Charles Darwin

Muad'Dib :

I was typing quickly and did not mean that in a negative sense. I wanted to draw on an analogy. I did not mean to imply that you are ignorant of what historians do. Sorry.

Darwin's Beagle

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd like to make a longer reply, but this will unfortunately have to be brief.

1) Chromosomal fusion

You say: Chromosomal fusion is NOT the ALTERNATIVE explanation to that of evolutionary theory. It is THE EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION for it.

But Chromosomal fusion does not entail evolution.

You say: The reason that Human Chromosome 2 has the same G-banding patterns as do Chimp Chromosomes 12 and 13, and has telomeres and an extra centromeric segment in the middle is because the Human Chromosome 2 fused from chromosomes derived from a common ancestor as that of the Chimp.

Confusion here. You are conflating two concepts. When you say "is because the Human Chromosome 2 fused from chromosomes," OK, fine. But then you append: "derived from a common ancestor as that of the Chimp."

The existence of a fused chromosome does not call for evolution as an explanation. It calls for a fusion event. Your claim that prior to the fusion event the two chromosomes were derived from the chimp, is irrelevant to the fusion event and the subsequent fused chromosome.

You say: The thing that needs an alternative explanation to is the similarities between the chimps and humans in their chromosomal structure.

But this would be true even if no fusion event occurred.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JEEZ LOUISE again, of course it would. You will to not understand is amazing. If humans and chimps had a recent common ancestor then one would expect their chromosome structure to very similar. There is a significant difference. The diploid number of humans is 2N = 46 while that of chimps and the other great apes is 2N = 48. Chromosomal fusion explains this. The presence of identical G-banding shows this to be the case. The presence of telomeric sequences in the middle show it unequivocally to be the case. So EVOLUTIONARY THEORY�S PREDICTION THAT THE CHROMOSOME STRUCTURE OF CHIMPS AND HUMANS ARE VERY SIMILAR IS BORNE OUT. Any explanation OTHER THAN THAT OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY is ad hoc and handwaving. That includes Special Creation. Do you understand the situation now?


Charles:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) HERVs

You say: Your assertions that there is an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) that occurs in chimps and gorillas but not in humans is wrong.

No, you are wrong. See:

A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans. M. Barbulescu. Current Biology, Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages 779 � 783.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the first part of this thread it was Johnson WE, Coffin JM. (1999). Constructing ancient retrovirus sequences. PNAS 96(18): 10254-10260. that was referenced, (not by you, but you did not correct the reference). That was the paper I reported on.

This is another paper and I have now read it. More in a little.

Charles:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do appreciate your discussion of HERV-K(C4) which I had forgotten about. It is, as you say, found in humans, the African Green Monkey (an old world monkey), and orangutans (an ape), but not chimps and gorillas. The evolutionary explanation is, as you say, not thrilling. The same can be said for the ERV that occurs in chimps and gorillas but not in humans.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But what can also be said for the evolutionary explanation for BOTH papers is that it beats any other explanation hands down. You neglected to point that out.

As for the paper you referenced above, I find it interesting that this group looks at another member of the HERV-K family and finds the distribution the exact opposite of the PNAS paper. In the PNAS paper they found the distribution of the HERV-K(C4) provirus to be in Humans but not Chimps or Gorillas. The HERV-K(GC1) in the Current Biology paper was found in Chimps and Gorillas but not Humans. It makes me wonder if perhaps they are somehow looking at the same provirus. However, I am not conversant enough with the technicalities of ERV sequencing to know if this is a possibility or not. So let�s look at the explanation that the authors come up with.

