What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You
Jerry Coyne’s website (Why Evolution Is True) has posed study questions for learning about evolution. Evolutionists have responded in the “Comment” section with answers to some of the questions (see here, here, and here). But when I posted a few relevant thoughts, they were quickly deleted after briefly appearing. That’s unfortunate because those facts can help readers to understand evolution. Here is what I posted:Well the very first question is question begging:
“Why is the concept of homology crucial for even being able to talk about organic structure?”
It isn’t. We are “able to talk about organic structure” without reference to homology. In fact, if you are interested in biology, you can do more than mere talk. Believe it or not you actually can investigate how organic structure works, without even referencing homology. The question reveals the underlying non-scientific Epicureanism at work. This is not to say homology is not an important concept and area of study. Of course it is. But it is absurd to claim it is required even merely to talk about organic structure. Let’s try another:
“What is Darwin’s explanation for homology?”
Darwin’s explanation for homology is that it is a consequence of common descent. He repeatedly argues that homologous structures provide good examples of non-adaptive patterns as well as disutility, thus confirming common descent by virtue of falsifying the utilitarianism-laden doctrine of creation. See for example pp. 199-200, where Darwin concludes:
“Thus, we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds; we cannot believe that the same bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.”
Pure metaphysics, and ignoring the enormous problem that non-adaptive patterns cause for evolutionary theory. Oh my. Well, let’s try another:
“How does Darwin’s account of serial homology (the resemblance of parts within an organism, for example, the forelimbs to the hindlimbs, or of a cervical vertebra to a thoracic vertebra) depend on the repetition of parts or segmentation?”
Hilarious. It’s a wonderful example of teleology, just-so-stories, and metaphysics, so characteristic of the genre, all wrapped up in a single passage (pp. 437-8). Darwin goes into a typical rant of how designs and patterns (serial homologies in this case) absolutely refute utilitarianism. “How inexplicable are these facts on the ordinary view of creation!,” he begins. Pure metaphysics.
He then provides a just-so story about how “we may readily believe that the unknown progenitor of the vertebrata possessed many vertebræ,” etc., and that like any good breeder, natural selection “should have seized on a certain number of the primordially similar elements, many times repeated, and have adapted them to the most diverse purposes.”
Seized on? Wow, that natural selection sure is good—long live Aristotelianism. Gotta love this mythology.
Jerry Coyne, like all loud Darwinists, is a weaver of lies and deception. But he only deceives his brain-dead choir.
ReplyDeleteAnd how about : ".. and have adapted them to the most diverse purposes."
ReplyDeleteWow ! Evomalution even adapts to a specific purpose ! More imaginatively sophisticated and discriminating than 'seizing upon'. Nothing random involved, by cracky !
I expect Cornelius made the same point, in passing, with his erudite reference to Aristotelianism.
Great point Paul. But evolutionists have to control the information flow, otherwise their followers might start to think.
DeleteI enjoy your logic,
ReplyDeleteI’m glad to see you back.
I hope to be a regular reader.
The Enormous Lack of Variation in the Universe and in the Gene Pools Make Origin of Life and Higher Life Forms Physically Impossible - https://biospecificity.wordpress.com/
ReplyDeleteHi All. I’m fundamentally in agreement that an atheistic view of evolution has its problems. Arguments such as nirwad’s can certainly be raised. However, they lose virtually all argumentative power if one considers the possibility that God used evolution as a tool for His creation. I’m very interested in seeing the evidence that supports a theory more suitable than evolution.
ReplyDeleteThere is a simple argument that kills evolution dead before it's even born. It's called the curse of dimensionality aka the combinatorial explosion. Not even God can get around it.
DeleteWhat this means is that a stochastic search mechanism like Darwinian evolution is out of the question. Only a nonstochastic search can result in life and the huge variety of lifeforms that we observe.
No argument from brain-dead dirt worshippers or anyone else can get around the curse of dimensionality.
An atheistic version of abiogenesis would certainly be stochastic. But would you agree that it would be possible for the God that is in the "still, small voice" to use a mechanism that might only look stochastic? I don't think it is accurate to actually describe evolution (theistic or atheistic) as stochastic since natural selection prevents the hypothetical process from being completely random.
Deletesince natural selection prevents the hypothetical process from being completely random.
DeleteNatural selection doesn't "do" anything. It is merely a label for the idea that with randomly generated variation, the poor designs (i.e., those harming reproduction capability) do not propagate. The better designs, according to evolution, must arise strictly by random variation. Natural selection plays no role in bringing them about. Furthermore, that random variation is extremely limited. IOW, just because there a better design, in the design space, does not mean it will be created by random variation. In fact, for the vast majority of such designs, it is astronomically unlikely.
I’m very interested in seeing the evidence that supports a theory more suitable than evolution.
DeleteIs it possible that the origin of the world is beyond your understanding?
Natural selection doesn't "do" anything.
DeleteActually, it "does" something in the sense that it prevent evolution from being a purely stochastic process.
A process being "astronomically unlikely" is not a problem for a tool of God's, which I believe evolution is. Some would view the resurrection of Jesus Christ as "astronomically unlikely", but of course that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Is it possible that the origin of the world is beyond your understanding?
I completely accept that the origin of the world IS beyond my understanding. I just find it curious that you and others discard evolution as a suitable theory for what you feel is insufficient scientific evidence. Yet, I haven't seen anyone provide evidence for a more plausible theory. The way you apply the need for scientific evidence is inconsistent.
Actually, it "does" something in the sense that it prevent evolution from being a purely stochastic process.
DeleteAccording to evolutionary theory, natural selection cannot induce favorable or needed mutations. Every mutation leading from a fish to the giraffe must have been random, with respect to function or need. The fact that harmful mutations are dead-ends does not change that.
A process being "astronomically unlikely" is not a problem for a tool of God's, which I believe evolution is.
Which makes it unfalsifiable. Empirical failures become inconsequential.
A: I completely accept that the origin of the world IS beyond my understanding. B: Yet, I haven't seen anyone provide evidence for a more plausible theory.
Given A, why do you expect such evidence in B?
I just find it curious that you and others discard evolution as a suitable theory for what you feel is insufficient scientific evidence.
Evolutionists have claimed for hundreds of years that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly and unquestionably supports and confirms evolution, and that evolution is a scientific fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. These are false claims, which I have pointed out. Why is pointing that out “curious” to you?
The way you apply the need for scientific evidence is inconsistent.
How so?
I don't think it is accurate to actually describe evolution (theistic or atheistic) as stochastic since natural selection prevents the hypothetical process from being completely random.
DeleteYou're kidding me? Natural selection never gets to do anything at all unless the search is nonstochastic. The destruction of the organism is 100% guaranteed if the search is stochastic. There is no way to prevent random mutations from destroying existing structures unless there is an a priori conservation mechanism in place to protect the good genes. This mechanism cannot evolve.
You don't understand the curse of dimensionality. You're deluded.
There is no way to prevent random mutations from destroying existing structures unless there is an a priori conservation mechanism in place to protect the good genes.
DeleteEvidence from RNA viruses and retroviruses suggests that this may not be true.
Just by definition "natural selection" is not 100% random. The relative fitness of alleles means that the distribution in progeny generations is NOT random.
@Cornelius:
DeleteEvolutionists have claimed for hundreds of years that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly and unquestionably supports and confirms evolution, and that evolution is a scientific fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. These are false claims, which I have pointed out. Why is pointing that out “curious” to you?
To be fair, you left off the next sentence of my quote. This is what I said:
"I just find it curious that you and others discard evolution as a suitable theory for what you feel is insufficient scientific evidence. Yet, I haven't seen anyone provide evidence for a more plausible theory."
You discard the theory of evolution as a whole because of what you believe to be scientific problems, while there is demonstrable evidence of at least some aspects of the theory. But when asked (repeatedly) to provide evidence for a more plausible theory, you cannot provide anything of substance. You reject one theory that has scientific evidence (granted, not entirely to your liking) and support another theory (I assume) that you provide no evidence for. That is why I say that the demand for scientific evidence is inconsistent.
There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution. There isn't any non-telic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.
DeleteIntelligent Design has the scientific and testable methodology. We have standards that have to be met. The opposition has "anything but design".
