[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[Barbarian]

Based on the scientific evidence your 'common sense' tells you the Sun revolves around Earth? Wow.

I highlighted in red, the part you added to his statement so you could mock it. No wonder you have the reputation you have here.

How can we test universal common decent?

Genetic analysis. (which we know works, because it's tested on organisms of known descent). Nested hierarchy of taxa, which only happens in cases of common descent. Numerous transitional forms, but only where the theory predicts them, and never where it does not.

Things like that.

 

[lordkalvan]

You asked how 'genetic similarity' is accounted for by 'a common designer' and I told you - what part do you miss?

I miss you linking to or specifying the thread and posts where you offered the explanation you claim to have made. All I have seen you telling anyone so far is that genetic similarity is accounted for by a common designer, but never telling anyone the how and why. I also miss you explaining what effect this has on our understanding of taxonomic classification.

 

[lordkalvan]

Based on the scientific evidence your 'common sense' tells you the Sun revolves around Earth? Wow.

Clearly you misrepresent what I said, which is rather shabby behaviour, because nowhere did I say that based on scientific evidence common sense leads us to suppose that the Sun revolves around Earth; I said that common sense would lead us to suppose this to be the case. I note the absence of your explanation of how 'common sense' is the testable mechanism you claim it to be in the case of 'common design'.

How can we test universal common decent?

By multiple lines of inquiry, including shared traits, molecular genetics and the fossil record.

 

[zeke]

By multiple lines of inquiry, including shared traits, molecular genetics and the fossil record.

But shared traits, molecular genetics and the fossil record support common design as well as common ancestry - you lose again.

 

[lordkalvan]

But shared traits, molecular genetics and the fossil record support common design as well as common ancestry - you lose again.

I am disappointed that you fail to acknowledge your shabby attempt to misrepresent what I said with regard to what common sense tells us. I also note the continued absence of your explanation of how 'common sense' is the testable mechanism you claim it to be in the case of 'common design'.

Please explain the how and why of shared traits, molecular genetics and the fossil record supporting common design. Until you do this your declarations as to who has lost are meaningless and vainglorious.

 

[zeke]

Please explain the how and why of shared traits, molecular genetics and the fossil record supporting common design.

I have noted the facts - shared traits, etc support common design as well as common ancestry - thus such traits cannot prove or disprove either. You take the dogmatic position that shared traits can only support common ancestry but you cannot support you error. You failure to do what you think you can do remains disappointing.

The burden remains yous to support your dogmatic statement. Why can it only support common ancestry at the exclusion of common design? Until you can answer that question your dogmatic declaration remains meaningless and clueless. Remember, even Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon​

 

[lordkalvan]

I have noted the facts - shared traits, etc support common design as well as common ancestry - thus such traits cannot prove or disprove either.

Except, of course, that you have not established a reasoned account of how 'shared traits, etc support common design', you have simply asserted it so your claim that the support stands equally with that for common descent is as yet unsubstantiated.

You take the dogmatic position that shared traits can only support common ancestry but you cannot support you error. You failure to do what you think you can do remains disappointing.

Please point to the post where I took such a 'dogmatic position'. Even if I have, it is up to you to support your claim, not up to me to disprove it to your satisfaction.

The burden remains yous to support your dogmatic statement. Why can it only support common ancestry at the exclusion of common design? Until you can answer that question your dogmatic declaration remains meaningless and clueless.

So are you abandoning your claim to have elsewhere offered an account of how this evidence supports common design as well as common descent? It certainly seems to be implied here.

Remember, even Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon​

And remember that you have shown elsewhere your failure to support this claim as to what Gould remarked about homology, so continuing to repeat it does your argument little credit.

 

[zeke]

Except, of course, that you have not established a reasoned account of how 'shared traits, etc support common design', you have simply asserted it so your claim that the support stands equally with that for common descent is as yet unsubstantiated.

And you have presented nothing that negates a common designer routinely re-using useful components in different designs.

Please point to the post where I took such a 'dogmatic position'.

Have you changed your mind - do you now agree that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry?

So are you abandoning your claim to have elsewhere offered an account of how this evidence supports common design as well as common descent?

As I have routinely noted - a common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species. You have never proven that statement wrong.

And remember that you have shown elsewhere your failure to support this claim as to what Gould remarked about homology, so continuing to repeat it does your argument little credit.