They propose an allelic segregation model. What would happen here is that HERV-K(GC1) provirus was inserted into the a late common ancestor of chimps, gorillas and humans. The inserted provirus would coexist with an allele that contained an intact preinsertion site. Sometime after the gorillas split from the human/chimp clade the proviral allele would have become fixed in the gorilla genome. Both alleles would be present in the last common ancestor of the chimp and humans. After they diverged the proviral allele became fixed in the chimp clade while the preinsertion site became fixed in the human clade. I actually like this explanation pretty well. It has a lot going for it since alleles containing both an inserted HERV-K provirus and a preinsertion site have been documented in numerous species. Also fixation by genetic drift is a well-documented phenomenon. It also makes some testable predictions. It says that the divergence of gorillas from the human/chimp clade most likely occurred only a short time before the chimps and humans diverged.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But evolutionists have no alternative. As you say, you tentatively accept it "Because I cannot come up with a better explanation."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Er � Charles, it not just evolutionists that have no better alternative. No one apparently has any better alternative.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++++++
You say this is not religious reasoning, but in fact you have plainly used extensive religious reasoning.
+++++++++++++++++++

No, I don�t. See how easy it is to refute baseless assertions.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++
You say I won't accept evolution "because he is religiously (note I do not have to use the quotation marks here) wedded to Special Creation." Sorry, but that's not the case.
++++++++++++++++++

Yes, it is the case. See how easy it is to refute baseless assertions.

Charles:
++++++++++++++++
3) Religious beliefs

You say: IF as you have implied in previous posts (but disingenuously avoided saying directly) that you would like for scientists to consider Special Creation as an alternative then you MUST come up with an alternate explanation.

Sorry, I meant no such implication. I was not being disingenuous. I never said, nor intended to suggest that scientists ought to consider Special Creation as an alternative.
++++++++++++++++

Sigh � Here is one of your posts:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Are you seriously arguing that it would be less amazing if millions upon millions of creatures just popped into existence in a sequence that mimics common descent, rather than evolving from very similar antecedents?

Are there any other fields of science in which you prefer magic as an explanation, even when a non-magical explanation fits the evidence?


[Charles reply]
========
Translation: Mechanistic / naturalistic explanations will always be preferred. It is built into the paradigm.
========

Your criticism: �Translation: Mechanistic / naturalistic explanations will always be preferred.� Implies that a non-naturalistic explanation may be better.

Here is another segment of one your posts:
======
[quoting me]
The next line of evidence that has been gone into is evidence from suboptimal design. The idea here is that these types of structures are just what one would expect from design created by an algorithm without foresight but would be difficult to explain if they were designed by something with the intelligence of a human or better.

[Charles' reply]
Could the whale have just arisen? Hmm, who knows, but we know it could not have been created.
=======

This suggests that you despite your protestations to the contrary, you ARE implying Special Creation as being the alternative.

Charles, you still are sitting on the pot. Do you need a Playboy magazine to make things better for you in there. Shit or go home. What reasonable scientific alternative is there to descent with modification?

Again, do you know what they call a scientific theory to which there is no reasonable alternative? We call it a scientific fact. Now, you could do the whole of science a great big favor by pointing out a reasonable scientific alternative to descent with modification. If you can�t do that then all your harping about the foibles of evolutionary science is meaningless dribble.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++++
You say:
quote:

Charles says
++++++++++++++++

Amazing. Why in the world would I believe that [gall midges of the family Cecidomyidae may feel no pain when being eaten from the inside out by parthenogenetic offspring]? No, wait, I don't want to know; I give. You obviously have strong religious feelings, and there is nothing wrong with that, but they are not open to scientific debate.

+++++++++++++++++

My argument is of course completely irrelevant IF you do not hold out Special Creation as the alternative to descent with modification. It is true that you have not directly stated that you do, however, certain responses have implied that is your position and until you say otherwise it is the only assumption we have to work with. I think it is time for you to either shit or get off the pot and go home. What is your alternative to descent with modification?



No, your argument is completely irrelevant even IF I do hold out Special Creation as the alternative to descent with modification. I am a Christian, and I find the science behind evolution to be wanting. So yes, it is perfectly fair for you to assume that I would line up behind Special Creation before anything else. But you are not talking about Special Creation, at least not a Christian version.
++++++++++++++++++

It sure would be helpful in this discussion if you quit speaking out of both sides of you disingenuous face. In the paragraph above you are claiming that Special Creation is not the alternative explanation, now you�re claiming that I am misrepresenting Special Creation as though it is the viable reasonable alternative to descent with modification.

Cut it out. Have the balls to be direct. If you think I am misrepresenting Special Creation as the alternative to descent with modification - fine. You represent it then. Tell us how Special Creation is a better explanation for the data than descent with modification. Again you will be doing science a big favor if you can show us why it doesn�t lead to NUMEROUS ridiculous conclusions.

Charles:
+++++++++++
You are very good at discerning non scientific qualities in biology (cruelty, bad design, etc.). But you see no purpose. Yet in an earlier post you said
quote:

Now, I do not care particularly much about gall midges. And I have even been happy to spot some parasitic wasps in our garden figuring that they will help with our caterpillar problem. But, it would scare the hell out of me if I thought that my future was under control of a being that intentionally created such an intrinsically cruel system.



Sounds like a purpose was achieved.
++++++++++++++++++

Well again exxxxcuuuusse me if I misrepresent Special Creation here again, but I was of the impression that God was supposed to be intelligent as opposed to psychotic. If God created gall midges with that life cycle ON PURPOSE then that is a sadistic thing to do. Are you suggesting that�s that the purpose?

Charles:
++++++++
You say: "I have no personal religion." You have repeatedly argued about how God wouldn't do these things, and so you reject Special Creation and accept evolution. You say it is just MY belief you are addressing. Sorry, that won't fly. Your sugar-Daddy theology didn't come from my corner.
+++++++++++

Of course it didn�t, you haven�t had the balls to take a position. You have left us with no alternative except to guess. That is hardly our fault and the guesses have been reasonable. Your protestations that we are misrepresenting you are hypocritical in the extreme.

Charles:
++++++++++
Whether you want to say that you don't believe in that theology is irrelevant. Whether you want to say that you just heard it from some creationist is irrelevant. You are, in fact, using it as your foil. You believe that it is THE religious alternative. It is THE theory of Special Creation. You may not believe it is true, but you do believe that IF God created things, then it WOULD be true. Well, you won't find that in any science book.
++++++++++++++

Of course not. Every author of a science book knows that Special Creation is ridiculous and that no rational person would present it as a reasonable alternative to descent with modification. But you are still screaming like a rat caught in a trap by his testicles. You can easily put an end to it by telling us a reasonable scientific alternative to descent with modification. If you come up with one that doesn�t involve Special Creation, then I wont mention Special Creation again. If you come up with Special Creation then you have put it in the realm of scientific consideration and it is up to you explain how it fits all the data better than descent with modification.

Charles:
+++++++++++++
That [Special Creation] is a religious belief, and your position hinges on it.
+++++++++++++

Bullshit. My position hinges on there being no other reasonable alternative to descent with modification. If you can come up with something other than Special Creation I will be very happy to discuss it with you. After all the active avoidance you have been doing I highly suspect you can�t.

Charles:
+++++++++++++
You have placed yourself in the position of judge and jury of God. You know just what God would and would not do, and you are forcing your beliefs on me.
+++++++++++++

All that is asked of an intelligent designer is that he act intelligently. No, I do not know just what God would and would not do. However, if he has done what Special Creation says he has done then he has done some things very well. But he has done plenty of things poorly; he has made structures that would perform their functions better if placed elsewhere, he has gone out of his way to jury-rig some things that would have worked better if done the normal way, he has put a lot of things in places that are hard to interpret in any way other than intentional misdirection to get us to believe descent with modification, and he has done nothing that demonstrates any foresight. That is a curious thing for an intelligent designer now isn�t it.

