Re: It's the Bible or evolution

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Preston:
>
> Actually we went over this in some detail a few weeks ago. Miller's
> pseudogene argument has several problems. Let me just focus on the
> main one: Special pleading.
>
> This comes from the fact that biology is full of examples of identical
> yet independent mutations.

Any examples ?

> The term "mutational hotspot" is conveniently used, even if we don't
> quite understand the causal factors.

An interesting gap argument but science, rather than throwing up its
hands has started to unravel these hotspots of evolution

> In any case, independent mutations are a fact. Indeed, they are even
> observed in, of all things, pseudogenes (urate oxidase, GULO, etc).

Specifics

> Evolutionists explain these as due to mutational hotspots. But if
> repeated, identical mutations can be explained as due to hotspots when
> common descent is ruled out, then this explanation is also possible
> even when CD is not ruled out. Miller's argument that these are
> compelling evidence commits the fallacy of special pleading.

Or failure to understand. Their is no special pleading, pseudogenes fit
nicely within the paradigm of common descent and nested structures. That
you see some minor, problems for which you present no supporting
evidence makes it even harder to appreciate your comments.

Explain special pleading in Miller's argument. Are you saying that all
mutations are due to 'identical' hotspots and that the appearance of
common descent is caused by this?
Do you understand the pseudogene argument proposed by Miller and many
others?
Received on Thu Oct 6 12:37:08 2005