Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 02:44:17 EDT

Pim:

The placentals and marsupials are another example of the incredible
convergence we find in biology. And the thylacine (marsupial) and grey wolf
(placental) are examples from within the placental and marsupial lineages.
If evolution and CD are true, then the story goes like this. A long time
ago, a small rodent something like a mouse or shrew split into two lineages
which would become the placental and marsupial lineages. Those two lineages,
over millions of years and in different corners of the earth would produce
the same designs over and over. Cats, rats, mice, anteaters, flying
squirrels, and yes, the wolf, just to name a few. How could random, unguided
mutations lead to these same designs over and over?

I hope you don't answer "natural selection" because natural selection never
created any of these. It merely would have selected them. They had to have
been created by random mutations (those random mutations sure are clever).
What you must say is that these designs are the only evolutionary winners.
All other designs are either not at all viable, or sufficiently
disadvantaged that they could not compete with these designs. A six legged
wolf just wouldn't work. A four-eyed cat wouldn't work. A two tailed rat
wouldn't work. And this is only the body plan. One could go on about the
internal organs, etc. What the evolutionist must say is that evolution
creates vast amounts of change in a vast design space, and comes up with
similar designs over and over, because there are no other decent designs. A
mouse led to a wolf, not once but twice.

Now the placentals and marsupials are just one chapter in this story.
Biology is chocked full of these examples, including many that go back to a
much more distant ancestor. There is *massive* convergence in biology. I
mentioned the squid and human eyes which are so similar, which requires us
to go back to, what, some sort of small fish to get to the common ancestor.
That ancient small fish did not have the human eye, but it did have an eye.
That ancient eye design would drastically change in both lineages leading to
human and squid, and yet the same (human-like) eye design would be produced
in each lineage, independently, in completely different environments.

So, random mutations create unheard of complexities -- how we don't know --
and then land on similar designs over and over. Now, one final point. This
evidence weakens one of the main evolutionary arguments; namely, that
similar designs reveal common descent. Here we have example after example of
similar designs that evolutionists agree *could not* have arisen via common
descent. So if similar designs routinely arise independently, then we lose
the mandate for common descent.

You wrote:

> What does ID exactly explain? So far it seems to be quite lacking in the
> area of formulating a scientifically relevant theory. I find ID
> scientifically vacuous and religiously dangerous as it finds evidence of
> God in the shadows of our ignorance.

If you find ID to be religiously dangerous then it is not for you. As for
what ID explains, in my view ID attacks the very difficult problem of
evaluating when secondary causes are sufficient and when they are
insufficient. It is a more nuanced approach compared to naturalism which
simply assumes secondary causes are always sufficient, regardless of
feasibility.

--Cornelius

>
> Speaking of convergence, I remember a discussion where it was stated that
> you argued that the wolf and the thylacine were too similar to be
> explained by evolution? Are you still making this claim?
>
> See also
> http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/skull/wolf_thylacine_skulls.htm for
> a side by side comparison of the two skulls. What exactly cannot be
> explained by evolutionary theory here I wonder? Some specific details
> would be helpful.
>
Received on Tue Aug 2 02:47:08 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 02 2005 - 02:47:09 EDT