NIHILIST SAID:
Are you willing to apply the same standard to your own Scriptures? Here is a bunch of scientific problems with the Bible:__the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18); _Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21); _Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23); _Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6); _Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5); _Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4); _The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV); _The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8); _The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30); _A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7); _The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13); _A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV); _Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12); _The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3); _The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1); _Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21); _The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9) _A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44). _The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16) ___source: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/The_Bible_and_Science
7/21/2008 4:06 AM
NIHILIST SAID:
The Bible makes references to mythical creatures, such as in Numbers 21:6 where it speaks of "fiery serpents".
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/patristic-ornithology.html
Nihilist,
1.Most of your examples are taxonomic.
i) The Bible doesn’t pretend to offer a “scientific” taxonomy. Rather, it offers a cultic taxonomy.
Animals are classified for purposes of ritual purity and impurity. So it’s a question of how an average Israelite would identify, on sight, a ritually clean or unclean animal. So animals are classified according to certain superficial characteristics.
You’re making no effort to understand the text on its own terms. That’s very illiterate of you.
ii) I’d add that scientists can’t agree on how to classify animals. Some use a phenetic taxonomy, others a phylogenetic taxonomy, still others a cladistic taxonomy.
2.As to Gen 1:16,
i) The moon is a light source. Have you never observed moonlight? It’s possible to see at night on a full moon.
ii) Does the moon emit light the way the sun emits light? No. But the text never said that. The moon is still a source of light to an earthbound observer, and the text is written from that vantage-point.
iii) More to the point, the text is talking about the calendrical function of the sun and moon (e.g. solar and lunar calendars). For example, Israel had annual religious festivals. That required a calendar, based on phases of the moon or some other periodic process.
Once again, you’re making no effort to understand the text on its own terms. That’s very illiterate of you.
3.Cant 2:12 refers to doves. In the KJV, these are called “turtles,” which is short for turtledoves. Doves are songbirds. Let’s also keep in mind that Canticles consists of love poetry.
Instead of relying on some inept, “free-thought” Wikipedia article, you need to learn how to read a text of Scripture on its own terms. You also need to make allowance for an Elizabethan translation (KJV), as well as the difference between one literary genre and another.
4.As to 1 Chron 16:30,
i) This doesn’t refer to the “earth,” but the “ground.” Depending on context, the Hebrew word can be rendered more than one way.
ii) It isn’t talking about the relation of the “earth” to other celestial bodies, but to cataclysmic earthquakes.
iii) It’s very anachronistic of you to interpret the text in light of Ptolemaic astronomy.
iv) This verse comes from a battle song. It’s poetic.
5.As to Matt. 13:31-32,
i) That’s a proverbial, hyperbolic comparison—based on Palestinian agriculture.
ii) Also keep in mind the literary genre in which this comparison occurs. This is not a course in botany, but a parabolic illustration.
6.As to the shape of the earth, the Bible uses architectural metaphors. That’s because the earth is sacred space, and so it’s depicted as if it were a temple or tabernacle.
7.As to Gen 11:6-9,
i) The Bible doesn’t say that all modern languages originated suddenly. The text had reference to its own timeframe. We’d expect the survivors of the flood to speak one language.
ii) Also keep in mind that, in context, ha Eretz has reference to the whole “land,” not the whole “earth.” 11:2 mentions a migration from one compass point to another. So the perspective is local rather than global. If the whole earth were in view, there’d be no place to go.
8.As to 2 Peter 3:5, that’s obviously a literary allusion to the creation account in Gen 1. So what’s your point?
9.As to Lk 1:44, unborn babies have souls, and this was the soul of a prophet, so he was inspired. Can science disprove the soul? No. Can science disprove the Holy Spirit? No.
10.As to Gen 9:13,
i) Even if you interpret this in YEC terms, you can’t have a rainbow without sunshine or rain, so, yes, even at that level, rain and sunshine are causally (and temporally) prior to rainbows.
ii) However, the Bible often assigns a new function to a preexisting custom or entity (e.g. circumcision).
11. As to Num 21:6,
i) This refers, not to a mythological creature, but a venomous snake like a carpet viper.
ii) As Donald Wiseman explains, the Hebrew word (sarap) can either mean “fiery” or “poisonous.”
Cf. D. J. Wiseman, “Flying Serpents,” TynBul 23 (1972): 108-10
high five! you are on your game with these answers. talk about a free thinker (you that is)! i hope Nihilist will actually accept these great answers and give you the respect you deserve for dealing with tough issues and actually giving real answers.
ReplyDeleteI'd also add that Biblical references to "serpents" don't necessarily translate to "snakes". Also, the so-called "mythological creatures" are not such; it's only the KJV translation that uses those terms. The text may be speaking of what we would call "dinosaurs".
ReplyDeleteI'm not up on the translation issues surrounding the KJV "unicorn" references but perhaps Steve or someone else can speak to that.
ii) I’d add that scientists can’t agree on how to classify animals. Some use a phenetic taxonomy, others a phylogenic taxonomy, still others a cladistic taxonomy.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised and pleased to see that you fail to mention baraminology. I imagine that is because it's so embarrassing you don't like to bring it to light.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteThe supressed premise of your argument is:
God wouldn't give various creatures similar DNA, especially if they were more physically similar.
Another one is:
If God really created, he would have made all organisms have wildly different DNA.
I find no rational reason to suppose these premises. Perhaps you have a defense of them.
And, if they were the case, then you'd have another argument. You would complain that God wasn't very economical in how he dispersed DNA.
Isn't that rich. You're forced to argue that if God existed he would violate Occam's razor but then you also use Occam's razor to try and show how we don't need him.
Face it, no matter what, you'd complain. Just like your leader Loftus who complained that God should have made us with wings and gills.
Just like Hitchens who complains that God should have made us with osprey eyes and bat ears.
Image the kind of being you atheists would have made if you were at the helm!
Really, evan, have you thought through half the junk you post?
Atheists are hysterical sometimes.
ReplyDelete"I'm an enlightened freethinker who isn't shackled by mindless religious groupthink! Now allow me to direct you to this prepared article that someone else wrote..."
You guys really don't know how to read, do you?
ReplyDeleteThe article I linked to was by a young-earth creationist.
I love that you guys are making fun of him ... so that's great, but wow, you guys are really tough on everyone.
As for all the words put in my mouth there by Paul Manata I say ... you go girl. That's the very epitome of triablogging and you put the notch to 11.
