Joined: Nov. 2006
|I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."|
The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.
So you agree, Cornelius, that ID is sufficiently characterized as a "research program... based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions?" Since you didn't want to mischaracterize it.
|Well I'm glad to see that this thread has served a useful purpose. I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time. But no, I'm not asking "HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories"? I'm plenty familiar with these struggles. Nor am I attempting to mischaracterize ID, as you suggest.|
It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence.
|Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems. Be that as it may, my point in this thread is to ask the question: why are homologies such a powerful evidence? Your answer seems to be that in your opinion evolution is the best explanation. I can imagine several possible reasons why one might hold that opinion. There's one that is subjective. Another is metaphysical, and another is circular. Perhaps your reasoning escapes these problems. But as it stands, explanations such as yours above fails to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.|
All you are doing Cornelius is to make the common descent vs. common design argument over and over and over. Sorry that I'm not providing a dissertation in this comment box, but when all available evidence is taken into account common descent is the better of the two explanations.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Please re-read your own statements. You obviously have a problem with common descent, then you say that common descent is no problem. You say that the evolutionary claim is that homology is evidence of common descent, then you say that this is not the case, that the evolutionary claim is that homology must be "compelling" evidence. I think you should seriously consider running for public office. I think you'd do well.
|The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling. |
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg