|The Ghost of Paley
Joined: Oct. 2005
|Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so? It seems strange that the answer is that we need first to understand the evidence in the context of other evidences, most of which were not available to Darwin, for instance. But be that as it may, these other evidences bring along their own problems. I think most people will gladly accept such evidences as supports for the homology evidential argument, but only when they are not force-fit to evolution in the first place. If we brush problems under the rug, then we’re not following the data. Instead, we’re presenting a theory-laden interpretation of the evidences.|
So are you saying that evolutionists don't use homology consistently, and if they did, then homology might not support common descent? Please be clear here.
Since I still don't understand your point, let me just say this: When scientists interpret the pentadactyl limb as homologous across tetrapods, they assume that changing the basic structure of the limb bones is more difficult than simply altering their relative proportions. Some scientists may also surmise that a creator is free to modify his (its) designs to maximise their usefulness, so we'd expect substantially different limb structures across creatures in different environments. This evidence is indeed entangled in background assumptions. Yet look where this leads: given the above, the pentadactyl limb suggests a common ancestor for tetrapods under evolutionary theory. The theory then predicts that other measures of relatedness will group tetrapods together relative to other creatures. So look at the pentadactyl limb as a prediction, with subsequent analyses verifying that prediction. Now it's true that you can't use the same evidence to generate and test a hypothesis, so under this reasoning the limbs can't be used as evidence. But it does count as a prediction, and the subsequent morphological and molecular analyses would therefore be powerful evidence for common descent.
So even if you're right, you're wrong.
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.