The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm afraid you misread my request. I asked for a citation, not a gob of pasted text from an unknown source. i'd like to know what specific genetic evidence contradicts what specific morphological evidence, with a reference to the original source so I can check it.

[Galatians513]

Sorry, here 'tis. Can't remember how to do hot links:

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm

[Lurking Libertarian]

Thanks.

[f.Christian]

... <*a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm" > hot link <*/a> !

... less *

... hot link !

[Galatians513]

Gracias

Can't do that sorta thing in COBOL

[Stultis]

but I can't think of an obvious contradiction [between genetic and morphologically derived evolutionary "trees"]. Care to cite one?

Well, Galatians513 wasn't entirely clear, simply referring to "contradictory" morphological and genetic "trees". I've clarified in the angle brackets above, but a couple things might be meant. For instance one might also refer to what might be called "typological" classifications of organisms. These would group organisms according to "type," without regard to evolutionary relationships. Contrasting would be "evolutionary" classifications, which group organisms according to the inferred typology of evolutionary relationships.

Conventional taxonomy tends to conform to patterns of evolutionary relationships, just because it was originally oriented (under the guidance of Linneaus in the 17th Century) to the pattern of "groups within groups" that is a relect of evolution. Of course a creationist might argue that God simply decided to create according to a pattern of groups within groups.

Therefore the most interesting cases are those were "typological" and "evolutionary" classifications do NOT agree. In these instances creationists would expect new lines of comparative data (discovered subsequent to the gross morphological criteria on which classifications were initially based) should conform with typological rather than evolutionary schemes. Evolutionists would expect the opposite.

A couple concrete instances come to mind. (I'm sure that many more would occur to a trained biologist.) For instance (as I mentioned in another context recently) even though crocodiles are classified as "reptiles" along with snakes and lizards, they actually share a more recent common ancestor with birds. This kind of situation can arise whenever a particular lineages "diverges" sufficiently in a particular direction -- as birds did in adapting to their peculiar form of locomotion -- that we decide it should have a new name.

Not surprisingly (to the evolutionists) the proteins and DNA of crocodiles are more similar to those of birds than they are to those of snakes or lizards.

Another example concerns humans. Genetically, chimpanzees are actually more similar to humans than they are to their fellow pongids (great apes) gorillas.

In these crucial cases, the evidence conforms with common ancestry rather than typology, contrary to what would be expected if God created "types within types" (by non-evolutionary means).

[Aric2000]

Great, another Behe site.

woohoo, take me to the great ID'r in the sky.

[Aric2000]

Nice... very nice....

I learn something here every day.

Too cool, thanks.

[general_re]

Your implication that the term evolution carries the same sense in both cases (the evolution of the universe according to physical law, and the origin of species according to random variation and environmentally driven selection) commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Nicely done. Unfortunately, I pointed out exactly the same fallacy to that same poster a few days ago, and it bounced off without a dent. Expect a long-winded, yet surprisingly empty response...

[whattajoke]

you know what's funny about the whole Behe phenomenon? The same people who drool over his fantasies are the same one who accuse us of doing that over Darwin. That, and the fact that Behe didn't propose a single thing, but rather just writes mass market mish mash. But I suppose that doesn't matter.

[Junior]

Probably one of the best logic texts available, and quite readable to boot.

[Aric2000]

Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution and descent with modification.41 Yet, they have not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory, evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis" may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of lifeforms on earth.



Don't ya just love this sort of stuff?

Hey this is ID, and even though scientists have refuted us relentlesly, and have disproved most of what we have claimed, because it cannot hold up to peer review, we are still gonna claim this, even though we don't have a leg to stand on, but that's OK, because the ones who believe us are not going to look for a refutation anyway.

[Aric2000]

Did G3K write that paragraph?

[general_re]

I always thought equivocation meant lying.

In a colloquial sense, it usually does. In the realm of philosophy, a fallacy of equivocation is when you rely on an inherent ambiguity in the definition of a word to "shade" the meaning and draw a conclusion that is probably suspect. If I were writing a textbook, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better example of the fallacy of equivocation than that particular example. One might expect that a self-avowed phil-os-o-pher would avoid such elementary errors of logic, but there you go...

[Aric2000]

Of course it doesn't, that is why they are called religious zealots.

[Aric2000]

Faith is wonderful thing, no facts, no evidence, no nothing needed, just a little book that they say is the word of god, and BOOM, you got yourself a religion.

Ohh, maybe we can work on something like that, a collabaration, I bet we could make millions, and we could be NONprofit, so NO taxes.

WooHoo, let's do that!!

[whattajoke]

btw, been meaning to tell you... after reading one of your posts re your reverse "conversion," you might want to find Dan Barker's "losing faith in faith."

Something tells me you'll hurt your neck from nodding yes so much.

[Aric2000]

I will go find that, sounds interesting.

Thanks

[whattajoke]

I assure you, it is: http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif.html

[f.Christian]

Evolution is wonderful thing, no facts, no evidence, no nothing needed, just a big crock that you say is the word of man, and BOOM, you got yourself a religion // cult ... priests --- overlords !