog post.
[...] I began the discussion with half-a-dozen scientific challenges to evolution. These were not details, but rather concerns regarding the core of evolution. [...]
Of course the answer is obvious. There indeed are serious scientific challenges to evolution that are awkward to face. There have always been such challenges. Evolutionary thinking is, and always has been, motivated by philosophical and theological concerns rather than the empirical evidence.
People came to Hunter's talk and took notes. They described it in blog posts.
Let's see, arguments going to the "core of evolution"... So, if Hunter's claim here that he is OK with evolution, in principle, then the argument about homology must have been absent from his Cornell talk, since he describes those as going to the "core of evolution". But then we have the account of an attendee who says Hunter did use the homology argument there:
In his presentation, Hunter presented two slides representing some of his primary evidences of "flaws" in evolutionary theory, including the inadequacy of arguments from homology, specifically descrepancies between pentadactyl limb structure in vertebrates and the dissimilarity of the genes responsible for these morphological changes; and the complexity of transducin signaling in photon receptors of the eye.
So, which is it: is homology something that does not, in principle, make one doubt evolutionary explanation, or is it an argument that goes to the "core of evolution"? There seems to be some confusion on this point.
Why did Dennis Wagner come to the conclusion that Hunter was taking sides?
But having been on both sides, Hunter now realizes the Darwinian Evolution is not a scientific theory, or even a compelling theory. It is a religious philosophy that has found a home in science.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker