Re: [asa] homology and analogy

From: wjp <>
Date: Fri Oct 09 2009 - 23:51:17 EDT


Perhaps both you and Doug are correct.

But, as far as I can tell, you have provided no reasons for me to see why.

If you follow my argument, you ought to see that TE is one of those alternatives
that are contrary to the Darwinian position I have outlined.

The argument for common descent appears probabilistic, but it still seems to
me that there is no logical way to eliminate from the argument for
homologous structures other possibilities than Darwinian evolution, including
TE and ID.

If you see the logical argument differently, you will have to outline the
argument, and demonstrate that it is not a tautology.


On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:39:02 -0700, Dennis Venema <> wrote:
> Bill, If you want to see the gory details of this pattern as we find it in
> the human and chimp genomes, you could listen to the talk I gave at the ASA
> meeting this year. To propose that what we see is consistent with both
> evolution or non-evolutionary design is stretching credulity well past the
> breaking point.
> Best,
> Dennis
> On 09/10/09 3:29 PM, "Douglas Hayworth" <>
> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Bill Powers <> wrote:
> There may be many more possibilities than Darwinism and ID. In all these
> cases, homology simply argues for a common origin. But the nature of that
> origin is unspecified.
> Not so. The fact that homologous features, considered among taxa (species,
> genera or other groups of organisms), compel (i.e., specify) arrangement of
> the variation into a nested hierarchy proves (for all practical purposes)
> the evolutionary scenario (descent with modification) over against the
> preconceived design (ID) concept.
> And, where the arrangement of homologies into nested hierarchies are not
> perfect (for indeed this is the case), that is actually even greater
> evidence for the evolutionary scenario because there are biological
> reasons why a morphological or other phenotypic trait from a recent common
> ancestor might "appear" and "disappear" polyphyletically in isolated
> species within a larger genus or family.
> It's hard to imagine WHY a Designer would create variation in the nested
> structure without an evolutionary process. And, if the Designer did create
> to this design plan (separate from an evolutionary process), it's even
> harder to imagine HOW a capable Designer wouldn't do it perfectly.
> Doug Hayworth

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 9 23:52:05 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 09 2009 - 23:52:05 EDT