And yes, natural selection is non-random in the most trivial way- that being not all variations have the same probability of being eliminated. But it is all still just contingent serendipity for what is beneficial in one scenario could be detrimental in another. And beneficial includes losing parts and functionality.
Curtis, what do you think is "demonstrable evidence of at least some aspects of the theory" is Darwinian Evolution?
DeleteFor starters, changes in allele frequencies due to changes in environment are indisputable. Additionally, speciation events have been observed directly (I can provide examples, if you like) and even young earth creationists agree that considerable speciation must have happened at some point in history.
DeleteThe bacterial world has been a source of several lines of evidence supporting evolution. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a commonly used demonstration of evolution in action. Mutations that occur in a somewhat-random fashion within a population allow some lucky few members of that population to adapt to the environmental challenge. Nylonase (an enzyme that breaks down the relatively recently-invented nylon polymer) has come into existence. The LTEE experiment has shown multiple interesting changes over time in the genomes bacterial populations.
None of this is disputable and all of it is "demonstrable evidence of at least some aspects of the theory". Admittedly, there are other aspects of the theory that rely on "best guesses" based on current evidence, much like forensic science at a crime scene. But there is a considerable amount of observed evidence supporting the theory, as well.
>>changes in allele frequencies due to changes in environment are indisputable
DeleteOk, so what? Finch beaks are now known to change frequently due sudden environmental changes. The Finches are programmed to adapt.
>>speciation events have been observed directly
Yes, please do provide those examples.
>>even young earth creationists agree that considerable speciation must have happened at some point in history
Duh. This is not evidence of either Darwinian Evolution or common decent.
>>Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a commonly used demonstration of evolution in action
Please see Dr. Hunter's article titled "Antibiotic Resistance: Scratch Another “Proof” of Evolution (Which Was Never a Proof in the First Place Anyway)"
>>Nylonase (an enzyme that breaks down the relatively recently-invented nylon polymer) has come into existence
Please see Dr. Hunter's article titled "New Book: New Proteins Evolve Very Easily"
>>The LTEE experiment
Please see "Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity" at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xkW4C7uOE8s98tNx2mzMKmALeV8-348FZNnZmSWY5H8/edit referenced from Dr. Hunter's article titled "Evolution Falsified Yet Again: They Are So Complicated “That it’s Stunning”
>>None of this is disputable
Well, it depends on what you mean by disputable. If you mean that these things support Darwinian Evolution, then yes, they are very much disputable.
But here is the rub, Curtis, in order to claim that these support Darwinian Evolution you must make one of the following falacies:
1. Assuming that Darwinian Evolution is true.
2. The fallacy of equivication in that because we observe change in an organsim then one species can change into another.
So, do you have any evidence for parts of Darwinian Evolution that does not make either of these two fallacies?
I very carefully stated that there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I did not make (and will never make) a claim of proof. The facts that I gave are not disputable. Young earth creationists believe in some form of evolution. I assume from your “duh” comment that you, too, believe in some form of evolution. There IS evidence. The dispute is in how much evolution you agree that occurred. I’ve asked any reader here to provide scientific evidence that you believe supports a more plausible hypothesis. Unsurprisingly, no one has attempted to provide anything of the sort. I can only guess, but it appears that the prevailing mindset would have to be “I honestly don’t know how and why we see life as it exists today, I just know God didn’t do it through evolution.”
DeleteExamples of speciation include hawthorn/apple maggot flies, Drosophila paulistorum, house mice on Faeroe Island, and several examples of polyploid plants.
It is unclear what you mean in your comment. At one point regarding speciation, your comment is “Duh”, but later in your comment you seem to suggest that speciation is some sort of equivocation fallacy. Would you or would you not agree that speciation occurs? And if it does occur (“Duh”), how would you propose it occurs without change in an organism?
while there is demonstrable evidence of at least some aspects of the theory.
DeleteSuch as what?
Asked and answered, Your Honor!
Deleteallele frequencies ... Antibiotic resistance in bacteria ... Nylonase ... LTEE
DeleteThat is a rare quad own-goal.