Hey fellas, come on. This guy "Evan" has been contributing nothing to this debate except more regurgitated Wiki nonsense. He's nothing but a troll who is taking up time and space from more worthy opponents. Please ban him.
ReplyDeleteEVAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“You guys really don't know how to read, do you?__The article I linked to was by a young-earth creationist.__I love that you guys are making fun of him ... so that's great, but wow, you guys are really tough on everyone.”
Who in the combox made fun of the YEC writer? No one that I can see. They did, however, make fun of you!
I don’t have any problems with a YEC writer trying to construct a taxonomy consistent with Biblical and extrabiblical data. And it wouldn’t be hard for such a taxonomy to be more accurate than a Darwinian taxonomy.
But that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. The purpose of a scientific taxonomy is to try to show how various organisms are related to each other, for higher and lower taxa. That’s fine, albeit somewhat speculative.
That’s not the purpose of the taxonomy in Leviticus, which is trying to show an Israelite how to avoid eating ritually unclean animals.
There are different ways to classify organisms. For example, Gen 1 classifies them according to their ecological zone. That’s valid too.
“As for all the words put in my mouth there by Paul Manata I say ... you go girl. That's the very epitome of triablogging and you put the notch to 11.”
You really don’t know how to read, do you? Manata offered a substantive critique of your position.
No, Manata made up an argument that he put in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteThe simple point I was trying to make, which you guys are clearly unable to grasp ... is that you don't even respect the "scientific" credentials of your own religious fellow-travelers. When a site like triablogue is posting a description of various taxonomies and they fail to mention creationist taxonomy as one of the taxonomic theories, it is funny.
That's because creationist taxonomy is a fraud and has never made any significant headway in devising a reasonable method of determining what exactly a baramin is (which the YEC author of the paper I referred to admits) but that's neither here nor there to my argument. I wasn't arguing the futility of YEC taxonomy. I was pointing out that you guys don't even recognize it as scientific.
That's really quite humorous and the calls to ban me because I point it out are just another wonderful example of the style here at triablogue.
You guys are fantastic (in more ways than one).
Evan,
ReplyDelete"The article I linked to was by a young-earth creationist."
Right, and I took it that you disagreeed with him? Am I wrong? Are you a creationist, Evan? Or do you suppose that similar DNA provides evidence for macroevolution? Or, do you not know how to draw inferences?
"I love that you guys are making fun of him ... so that's great, but wow, you guys are really tough on everyone."
As Steve pointed out, I made fun of no one. I made fun of the idea that similar DNA entails closer evolutionary relative.
And am I to suppose you don't use the "chimps are 98% like us in terms of DNA" argument common to anti-creationists 'round the world?
"As for all the words put in my mouth there by Paul Manata I say ... you go girl."
I saw you complaining about the treatment you received from people here, yet you say things like "you go girl." Isn't this the first time I have ever responded to you? Now what of your sanctimonious drivel that Christians are such big meanies? Did you say somewhere else that Jesus used ad hominems and so you could understand why we do? Why do you want to be like Jesus, Evan? Are you showing your hand? Are you really a creationist and a Christian who is trying to undermine the enemy. Show how stupid atheism is? Kind of sunk your battleship, didn't you?
Other than that, you either disagree or agree with what I wrote. If you disagree, then you're response was irrelevant. If you agree, then thanks for the support of our side against most major evolutionary apologists. Therefore, your response was either irrelevant or you side with us against most major evolutionary apologists. Do I need to lay it out formally for you?
D v A
D -> I
A -> S
:. I v S
"You go girl."
Evan,
ReplyDelete"The simple point I was trying to make, which you guys are clearly unable to grasp ... is that you don't even respect the "scientific" credentials of your own religious fellow-travelers."
How many fallacies are in there?
argument from ridicule
straw man
hasty generalization
false accent
Really, Evan, are you serious? And I wonder why I never bothered to respond to your comments before.
EVAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“The simple point I was trying to make, which you guys are clearly unable to grasp ... is that you don't even respect the "scientific" credentials of your own religious fellow-travelers. When a site like triablogue is posting a description of various taxonomies and they fail to mention creationist taxonomy as one of the taxonomic theories, it is funny.”
Since you keep reminding us that you’re not very bright, permit me to explain to you your latest stupidity.
An unbeliever posted some “scientific” objections to the Bible which he gleaned from freethoughtpedia.com.
Most of his objections were taxonomic. And the point of reference would be what freethoughtpedia.com considers scientific.
Therefore, in that context, answering the unbeliever on his own terms, I pointed out that Darwinians can’t agree among themselves on the proper way to scientifically classify organisms.
I also pointed out, more than once now, that a scientific taxonomy is irrelevant to the issue at hand since Leviticus isn’t aiming to present a scientific taxonomy. Rather, it’s offering a cultic taxonomy, based on categories of ritually clean or unclean animals.
Therefore, baraminology is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I didn’t either support or oppose baraminology.
But thanks for constantly reinforcing the impression that members of DC are intellectually inept. You’re a real addition to the team. You should feel right at home.
I didn’t either support or oppose baraminology.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. You ignored it. Because you don't consider YEC's scientists.
And there you go. That was the entire crux of my argument and you seem to agree with it, which is great, and what I usually end up getting on triablog.
As to Paul's mellifluous warblings ... yes Paul, the earth is over 4 billion years old and DNA is the code that makes life up.
Therefore, one of the techniques that allows us to determine correct taxonomic relationships is the shared derived characters of organisms (as noted by Hennig in the 20th century).
The 98% similarity between Chimp and Human DNA as a raw number is unimportant as a pure number. It is theoretically possible (although highly improbable) that convergence or design could also yield that similarity, I grant you. However your apparent understanding of the issue is fairly low level.
If you want to get into the weeds on this, let's actually break down the issue. If you'd like I have a post about this on my website where I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
My specific questions to you would be these:
1. Is the presence of shared endogenous retrovirus sequences evidence of a God who wanted chimps and humans to appear to have the same relics of old viral infections?
2. Is the absence of a common mammalian ability (vitamin C synthesis) evidence that God didn't want chimps and humans to be able to survive without fresh fruit?
Evan,
ReplyDelete"Precisely. You ignored it. Because you don't consider YEC's scientists."
But that's not true. I know Steve considers many YEC guys as scientists. Take Kurt Wise for starters. Ph.D. under Gould at Harvard. Looks like you don't cosider legit scientists as scientists, then. That's the mark of dogma.
