Re: Stereotypes and reputations

Pim:

The problems with common descent are not minor issues that can be glossed
over. I recall speaking with an evolutioniist about abruptness in the fossil
record (Cambrian explosion, etc.). She said she did not think that
constituted evidence against the theory. So there was no evidence against
evolution. Do you see the problem here?

If one cannot admit to what are clear counter indications, then there is a
problem. Woese is not saying that HGT explains early life. He is appealing
to a far more aggressive explanation -- HGT on a massive scale -- nothing
like it has ever been observed. You also have understated Doolittle, who is
one of the early evolutionists to admit to what the data say: the tree model
doesn't work very well. You wrote:

> 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.

Unfortunately this is always the explanation, and it makes common descent
unfalsifiable. With every problem, one hears, "well, that doesn't mean the
theory is wrong." So here we have all kinds of incongruities -- phylogenetic
mismatches abounding. Non homologous development patterns that make utterly
no sense on common descent. Detailed designs evolving independently over and
over. Did I mention fundamental differences at the DNA level where common
descent predicts there should be none (proteins involved in DNA
replication)? And of course that little problem that we have no idea how
these designs could are arisen. Sure, one can always contrive just-so
stories. How many different evidential problems, from how many different
angles, do we need before we acknowledge problems? You mentioned, Douglas
Theobald's site -- this is yet another problem with talkorigins. That page
is problematic. You wrote:

> 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.

I'm sorry but this is not tenable. ORFans and massive convergence not
problems? This is a joke right?

--Cornelius

> 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 23:29:58 2005