You've just made my point, four times over. Not only are these not evidence for evolution, they are evidence against evolution. But this is the type of stuff evolution is built on.
So... would you care to provide any sort of evidence to support your claims, or is simply making a claim sufficient proof of its veracity? Please explain how any of this is evidence against evolution. Go ahead, take your pick.
DeleteSince it was mentioned earlier, and it’s fresh in my mind, would you agree with young earth creationists that at least some evolution must have occurred since the flood of Noah?
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria has been shown repeatedly to be a consequence of directed adaptation, an anathema to evolutionists.
DeleteI’ll wait for evidence, if any is forthcoming, before responding in any significant detail.
DeleteAre you familiar with the work of Luria and Delbrück?
DeleteAre you familiar with the work of Luria and Delbrück?
DeleteA lot has happened since 1943, such as the discovery of directed adaptation which contradicted Luria and Delbruck, and evolutionists expectations in general. See below for the evidence which you requested (URLs followed by quotes):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929248/
We usually think of spontaneous mutations as the result of replication errors made while cells are growing exponentially. That mutations do arise during cell proliferation and without regard to selection was, of course, shown by Luria and Delbrück (1943). Several years ago, John Cairns and his collaborators (Cairns et al. 1988) demonstrated that mutations can also arise in nonproliferating cells when they are subjected to a nonlethal selection. These experiments extended earlier observations made by Francis Ryan (Ryan 1955; Ryan et al. 1961) and James Shapiro (Shapiro 1984).
Luria and Delbrück’s proof that mutations arise at random in a growing population was based on large fluctuations in mutant numbers among parallel cultures of bacteria. These large fluctuations occur because clones of different sizes are produced by mutants that appear at different points during the growth of the cultures. Cairns et al. (1988) used the absence of large fluctuations in mutant numbers among parallel cultures to demonstrate that mutations also arise after selection had been imposed. Because on solid selective medium each mutant produces a colony of progeny cells, and so is counted as one, the distribution of mutant numbers is Poisson with a variation equal to its mean. Luria and Delbrück could not have seen this Poisson component; the selections they used were lethal, so no mutants could have arisen after selection was imposed, as Delbrück himself pointed out at the 1946 Cold Spring Harbor Symposium (see Lwoff 1946, p. 154).
Although the occurrence of mutations in nonproliferating cells is an interesting and potentially important phenomenon, what was startling about the results of Cairns et al. (1988) was that mutations appeared to be “directed” by the selective conditions; i.e., while selected mutations were accumulating, deleterious or neutral mutations were not. As Cairns put it “populations of bacteria, in stationary phase, have some way of producing (or selectively retaining) only the most appropriate mutations” (Cairns et al. 1988). Some of the more dramatic cases of “directed” mutation have now been shown to have other causes, so at this point we are left with rather few examples of apparent directedness that are still unexplained (for review, see Foster 1999b). The phenomenon has come to be called “adaptive mutation” by which is meant a process that during nonlethal selection produces mutations that relieve the selected pressure, whether or not other nonselected mutations are also occurring (Foster 1999b).
Continued …
Continued …
Deletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363326/
Adaptive resistance in bacteria is observed after subjecting a population to gradual increments of antibiotic concentration. Regardless of the level of resistance reached through this process, (which can be very high), the resistance disappears after a few generations in the absence of antibiotic. Previous studies have independently identified epigenetic inheritance and phenotypic heterogeneity as important components involved in the emergence of adaptive resistance [1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11], but their role has never been evaluated quantitatively. Additionally, the molecular origin of reversibility observed in adaptive resistance has remained unclear. …
Our model provides an explanation for the emergence of adaptive resistance based on the cost and benefit of the biological characteristics of an efflux pump system. It does not only predict the behavior of populations subjected to different antibiotic shocks and at different time, but also a number of different phenomena observed experimentally in bacterial populations, such as phenotypic reversibility, genetic assimilation, and even the survival rates of populations that have been pre-induced with non-lethal antibiotic concentrations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103502
Adaptive resistance to antibiotics in bacteria: a systems biology perspective
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC94481/
This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today.
