Joined: May 2006
A few comments and questions:
(1)It seems odd to me that Mr. Hunter should decry the "theory-laden" views of science in regard to homology and homoplasy designations ; isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "LESS than" "theory-Unladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? Of course, I'm merely being facetious here, right? ;)
(2) When asked what specific characters Mr. Hunter finds "equal and greater in similarity" to pentadactyly...Mr Hunter has yet to respond. I would wager that what Mr. Hunter will present is not a single character, but rather a suite of characters, i.e. they look alike in teeth, skull shape, quadrupedal body form, etc. Is there a term for this sort of fallacy in comparing one to many?
(3) When Mr. Hunter mentioned that patagium and pentadactyly were comparable characters in terms of significance, I asked how did he determine this...and I've still gotten no answer. If I were pressed for an answer about MY views, I would point to studies in fossils, genetics and embryology/development that seem to indicate that pentadactyly is more significant. Mr. Hunter has (apparently) claimed that patagium are of "equal or greater significance," as pentadactyly...Can you show how you determined this, Mr. Hunter?
Was it due to "theory-laden" observations?
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism