Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote | | The issue is that most people understand common descent entirely from a Darwinian perspective. That is, they assume that the notion of natural selection and gradualism follow along closely to the notion of common descent. However, there is nothing that logically ties these together, especially if you allow for design. |
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....descent
The issue is that most people understand genetic descent from an entirely inheritance perspective. That is, they assume that the notion of actual reproduction follows along closely to the notion of relatedness, paternity/maternity, and kinship. However, there is nothing that logically ties these together, especially if you allow for design.
Well, what's the difference? If we pathetically assume that our genes came from our parents, which came from their parents, etc. etc., rather than being magically put into us by gene fairies, how is that any more defensible than "Darwinism?" It just plain is the same thing, we just don't change the rules arbitrarily far back. They do, although their reasons for such arbitrariness are not themselves arbitrary (see UD Jesus babble).
Glen Davidson
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