I provided the source - are you calling Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon liars?

 

[lordkalvan]

And you have presented nothing that negates a common designer routinely re-using useful components in different designs.

Because that is not my job. If you make a claim, which you have, it is your responsibility to support it or abandon it.

Have you changed your mind - do you now agree that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry?

And have I stopped beating my wife yet? Please read what I wrote and don't misrepresent it, as you did with my comment on common sense.

As I have routinely noted - a common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species. You have never proven that statement wrong.

Not my responsibility, but rather your responsibility to explain how the evidence can reasonably be interpreted as supporting this argument at least as plausibly as it can be interpreted as supporting common ancestry.

I provided the source - are you calling Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon liars?

As neither you nor your source can provide the necessary citation to support the claim as to what Gould may have said about homology, it seems to be a choice amongst lying, carelessness or incompetence. This has been pointed out to you before, but you seem indifferent to the need to validate your sources. You should cease using this citation and find a more reliable one.

 

[zeke]

Because that is not my job. If you make a claim, which you have, it is your responsibility to support it or abandon it.

The fact that a common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint is outside the scope of current science - that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Are you making the claim that common ancestry is the only explanation for genetic similarity? You can't quite answer that question. Why?

As neither you nor your source can provide the necessary citation to support the claim as to what Gould may have said about homology, it seems to be a choice amongst lying, carelessness or incompetence.

They are reputable scientists and they have never been called liars by the Darwinian PC - their statement stands unless you can prove it wrong. Can you? Of course you can't. You are not keeping up.

Do you have evidence from science that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Present it on this thread if you do - if you can't present it (and you haven't thus far) we will understand that you do not have any. You're up.

 

[Barbarian]

Lord Kalvan reminds Zeke:

As neither you nor your source can provide the necessary citation to support the claim as to what Gould may have said about homology, it seems to be a choice amongst lying, carelessness or incompetence.

It would have been easier for him to just admit that he never read anything Gould wrote like that, and that he can't verify his claim.

 

[lordkalvan]

^^ And thus we see the crux of your 'debating style', zeke: unless one can disprove to your satisfaction any assertion or unsupported claim you care to make, then that assertion or unsupported claim constitutes an irrefutable argument. Is it really worth trying to engage anyone on this basis?

Parenthetically, despite the fact that Davis and Kenyon's Gould citation has been unequivocally shown to be wrong, you simply refuse to accept this and declare that because they have not been called liars, then the claim must be true, disregarding the fact that they might also be either just careless or incompetent and that no one has the resources or time to track down every misrepresentation made in every paper, article, blog and website. Whatever the case, however, the fact that you seem to be unable to support your argument about homology with reasoned explanation or to find a more reliable source to support your claim speaks for itself.

ETA Of course, insofar as Davis and Kenyon's Of Pandas and People amounts to nothing more than a book with religious roots deep in Christian creationism, transparently disguised to present a supposedly 'scientific' counterargument against evolutionary theory, one may feel entitled to question their absolute honesty. Indeed, in its discussion of evolutionary transitions Pandas perpetrates a number of distortions which, on the face of it, appear to be intentional, such as implying that the well-documented transitional forms between reptiles and mammals do not exist and denying that, for example, the evolution of the jaw hinge (one of the best exemplars of evolutionary transition) occurred at all. Davis and Kenyon are entitled to dispute the implications of transitional forms of the jaw-hinge, but to simply claim that no fossil record exists of such a process does at least raise some concern about their motives and intentions.

 

[lordkalvan]

Lord Kalvan reminds Zeke:


It would have been easier for him to just admit that he never read anything Gould wrote like that, and that he can't verify his claim.

I guess if you admit you are wrong about one thing you open up the door to the idea that you might be wrong about other things too. This seems to be anathema to certain types of poster.

 

[zeke]

It would have been easier for him to just admit that he never read anything Gould wrote like that, and that he can't verify his claim.

I did verify the claim - Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon relate that Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. It is a fact - why would Gould deny it? It is what it is.

 

[zeke]

Parenthetically, despite the fact that Davis and Kenyon's Gould citation has been unequivocally shown to be wrong...

But it is not wrong - Davis and Kenyon told you the truth - you just don't like what you hear.

You didn't answer the questions - do you have evidence from science that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Present it on this thread if you do - if you can't present it we will understand that you do not have any. Are you making the claim that common ancestry is the only explanation for genetic similarity? Are those questions hard for you?