And, he explained why he "ignored it." It had nothing to do with the point he was making. I know that concept is hard to grasp for someone who wants to sidestep arguments and veer any discussion to the place where he can get off his "talking points."
"yes Paul, the earth is over 4 billion years old and DNA is the code that makes life up."
Stick with one thing at a time. No one mentioned "age." And, I never said anything about denying that life is comprised of DNA code.
"Therefore, one of the techniques that allows us to determine correct taxonomic relationships is the shared derived characters of organisms (as noted by Hennig in the 20th century)."
It's only evidence of macroevolution if you assume some of those supressed premises, Evan.
"The 98% similarity between Chimp and Human DNA as a raw number is unimportant as a pure number. It is theoretically possible (although highly improbable) that convergence or design could also yield that similarity, I grant you."
Let's see the probability calculus, Evan.
As for the rest of your post, you're not going to get to run to an area you feel comfortable in while ignoring the issue at hand. Hand waving is a poor substitute for argument.
ii) I’d add that scientists can’t agree on how to classify animals. Some use a phenetic taxonomy, others a phylogenic (sic) taxonomy, still others a cladistic taxonomy.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at that original quote again.
I think it stands just fine with the first sentence. It's certainly true that phylogenetic taxonomy using cladograms is the most commonly used method today but there is still significant disagreement. But Steve didn't stop there. He went on to list the 3 main schools of thought in modern scientific taxonomy. He did NOT list baraminology.
It's hard point to grasp but ... I think a careful reader can see that Steve gives no pride of place to the YEC taxonomic structure, he has admitted he ignored it because it doesn't have anything to do with his argument.
So I ask ... what does phenetic taxonomy have to do with his argument?
evan said...
ReplyDelete“Precisely. You ignored it. Because you don't consider YEC's scientists.”
No, I ignored it because it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. I was responding to an unbeliever who accused Leviticus of using an unscientific taxonomy.
For the record, some YECs are scientists.
And I don’t have to take a position on the specifics of baraminology because I don’t have the training to evaluate baraminology.
“The 98% similarity between Chimp and Human DNA as a raw number is unimportant as a pure number. It is theoretically possible (although highly improbable) that convergence or design could also yield that similarity, I grant you.”
William Dembski and Jonathan Wells deal with genetic arguments for common descent in The Design of Life.
“But Steve didn't stop there. He went on to list the 3 main schools of thought in modern scientific taxonomy. He did NOT list baraminology.”
And that’s because, as I already explained, I was responding to an unbeliever who was quoting from a freethoughtpedia.com. So, his standard of reference, when accusing the Bible of using an unscientific taxonomy, would be evolutionary biology. Therefore, I pointed out that in evolutionary biology, Darwinians can’t even agree on the most “scientific” way to classify organisms.
Baraminology is not the standard of reference which my disputant is assuming to accuse Leviticus of using an unscientific taxonomy.
Try not to be such a klutz, Evan.
So, his standard of reference, when accusing the Bible of using an unscientific taxonomy, would be evolutionary biology. Therefore, I pointed out that in evolutionary biology, Darwinians can’t even agree on the most “scientific” way to classify organisms.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see that you ditch the Bible as a standard of reference when referring to things scientific in this case.
Is that your general method of apologetics?
Was it really necessary for you to list phenetics (a largely discredited method of taxonomy) first, it really didn't add to your argument? Yet you felt that was important to include and baraminology wasn't. But you think it is also scientific, yes?
As for Wells and Dembski ... they're worth a chuckle like you guys are, but I invite you to come on over to my post at DC and get into the weeds about it if you want.
So far no apologists have been willing to argue that post, I'm eager to see what you could come up with.
Baraminology is not the standard of reference which my disputant is assuming to accuse Leviticus of using an unscientific taxonomy.
So this is good. I can now expect you to refer to my frame of reference when disputing me. This means you accept the documentary hypothesis, the anonymous authorship of the gospels, the mythical nature of the Exodus and Moses narratives, the mythical nature of Genesis, the mythical nature of the flood, the mythical nature of Daniel's story, Esther's story, Samson's story ... oh I could go on and on ... when disputing me. It will make life a lot simpler for me.
Triablogue has a new era dawning. Rather than challenging science, they will now adopt the framework of the disputants to argue with them! Hallelujah!
Permit me to begin my extending my heartfelt thanks to Evan. He’s a real gift to the cause of Christian apologetics. He makes infidelity look intellectually deficient without any assistance from me.
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t have found a more cooperative opponent if I were casting him for the role myself. He plays the part to perfection.
My only concern is that some readers may suspect that Evan is actually a Christian plant which we tricked Loftus into adding to his team. Destroy DC from the inside by infiltrating DC with such inept team members.
Case in point, see Evan’s latest reply:
EVAN SAID:
“It's good to see that you ditch the Bible as a standard of reference when referring to things scientific in this case.__Is that your general method of apologetics?”
Evidently, Evan can only keep one idea in his head at a time. If his attention span weren’t so atrophied by apostasy, he’d notice that I took a two-pronged approach in my response to Nihilist.
On the one hand, I did answer Nihilist on Biblical grounds. I pointed out that raising a “scientific” objection to the taxonomy in Leviticus was misconceived since that was never the aim of Leviticus.
Leviticus is describing the difference between ritually clean and unclean animals. Is that the purpose of a scientific taxonomy? No.
The purpose of a scientific taxonomy is to try to classify organisms according to the way they’re related to each other.
But that would be useless as far as Leviticus is concerned. That’s irrelevant to the distinction between clean and unclean animals.
Moreover, the way in which organisms are related to each other may depend on features unobservable to the naked eye. But Leviticus is trying to give an ancient Israelite some visual cues to tell the difference between a clean and unclean animal.
So the “scientific” objection is utterly ill-conceived. Hence, I answered Nihilist on Biblical grounds.
On the other hand, I also answered Nihilist on his own grounds. Nihilist, and his source (freethoughtpedia.com), would equate a scientific taxonomy with one or more of the classification systems in evolutionary biology.
“Was it really necessary for you to list phenetics (a largely discredited method of taxonomy) first, it really didn't add to your argument?”
Since Mark Ridley, in his standard textbook on Evolution, felt it necessary to list phenetics, why shouldn’t I?
And the fact that “phenetics is a largely discredited method of taxonomy” doesn’t exactly inspired confidence in scientific objections to Leviticus.
“Yet you felt that was important to include and baraminology wasn't.”