This minireview suggests that sensitive, directed feedback mechanisms initiated by different kinds of stress might facilitate and accelerate the adaptation of organisms to new environments.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034953
We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/12/drug-resistant-bacteria-discovered-in-4-million-year-old-cave/
The pristine samples of bacteria taken from the cave revealed that the bugs are not infectious to humans but can fend off several types of antibiotics, including newer synthetic drugs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20811567
This study deals with yeast.
Since we show that the adaptive state was gained only after the exposure to glucose and by numerous cells simultaneously, this heritable adaptation must have been induced in individual cells by this environment. This study, therefore, details a process that is different from the fundamental common view of adaptation. Here adaptation seems not to rely on random and rare genetic variability that accumulated independently from the selection agent.
The adaptation relied on individual cells that switched into an adapted state and, thus, the adaptation was due to a response of many individual cells to the change in environment and not due to selection of rare advantageous phenotypes.
Cornelius, thank you for the material you have posted. You’ve highlighted some very interesting research and I will certainly check into it. I’m still unclear on why this would be evidence against evolution. If populations circumnavigate environmental barriers either by the presence of individuals in the gene pool able to avoid the barrier or by a more direct response to the barrier, it appears as though the result is the same - the population adapts to the barrier with change over time.
DeleteI’m still unclear on why this would be evidence against evolution. If populations circumnavigate environmental barriers either by the presence of individuals in the gene pool able to avoid the barrier or by a more direct response to the barrier, it appears as though the result is the same - the population adapts to the barrier with change over time.
DeleteI of course had no illusions that the empirical facts would make any difference. Evolutionists can at one moment be demanding evidence for directed adaptation, and then in the next, when provided with the evidence, simply accommodate it into their theory. This has occurred repeatedly since Darwin. There is no empirical content, because this never was about the science in the first place. Evolution is a religious theory which is willing to contort the science in whatever way is required.
You supplied some great evidence. Perhaps I was not specific enough, but what I’m hoping you can provide is evidence that shows that adaptation is inconsistent with evolution. You still have not supplied any of that.
DeleteI’m also hoping you will at some point provide evidence that you feel supports a better hypothesis than evolution.
Dr. Hunter, is this really how Darwinists reason? Adaptation must be shown to be consistent with evolution. But its not. Instead adaptation is assumed to be consistent with evolution.
DeleteI’m hoping you can provide is evidence that shows that adaptation is inconsistent with evolution.
DeleteAdaptation, along with common descent, natural selection, gradualism, random mutations, punctuated equilibrium, clado genesis, etc., is a sub hypothesis, or explanation, of how evolution works.
Adaptation, along with common descent, natural selection, gradualism, random mutations, punctuated equilibrium, clado genesis, etc., is a sub hypothesis, or explanation, of how evolution works.
DeleteI would agree with this. That's why I'm confused by the comment earlier that directed adaptation is anathema to evolutionists.
Directed adaptation |= adaptation, per se. Directed adaptation is completely different--it is Lamarckian.
DeleteOk, so naive bacterial population meets an antibiotic for the first time. The antibiotic kills virtually the entire population, but a few cells survive. The survival could be because of:
Delete1) Genetic drift within the population that allowed a small number of cells to be able to survive the challenge of the antibiotic
or
2) The population enters some type of SOS response after the challenge of the antibiotic and a small number are able to survive the challenge.
Does one of these possibilities provide a significant challenge to the basic concept of evolution (survival of the fittest)? I would say no.
No, it doesn't work that way. You need to take a look at the science.
DeleteFrom the Aldana reference you listed:
Delete"With the advent of systems biology and its toolsets, integrative models that combine experimentally known features with computational simulations have significantly improved our understanding of the emergence and evolution of the adaptive-resistant phenotype."
The Barbara Write article you referenced is titled "A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution".
In the second sentence of the abstract, the Gerard Wright article reads "The origin of the genes associated with this resistance is of significant importance to our understanding of the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance in pathogens."
I feel confident I could find similar remarks in the others, but I have other things to get done today.
I do intend to look at the science further, but the authors apparently didn't find anything contrary to evolution. In these articles, what do you think is present that the authors missed and that contradicts evolution?
