Re: Stereotypes and reputations

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Pim:
>
> Here are some samplings of places to start in the literature. I've
> listed a few categories and citations (with some quotes) below. There
> are many more problems with common descent about which evolutionists
> are more reticent (non homologous development pathways, ORFans,
> massive convergence, for instance)
>
I notice you reference Woese and Doolittle. It may be helpful to
recognize their arguments which are not that there common ancestry is
wrong, but rather that horizontal gene transfer may have clouded the
picture. It also may help to differentiate between common ancestry and
'universal ancestor'. Even Darwin held open the possibility of multiple
universal ancestors.

That there are problems with morphological and molecular data does not
mean that there is no common ancestry. It merely shows that resolving
difficulties may be hard. Again, the argument common ancestry is wrong
because two methods disagree, is hardly sufficient.

Perphaps your argument should have been that based upon work of others
YOU believe that there are some (major) problems with common ancestry.
However the suggestion that 'evolutionists are recognizing this' seems
overselling.

In other words, common ancestry is not in doubt.

More later but perhaps it may be helpful to familiarize oneself with the
extensive data supporting common descent as documented by Douglas
Theobalt http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Convergence is also not necessarily a problem for common descent. Nor
are ORFans for instance. We should not let our ignorance lead us astray
from the solid evidence in favor of common descent.

As I said, more later.
Received on Sat Jul 30 22:44:15 2005