And quit your silly whining about having beliefs forced on you. First, it is impossible. Second, no one cares about your religious beliefs except as to how they pertain as an alternative explanation of scientific facts.

You are the one who is saying that descent with modification is not scientifically tenable. But descent with modification explains every fact that is presented to it. Not all the facts are explained elegantly but many are, and no fact contradicts it. There is no other theory that offers a reasonable explanation. Nothing else even comes close to rivaling it. That makes in not only tenable, but unavoidable.

Charles:
++++++++
The scientific evidence may not help, but you have your religion.
++++++++++

The scientific evidence may not help what? And, no, I do not have a religion. See how easy it is to refute baseless assertions.

Regards,


Darwin�s Beagle

Ken

Having stumbled on this thread and read about half of it, my hat is off to Charles Darwin (Cornelius Hunter?) for taking the time to engage with his opponents at this level. It is rare to find well-informed anti-evolutionists willing to take on evolutionists, at least in my limited experience of browsing sites like the talkorigins archive.

As a layperson not well acquainted with the primary literature, I do not intend to be an ongoing part of this discussion, but I would like to include my thoughts by way of an Amazon.com review I made of Hunter's 2002 book entitled "Darwin's God." I trust it will provide some perspective to Hunter's position for those who have not read his book. (I'm making the assumption that Charles Darwin is indeed Cornelius Hunter; please correct me if I'm mistaken.)

----------------------

As a recent convert to Darwinism, I found myself comparing my reasons for accepting evolution against Hunter's thesis that evolutionists are influenced more by metaphysical than strictly scientific arguments. While demonstrating that evolutionists from the time of Darwin have argued their case by appealing to a Victorian notion of God (e.g., "God would not have directly created things the way we see them..."), he fails to consider that many of these arguments may be reformulated to avoid the mention of God while nonetheless retaining their evidentiary value. For example, Hunter discusses the fact that all mammals except guinea pigs and primates are able to synthesize their own vitamin C. Guinea pigs and primates, including humans, have an apparently non-functional gene that corresponds to the gene responsible for vitamin C production in other mammals. Hunter maintains that, without certain presuppositions concerning the nature of God, this argument fails as evidence for human-primate shared ancestry. Hunter includes the following quote by theistic evolutionist Terry Gray:

"Further analysis shows that this gene is a pseudogene, i.e., it looks like a real gene, but it is not expressed due to a mutation in the gene itself or in the region of DNA that controls the expression of that gene. Now we could argue that in God's inscrutable purpose he placed that vitamin C synthesis look-alike gene in the guinea pig or human DNA or we could admit the more obvious conclusion, that humans and primates and other mammals share a common ancestor" (p. 168).

By highlighting Gray's appeal to God's nature, Hunter justifies dismissing such evidence as metaphysical rather than scientific. Throughout the book, Hunter employs this novel approach to circumvent some of the strongest evidence for common descent. As is the case with pseudogenes, however, textual critics routinely use copyist errors for determining the ancestral relationships among historical manuscripts. It would be beyond coincidence to suppose that there exists no ancestral relationship in a series of texts containing the same set of differences vis-a-vis the majority of other manuscripts. The vitamin C pseudogene is just one example of many shared between humans and primates, and the differences in the pseudogenes grow with distance from humans in the standard phylogenetic tree. Contrary to Hunter's claim that evolution makes no significant, testable predictions, the existence of the human vitamin C pseudogene was predicted and then discovered by Nishikimi et al in 1992. Do pseudogenes prove common decent in a mathematical sense, and are such arguments free from all metaphysical assumptions? Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, when we look into the mirror, we must ask ourselves, are we playing games with the evidence, trying to find loopholes to excuse us from its weight, or did we in fact descend from earlier primates?

