Re: What goes around comes around

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Wed Oct 12 2005 - 13:08:18 EDT

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Preston:
>> Common descent provides a very simple explanation for the
>> overwhelming majority of millions of individual events.
> Agreed, as does geocentrism for the overwhelming majority of planetary
> movements. But this is science, not statistics.

Actually it is statistics, albeit in a more advanced form but
phylogenetic reconstruction for instance is a statistical method.
Statistics are a tool used by science to uncover patterns, relationships

> When we look at all the cases, common descent is less simple, as it
> must draw on a common mechanisms hypothesis, and we have no
> compelling, theory-neutral reason to limit that hypothesis to the
> cases that common descent doesn't handle.

Again you are making some unsupported assertions. What is the 'common
mechanism' hypothesis you claim common descent has to rely on? Common
descent is supported by the vaste majority of data, while in rare
instances there are minor issues about the placement of branches.

HERV makes for a great example how evolutionary science is slowly
unraveling this minor mystery. I find it fascinating how science, the
more details it finds, unravels the minor mysteries which some see as
evidence that 'it could not have evolved'.

> I agree with your common sense appeal. Could there really be a common
> mechanism for all these site and all these inserts? OTH, we can make
> an opposing common sense appeal: given all the problems with evolution
> we ought to at least understand the nature of these data a bit better.
> I would like to see some empirical studies that perhaps could shed
> more light on why the common mechanism explanation should be concluded
> to be quite limited.

It is quite limited because it lacks any specifics. Simple.
Common descent is based on simple observables from various 'disciplines'

So how does ID explain all these data?
Let me guess... Poof... Or could you give me some links to the common
mechanism hypothesis? I did a quick search on a scientific site but
found zero references in the literature.
Received on Wed Oct 12 13:14:55 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 12 2005 - 13:14:55 EDT