You’re incorrigibly dense. No matter how often your error is corrected, you default to the same error.
Is Nihilist attacking Leviticus as unscientific because the taxonomy in Leviticus is contrary to baraminology? No. Is that the basis on which freethoughtpedia.com alleges that Leviticus is unscientific? No.
So, in answering the unbeliever on his own terms, baraminology is irrelevant. Sorry you’re too think-headed to ever absorb such an obvious distinction—even after it’s repeatedly explained to you.
And, for the sake of argument, is there any YEC attacking Leviticus as unscientific because its taxonomy doesn’t line up with baraminology? No.
If there were such a hypothetical YEC, I’d point out to him, as I did to Nihilist, that scientific objections are irrelevant to Leviticus.
Moreover, even if I were answering such a hypothetical YEC critic on his own grounds, since baraminology is only one taxonomy, not three, it isn’t comparable to three inconsistent classification schemes, so the same line objection wouldn’t be applicable to baraminology.
Do I now need to walk you through that explanation several times before the dim bulb in your head goes on? Would it help if I use comic book illustrations?
“But you think it is also scientific, yes?”
I don’t have to venture an opinion one way or the other on baraminology. That’s irrelevant to my post.
Moreover, I’m a scientific antirealist, so I’m not big on scientific theorizing, period.
I don’t spend time defending scientific creationism. Rather, I defend Genesis.
“As for Wells and Dembski ... they're worth a chuckle like you guys are, but I invite you to come on over to my post at DC and get into the weeds about it if you want.”
In other words, you can’t actually counter their book, so you try to shrug it off.
“So far no apologists have been willing to argue that post, I'm eager to see what you could come up with.”
This is not a command performance. And why would I want to debate science with the likes of you? Who are you in the field of science? Are you a major figure in evolutionary biology? Why would I bother with the second stringers?
“So this is good. I can now expect you to refer to my frame of reference when disputing me. This means you accept the documentary hypothesis, the anonymous authorship of the gospels, the mythical nature of the Exodus and Moses narratives, the mythical nature of Genesis, the mythical nature of the flood, the mythical nature of Daniel's story, Esther's story, Samson's story ... oh I could go on and on ... when disputing me. It will make life a lot simpler for me.__Triablogue has a new era dawning. Rather than challenging science, they will now adopt the framework of the disputants to argue with them! Hallelujah!”
You continue to broadcast your utter ineptitude to the world. Here’s a little primer for you: answering an opponent on his own grounds doesn’t mean “accepting” or “adopting” his frame of reference.
Rather, it means temporarily assuming his frame of reference *for the sake of argument*. Arguing ex hypothesi.
Once again, I congratulate you for your contributions to DC. There’s no mystery as to why Loftus recruited you. You have all the qualifications. Water seeks its own level, and DC is the Dead Sea of infidelity.
"And why would I want to debate science with the likes of you? Who are you in the field of science? Are you a major figure in evolutionary biology? Why would I bother with the second stringers?"
ReplyDeleteAssuming Steve did want to *debate* science, he may very well have to settle for second-stringers, much the same way he has to settle for "second-stringer" theologians (i.e. laypeople in the combox, or responses to a "second-stringer" theologian's blog), as these are the most likely to engage.
Higher profile scientists who hold to evolution are unlikely to take the time to debate a Christian blogger - much in the same way that a higher profile theologian will be unlikely to debate a Christian blogger.
FWIW, I think sites such as Triablogue serve a purpose. However, the likelihood is small Triablogue will get any in-depth engagements from a "major figure" in any particular field. Perhaps an honorable mention via a passing response, but that's probably it.
R. O. F. L.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are fantastic!
You continue to broadcast your utter ineptitude to the world. Here’s a little primer for you: answering an opponent on his own grounds doesn’t mean “accepting” or “adopting” his frame of reference.
So I invite you to read the comment thread on this post and let me know if any triabloggers did this to me.
Here's another interesting comment from that thread:
No Evan it's not obsession. These guys are just very thorough and willing to actually discuss and engage the arguments, rather than duck and run and then change the subject and then tell themselves that they've "won" and congratulate themselves for being "awesome". That is all that you have demonstrated no matter what you tell yourself.
So I think it's great that you are so willing to be thorough, but you fold like a cheap suit when I challenge you on your science saying you don't even want to debate it.
That seems odd to me. Let's see what else is in that thread:
Notice that Evan never bothers to interact with Evangelical Scholarship - never,ever,not one time. What is Evan afraid of?
Notice that nobody seems willing to address my arguments from shared derived characters on this thread - never, ever, not one time. What are Paul and Steve afraid of?
Perhaps nothing ... perhaps they just don't read the literature very well. I mean, you're quoting Ridley's Evolution on taxonomy to support the Bible. Let's see what Ridley has to say about phylogenetic taxonomy as opposed to phenetics (numerical taxonomy):
Most of the discussion of species concepts that follows assumes that species definition has some deeper meaning than the phenetic characters used to recognize the species in practice. When biologists argue about species concepts they are not arguing about how species are defined in practice.
What Ridley is saying is that for convenience sake (because doing computerized phylogenetic analysis is expensive) the majority of creatures are characterized by their phenetic CHARACTERS ... but that's not phenetics.
Phenetics (or numerical taxonomy as it is sometimes labeled) is getting all known characters or organisms together in a huge pile (every single one you can possibly determine) putting them into a computer and seeing which organisms sort out on that scale. So when Ridley is talking about phenetics in the above segment area he's talking about general systematology as practiced by all classifiers, but when he's talking about phenetics the system he says this:
A later version of the phenetic concept was developed by the school of numerical taxonomy in the 1960s. (On numerical taxonomy, see Section 16.5, p. 476.) Numerical taxonomists developed statistical techniques for describing the phenetic similarity of organisms. Those techniques could be applied to recognize species. A species could then be defined as a set of organisms of sufficient phenetic distinctness (where the word
“sufficient” could be made precise by the statistical methods used to describe phenetic similarity). The numerical taxonomists’ phenetic species concept has nothing to do
with the typological concept, but belongs to the same family of concepts.