Ironically, intelligent design theorist Michael Behe, who offers praise for Hunter's book, finds the evidence for common descent from pseudogenes to be conclusive (see Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God, p. 164) [9/6/03: An ID friend of mine, doubtful that Behe actually subscribes to common descent, wrote an e-mail to him and received confirmation that he does at least "provisionally" accept it.]. One wonders how Behe and Hunter can coexist in the same camp, given their diametrically opposed views on such a fundamental question as common descent.

Though I agree with Hunter that the nature of God should be left out of any strictly scientific discussion, there is a place for such considerations when evaluating ID claims. Whatever else might be supposed about God's nature, it is generally agreed that, if He exists, He is not deceptive. This is why many creationists are now abandoning the young-earth creationists' "appearance of age" theory. Yet Hunter is disturbed when evolutionists provide evidence for evolution and assert that "God would not have done it that way." Perhaps He did do it that way, but at the risk of introducing the strong appearance of evolution. [9/6/03: I believe Hunter's refusal to address this question contributes to the around-and-around nature of the debate in this thread. What about appearances, Cornelius? Surely you have some opinion on the nature of the Creator; is deception fair game for him? It is not true that metaphysics has zero to do with this discussion.]

In addition to highlighting the metaphysical underpinnings of many of the arguments for evolution, Hunter presents an array of scientific difficulties in evolutionary theory. Foremost among them is the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He is not content to focus simply on the relatively sparse record leading up to the Cambrian explosion, but amazingly turns the very dense record of the reptile-mammal transition in his favor:

"Douglas Futuyma echoes this sentiment: 'The gradual transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were the actual ancestors of modern mammals.' If it is 'notoriously difficult to decipher true ancestral-descendant relationships,' then how can evolutionists be so sure there is one? Certainly we can select our favorite sequence, but the fossils cannot tell us which is the correct sequence, or even whether there is a correct sequence at all" (p. 77).

The upshot is that if the record of transition is sparse, that is evidence against evolution, and if it is dense, that is also evidence against evolution. However, if we find texts that appear to be intermediate between Latin and French (a descendent of Latin), but we do not know whether they are on a direct line to modern French or on a line to a dead French patois, can this be construed as an argument that French did not evolve from Latin? As a largely historical science, evolution suffers from many of the same difficulties as historical linguistics. If Hunter were sufficiently motivated, he could no doubt uncover many difficulties with historical linguistics (e.g., Japanese is apparently not related to any mainland languages), but this would not prove that, for example, Latin did not evolve into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

I give three stars to Hunter for introducing a novel and thought-provoking argument into the tired debate over evolution, as well as for not hesitating to include a number of quotes supporting evolution. Though he attempts to refute these arguments, this may be the only exposure that many readers ever receive to the evidence for evolution.

Charles Darwin

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darwin's Beagle

1) Chromosomal fusion

I'm sorry it seems that I have a will to not understand. I've read your points here carefully, and I'm afraid I still do not follow. You have two allied species, with, not surprisingly, similar chromosomes. Then you have a chromosome fusion event in one of the species that superficially makes the its genome appear to have a significant difference from the other species. But upon closer inspection, the question is resolved, as a chromosome fusion event is the likely explanation for the difference. This explanation does not entail evolution, and it is hardly ad hoc.

You may ask, "but why are the chromosome sets similar in the first place?" And you may argue this is evidence for evolution. But this is entirely aside from the hypothetical chromosome fusion event. If there were no event then your argument from homology would still hold.

Furthermore, you may claim that evolution predicts the same diploid number for chimp and human. And by virtue of the hypothetical chromosome fusion event it has escaped falsification and now enjoys one of its predictions being confirmed. But there are two problems here. First, as stated, the explanation of the hypothetical chromosome fusion event doesn't require evolution. In fact, you are avoiding the parsimonious explanation, and multiplying entities. We don't need evolution to understand that a chromosome fusion event explains the strange looking chromosome 2, nor the fact that the chimp and human genomes are similar. Second, evolution, in fact, makes no such prediction to begin with. The fact is, genomes vary widely across nature and evolutionists maintain that all those changes occurred as a result of evolution. To think that evolution was in danger of falsification from such different diploid numbers is stretching things to say the least.

