Re: [asa] homology and analogy

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

>
> There may be many more possibilities than Darwinism and ID. In all these
> cases, homology simply argues for a common origin. But the nature of that
> origin is unspecified.
>

Not so. The fact that homologous features, considered among taxa (species,
genera or other groups of organisms), compel (i.e., specify) arrangement of
the variation into a nested hierarchy proves (for all practical purposes)
the evolutionary scenario (descent with modification) over against the
preconceived design (ID) concept.

And, where the arrangement of homologies into nested hierarchies are not
perfect (for indeed this is the case), that is actually even greater
evidence for the evolutionary scenario because there are biological reasons
why a morphological or other phenotypic trait from a recent common ancestor
might "appear" and "disappear" polyphyletically in isolated species within a
larger genus or family.

It's hard to imagine WHY a Designer would create variation in the nested
structure without an evolutionary process. And, if the Designer did create
to this design plan (separate from an evolutionary process), it's even
harder to imagine HOW a capable Designer wouldn't do it perfectly.

Doug Hayworth

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 9 18:30:59 2009