Re: [asa] How big a deal is homology?

From: James Mahaffy <>
Date: Tue Mar 27 2007 - 21:40:38 EDT

>>> Brent Foster <> 03/27/07 4:08 PM >>>
Yes that was my point actually. I accept the argument that a common
designer would use common designs. But I was thinking more along the
lines of your examples Terry. We know that DNA sequences can be
inherited. And genetic markers are used to establish identity, family
lines etc. I don't think too many YECs had a problem with the DNA
evidence against O.J. If the same genetic markers are used to establish
phylogenetic relationships between related species, I don't see how one
can except one and not the other. To bring in the Micro- vs.
Macro-evolution contrast, there seems to be a continuum between family
groupings, racial groupings, species groupings, genus groupings etc.

****** me ********

Woa!!!! In at least Zoology and angiosperm taxonomy there seem to be
real breaks (you can argue continuum on some) but the breaks seem to me
who is now teaching Zoology real and must be dealt with. One of the
problems is that a monphylogentic system tends to de-emphasise them as
much or more than a classical system that tended to emphasize groups.
In its very philosophical foundations cladism assumes all (or at least
almost all variation occurs with in a monophyletic line). In case you
wonder I am not TE either or ID for that matter.

The divisions between them are arbitrary.

****** me ********
No they really aren't. Morphological taxonomy worked quite well and
still is fairly important.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 27 21:41:39 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 27 2007 - 21:41:39 EDT