 

[lordkalvan]

But it is not wrong - Davis and Kenyon told you the truth - you just don't like what you hear.

They may be correct about homology and common design - but the quotation you have offered does not explain why this is the case, and neither have you - but the point I was making and that you appear to have deliberately misunderstood is that the Gould citation is wrong, even if Gould said what they are claiming he said.

You didn't answer the questions - do you have evidence from science that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Present it on this thread if you do - if you can't present it we will understand that you do not have any. Are you making the claim that common ancestry is the only explanation for genetic similarity? Are those questions hard for you?

You ask questions of others, but decline to answer those asked of you. Does this seem reasonable to you?

May I remind you that I have elsewhere and several times offered to discuss the evidence attesting to the evolutionary relationship between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes once you had clarified the terms you had used to prejudge what evidence would be acceptable to you, but you steadfastly refused to provide such clarification. My offer remains open and I am more than happy to pursue the discussion when you have provided the requested clarifications.

 

[zeke]

They may be correct about homology and common design...

Well, is it correct or not? Are you afraid to commit? Give it a shot.

May I remind you that I have elsewhere and several times offered to discuss the evidence attesting to the evolutionary relationship between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes once you had clarified the terms you had used to prejudge what evidence would be acceptable to you, but you steadfastly refused to provide such clarification. My offer remains open and I am more than happy to pursue the discussion when you have provided the requested clarifications.

I told you the 'terms' many time and many times you walked away. Present evidence on this thread using the scientific method that proves man-chimp common ancestry. Can you do it?

Again, are you making the dogmatic claim that common ancestry is the only explanation for genetic similarity? Does a common designer work?

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, is it correct or not? Are you afraid to commit? Give it a shot.

I don't know. Neither they nor you has given a reasoned explanation of the claim on which to base a critique or a conclusion.

I told you the 'terms' many time and many times you walked away. Present evidence on this thread using the scientific method that proves man-chimp common ancestry. Can you do it?

Certainly you told me the terms, but you did not clarify what you meant by them. If I am mistaken and you did, perhaps you can link to or provide the relevant thread and post number so that I can check this out, apologise to you and progress the discussion.

Again, are you making the dogmatic claim that common ancestry is the only explanation for genetic similarity? Does a common designer work?

I have made no claim one way or the other. You are the one who has claimed that the evidence supports both arguments equally, but you have failed to explain how this is the case for common design. You have elsewhere asserted that this is obvious, so surely it must be straightforward for you to provide the reasoned explanation based on this obviousness.

 

[zeke]

I don't know.

You really are afraid to commit. Why? As noted earlier - use your common sense. This is a no-brainer.

Certainly you told me the terms, but you did not clarify what you meant by them.

What part of "present evidence", "this thread", "scientific method" and "man-chimp common ancestry" do you not understand? You are going to walk again - aren't you? I thought so.

I have made no claim one way or the other.

Ditto above - you are afraid to commit. Why? Your refusal to answer this straightforward question is telling of your commitment to defend that which cannot be defended. I am disappointed but not surprised. History does repeat itself.

 

[lordkalvan]

You really are afraid to commit. Why? As noted earlier - use your common sense. This is a no-brainer.

Then go ahead and explain it and, based on your reasoned explanation, I will commit one way or the other.

What part of "present evidence", "this thread", "scientific method" and "man-chimp common ancestry" do you not understand? You are going to walk again - aren't you? I thought so.

And what part of please clarify the terms you have used elsewhere to prejudge the evidence that is acceptable to you do you not understand? I can play this game as long as you can, but it is scarcely productive, clutters up the thread and is of no interest to other posters.

Ditto above - you are afraid to commit. Why? Your refusal to answer this straightforward question is telling of your commitment too defend that which cannot be defended. I am disappointed but not surprised. History does repeat itself.

I have nothing to commit on. You have offered no reasoned explanation, simply assertion and unsupported claims. I cannot say that the evidence does not support common design if you do not provide an argument on which to base my conclusion. You simply seem to be wishing to shift the burden of proof from where it properly rests, namely on the shoulders of he who makes the claim (which would be yourself).

ETA And just to refresh your memories, these are the exclusions I am asking for clarification of:

'Please, no pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, etc.'

Source: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40072&p=624746&viewfull=1#post624746