Finally to show how outdated phenetics is as a system he says this:
13.7.1 The phenetic species concept suffers from serious
theoretical defects
The phenetic species concept defines a species as a certain set, or cluster, of phenotypic forms. But why should one set of phenotypic forms rather than another be recognized as a species? The classic version of the phenetic species concept was the typological
species concept. It defined a species by reference to the “type” of the species. The trouble with this idea is that, as we saw in Section 13.5, types do not exist in Darwinian theory. Typological theories of species are mainly rejected. A more modern version of
the phenetic species concept was developed by the numerical taxonomists. They tried to define species simply as phenetic clusters. The trouble with this (as discussed in Section 16.5, p. 476) is that several statistical methods exist for recognizing phenetic
clusters, and those methods can disagree about what the clusters are. The definition of species then requires an arbitrary choice between the different statistical procedures.
The underlying problem is that distinct phenetic species do not simply exist “out there” in nature. Some species form obvious phenetic units, but others do not and then we need some other criterion to fall back on.
But the criteria that the phenetic concept might fall back on are unable to save the phenetic species concept as a general stand-alone species concept.
So you see, the reference you are pointing me to as your source discusses phenetics as a useless construct. Yet you bring it up as supposedly a current concept in taxonomy.
As if to go one step beyond you out-do yourself with the following:
This is not a command performance. And why would I want to debate science with the likes of you? Who are you in the field of science? Are you a major figure in evolutionary biology? Why would I bother with the second stringers?
Yeah. To quote the above. What are you afraid of?
My opinion would be that you don't want to debate science with anyone because you don't accept empirical evidence as primary and this is a huge handicap. But you're right. You shouldn't bother with second-stringers. You need to be able to defeat a general freshman college-level understanding first.
So I would be happy to help you get to that level if you'd like.
CRAMDON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Assuming Steve did want to *debate* science, he may very well have to settle for second-stringers, much the same way he has to settle for "second-stringer" theologians (i.e. laypeople in the combox, or responses to a "second-stringer" theologian's blog), as these are the most likely to engage.”
Cramdon sets up a false antithesis. If I wanted to dispute some aspect of evolutionary biology, it’s not as if I have to take a nobody like Evan as my foil.
I could go straight to a major representative in the field by commenting on his book.
EVAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“So I think it's great that you are so willing to be thorough, but you fold like a cheap suit when I challenge you on your science saying you don't even want to debate it.”
Here’s a novel idea for you, Evan. There’s more than one representative for just about any given position. It’s not as if I’ve never commented on evolutionary biology before. But I’ve chosen some major representatives in the field.
Sorry you feel neglected, but you don’t make the cut. Why would I bother with you when I can go over your head to a major Darwinian and comment on his case for evolution, or his case against “creationism” or ID-theory?
“Notice that nobody seems willing to address my arguments from shared derived characters on this thread - never, ever, not one time. What are Paul and Steve afraid of?”
I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Read Dembski and Wells.
“So you see, the reference you are pointing me to as your source discusses phenetics as a useless construct. Yet you bring it up as supposedly a current concept in taxonomy.”
To the contrary, I merely pointed out that evolutionary biologists can’t agree on how to classify organisms. All you’ve done is to unwittingly corroborate my claim.
“My opinion would be that you don't want to debate science with anyone because you don't accept empirical evidence as primary and this is a huge handicap.”
I’ve debated science with quite a few people on this blog. And your positivistic appeal to “empirical evidence as primary” merely draws attention to your philosophical naïveté.
Steve, that's great!
ReplyDeleteYou remind me of one of my brothers with your sophisticated stance.
Thumbs in your ears, fingers waving and saying "Nyah nyah."
It's interesting what you do when your own arguments are put back onto you.
That being said, let's go back again to your original post:
ii) I’d add that scientists can’t agree on how to classify animals. Some use a phenetic taxonomy, others a phylogenic (sic) taxonomy, still others a cladistic taxonomy.
You claim you didn't use baraminology as one of the "scientific" taxonomies because it didn't add to your argument.
But you used phenetics, which in the text you referred me to as your source, is openly acknowledged as a discredited concept. If you knew a thing about taxonomy you'd know that modern taxonomists make little practical distinction between phylogenetic taxonomy and cladistics. Indeed the central technique used by modern phylogenetic taxonomy is the cladogram developed by Hennig.
So you listed 3 examples to show there was controversy. One was discredited and the other two have merged in practice.
If you wanted to elucidate the controversy, you failed.
Yet, by your own admission, you ignored baraminology because it "didn't help your argument", thus admitting the following:
1. You agree that scientists don't take baraminology seriously as a method of taxonomy.
2. You apparently don't understand the scientific debates that are current within taxonomy.
3. You can't justify why one widely discredited theory of taxonomy (remember what Ridley says in your reference) helps your argument by mentioning it, but another doesn't.
Thanks for all that.
Evan,
ReplyDelete“Notice that nobody seems willing to address my arguments from shared derived characters on this thread - never, ever, not one time. What are Paul and Steve afraid of?”
Um, I thought I was waiting for the probability calculus...
On a related note:
ReplyDeletehttp://creationsafaris.com/crev200807.htm#20080723a
It seems that after sequencing numerous genomes, Darwin's phylogenetic tree doesn't actually form as a result of comparison.
paul,
ReplyDeleteYou're going to have to change your picture to anything but those flowers, man. I'm starting to miss the Predator.
Paul, I fail to see how the probability calculus effects my argument. I granted you that it was possible that convergence or design could result in 98% similarity and said that the argument was not based on the raw similarity but on the presence of shared derived characters. I fail to see how I need to prove something that is not necessary to my argument.
ReplyDeleteShared derived characters are by nature relics of descent. The fact that they are present in DNA, epigenesis and morphology suggests that a single mechanism is causing them, and the fact that organismal relationships created by multiple differing lines of evidence have a demonstrable correlation suggests strongly that they are relics of descent by means of natural selection.
Hennig showed this (again I have to bring this up) in the 1950s. So what do you have to say about this argument? I have never seen creationists take up this point, and I'm curious if any ever have.
Saint and sinner, you need to go to original sources instead of creationist sites and actually read what's being said. Sanderson's paper says that:
Analysis of 14,289 phylogenies built from 2.6 million sequences in GenBank suggests that signal is strong in vertebrates and specific groups of nonvertebrate model organisms. Across eukaryotes, however, although phylogenetic evidence is very broadly distributed, for the average species in the database it is equivalent to less than one well-supported gene tree.
Interestingly, this is exactly what we would expect. The vertebrates would tend to have more Darwinian evolution and less lateral gene transfer than unicellular forms. If Margolis' endosymbiotic theory is correct, then the genomes of some unicellular organisms would contain multiple lines of evolutionary trajectory and this would require abstracting out the heritable components into lines that had been less susceptible to lateral contamination -- exactly as the professor suggests in the abstract.