2) Religious beliefs, or, let's back up a minute

Let's review the discussion from way early on up to the present:

Skeptic: Why do you call evolution a fact?
Evolutionist: Because of evidence X, Y and Z
S: But there are problems with X, Y and Z.
E. No there aren't.
S: Yes there are, here.
E: Those aren't problems, they are active research items. In fact, there are exactly zero evidences against evolution. You have failed to falsify evolution.
S: X, Y and Z were supposed to demonstrate that evolution is a fact, not avoid falsification. Yet X, Y and Z do no such thing. I call that a "problem" with the evidence insofar as the evolutionist intends to use them.
E: Well creationism is obviously false anyway, so evolution is a fact.
S: Your argument is valid, but is it sound? I agree that evolution would be a fact if creationism is false, but how do know creationism is false?
E: Because of A, B and C.
S: You believe that God would not have made A, B and C if He were to have made the species. Regardless of whether you believe that God exists or not, your belief that God would not have made A, B and C is a religious belief.
E: Of course it is. Creationism is a religious idea. How can I falsify it using science?
S: By showing it to be superfluous because you have a naturalistic explanation that is compelling.
E: But I can also falsify creationism using its own religious assumptions and showing that they are contradicted by what we observe, namely A, B and C. The fact that they are religious arguments does not lessen the damage on creationism. Furthermore, this religious belief is not mine personally, it is your belief, I'm just testing it.
S: No, it is not my belief. It is your belief, otherwise you would not conclude that creationism must be false, and therefore evolution true. I don't believe God would not create A, B and C.
E: Well why don't you enlighten me. What is your model of how God would create? What reasonable scientific alternative is there to descent with modification?
S: I'd be happy to talk religion with you, but I'm not sure we'd get anywhere. For instance, what if I were to say that God is soveriegn and so He can create as He pleases. He can make terrifying creatures, and he can make the donkey to be obstinent. He can deny the ostrich of wisdom. You see I am a Christian so I believe these things. I believe He can even create evil. Though I suspect all these things have a greater good in mind, it is not my place to declare constraints on God. Now as I see it, if I were to tell you these things you would have three options. First, you could disagree with my beliefs about God, preferring something closer to the pie-in-the-sky theology you said you did not believe in. This would preserve your falsification of your pet version of creationism, and therefore you could safely conclude that evolution is a fact. Second, you could own up to your claim of not having any religious beliefs. As such, you would have to accept the legitimacy of my beliefs as much as the pie-in-the-sky theology that you were more than happy to consider, and you would have to agree that at least one form of creationism is not falsified, and therefore evolution is not a fact. Or third, you could reject my religious belief as not being scientifically testable, and amounting to nothing more than an ad hoc system. This would be a way to preserve simultaneously your claim of being areligious and the fact of evolution. But your claim would be false, as this is not an areligious position. For it is a religious belief that any religious position worth considering must be scientifically testable. I highly doubt you will opt for the second choice, so you see why I doubt that my explaining my creation model will advance things any. I'm sure you'll find some way round things to arrive at the position that creationism is falsified (or non scientific to begin with, or non testable, or something). But whatever way you choose, it will involve religious assumptions of some sort. So we are back to my initial comment that you are bringing religion into the picture, so that while your evolution may be a fact for you, it is not a scientific fact.

And so in the end we are left with a theory that is as absurd as the day is long, yet claimed to be a fact.

3) parasitic wasps

No, the purpose I was referring to was scaring you.

Dr Rick

You may have tried to understand, but these false summaries of the "evolutionists" shows you have merely mixed your own misperceptions and biases into what is actually being argued:

Quote:

"Well creationism is obviously false anyway, so evolution is a fact"...It is your belief, otherwise you would not conclude that creationism must be false, and therefore evolution true.

