[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Sparkey]

What about you, Sparrow - do you agree that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry or are you 'noncommittal? Do you really think Davis and Kenyon could get away with misquoting Gould? And why would they - homology does support common design. Gould wasn't stupid.

I'm not uncertain, but only ignorant. I don't know the difference b/w similarity, be it homologous or analogous especially as it pertains to a technical discussion. I think that a homologous similarity represents a difference that taxonomists define as shared in the last common ancestor. Analogous would be a difference that was not found in the last common ancestor.

That's where the discussion loses me because I just see similarity and difference and since I can't see that one is a direct ancestor of another, especially when speaking about different kinds (I was just kidding about Barbarian paternity suit) I am unable to tell without relying on something that I don't quite buy into to determine the type of difference.

You, zeke, don't have much of a history of providing helpful definitions on this forum but if you have a definition that a member of the general public who has no training or expertise whatsoever can find useful, I'd appreciate it.

Regarding the "Gould" quote - if my memory serves well, lordkalvan provided the entire reference, I read it and I could not find the quote, so if that means they "got away" with it or if that means they mis-quoted the reference, I don't know. Do you?

 

[Sparkey]

On second thought, disregard my request for definition because it will only open a can of worms. I'd ask more questions (and further reveal my ignorance). For instance, what is the difference between homoplasious traits and traits that are said to be plesiomorphic? What is the difference between primary homology and secondary? What about DNA and sequence homology? Is there a difference between homologies that are found in anatomical structures with sequence homology due to convergent evolution compared to that which is considered "conserved"? And if so, what is it?

I'm a technician, zeke. My last title was Systems Analyst. The rule of thumb for me is, "Okay, you get to ask me one question - but I get to ask you five (5) in reply." We could play this game all day.

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you calling Davis and Kenyon liars?

Just pointing out that neither they nor you can support the assertion about what Gould allegedly said. I leave it for others to decide whether this is dishonesty or simple incompetence.

Is that how you refer to everyone who disagrees with you?

Failing to support an assertion is not a matter of agreement or disagreement.

The fact remain Davis, Kenyon and Gould all recognize what you can't quite digest - the truth that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

They and you can all 'recognize' whatever they want to. I am asking for an explanation as to how what you all 'recognize' amounts to something more than assertion. In other words, how does homology support common design? It is insufficient to simply assert that it does.

You are not keeping up.

Dean Kenyon ----received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001​

This does not amount to an explanation of anything. If you believe a simple list of qualifications and institutions taught at amounts to validation of a particular claim, you would agree with Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Steve Jones, Stephen Gould and a host of other eminent scientists that evolution is a fact and evolutionary theory the best explanatory framework we have for that fact.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you see, Phillip Johnson fears the truth. Why would a Christian fear the truth?

Christians don't fear the truth

Johnson claims to be a Christian. And he fears the truth.

and the truth remains - evolutionism = atheism. Easy concept.

And wrong. Darwin was a theist when he wrote his book. Some of the greatest Darwinists have been theists, including many today. On the other hand, YE creationism frequently causes people to lose their faith, as Glen Morton has testified. That is the one serious evil of YE creationism.

Johnson, BTW, has admitted that Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution. He claims his "designer" might be a "space alien."

Lol - where does he say that?

The first in "Darwin on Trial." He immediately after does the lawyer thing and tries to minimize the value of evidence. But he does make the admission.

"For this purpose, it does not matter whether the intelligence is thought to belong to God, or to some alien race of intelligent beings, or to some entity we cannot yet imagine." (Phillip Johnson, posting in the ARN discussion forum)

You might say that this is the foolish misconception of one person. You'd be wrong.

"It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." (William Dembski, quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle)

"While most people -- including me -- will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien...". Michael Behe (quoted in Pittsburg Post-Gazette")

This is what IDer Paul Nelson calls "the big tent" of ID. It's big enough to accept the doctrines of the Rev. Moon's "Unification Church." (Moon thinks he's an improvement on Jesus, and recently had himself crowned as King of America)

 

[zeke]

This does not amount to an explanation of anything. If you believe a simple list of qualifications and institutions taught at amounts to validation of a particular claim, you would agree with Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Steve Jones, Stephen Gould and a host of other eminent scientists that evolution is a fact and evolutionary theory the best explanatory framework we have for that fact.