I have yet to review the full article, but it's weak tea for creationists to say that God created unicellular eukaryotes and then let them evolve into vertebrates that descended by natural selection strictly to become man. It doesn't change much of the theological implications of evolution.
EVAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“It's interesting what you do when your own arguments are put back onto you.”
There’s no problem with my arguments. My arguments accomplish just what I intended.
The problem is when you try to recast the issue.
“You claim you didn't use baraminology as one of the ‘scientific’ taxonomies because it didn't add to your argument.”
No, not because it didn’t “add” to my argument, but because it was “irrelevant” to my argument.
“But you used phenetics, which in the text you referred me to as your source, is openly acknowledged as a discredited concept. If you knew a thing about taxonomy you'd know that modern taxonomists make little practical distinction between phylogenetic taxonomy and cladistics.”
Let’s compare this comment with your original comment:
“It's certainly true that phylogenetic taxonomy using cladograms is the most commonly used method today but there is still significant disagreement.”
Notice how Evan has gone from “still significant disagreement” to “little practical distinction.”
Continuing:
“He went on to list the 3 main schools of thought in modern scientific taxonomy.”
Notice how Evan originally conceded that these three taxonomies represent the “3 main schools of thought in modern scientific taxonomy.”
Given how far Evan has backpedaled in such a short timespan, he’s the one who doesn’t seem to know a thing about modern taxonomy, and is having to revise his position on the fly.
Back to Ridley, he says “In biology, two main methods are used to classify species into groups: the phenetic and the phylogenetic methods” (472).
The phenetic and phylogenetic principles are the two fundamental types of biological classification, but three schools of though exist about how classification should be carried out” (474).
“In the reptilian example evolutionary taxonomy prefers phenetic classification; in the barnacle example, the phylogenetic” (475).
What was my original claim? “I’d add that scientists can’t agree on how to classify animals. Some use a phenetic taxonomy, others a phylogenetic taxonomy, still others a cladistic taxonomy.”
I’ve documented that disagreement. That the fact that Ridley disagrees with the phenetic taxonomy is further evidence that scientists can’t agree on how to classify animals.
By quoting Ridley, Evans simply underscores my point about these intramural disagreements.
And I’m under no obligation to adjudicate disagreements between one Darwinian and another.
Since Evan is a Darwinian, it’s important to him to adjudicate these disagreements.
Likewise, I’m under no obligation to adjudicate the disagreement between Patriarch Nikon and the Old Believers.
“Yet, by your own admission, you ignored baraminology because it ‘didn't help your argument’, thus admitting the following.”
Notice how Evan puts quotation marks around the words "didn't help your argument" as if he’s quoting me verbatim. That’s a bald-faced lie.
I never said I ignored baraminology because it didn’t “help” my argument. I said I ignored it because it was “irrelevant.”
“You agree that scientists don't take baraminology seriously as a method of taxonomy.”
Darwinians reject baraminology because they’re Darwinians.
“You apparently don't understand the scientific debates that are current within taxonomy.”
You apparently don't understand the scientific debates that are current within taxonomy since you revise your position on the fly. Evan is an instant expert.
“You can't justify why one widely discredited theory of taxonomy (remember what Ridley says in your reference) helps your argument by mentioning it, but another doesn't.”
“Thanks for all that.”
Thanks for being such a knucklehead. You keep proving that one has to be a knucklehead to be an unbeliever.
evan said...
ReplyDelete“Paul, I fail to see how the probability calculus effects my argument.”
It might help you to see if you knew the difference between “effect” and “affect.”
S&S,
ReplyDeleteMy avatar is proof of Christianity's change in man's heart. Loftus said the Predator avatar was evidence that I wasn't a Christian and was "evil," and so he must, by the same token, take my "nice" flower avatar as evidence of my genuineness. So my avatar is actually empirical proof of the kind Loftus respects. It’s proof of Christianity and I’m waiting for Loftus to defeat the argument. Christians have “nice” avatars and non-Christians have “mean” ones. Almost as good as the bird man argument. Squawk, squawk, baby.
Evan,
"Paul, I fail to see how the probability calculus effects my argument."
Because, Evan, you said:
"It is theoretically possible ***(although highly improbable)*** that convergence or design could also yield that similarity, I grant you."
I suspect that you are serious with the terms you use and think that they function in relevant ways to your argument. Or am I to suppose you throw out language that most would think is intended to bolster your argument but you really, deep down, "fail to see" how the propositions you use in the course of an argument "affect" your argument. If so, that's certainly one way to go about "winning" arguments with theist. Congrats.
"I granted you that it was possible that convergence or design could result in 98% similarity and said that the argument was not based on the raw similarity but on the presence of shared derived characters."
Possibility is weak. It is broadly possible we could be in the Matrix right now. What you claimed was that it was "highly improbable." But given that you think Occam's razor a perfectly legitimate way to go about doing business, why would you think that if God were to create he would violate one of your precious strictures? In fact, given the level of rationality you afford to Occam's razor, and given that, ex hypothesi, God is "uber rational," then wouldn't the probability, in fact, be rather high that God would be more conservative in his use of entities to get the job done? Isn't it true, in fact, that atheists complain about many things in our universe that seem to be superfluous, viz., the vastness of space, the number of evils, etc? So why when it comes to this issue is the probability that God would be economical low? And if this kind of general premise is true, then what of the other arguments from superfluousness? The whole thing rather strikes me as a self-serving enterprise. But, in fact, if you do affirm a high probability (which you would seem forced to do given your confidence in Occam's razor as a principle of rationality, and your addition that if God existed he would be rational), then your argument is kind of rendered impotent in that there's nothing forcing me to accept your chosen theory (evolution) as the best or most rational explanation of the "facts" (similarities between organisms). There's no rationally compelling argument to give the Christian, then. It thus would seem that your argument simply amounts to dogmatically imposing one theory over against another. But I happen to think that my worldview brings certain advantages with it that simply render your worldview untenable. In fact, I would argue that your worldview largely undermines your cognitive faculties; a precondition for you to think your arguments have any force whatsoever. In fact, speaking of probabilities, I would think it rather low that unguided evolution would produce creatures with reliable cognitive faculties.