Well the goalposts keep on moving. First it was that there is all kinds of evidence for evolution, including antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Then it was skepticism of directed adaptation. Now it is, evolutionists haven't changed their mind. Well I have news for you, they aren't going to change their mind. Epicureanism has been around since antiquity--today's scientific problems are no match for it. The quotes you provided are nothing more than bare assertions of belief. Directed adaptation was opposed until it could no longer be denied, and so now suddenly is yet another mechanism and evidence of evolution, even though the underlying problem demolishes evolution. There was a reason why it was opposed. It doesn't work, as I have explained. You obviously want evolution to be true, to the point of bare assertions. My only argument, and the only tool I have, is the science. But that never works with evolutionists.
DeleteI see no value in arguing with dirt worshippers. They deserve nothing but insults and contempt. They deserve to be publicly shamed and ridiculed. Their opinions are worthless and a waste of time.
DeleteCornelius, I gave several examples of observable facts that support the theory of evolution. Instead of supplying evidence to the contrary, your response is a weak, and inapplicable sports metaphor. I continue to ask you for evidence to support your metaphor and you finally supply some rather interesting articles. The problem is that the authors aren't saying the same thing that you are saying - that directed adaptation is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. I ask you what you see in the data that they missed and (to keep up the sports metaphors), you "cry foul", rather than actually addressing my question. Why do you assume that new discoveries about how evolution works somehow invalidate the basic concepts - survival of the fittest brought about by genetic change.
DeleteI'd still love to see how your tool of science gives you a better hypothesis than evolution.
I'm feeling very lucky that I don't worship dirt, Louis. Otherwise, I might be very sad and hurt by your comments.
DeleteI'm feeling very lucky that I don't worship dirt, Louis.
DeleteYou're one of the worst dirt worshippers of them all, pretending to believe in God when, in fact, you're an enemy of God.
Otherwise, I might be very sad and hurt by your comments.
This is why I posted it. It's intended to make people like you feel like idiots and jackasses.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Oh, Louis, your antics are highly entertaining, but yet terribly sad. After I had a good laugh realizing that you were completely unaware of my sarcasm, I began to fervently hope you don't reveal to anyone (outside of your internet ramblings) that you are a Christian. John 13:35 (NIV) reads "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
DeleteUnless you can walk on water and heal the blind and the paralyzed, don't preach to me, jackass.
DeleteI don’t need to be Jesus to recognize important truth from the Bible, just His follower. I’m only sharing it, of course you have the freedom to do with it what you want.
DeleteExcellent thread.
ReplyDeleteIts possible, that Jerry Coyne has faced homology criticiesm from creationists and , unlike most evolutionists, is shying away from it a traditional evidence claim for evolution.
YEC , myserf, always stress how homology was/is used by evolutionists to convince themselves/pthers how its OBVIOUS that like body plans/features could only mean a like common descent.
Yet its just a line of reasoning and not a part of biological scientific investigation.
The option of a creator have a common blueprint should be a option. Darwin opined about what the creator would do and so AHA what would he do?!
he would make biology off the same rack and then tweek it into its unique kinds. thus we all have eyeballs and hearts.
Homology being taken from evolutionisms bag of evidence is a disaster for them and a reflection on poor science they have been doing to date.
there is more then that!!
It's good to see your blog active again!
ReplyDeleteThanks Eugen!
DeleteOnly ideology says you can determine homology from homoplasy in allegedly related different types.
ReplyDeleteAnd welcome back!
Homology and homoplasy can be easily distinguished by close morphological inspection and by genetic analysis. Ideology is unimportant.
DeleteThat's just your opinion. For example it takes ideology to say the chimps and humans share homologous features
DeleteMy opinion doesn't matter when comparing DNA sequences or skeletal structure.
DeleteCoyne "moderates" like everyone else. What's up with this general fear of seeing one's ideas challenged? And why doesn't Discovery Institute allow even "moderated" feedback?.
ReplyDeleteSteven Meyer posts the articles on his Facebook page
DeleteI guess Coyne and al. need a safe space to protect themselves from the harsh realities of life. An all to common example of stunted intellectual growth in our cowardly society.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly !!
Delete