Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 12 2007,01:24)|
|I know my questions must seem terribly naïve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?|
Do shellfish show a pentadactyl pattern? But shellfish share some very common traits (the SHELL) while exhibiting vastly different body types (CRAB versus SHRIMP) while maintaining that distinct similarity (the SHELL).
NESTED HIERARCHY Mr. Hunter. Nowhere in my explanation do I invoke evolutionary terminology OTHER THAN the tree of life. We can compare similarities in structure (not shape) and function and form a nested hierarchy that will construct a tree of life. All of this is based upon direct measurement of facts.
Now, the theory of evolution takes these facts and ties them together into the theoretical model that defines common descent.
However, the tree of life, when constructed by measurements of homologous structures of living and fossil organisms IS NOT INVOKING EVOLUTION.
If YOU have a seperate interpretation of the measurement of homologous structures of living and fossil organisms then WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT.
I call Shenanigans. This statement on Reynold's Number is only used to cofuse the issue. We aren't aruing about the releative OPTIMUM of design, only that the PATH of design can occur to solve the problem (flight) through seperate paths with seperate structures (pentadactyl on one hand and insect structure on the other).
|I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.|
SO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE SAID INSTEAD OF NOT LIKING WHAT IS BEING SAID.
|Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way? And when they ask “says who?” how do I respond? I’m afraid saying “Evolutionists” isn’t going to cut it.|
|And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.|
Are you done philosiphising? Are you ready to put your own words down to point out "the problems" you've identified above? Or are you just going to vent some more.
PLEASE TELL US THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH USING GENETIC AND BIOCHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS TO COMPARE HOMOLOGIES.