But, if we must go on, one might mention that your theory seems one-sided. That is, it fails to account for the relevant data. Because from where I am sitting, the dissimilarities between organisms (even us and primates) appears to be MASSIVE. Thus if you would expect that "dissimilarity" would be evidence that God created it appears you have it. But of course you won't have it. You'll simply lower man to the level of the ape. Eliminate those features of man that set him apart, in radical ways, from the rest of creation. It appears, then, that wither way you take your argument you would have to deny some pretty obvious (to me at least) facts about man's nature or you would be shown to be simply disingenuous in how you apply various arguments against God (he violates Occam's razor and that's "bad," he doesn't violate it and that's bad).
So. quite honestly, I fail to see you even engaging all of these issues in any cogent and rigorous way. It's like you're bringing a pin to a gunfight.
"Shared derived characters are by nature relics of descent."
Assertion.
"The fact that they are present in DNA, epigenesis and morphology suggests that a single mechanism is causing them"
Assertion.
"and the fact that organismal relationships created by multiple differing lines of evidence have a demonstrable correlation suggests strongly that they are relics of descent by means of natural selection."
Assertion.
"So what do you have to say about this argument? I have never seen creationists take up this point, and I'm curious if any ever have."
I simply say that I haven't seen a cogent argument that doesn't rely on suppressed premises which assume some of the very issues up for debate presented yet. Perhaps you'll be the first, though. And your false bravado and machismo ridden rhetoric neither scares me or inspires confidence that you have half a clue of all the issues up for debate in these areas.
Well Paul, it's nice to see you adopting the ad hominems so typical of triablogue. I also apologize profusely for my misspelling of "affect". Perhaps I will start proofreading all the posts on triablogue for minor errors and making a snarky comment for each one.
ReplyDeleteNah. I don't have the inclination.
Let's get into the weeds again, although I find it strange none of you have any sustained critique of my post on DC about this. It's almost as if you are afeared of something.
Steve, there is significant disagreement about theory. There is little disagreement about how to go about practically establishing a phylogenetic cladogram. I'm sure you can understand this if I put it this way:
Mormons and Protestants have significant disagreements in theory, but in practice they live their lives in ways that are difficult for an outsider to distinguish.
See how they differ in what their beliefs are, but they behave in similar ways. That's what I was pointing out.
But of course, you have no idea of what either the theoretical disputes are (ring species concepts, lateral gene transfer, hybridization values, geographical species concepts, phylogenetic species concepts etc), or what the practical problems are (gene sequencing of ERVs, epigenetic vs. genetic variants, climatic variants, differing larval phases etc.) so you see me as altering my stance.
That's fine.
You then go on to scold me by saying that I was wrong to say scientists rejected Baraminology and you put words in my mouth by claiming that only "Darwinians" rejected Baraminology.
But of course your original post (which I could quote again but I won't) didn't say Darwinians did it? It said scientists. You love to change your tune when the taste in your mouth is a little bad ... but we all see it happening.
You admitted this tacitly by implying with both statements that there's an identity between scientists and "Darwinians". The word "Darwinian" is of course a synonym for "Biologist."
Thanks for finalizing this one. I'm comfortable that you're reduced to making fun of typing errors and have lost the point completely.
On to Paul.
I appreciate your willingness to get some information so I will be HAPPY to give it to you (I've been waiting for someone to ask for it).
As to the things you claim I've asserted without evidence let's get some evidence.
Willi Hennig proposed synapomorphies (shared derived characters) as the best way to create a taxonomy. He published this theory in 1950 with the title, Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik , which was subsequently translated into English in 1966 under the title Phylogenetic Systematics.
Hennig postulated an incredibly clear and concise set of ideas that have proven very productive theoretically and practically:
Major Hennigian principles are: (1) Relationships among species are to be interpreted strictly genealogically, as sister-lineages, as clade relations. Empirically, a phylogenetic hypothesis may be determined. (2) Synapomorphies provide the only evidence for identifying relative recency of common ancestry. Synapomorphies are understood to be the shared-derived (evolved, modified) features of organisms. (3) Maximum conformity to evidence is sought (his auxiliary principle). Choice among competing cladistic propositions (cladograms) is decided on the basis of the greatest amount of evidence, the largest number of synapomorphies explainable as homologues. (4) Whenever possible, taxonomy must be logically consistent with the inferred pattern of historical relationships. The rule of monophyly is to be followed, thereby each clade can have its unique place in the hierarchy of taxonomic names.Major Hennigian principles are: (1) Relationships among species are to be interpreted strictly genealogically, as sister-lineages, as clade relations. Empirically, a phylogenetic hypothesis may be determined. (2) Synapomorphies provide the only evidence for identifying relative recency of common ancestry. Synapomorphies are understood to be the shared-derived (evolved, modified) features of organisms. (3) Maximum conformity to evidence is sought (his auxiliary principle). Choice among competing cladistic propositions (cladograms) is decided on the basis of the greatest amount of evidence, the largest number of synapomorphies explainable as homologues. (4) Whenever possible, taxonomy must be logically consistent with the inferred pattern of historical relationships. The rule of monophyly is to be followed, thereby each clade can have its unique place in the hierarchy of taxonomic names.
So what Hennig shows is that the best way to classify organisms is to show where they have evidence of descent with modification, specifically synapomorphies.
That's your first bit of evidence for that assertion.
Here are some references from the some recent issues of their journal that you can look at to see how productive this method of taxonomy has been.
As to whether they exist in DNA, epigenesis and morphology, you can read the above citations for the first and third. For the second you'll need to look at this paper.
Finally you say the success of the phylogenetic approach to systematics created by Hennig is an assertion. I disagree, and think I've given you more than enough evidence to suggest it has been very fruitful. But don't take my word for it, take Steve's expert, Mark Ridley:
... phylogenetic relations have to be reconstructed from clues in the molecules, chromosomes,
and morphology of modern species (and in the morphology alone of fossils). Phylogenetic
reconstruction is a crucial part of modern taxonomy .... Arguably, phylogeny provides a better principle for biological classification than any alternatives. In order to classify species, therefore, we need to know their phylogenetic relations ...
I hope that is some evidence you can sink your teeth in.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete" 'Assuming Steve did want to *debate* science, he may very well have to settle for second-stringers, much the same way he has to settle for "second-stringer" theologians (i.e. laypeople in the combox, or responses to a "second-stringer" theologian's blog), as these are the most likely to engage.'
Cramdon sets up a false antithesis. If I wanted to dispute some aspect of evolutionary biology, it’s not as if I have to take a nobody like Evan as my foil.