Show us where this false dichotomy has been argued by the "evolutionists." They haven't; in reality, it is the reverse of your argument so far. Your posts indicate a belief that if you can disprove evolution than creationism must be true

The evidence supporting evolution is not dependent upon the falsifcation of creationism, and only you have suggested that the falsification of creationsism would make evolution a fact. You've provided absolutely no evidence to support creationism, apparently unaware that a falsification of evolution would not be a verification of creationism.

"Allied species?" Is that anything like "kinds?" What makes two species "allied" and another two not?

Chromosomal similarities are "not surpising" only if they occur amongst related entities. A similarity between my HLA genes and those of my brothers and parents would not be surprising, but a similar degree of homology between yours and mine would be.

Chromosomal similarities show relatedness; that's how we can have paternity testing and confirmation. The more closely similar your chromosomes are to another's, the more closely you two are related. The chromosomal similarities amongst the apes suggests a greater degree of relatedness between them than between them and insects. This alone does not prove evolution, but such findings are predicted by it, and nothing of the sort is predicted by creationism. Combine this evidence with all the evidence and true predictions arising from evolutionary theory about the fossil record and other findings along with the complete lack of any confounding data, and evolution becomes as close to a fact as we can have in science.

No one has claimed that a fusion event entails evolution; that's your strawman. It was creationists that have argued that the different numbers of chromosomes in the apes argues against evolution, when in fact the numerical difference is due to a fusion event.

What more parsimonious explanation are you offering here? You appear to be implying that hypothesizing a supernatural, unverifiable and unfalsifiable extra entity is more parsimonious than an explanation without one

Another strawman: the fusion event doesn't explain the similarity; Evolution explains the similarity, and you have offered no more parsimonious explanation for it, and no evidence for creationism. Your arguments have not been an attempt to demonstrate the evidence and parsimony of creation; they've merely been attempts to make evolution seem as unparsimonious and unsupported as creation.

Your posts do not support creationism; they just misrepresent evolution.

DMB

To everyone following this thread:

It may be enlightening to see Charles Darwin's thinking in a different field. I quote from his opening post
It get the impression that Charles has honoured this board with his presence because he has an agenda. He is determined to prove by hook or by crook that atheism and evolution are both religions. It seems to be his id�e fixe.

If he is this Hunter character, he is no doubt trying out ideas for his next book. Time will tell .

caravelair

charles,

atheism is a lack of belief in god. that is MUCH different than a belief that god does not exist.

neither can it be verified that invisible leprechauns do not exist. do you believe in those? do you consider your lack of belief in leprechauns to be religious?

Charles Darwin

Complete lack of confounding data? What about fossils that appear planted there? What about complexities such as the DNA code or echolocation? What about the fact that adapatation arises from intricate mechanisms (e.g., bacteria increase their mutation rate when under stress)? What about the fact that "homologies" often arise from different development processes? What about the fact that we keep on finding functions for those "vestigial" organs? What about an ERV that is found in chimps and apes but not humans? What about the fact that everything we know from science tells us that dramatically complex machines do not arise spontaneously (and please don't think it wasn't spontaneous because it took a long time; if you argue it wasn't spontaneous then you are arguing against evolution) ?

Muad'Dib

Thanks for your reply, that's good to know. As I understand the methodology of historians, they tend to be primarily concerned with establishing what we can infer about the past based on artifacts of human life and culture, e.g. writings, manufactured objects, etc. My first inclination was to treat common descent as a different sort of claim, since all we have to work with is our observations of the natural world--by definition, no human society could observe and record common descent.

Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle: of the claims about the past that are not discussed in our records of human history--i.e., things that we have to directly observe nature for, things whose truth or falsity is not discussed in our preserved accounts of human civilization--are there any that you find significantly more convincing than common descent?

Thanks,
Muad'Dib

Muad'Dib

No offense taken.