Rate this post:
|Common design does not state every feature will be the same, but it's
still a wing and it's still a fin.
What exactly does common design state? As to bat wings and bird wings,
whale fins and fish fins, you dodge the point of the question, a bat's wing
and a bird's wing are superfically similar because they do the same thing,
allow them to fly, why are they structurally different then? Why do
humans, who aren't superficially similar to bats and who live in a
completely different environment, still have a stucturally similar forearm
with bats? Evolution explains it nicely, because we evolved from a more
recent common ancestor than birds and bats, how does ID explain it?
Yes, I understand homology(similarity due to common descent). Let me
reiterate, given hundred of millions of species in the existence of the
planet, ofcourse we can classify them into groups.
But what is the basis of these classifications? According to you, are
these classifications based on relatedness? And if they are, how are
animals related. Because your stance is that nothing is related...
I believe they're similar but not by means of common descent. In a
sense, animals are related.
No, we see millions of animals and we put them into nested groups.
Genetics confirms we've done a good job of selecting these groups. Ofcourse
they will be genetically similar if they're similar in various other ways.
Genetics also confirms we're more similar to corn than other simple
organisms, I don't know, it's weird.
But here's where your argument completely falls apart. Why would
dissimilar organisms, in different environments still have homologies?
With ID, you would expect animals living in similar environments to be
genetically and morphologically similar, but we don't see that!
You say "Ofcourse they will be genetically similar if they're similar in
various other ways. "
But what we actually see is dissimilar organisms, living in different
environments, have similar underlying structural similarities and genetic
similarities. The only explaination that makes sense is evolution. Bats
have a wing that is based on a modified mammalian forearm, not a bird wing,
bats are more genetically similar to other mammals, not birds.
And provide a source for your "corn story", because it's meaningless
without a source.
False, there are similarites but I disagree with the mechanism(common
descent). You continually fail to grasp this concept. Please define
homology, what's your definition?
Here's a good definition of homolgy:
"Homology is a specific explanation of similarity of form seen in the
biological world. Similarities can often be explained by common descent;
features are considered homologous if they are shown to be inherited from a
common ancestor. For example, although the arms of four-limbed vertebrates
externally appear quite different, all have the same basic underlying
skeletal and muscular pattern. Such shared patterns are best explained by
the inference that they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had
this pattern. Proposed homologies are evaluated using comparative anatomy,
genetics, development, and behavior."
Why are there similarities? God trying to fool us? It isn't because they
live in similar environments, what else is there? Evolution explains it
nicely and is supported by all the evidence, nothing else explains it.
I mentioned this above. WOW, maybe it's a transitional form, so batmen
really exist! We don't have fossils because they evolved so quickly in the
outskirts of the main population and became extinct, leaving no record.
Still dodging the question.
My concern is explaining the mechanism that causes similarity.
They're similar because they're similar. Similarity does not prove the
mechanism by which the similarity arrived.
So you can't explain why they're similar. And since we can study the
stucture of the bat wing, the mammilian forearm and the bird wing,
homologies do support evolution.
So in proving that something is similar, it proves common descent?
All according to what you mean by 'similar'. As I posted above, homologies
are determined by more than looking at 2 organisms and saying "yeah, they
look similar...." From here:
"Today, biologists still diagnose homologous structures by first searching
for structures of similar form and position, just as pre-Darwinian
biologists did. (They also search for genetic, histological, developmental,
and behavioral similarities.) However, in our post-Darwin period,
biologists define a homologous structure as an anatomical, developmental,
behavioral, or genetic feature shared between two different organisms
because they inherited it from a common ancestor. Because not all features
that are similar in two organisms are necessarily inherited from a common
ancestor, and not all features inherited from a common ancestor are
similar, it is necessary to test structures before they can be declared
homologous. To answer the question, "could this feature in these groups be
inherited from a common ancestor?" scientists compare the feature across
many groups, looking for patterns of form, function, development,
biochemistry, and presence and absence. Many features are tested
simultaneously against genealogy through a process that Kluge (1997; see
also Kluge, 1998, 1999 for discussions of independent homology tests)
termed testing "multiple ad hoc hypotheses of homology."
If, considering all the available evidence, the distribution of
characteristics across many different groups resembles a genealogical
pattern, it is very likely that the feature reflects common ancestry.
Future tests based on more features and more groups could change those
assessments, however -- which is normal in the building of scientific
understanding. Nevertheless, when a very large amount of information from
several different areas (anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, etc.) indicates
that a set of organisms is genealogically related, then scientists feel
confident in declaring the features that they share are homologous.
Finally, while judgments of homology are in principle revisable, there are
many cases in which there is no realistic expectation that they will be
You really don't remember. I don't want to go through the trouble of
posting it here.
What I don't remember is you showing any circularity!
Humans are also more similar to corn than some simple organisms. I'm not
saying it's coincidence per say but if they're morphologically similiar
they should be genetically similar, overall.
I still don't buy your "corn story" until I see a source that supports
it....And yes you are saying genetic similarity is a coincidence. And the
problem for creationism is that we see animals that are superficially
dissimilar, living in different environments, that are stucturally similar
and genetically similar. That kills your point completely.
I don't dodge and I'm oh so cool.
Whether you're cool or not doesn't matter to me, but you keep dodging the questions you can't answer.
It's more historical because it deals with the interpretation of past information and occurrences.
What about genetics, that's evidence that's not historical, that we can observe, test, experiment on right now. According to your definition here, that makes geology historical, astronomy historical also. Are they wrong too?
Only a non-math person asserts E is a math based science.
Apoapsis has showed you all kinds of math that's a part of the theory of evolution, I must have missed the part where you refuted that....
Mayr agrees with my assertion(historical process) and if you think I'm lying that's
Of course evolution happened in the past, and Mayr would agree, but we examine evidence in the present so biology isn't just historical. Mayr knows this, he says it's a historical process, not that evolution is merely based on historical observation.
The math in the fields do not carry the same weight.
Why not? The math in both fields is used to describe physical phenomenon, I don't see the difference and you haven't shown us any, besides your own sense of incredulity...
No, you keep failing to read it.
No, you keep dodging it.
LOL. Name one unambigous example of evolution to a higher taxaa. OR Name the experiment proving how prokaryotes(asexual) evolved into eukaryotes(sexual)
You dodged my question, evolution is the unifying concept of biology, virtually all biologists agree with this. Unambiguous example of evolution to a higher taxa...
Check out the therapsids, which clearly and unambiguously show reptile to mammal evolution.
Yes but we agree that evolution is not math based,
No we don't.
Has nothing to do with common design as far as I know.
What does common design predict then, what are similarities in common design based on, why is a bat's wing more similar to my forearm than a bird's wing?
Because some birds have/had teeth,
Answer the question, why do the birds that DON'T have teeth, still have the genes for producing teeth? If they were created distinctly, what is the purpose of having genes to produce structures they will never manifest?