You miss the point once again my friend. Dean Kenyon is a respected scientist in his field and would have no reason to misrepresent Gould and your favorite evolutionism website would not let him get away with it. The truth remains - Davis, Kenyon and Gould all recognize the fact that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. It is what it is.

For the record - biological evolution is a fact - Darwinian mythology is mythology.

 

[zeke]

Darwin was a theist when he wrote his book.

Let's be historically accurate my friend - Charles Darwin went to his grave a non-believer and it was his intent from the beginning to eliminate God from the minds of men. Darwinism = atheism. Where does that leave you?

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine​

 

[lordkalvan]

You miss the point once again my friend. Dean Kenyon is a respected scientist in his field and would have no reason to misrepresent Gould and your favorite evolutionism website would not let him get away with it. The truth remains - Davis, Kenyon and Gould all recognize the fact that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. It is what it is.

Which 'favourite evolutionism website' is that, then? Do you contest the point that neither Davis, nor Kenyon, nor yourself can link to any primary source where Gould says what he is claimed to have said? Are you so anxious to deny this fact that the best you can come up with is that because Davis and Kenyon have 'got away with it' (to use your term) without being pulled up on it, then it is ipso facto correct? Well, as we are contesting the fact now and as you are unable to support the claim from a primary source, it seems that they haven't 'got away with it' at all.

For the record - biological evolution is a fact - Darwinian mythology is mythology.

For the record, what is biological evolution and how have you determined that Darwinian evolution is mythology? Can you provide reasoned argument from evidence and justify your claims? Insofar as you never have so far, no matter how many times requested to do so, I don't hold out much hope.

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian, you've told me before (and I didn't argue with you about 'cause it's true) that I don't understand the difference b/w homolous and analogous. In reply to zeke's question I stated what I was able to surmise from WIKI (I updated it a little)

I think that a homologous represents traits that are shared between organisms and their common ancestor. Analogous traits are similarities found between organisms that are not found in the last common ancestor.

Question to you, please - how's that for a working definition? Your comments and thoughts are welcome.

The example of bird and bat wings was given - and it is stated they are not homologous as "wings" because their common ancestor was tetrapods - and in those ancestors the frontal extremities were forearms, not wings. So they are analogous as wings and homologous as forearms.

First, does this give the correct understanding and second, can you see why I am confused?

 

[zeke]

For the record, what is biological evolution…

Biological evolution - genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations, i.e., beak variation in Darwin's finches.​

and how have you determined that Darwinian evolution is mythology?

I would sum it up this way - lack of science to support religious statements. The notion that theropods ‘morphed’ into birds has never been demonstrated via the scientific method - it is mythology passed off as science by Darwinians desperate to keep their ‘science’ from sinking.

You can believe via great faith man and chimp have a common ancestor; you can incorporate that notion into your creation myth (as you do) but you cannot demonstrate scientifically there is such a common ancestor. Your repeated failures to do this says it all.

Can you provide reasoned argument from evidence and justify your claims?

Done that many times – the lack of convincing scientific evidence speaks for itself. The fossil record fails and homology is used as evidence for common design as well as common decent – thus it neither proves nor disproves either side.

The onus is yours to provide evidence that dinos evolved into birds and again I ask – do you have the extraordinary evidence required to prove the notion that dinos flew into the future as birds? Can you do this? I think not.

 

[zeke]

Which 'favourite evolutionism website' is that, then? Do you contest the point that neither Davis, nor Kenyon, nor yourself can link to any primary source where Gould says what he is claimed to have said?

The website where you get much of your information. You know which one. I don't need to advertise it. PM me if you need specifics. Davis and Kenyon knew Gould – their information could have come from direct contact with him. Again, they have no reason to lie and the Darwinistas have never accused them of making it up. You can contact them direct if you wish.

The truth remains - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If not, why not? Even Francis Collins admitted a designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again" (The Language of God). In your worldview is it impossible for a designer to use successful design principles (genetic similarities, etc) more than once--e.g., man and chimp?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, you've told me before (and I didn't argue with you about 'cause it's true) that I don't understand the difference b/w homolous and analogous. In reply to zeke's question I stated what I was able to surmise from WIKI (I updated it a little)

I think that a homologous represents traits that are shared between organisms and their common ancestor. Analogous traits are similarities found between organisms that are not found in the last common ancestor.
Question to you, please - how's that for a working definition? Your comments and thoughts are welcome.

