Joined: May 2006
Unlike you, I will answer EACH of your questions, Mr. Hunter ( while noting that you have failed to do the same ).
|Why do you find it to be significant that the pentadactyl pattern is “precisely the same”? Are you claiming that the homology evidential claim would falter if this were not the case?|
I find it significant in terms of homology because it has great time-depth that is unaltered IN. Yes, YOU can point to bats or Horses and say "look at the differences" between bats and horses and canids, but the fact remains that their five digits at the distal ends of limbs...remain precisely the same. You probably will be able to gull the public, though. People are often swayed by selective illustrations that ignore that EVERY mammal has pentadactyly.
Of course you'll exploit the "similarities" while ignoring the differences in other characters...wait...you already have done that.
For myself, yes, the pentadactyly evidence FOR common descent would fall apart IF...IF we saw that Miocene mammals were all octadactyl and that octadactyl mammals existed today.
|Why is it important that septadactyly or octadactyly is not found in “large-scale”? And why is it important that mammals have only pentadactyl?|
|So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.|
Cite those specific bauplan features that you think are relevant in mammals, Mr. Hunter. Don't be coy. "wedge-shaped skull?" "Sharp teeth?" "Quadrupedal form?" What?
|Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?|
Not "insubstantial," no. I have made my point clear. It is up to you to read and comprehend.
Now, Mr. Hunter...given that I have addressed EACH of your questions, please answer mine.
Do environmental constraints and feeding patterns and locomotion have an effect on "design space" that is NOT neutral in regards to selection?
What SPECIFICALLY is your "alterate theory" Mr. Hunter? You mentioned it in passing and I'd like to hear it. I have defended my views. Let's see what yours are, without your usual evasion.
Don't be shy, Mr. hunter -- I showed you mine, now show me yours.
Make sure you respond to my posts FULLY, Mr. Hunter. Don't be so stingy with your responses. Inquiring minds want to know.
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism