Cornelius Hunter
Posts: 11
Joined: Jan. 2007
|
| Quote | | Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say. |
Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?
| Quote | | Deadman wrote: 1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory? |
Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory. Let's go back to your point and I'll try to do a better job of explaining the problem:
| Quote | | Deadman wrote: Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “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 mouse?” First, this question is misphrased. The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance. In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance. Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution. |
You are preaching to the choir. The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial."
| Quote | | Deadman wrote: 3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden" |
Deadman, you are beating a dead horse. We've already compared the pentadactyl pattern with the skin stretched between the fore and hindfeet of the phalanger and flying squirrel. Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.
| Quote | phonon wrote:
| Quote | | Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems ... explanations such as yours above fail to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence. |
It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence. |
So you agree that homologies, on their own, are not powerful evidence for evolution? Because it is not the only so-called "powerful" evidence with problems.
| Quote | | Mike PSS wrote: You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals." That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out. |
Actually, my statement was correct. Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.
| Quote | Mike PSS wrote:
| Quote | | I was quoting from Theobald's post. |
I stated that you made a strawman argument based upon what I thought was either a misinterpretation or misapplication of what Theobald said. In other words you were using a selective quote AND a faulty conclusion without providing contextual support from Theobald. Give the board the whole Theobald article, or the context around the quote and we'll see more clearly whether your conclusions fit the quote.
|
Here is the entire Theobald post:
| Quote | Theobald wrote:
The difference is simple. In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves). In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs). This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly. Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology. |
Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.
| Quote | Mike PSS wrote:
The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.
|
This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.
|