Analogy is forming the same functional structure out of different things. Homology is forming functional structures (which may often have very different functions) from the same things.

The example of bird and bat wings was given - and it is stated they are not homologous as "wings" because their common ancestor was tetrapods - and in those ancestors the frontal extremities were forearms, not wings. So they are analogous as wings and homologous as forearms.

Bats, birds and pterosaurs all evolved wings from the forelimbs, but each used different bones to make it work. So that's sort of analogus, particularly with bats and pterosaurs. But I'd compare the wings of bats and insects, which functionally work the same, but are completely non-homologous. And for analogous organs, we can compare the arthropod gills on biramous appendages that that flap like little wings to move water over them, with the wings of more advanced insects. There's even a transitional, in the stonefly, which uses them as sails to skim the surface of water, and only rarely for kiting. And birds, of course, also have evolved insulation/display structures to work as wings. Feathers, I mean.

First, does this give the correct understanding and second, can you see why I am confused?

Yep. Another good example of analogy are the carnassal teeth of wolves and thylacines. Very similar in shape and function, but made from entirely different teeth.

Or the steamlined shapes of dolphins, sharks, and icthyosaurs. All superficially and functionally alike, but quite different in the way they were formed.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin was a theist when he wrote his book.

Let's be historically accurate my friend -

See above. Darwin even suggested that God created the first living things. Last sentence of The Origin of Species.

Charles Darwin went to his grave a non-believer

Darwin's last word on the subject was that he was leaning toward agnosticism.
Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

and it was his intent from the beginning to eliminate God from the minds of men.

Surprise.

Darwinism = atheism. Where does that leave you?

Chuckling at your gullibility.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine

Provine, like you and Dawkins, have an agenda to make science and faith incompatible. You'd make a great atheist. But you aren't being such a good Christian now, are you?

 

[zeke]

Provine, like you and Dawkins, have an agenda to make science and faith incompatible. You'd make a great atheist. But you aren't being such a good Christian now, are you?

Your posts are becoming more odd. The facts remain - Charles Darwin went to his grave a non-believer and Provine and Dawkins are simply telling like it is - naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly - the fact that classical Darwinism = atheism. Where does that leave you? I think we all know.

 

[Barbarian]

The facts remain - Charles Darwin went to his grave a non-believer

Agnostic, he said. And of course, as you learned, he was a theist when he wrote his book. Indeed, he mentions that his orthodox Anglicanism was the source of amusement for the officers of the Beagle.

and Provine and Dawkins are simply telling like it is - naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly - the fact that classical Darwinism = atheism.

It's not surprising that you share an agenda with atheists. But of course, all of you have a reason to make science and faith at odds.

Where does that leave you?

Chuckling at your gullibility.

 

[zeke]

Agnostic, he said.

Then we agree - Darwin went to his grave a non-believer.

It's not surprising that you share an agenda with atheists. But of course, all of you have a reason to make science and faith at odds.

It's not about science and faith - it's about worldviews - naturalism (atheism) and theism. Classical Darwinism is atheism it is not science. Your form of evolutionism is based on religion forcing you to making religious arguments for evolution. Remember, classical Darwinists do not allow any god-talk making you the odd-man out. Where does that leave you? Misguided by your Magisterium once again. See if you can get your money back.

 

[spartakis]

This thread has grown since last checked been very busy. Still nothing presented from what I have seen, remember not looking for hypothesis of past from similar skeletons. Barbarians pictures of bones is similarities which I have stated do not prove anything. You could show the same type pictures of the red panda and giant panda, similar skull, same shape jaw, teeth, both have extra thumb on hands, but red panda belongs to raccoon family and giant panda to bear family. seals, and sea lion, dolphins and sharks, bats and birds none related but similar. Goes to what zeke is saying only proves similar design. So no observed proof of evolution, only hypothesis and the excuse the niche is filled that's why nothing is evolving. Apes in the wild and the blind watchmaker ( as dawkin calls it) knows humans are already there so no need to evolve anymore. Not looking for similarities and hypothesis but animals in the process of changing to another kind. Kind as in dear like creature in process of turning into whale sea creature or whatever, Ape into man and etc... Only thing still is niche is filled so not happening. Sorry if don't respond right away very busy.

