Re: [asa] homology and analogy

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

>
> Perhaps both you and Doug are correct.
>
> But, as far as I can tell, you have provided no reasons for me to see why.
>
> If you follow my argument, you ought to see that TE is one of those
> alternatives
> that are contrary to the Darwinian position I have outlined.
>
> The argument for common descent appears probabilistic, but it still seems
> to
> me that there is no logical way to eliminate from the argument for
> homologous structures other possibilities than Darwinian evolution,
> including
> TE and ID.
>
> If you see the logical argument differently, you will have to outline the
> argument, and demonstrate that it is not a tautology.
>

Of course, anything is possible (designed appearance of age and designed
appearance of phylogenetic relationship), but do you really want to hold out
for those unlikely possibilities when a completely sufficient and
demonstrably scientifically fruitful alternative mechanism is available?

The nested hierarchy of homology is not a tautology. The Linnaean taxonomic
system is a recognition of this nested structure, and it predates notions of
descent with modification and multiplication of species (i.e., evolution).
Together, the known mechanisms of heredity and the genotype-phenotype
relationship are exactly the sort of system that will produce this pattern
of variation. Evolution, which in its genetic basis was only a "hypothesis"
for Darwin, can now be regarded as "fact" because it is the only mechanism
that is completely specified by the complexity of information that is known
about biology.

Doug

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 10 21:00:03 2009