I could go straight to a major representative in the field by commenting on his book."
The word *debate* assumes an exchange between a proponent and an opponent of a particular position. This assumption also carries into the context of Steve's original statement "why would I want to debate science *with* the likes of you?"
Steve cast Evan as a "second-stringer" and therefore not worth time or effort to debate *with*.
One can dispute an aspect of a major representative's given position, but that is not tantamount to a debate *with* the major representative.
Steve clarifies, but defends the original statement under the auspices of a "false antithesis" The clarification itself would have been sufficient.
Evan,
ReplyDelete"Well Paul, it's nice to see you adopting the ad hominems so typical of triablogue."
Where? Did I ever argue, once, that your claims were false due to some personal character trait of yours?
And, if so, how do you know that I'm not adopting the ad hominems of Evan? I see that overlooking counterexamples and leaving out other equally viable explanations of data is something of a specialty you have.
"I appreciate your willingness to get some information so I will be HAPPY to give it to you (I've been waiting for someone to ask for it).
As to the things you claim I've asserted without evidence let's get some evidence."
Evan, has Steve not got through to you yet? You can't really be this dense. Did you suppose that I didn't think that you had "evidence" that, from your perspective, supports your claims? I am under no such illusion; nor did I make any allusion that that was my position.
It seems that you totally missed major sections of my post, indeed, major sections of the topic up for discussion.
Not only are you not interacting with some of the claims I made (which ruins your complaint about us not interacting with your ganja post), you seem to not understand what is going on.
I made some claims about similarities proving evolution over against common design. I made arguments to the effect that my view could equally account for the empirical observations. Since "facts" don't have little name tags on them, nor do they have little mouths by which they explain themselves, you must interpret them. So, the empirical evidence of similarity isn't problematic on Christainity. I then claimed that your broader worldview demanded certain things to be eliminated that I just can't see eliminating (or naturalizing) such as: ethics, norms, reliable cognitive faculties, mental states, propositions, truth, etc.
So, why on earth would I give up a theory that is not affected by similarity between organisms and can make the most sense of life, for a theory that undermines the very confidence one has in the truth of that theory?
You made claims about probability. If you cannot prove that claim, your argument is sunk. You also have a theory that can't account for the massive differences. So you can eliminate those diferences. Move man down to the level of monkey. Either way, your argument has some severe problems (from my perspective). You pretend differences would show a God-designer, but then you elminate those differences. You suppose similarity would undermine design based on a premise that it is improbable that God would have made use of these simiarities. But you have failed to interact with any of my worries about this two-faced dialectic going on.
So, Evan, perhaps you can muster up the fortitude and actually engage the position before you rather than linking to a bunch of irrelevant web articles that do nothing to overcome the worries and problems I listed in the post you were responding to.
I'll quote myself again:
"I simply say that I haven't seen a cogent argument that doesn't rely on suppressed premises which assume some of the very issues up for debate presented yet. Perhaps you'll be the first, though. And your false bravado and machismo ridden rhetoric neither scares me or inspires confidence that you have half a clue of all the issues up for debate in these areas."
If you try to give me the "go look at my footnote" refutation again, I'll move on to other and better things.
“All taxonomies—thus embodying the richness of fascination of systematics as a scientific subject (Gould, 2000c)—mix aspects of nature’s objective order with human preferences for utility or intelligibility. Even if we allow that these four categories exist ‘out there’ in nature—and even I, although I developed this scheme, would not go so far in trying to craft a naturalistic defense, for I recognize that the objective items of the exaptive pool could be parsed in other ways—our decisions about their ranking and secondary ordering require a choice among several logically legitimate alternatives. All taxonomies base such choices on the designation of a fundamentum divisionis, or basis of primary order. The differences among alternative fundamenta reflect the theories we favor as most useful in understanding and explaining the phenomena encompassed by the taxonomy. (Thus, as Ernst Mayr has so forcefully argued throughout his career, taxonomies are theories about the basis of order, not boring and neutral hatracks, pigeonholes or stamp albums for accommodating the objective and uniquely arranged items of nature.)” S. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 1284-85.
ReplyDelete“Defective genes that no longer code for functional proteins are known as pseudogenes. Evolutionary biologists regard these apparently vestigial remnants of the GULO genes both as evidence contradicting intelligent design (why would any sensible designer install non-functional gene sequences in an organism?) and as evidence of common ancestry. Evolutionary biologists note that the genetic lesions found in the GULO pseudogenes of non-human primates, such as the chimpanzee, closely match those founding humans. But why would these ‘shared errors’ exist if humans did not stem via material processes of descent with modification from a common ancestor shared with other primates?” (W. Dembski & J. Wells, The Design of Life, 133.
ReplyDelete“Remarkably, however, a 2003 study by Inai et al. comparing the GULO pseudogenes from guinea pigs to that of humans shows many of the same ‘shared errors’ between the two species. But guinea pigs and primates are not closely related, or so-called sister’ groups, among the mammals. Thus, the guinea pig GULO pseudogene and the human GULO pseudogene could not have originated from the same ancestral pseudogene—despite their ‘shared errors.’ The disabling substitutions to the GULO exons (i.e., coding sequences of DNA) must have occurred in parallel,” ibid. 133.
“But if the same substitutions occurred in parallel, or independently, across unrelated mammalian groups (i.e., guinea pigs and humans), how do we know that the ‘shared errors’ exhibited by other primates (e.g. chimpanzees) and humans could not also have occurred independently?” ibid. 134.
“Shared codings may simply reflect parsimony of design, in which the same coding is used repeatedly in widely different organisms because changing it would be a waste of energy,” ibid. 135.
“Recall the puzzle of the marsupials [115-116]. According to Darwinian theory, what appear to be wolves, cats, squirrels, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice all evolved twice: once as placental mammals and again, totally independently, as marsupials. This amounts to the astonishing claim that an undirected process of random variation and natural selection somehow hit upon identical features many times in widely separated organisms. Or take the problem of flight. The capacity for powered flight requires a tremendously complex set of adaptations that affect virtually every organ of the body (see figure 5.15). Yet Darwinists claim that flight evolved independently—and without design—not once but four times: in birds, in insects, in mammals (bats), and in pterosaurs (extinct flying reptiles),” ibid. 140.
Steve and Paul -- I'd love to respond to you but I'm sure you'll just delete my posts again so I'm not going to waste any more time here.
ReplyDelete