 

[Barbarian]

Then we agree - Darwin went to his grave a non-believer.

Since you seem to have backed off from your claim that evolution was to deny God, that's a good first step.

Barbarian observes:
It's not surprising that you share an agenda with atheists. But of course, all of you have a reason to make science and faith at odds.

It's not about science and faith - it's about worldviews

Not surprising that you share a worldview with atheists.

Classical Darwinism is atheism it is not science.

Hard to see how Darwin would write in his book about God creating the first living things, unless you have that completely backwards.

Your form of evolutionism is based on religion

Nope. Evolutionary theory is accepted by theist of all sorts, as well as agnostics and atheists. As a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so" it's faith. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

Remember, classical Darwinists do not allow any god-talk making you the odd-man out.

That would mean Darwin was not a classic Darwinist. Not Dobzhansky, or Wallace, or Ayala, or... (lots of others). You've been had on that one.

Where does that leave you?

Chuckling at your gullibility.

 

[Barbarian]

This thread has grown since last checked been very busy. Still nothing presented from what I have seen, remember not looking for hypothesis of past from similar skeletons. Barbarians pictures of bones is similarities which I have stated do not prove anything.

They, and numerous other transitionals confirm predictions of evolutionary theory. But perhaps even more compelling the transitionals are only found where they were predicted to exist, but never where they shouldn't be. That is powerful evidence.

You could show the same type pictures of the red panda and giant panda, similar skull, same shape jaw, teeth

Nope. All bears and mustilids, unlike other carnivores, have an enarged radial sesamoid bone, and in bears, one of the two first-digit abductors attaches to the radial sesamoid. In pandas and red pandas, the bone is large enough to serve as a thumb. But the skulls of pandas and red pandas, while bearlike, are not noticably more alike than the skull of pandas is like that of other bears.
Http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/str...tureNotes/06d_SkeletalSystemAppendicular6.pdf

seals, and sea lion,

They actually are quite different anatomically. Would you like to see?

dolphins and sharks, bats and birds none related but similar.

You've confused analogy and homology. This does not confuse scientists, because they understand anatomy. It's a mystery to you, because you don't.

Goes to what zeke is saying only proves similar design. So no observed proof of evolution,

Even most creationst concede that the evolution of new species is a fact. And the evolution of an irreducibly complex new enzyme system is a fact.

So you're pretty much reduced to arguing that giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one ever lives long enough to see it happen.

 

[Sparkey]

What I'm trying to get at with my question about homology is that the definition includes the assumption that common ancestors (of different kinds) exist. Can't somebody throw a flag on that play? Something about affirming the consequent.

1. If all animals share a single common ancestor then homologous traits will exist.
2. Homologous traits exist.
3. Hence: Common Ancestry.

I think zeke's point is similar:

1. If animals share common design then homologous traits will exist.
2. Homologous traits exist.
3. Hence: Common Design.

Can't we stand back from the assumption that there is common ancestors between every living plant and animal that all lead back to a single common ancestor and admit a third possibility? Looks to me that God (at minimum) made plants and animals, gave animals souls, made mankind seperate from animals and "portioned out" certain "kinds" from both the plant and animal kingdoms.

 

[zeke]

What I'm trying to get at with my question about homology is that the definition includes the assumption that common ancestors (of different kinds) exist. Can't somebody throw a flag on that play? Something about affirming the consequent.

1. If all animals share a single common ancestor then homologous traits will exist.
2. Homologous traits exist.
3. Hence: Common Ancestry.

I think zeke's point is similar:

1. If animals share common design then homologous traits will exist.
2. Homologous traits exist.
3. Hence: Common Design.

Thus my point all along - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry, therefore it neither proves not disproves either. Some folks have a hard time with that logic.

Can't we stand back from the assumption that there is common ancestors between every living plant and animal that all lead back to a single common ancestor and admit a third possibility? Looks to me that God (at minimum) made plants and animals, gave animals souls, made mankind seperate from animals and "portioned out" certain "kinds" from both the plant and animal kingdoms.

That will not work with naturalistic evolutionism - those who push that notion will not allow god-talk for the obvious reasons - most are atheists.