[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[zeke]

So can we be clear that this is your roundabout way of admitting that you haven"t read the primary source, that you don't know exactly what he said, that you are relying on Davis and Kenyon to have reported it correctly, that you are depending on them not to have omitted relevant context and that you are relying on hearsay authority from someone you characterise simplistically as a Marxist-Atheist to support your assertion that homology supports common design as well as it supports common ancestry? A simple yes or no will suffice, but please feel free to elaborate your argument, for example by explaining why homology supports common design.

Already answered - the primary source was on the internet in the past and my recollection of it was the same as documented by Davis and Kenyon. Are Davis, Kenyon, Gould and Francis Collins all wrong or is it a fact that neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology? You have never answered that question - is it too hard for you or do you not understand what they are really saying? And your answer is...

 

[zeke]

What do you mean by 'needed to'? And what do you mean by 'how did they do this'? What is the context of your question and what understanding of these features drives it?

You understand English and the context is Barbarians ambiguous post. Can you help him? You're dancing - why?

 

[lordkalvan]

Fuzzy science is the non-scientific notion that Barbarian can take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from early or late tetrapods to humans with carpel tunnel syndrome. It is a notion that cannot be tested. It is a rather new Darwinian myth that I will add to my collection.

Can you help Barbarian accomplish this magic act or was Henry Gee correct - such a notion is a bedtime story?

So 'fuzzy science' just happens to be any scientific explanation that clashes with your worldview. Right. And you really need to stop misrepresenting Henry Gee until you address his own argument that the reference you have used to support your assertions is a quotemine and explain why, if his carefully selected words are intended by him to convey the meaning you wish (that evolution is a myth) he has stated quite clearly and emphatically that we have an ancestry and ancestors and that the fossil record supports this conclusion?

 

[zeke]

Please link to or provide the number of the post where, for example, you have answered the question I have asked several times about your assertion regarding the 'Darwinian horse hoax'. When you have done that, you can show me where you have addressed other questions that I will list for you again.

I noted that there was/is a Darwinian horse hoax and would be happy to discuss in more detail - as soon as you clarify whether you agree or disagree with the fact that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If you disagree - why do you disagree?

 

[lordkalvan]

Already answered - the primary source was on the internet in the past and my recollection of it was the same as documented by Davis and Kenyon.

Still not prepared to give a straightforward answer, I see.

Are Davis, Kenyon, Gould and Francis Collins all wrong or is it a fact that neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology?

i am sorry, but you have yet to persuade me that you have represented Gould's view accurately. I disregard your reference to Collins, as this simply seems to be a rabbit trail to distract attention from the point at hand.

You have never answered that question - is it too hard for you or do you not understand what they are really saying? And your answer is...

Until you have told us why homology supports common design, there appears to be nothing to answer other than assertion - which could be answered quite validly in the same vein simply by saying, no, it doesn't.

 

[zeke]

So 'fuzzy science' just happens to be any scientific explanation that clashes with your worldview.

The notion that Barbarian can take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans is something that any competent scientist would reject - Henry Gee included. Do you also reject his notion or are you on board his sinking ship?

 

[lordkalvan]

I noted that there was/is a Darwinian horse hoax and would be happy to discuss in more detail - as soon as you clarify whether you agree or disagree with the fact that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. If you disagree - why do you disagree?

First of all, you are making an unsupported assertion, that it is a fact that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry; you have failed to show why this is so. Tell me why homology supports common design and I will do my best to answer your points on their merits. You cannot simply declare X to be so and then demand that others show your declaration to be false; if you make a claim of this type, it is your obligation to support it.

 

[zeke]

Until you have told us why homology supports common design, there appears to be nothing to answer other than assertion - which could be answered quite validly in the same vein simply by saying, no, it doesn't.

Then it is your position that Davis and Kenyon are mistaken? Can you prove your common ancestry only notion with science? You have only presented assumptions with a bit of hand-waving thus far? Is that all you have?

 

[lordkalvan]

Then it is your position that Davis and Kenyon are mistaken?

1. How would I know; they have given no basis on which to make an assessment.

2. You have yet to show that they are reporting Gould accurately and in context.

Can you prove your common ancestry only notion with science?

We are still in the position of waiting to see you show how homology supports common design. I can understand why you would want to divert attention from your failure here, but the burden of proof remains squarely on your shoulders.

You have only presented assumptions with a bit of hand-waving thus far?

I don't think so, but if you can refer me to relevant post(s) I will do my best to clarify and support my arguments.

Is that all you have?

Actually, most of what I have in this discussion amounts to asking you unsuccessfully to support your various claims, assertions and opinions with something a little more substantial that references of dubious authority and limited applicability.

 

[Barbarian]

The notion that Barbarian can take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans is something that any competent scientist would reject

That can be done without any fossils at all. Fossils are just another bit of evidence showing this to be true. Genetic data is much more complete and persuasive. And, as you know, we can test it with organisms of known descent, which verifies that it works.

 

[lordkalvan]

Time to deal with Davis and Kenyon's attribution to Stephen Jay Gould the opinion that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry, and zeke's affirmation that his 'recollection' of it from the Internet is the same as stated by the source he uses to validate it. If the attribution given by zeke is correct (Natural History magazine, January 1987, p.14), the article referred to is The Panda's Thumb of Technology, reprinted in the collection of Gould's essays published as Bully for Brontosaurus (my copy recently retrieved from on loan to a friend published 1992 by Penguin Books, London).

I have reread this essay twice and can find no mention by Gould of any comment that supports the view attributed to him by either zeke or Davis and Kenyon. At one point he does say '...when things do fit and make sense (good design of organisms, harmony of ecosystems), they did not arise because the laws of nature entail such order as a primary effect.' And later he remarks that '...when I compare the Panda's thumb with a typewriter keyboard, I am not attempting to devise or explain technological change by biological principles. Rather, I ask if both systems might not record common, deeper principles of organisation.' He also refers to the argument that 'some regularities' in the Panda's thumb and '...intricate structures, involving the coordination of many separate parts, must arise for an active reason - since the bounds of mathematical probability for fortuitous association are soon exceeded as the number of working parts grows.'

I imagine that if you were anxious to seek out something that could be presented as a proponent of evolution implying the element of conscious design in Nature, you might choose to interpret comments like these as suggesting support for the idea that the evidence therein implies common design, but to the best of my ability nowhere in this essay can I find a direct comment made by Gould along the lines attributed to him by zeke, using Davis and Kenyon to support his recollection of this alleged remark. Indeed, nowhere does Gould even mention homologies, never mind as evidential of common design, and he specifically states that '...imperfections are the primary proofs that evolution has occurred....History inheres in the imperfections of living organisms - and thus we know that modern creatures had a different past, converted by evolution to their current state.'

After some assiduous searching on the 'Net, I found a scanned copy of the relevant copy of Natural History at http://www.archive.org/stream/naturalhistory96unse#page/n29/mode/2up and I invite anyone who wishes to to check my reading and see if they can find specific comments by Gould that support the view attributed to him on the back of this article by zeke and Davis and Kenyon. Failing such correction, I invite zeke to withdraw the claim he made that Gould supports the view that homologies support common design as well as they do common ancestry and his citing the Davis and Kenyon comment to validate it.

 

[Sparkey]

And thus the phrase, "Don't zeke my Gould," comes to life.
(and yes, I did read the entire Jan, 1987 Natural History article)

 

[Barbarian]

You mean that quote-miners sometimes don't tell the truth? :o

To be fair to Zeke, it appears he was the victim of another, less honest person, who fed him that story.

 

[lordkalvan]

You understand English and the context is Barbarians ambiguous post. Can you help him? You're dancing - why?

I'm sorry, but I missed replying to this post. Unfortunately, when we address scientific subjects, terms of reference need to be defined, which is I why I asked you to define and explain what you meant by the terms you used. And if 'the context is Barbarians ambiguous post', can you explain what you mean by 'ambiguous' and how this applies to the post in question? Personal incredulity about evidence-derived inferences do not immediately cast those inferences into doubt.

 

[lordkalvan]

The notion that Barbarian can take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans is something that any competent scientist would reject - Henry Gee included. Do you also reject his notion or are you on board his sinking ship?

What do you understand by the term 'lineage', especially in the context of the Gee quote mine?

 

[zeke]

I imagine that if you were anxious to seek out something that could be presented as a proponent of evolution implying the element of conscious design in Nature, you might choose to interpret comments like these as suggesting support for the idea that the evidence therein implies common design, but to the best of my ability nowhere in this essay can I find a direct comment made by Gould along the lines attributed to him by zeke, using Davis and Kenyon to support his recollection of this alleged remark. Indeed, nowhere does Gould even mention homologies, never mind as evidential of common design, and he specifically states that '...imperfections are the primary proofs that evolution has occurred....History inheres in the imperfections of living organisms - and thus we know that modern creatures had a different past, converted by evolution to their current state.'

Well, you are on the right track – in Gould's attack on 'creation science' (Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover2 - May 1981) he discusses his understanding of the perfection/imperfection in nature as it relates to evidence for evolution. In that essay he correctly admits that “perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selectionâ€. This is the same idea noted by Davis and Kenyon where they relate Gould's admission that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution. ~ Stephen Gould​

Do you agree with Gould – could perfection have been imposed by a “wise creator†as easily as it could have “evolved by natural selection� If not, why not? How about the related question - can homology support common design as well as it does common ancestry? You have yet to answer that question.

For the record – the statement presented by Davis and Kenyon regarding homology attributed to Gould was made during his lifetime and he never disputed it and the fact remains - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Francis Collins agrees with this same concept when he admitted that genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor†- why does he make this admission, because an intelligent designer might have “used successful design principles over and over again†(The Language of God,).

In your mind - is it possible that an intelligent designer might have “used successful design principles over and over again"?

 

[zeke]

What do you understand by the term 'lineage', especially in the context of the Gee quote mine?

lineage -- Any continuous line of descent...

 

[zeke]

That can be done without any fossils at all.

Then you are admitting that you cannot take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans.

What about you kalvan - do you agree that such a lineage is not scientifically testable? You never answered the question - do you agree with Barbarian that humans evolved from tetrapods? Is that your 'science' as well?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That can be done without any fossils at all.

Then you are admitting...

I'm pointing out that the evidence for common descent can show a lineage of all living things on Earth. The fossil record supports the other evidence showing this fact. If you'd like to test your belief against science, I'd be pleased to show you a long lineage of fossils that demonstrate the fact. Would you like to see them?

 

[zeke]

Actually, most of what I have in this discussion amounts to asking you unsuccessfully to support your various claims, assertions and opinions with something a little more substantial that references of dubious authority and limited applicability.

Lol - aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? Your 'evidence' that proves genetic similarity only supports universal common ancestry thus far has been nothing more than your routine assertions and speculations. And where is your evidence that humans evolved from tetrapods? Do you have any science to support that silly notion?